Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

[1a.]http://www.facebook.com/groups/mustafi/?ref=ts#!/groups/mustafi/[1b.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Sen [1c.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramacharitam [1d.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballal_Sena[1e.]http://www.facebook.com/groups/mustafi/?ref=ts#!/pages/Mitra-Mustafi-Family-History/111203825606672 [2]http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/31720.html [3] http://www.facebook.com/pages/Katha-Dance-Theatre/105445529493450 [4]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/meet-the-secret-powerbrokers-of-d-c-five-top-women-in-communications.html

|}

I see that there is a viewpoint, held by some experienced editors, that the Articles for Creation process is broken, perhaps irreparably broken, and should be merged with New Page Patrol. In particular, some editors think that reviewers (or most reviewers) hold incoming articles to too high a standard. I do not agree with the general conclusion that AFC is broken and should be scrapped, but I see that, because this view is widely held, it is likely that AFC will be scrapped and merged into NPP. So I have a few comments and questions on what should be done.

First, some editors state that new editors think that AFC is mandatory for new articles, that new articles can only be submitted via the AFC review process, and not submitted directly into article space. I don’t know if some new editors do think (incorrectly) that AFC is the only way to submit new articles. I do know that some new editors use AFC after their initial submissions have been speedy-deleted. Those new editors obviously did know that they could submit directly into article space. However, if some new editors do think that AFC is mandatory for new articles, reasonable steps should be taken to clarify such a misunderstanding. New editors should be aware that they can submit directly into article space. At the same time, they should be aware that submission into article space risks any of the three deletion processes. (There will always be misunderstandings with anything as large and visible as Wikipedia. There is also a widespread belief that Wikipedia is a vehicle to publicize one’s company. There is also a widespread belief that Wikipedia is a social medium. We have done our best to address those myths. We can’t eliminate all misimpressions, and should focus on addressing those that have a negative impact on the present and future of the encyclopedia.)

Second, since having an article deleted is at least as painful as having an article declined, there should continue to be a process whereby new editors (or even experienced editors) should be able to request review before exposing their work to deletion (by any of the three deletion processes). One obvious solution would simply be to request review, from draft space or user space, at the Teahouse or some similar page. However, the number of articles being submitted could become large, larger than would be feasible for a forum such as the Teahouse. In that case, a queue could be established, but a queue then becomes essentially Articles for Creation under a different name.

Third, I will comment that, in my opinion, the large majority of submissions into AFC are not suitable for acceptance for either of two reasons. The first type of unsuitable submissions are simply junk of one sort or another, either promotional junk, self-serving junk, hopelessly non-notable junk, or even incomprehensible junk. It is important that NPP, or anything that takes the place of AFC, continue to prevent all types of junk from getting into article space. The second type of submissions that are not ready for acceptance are drafts about possibly notable topics that don’t have good references. References are the hardest aspect of writing an article for Wikipedia, and most new editors who have notable subjects or topics will need help with references. Probably the real issues about AFC have to do with what is hopelessly non-notable junk as opposed to possibly notable topics, and with what standard to apply for references.

Are the critics of Articles for Creation really saying that the concept of Articles for Creation is flawed, or are they saying that the existing culture of the Articles for Creation reviewers is flawed because it is too demanding? If the former, are they saying that new editors should be required to submit their drafts directly into article space and face deletion, or what are they saying? If the latter, how are they proposing to change that culture? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

My $0.02 is that AfC is a valuable process, and should not be shut down, but that it is significantly understaffed, and on a volunteer project there's probably no way to fix that problem. My other $0.02 is that the entire "new article creation" process is broken, with far too many (frankly crap) articles getting created (and many of these sneak through and never get deleted) and I seriously think the whole "new article" process needs to be rethought from scratch, regardless of what happens with NPP (or AfC). Unfortunately, when even proposals to require new articles have a single reference or be subject to CFD fail, it's clear that that's not going to happen. I guess this goes down as a "win" for the "inclusionists", new article quality be damned... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Robert McClenon: I personally think that any article review process more stringent than allowing any editor with ten edits to patrol is extremely valuable, and I thank any AfC reviewer for helping save mainspace from clutter. My view of AfC and the merger of AfC and NPP is that all new editors should be subjected to an AfC-like process and to face review before having their articles reaching mainspace for everyone to read. A problem with NPP being a separate process is that patrollers waste their energy looking at irredeemable, even laughable, articles that show that the creator gives not even a single whit about the quality of their article or any concerns raised on their article, and then vigorously recreating the article, attacking the patroller, or vandalizing when their article unsurprisingly gets tagged for deletion. If AfC is merged with NPP (like ACTRIAL), then patrollers, competent patrollers and not just ten-edit ones, can more effectively prevent junk from reaching mainspace and help newbies that care. Also, keeping newbies' articles in draftland for review accords more opportunities for automation, such as automatic feedback and rejection. — Esquivalience (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Edit: Clarified. — Esquivalience (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Are the critics of Articles for Creation really saying that the concept of Articles for Creation is flawed, or are they saying that the existing culture of the Articles for Creation reviewers is flawed because it is too demanding?
• ...the entire "new article creation" process is broken, with far too many (frankly crap) articles getting created (and many of these sneak through and never get deleted)
• My view of AfC and the merger of AfC and NPP is that all new editors should be subjected to an AfC-like process and to face review before having their articles reaching mainspace for everyone to read.

In order to avoid misunderstanding and speculation, whether they are in favour of a merge or not, I think it would be helpful if anyone wishing to comment would take a moment to first read #FYI, ANI notice about AFC decline issue and user above, and also this recent ANI case of ovezealous draft rejection which is typical and not isolated, Orangemoody - the exponential force of which we are unable to cope with adequately, WP:ACTRIAL which proposed far more than just a change in user editing rights included a whole host of peripheral measures to encourage new users to do the right thing and not get bitten, but the Foundation refused to read them, and finally the thread at User talk:DGG#AFC redux which should really be enjoying a more central venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

My take is "some of all of the above." On one hand, I think we all agree that there is promotional, inappropriate and "incomprehensible crap" out there. We do need a process that includes CSD and NPP to deal with that. On the other hand, in response to your first query, I think that the problem isn't that the reviewers are "too demanding" as much as inconsistent and sometimes bitey. Frankly, I think a better way to filter out crap would be to have something like 30/500 for article creation in mainspace; people just have to learn to edit first, their call how and where. I know that would cause problems at places like editathons, but presumably facilitators with experience are there to help people move new articles from draft or sandbox space to mainspace. We have restrictions already, what-- 4 days? -- so that's already a barrier people who train are learning to address. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Montanabw, 30/500 would be nice but the WMF wouldn't even let us have 4/10. No, that will never happen. The WMF is too keen on the raw stats for page creations whether good or bad, so hat they have something to brag about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

No Montanabw, there's no restriction on newly registered accounts creating articles, although there are many who seem to think there is. Restricting article creation to autoconfirmed (4 days/10 edits) was proposed as a trial years ago but never implemented. If only we had a "landing page" they saw before publishing their article, linking to very basic rules & regs, then whether or not they actually read it, at least we could say "Well you were told": Noyster (talk), 10:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's why you need to read everything on this page from #FYI, ANI notice about AFC decline issue and user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Which was closed as being without substance, needing no admin action, and we were asked to move discussion here. Do NOT keep beating that drum, it has lost. And any attempts to keep beating it may be considered harassment. LaMona (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yet some valuable discussion took place under that subheading, which I think was what Kudpung referred to. Harassment would be attempting to censure said discussion. I think you might need a break, LaMona; I don't think I'm alone in appreciating your overly combative attitude of late. Being held to account by outside editors can be very stressful, but it doesn't justify unconstructive behaviour. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given that I have been unjustly accused (not "held to account" as it was all shown to be false, and that my behavior was within the norms of AfC), and that there are attacks on me in that discussion that are unfair and unwarranted, one might not be surprised that that is my focus. Should I want a whole nother group of eyes on a file that refers to me as "batshit crazy" and "unstable" (but without any caution of those who called me those names)? Can you wonder why I would object to this? Yes, there was good discussion, but it was also a vicious attack on me. If someone would like to bring the useful material from that discussion to this page, that would be a great idea. I don't need a break, I need more civility on Wikipedia. But don't worry, after this, I will indeed be going away. I had to step in when it looked like the same group was going to go after AfC itself. I happen to think it is not only useful, but vital. LaMona (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is it worth giving WP:ACTRIAL another shot? The WMF seems to have bigger churn than an industrial butter factory, and it's possible there will now be people who are more receptive to the idea, given we have far more information about the problems new editors run into, and also we should be able to produce some statistics on article quality, explaining that's where attention could be diverted over raw figures. I remain completely unhappy that new editors should have work deleted and as good as told to piss off when they have not been guided in any better direction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I really liked WereSpielChequers' proposal over at DGG's talk page. In so many words combine draftspace, AFC + NPP and make unpatrolled "no index" or only visible to those who are logged in. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
• If the WMF won't develop the necessary software, is it possible to just use an edit filter and MediaWiki:Common.js? One can implement ACTRIAL using a simple edit filter, and it is possible to use JavaScript to override the page creation page to a landing page without affecting the loading time significantly as it could just refrain from executing the relevant code when not on a non-existent article. — Esquivalience (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It might well be worth giving ACTRIAL another shot. There was such a massive consensus, it wouldn't need re-debating, it would just need convincing the new crew at the WMF to throw the switch. All the templates were and UI messages were all created in readiness; the situation is certainly more acute now than it was 5 years ago. However, at the moment, nobody is saying that the WMF won't do anything. Let's not forget that there has recently been an almost 100% turnover in staff at all levels recently and by pure coincidence, those who are still there are those who had a more friendly ear back then but didn't have the clout in those days to change internal WMF politics. The fact is that as a direct result of something I stirred up at Esino, we are now working together on some ideas, most of which have been described in the recent threads here, at WT:NPP, and on DGG's talk page. The collaboration with the Foundation is on-going and we just need to be patient and and see what they come up with. That said, relations with the WMF were, are, and always will be delicate - they hold the purse strings on what our work brings in, and if we upset then by introducing our own controls that they might not like, or while thy have now agreed to take a fresh look, we'll lose the ground we've gained. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

For anyone who does not remeber, this was for a trial: a 6 month trial, followed by turning it off for 2 months , to see if it actually made a difference. I'm not sure we need the 2nd part if the first part works, but it is only for a trial, not permanently. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are any WMF staffers out here who are reading this thread and could comment?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ymblanter, I would guard against stirring a a hornet's nest, I think we should wait and see the outcomes of the current discussions with them. Rest assured they are being put under enough pressure already and currently they are showing some good will. There are no rules that all negotiations need to be discussed on-Wiki, and we were very lucky to get get this statement from a former very senior emplyee which enabled us to precipitate the new round of discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

PS: Anyone who believes they have a better rapport with he WMF and better chances of ending this years long saga of refusal to control the daily flood of junk into Wikipedia, is really, really welcome to do so, but they are most strongly advised to read this: very long and acrimonious report first It will take half an hour to read, but I think if people don't wish to read the current threads here and elsewhere, reading that Buzilla is the least anyone should invest before they possibly act out of sync with whats already been started now, 5 years later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Is is just me, or does WMF generally suffer from having no clue how the encyclopedia actually operates on a day to day basis? Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Like all bureaucracies, it severely lacks pragmatism, or in other words lags behind community sentiment and in these areas acts ex post facto. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
• WMF's understanding of the encyclopedia depends on the department, the staff who happens to be employed there, and the time period. For example, the software engineering department around 2010 leaned toward thinking that the WMF was a software company, with expensive projects that do not constitute an improvement like Flow and LiquidThreads, but mostly neglected the already-developed software that should really be in place, such as MathJax. But, concurring per the above, it seems like WMF software department's Wikipedia-IQ may be converging to a higher level than before. But it varies strongly, as WMF's HR department or whatever its equivalent is are willing to hire people inexperienced with Wikimedia projects (again, software company tendencies). — Esquivalience (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why are folks so surprised? Seems very evident that a decision was made that the changes would negatively effect the amount of monetary donations to the WMF. Doesn't matter if that decision was right or wrong. The folks making that decision depend on the donated money for their salary. Hence! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

They have heaps of money on hand ($83 million), and salaries are only $26 million per annum, so even the worst of decisions for PR would not make a dent in the WMF payroll. And readers generally do not care about the WMF's spending or management, they just yield to the psychology of "top 10 website but resorting to vagrancy". Also, in the worst case, they could just beg that someone Carnegie-like would give them a huge cash infusion. — Esquivalience (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is not a surprise that people think that AFC is now mandatory for new articles, as it is seemingly impossible to find out from sources on Wiki how to create a new article without using it. I've had a break of a few months from Wiki, came back with an idea for a new article, and now have no idea how to create a new page without going through AFC as I always just searched to see if the article was there and created it using the "not found what you were looking for? {link to create a page with that title}" functionality. There needs to be a link in the AFC page to just create a page with that title without going through AFC. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Anyone comparing AFC to NPP is unaware of what AFC is today. A better comparison would be to the Teahouse. AFC is in many ways a Teahouse for new articles. Have you read the templates that users receive? You really must because they are much more than what users get at NPP. They are helpful; they attempt to explain the problem and to point users to help pages and policies. They invite users to the Teahouse and invite them to contact reviewers. And they do contact reviewers! - and it is almost always the first time that they discover talk pages. Reviewers often spend considerable time helping these new users learn how to create an article. It is a personal relationship with the editor. Some reviewers become co-editors on an article - look at the edits on some articles and you will see that. Turning AFC into a place where people learn how to create articles would be ideal. Making it possible for Teahouse responders to access the AFC-like templates would also be useful because with a single stroke they can give a user a list of useful sources. AFC reviewers work together; we get to know each other and know how to take an article to the next level. It's odd that I see none of my reviewer cohort commenting here. I assume that the attack on me has silenced them. But I am making this last effort to be an advocate for the work that is done here. I have seen new editors learn and grow, and go on to edit other articles. What I see as a useful division of labor (and some of that happens already) is for NPP to do a first pass, and to turn AfC into a place where users come specifically to get help on new articles. They could be in main space, not in draft - that really wouldn't make a difference. There are specific issues and specific teaching needs that those who frequent AfC know well. Again, if you are comparing it to NPP, you should spend some time here as a reviewer. You should also read the AfC templates, some of which might even be useful at NPP. You should read through the talk pages of some of the more active reviewers. LaMona (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's precisely why all of these venues need to be centralised. Why are we fragmenting the editing community? There's no reason why people submitting articles through AfC should get specialised tutoring while someone simply creating an article directly on mainspace does not. The tools need to be expanded and generalised throughout the article creation process. This will be beneficial for the encyclopaedia in the long run: editors will receive much needed feedback and reviewers will have a much easier job of improving new articles and keeping the cogs greased. At the same time, disruptive behaviour would be quite easily caught and cut at the root. I see no added benefit in having so many different resources working asynchronously (e.g. Huggle, STiki, AfC, NPP, Teahouse, Help desk, RPP, ARV, etc, etc) - this only leads to chaos and is ironically contrary to the goals set out when creating said resources in the first place. When does bureaucracy help? It's a waste of everyone's time and capacity; all our efforts should be directed to simplifying access and control to Wikipedia, not hindering it. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

If "AFC is in many ways a Teahouse for new articles," it's a very toxic "teahouse" serving up bites of bitterness and holding new editors to an instant GAN standard. Talk about why our new editor ranks are tanking. FWIW, if anyone wants to learn to create new articles, the tools at WikiEdu and the links from those areas here for students are actually very good; we don't need to be duplicating efforts in multiple places. Montanabw^(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This may not belong here, but I think the AfC process could be improved if you didn't have to run a script to review articles. I would review, if the script didn't eat huge amounts of my phone data (and I only have 3 gigabytes per month, and have to pay overage fees if I screw up and go over). People with slow server speeds probably can't run it either. Dropping the script might be a way to make it easier for qualified editors to review articles and cut down on the backlog.

And with regards to the main discussion, I don't think AfC needs to be totally scrapped. I do think it needs to be rewritten, and possibly made to be less stringent in some cases. Npp is a different thing, and I doubt a combination of the two would work. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

As I think was touched on above, we should make use of draft more in NPP. CSDs such as G3, G10 and G12 should still be instant deletions, but for the more controversial ones like A1, A3 and (especially) A7 and arguably G11, move to draft should be a suitable alternative. However, I'd still want to retain A7 for things like "luke is in year 11 he looks like justin bieber oh god i so fancy him lol" (although that particular example could come under G3). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think AfC is required, particularly because reviewers at AFC tend to devote more time and attention at reviewing an article. Editors receive valuable advice and may actually understand our policies and guidelines. In many cases, the editors have a COI (or have been paid) and are trying to follow process as laid out in WP:PAID. I want to encourage these editors who to comply with the process. You can contrast that with NPP where the article is gonna get tag bombed and maybe deleted quickly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Note that there is no "delete" at AFC. Drafts cannot be speedy deleted, and there's no delete option in the script. We work with users who may not have even read many WP articles, much less edited any, and sometimes we go through 6-8 iterations before the article is ready to be posted. I think this is less bitey than tagging and deleting. Also, there is discussion. Actual discussion with the users. That is important and people do learn. Yes, some get very frustrated because they are trying to create an article that isn't appropriate. That article probably would have been speedied at NPP and they would have had no idea why. This really is a kinder, gentler process. I thought that was the direction that Wikipedia was trying to go in, in order to create more diversity. LaMona (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • @LaMona: Why should the processes be separate then? Users will naturally gravitate to the at-first-glance easier process, which is creating an article directly and hoping for the best. This means that only a small percentage of new users will use AfC. And also, the five-minute deletion tagging argument against NPP is somewhat a strawman, as patrollers, save the ones who can't bother to gain several hundred mainspace edits, generally only tag articles if they are non-notable or garbage (e.g., pompous promotion, "subscribe to my YouTube channel", etc.). The reason that patrollers may seem harsh or tag-happy to AfC reviewers is because articles are created in mainspace, where garbage has to go to maintain Wikipedia's reputation, not in draftspace where content can be reviewed and suggestions can be made without the simultaneous worry of disrepute. If AfC is merged and its most fundamental parts integrated with NPP such that it uses the new technology that took years of nagging WMF developers to do (which allows the giving of feedback and includes a multitude of modern tools), along with the introduction of a right to keep new editors from patrolling, then our backlog would be reduced and the process will be improved on both sides. — Esquivalience (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a very important point. NPP and AfC are fundamentally different processes. NPP is a patrol, a filter; they want to find articles to delete and anything that scrapes by will do so with, at the most, a few cleanup tags. AfC's purpose is the creation of articles. Getting there is an iterative process and although that can be time-consuming for the reviewer and frustrating for the submitter it works well. Most accepted drafts go through at least 2-3 rounds of review, and I've seen some of them transformed from seemingly irredeemable rubbish into perfectly respectable articles. It pairs the editing skills of an experienced editor with the enthusiasm of a newcomer to see their hopelessly niche topic (to the eyes of the jaded reviewer) the coverage it deserves. The end result is better quality articles and new editors that have had a chance to learn to write articles through a positive mentoring experience, rather than the trial-by-fire of NPP, CSDs, PRODs and AfD. I don't see how the two processes can be integrated, short of something really drastic like requiring all new articles to go through drafts and an AfC-like peer review process. Joe Roe (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The whole point is that NPP and AfC are not fudamentally different. Some of the actual differences have been acurately described above, but they cannot for a moment produce a credible argument of 'fundamental'. There is nothing at all to argue against merging the features of both systems, templates and all, dedicated reviewers and all, into using a central, combined interface. It would be a winn-winn solution for the control of new pages and that's what our goal is, not making enemies of AfC with it project protectionism and NPP that doesn't have a shred of collaboration between its patrollers, but combining the skills and areas of interest of both parties to ensure that our encyclopedia doesn't get an even worse reputation. The final hammer is the fact that NPP has over a thousand articles a day to deal with, if the patrollers stopped to mollycoddle every troll and spammer, there would be an even larger backlog than its 'paltry' 11,500. I remember the days when that backlog was nearer 70,000, but the articles in those days were less toxic, and more easy to identify as paid spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, if they're not fundamental, then how can the differences be reconciled? How would your combined interface manage to accommodate both the high-volume, trigger-happy troll filtering of NPP and the deliberate "mollycoddling" of AfC? I mean, a merge does sound good to me in theory, but I'm worried what would happen is that, by shear weight of numbers, former AfC volunteers will simply be conscripted into the NPP mentality and our valuable mentoring and content incubation functions would be lost. Joe Roe (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your valuable mentoring and content incubation functions would not be lost (remember, the Draft namespace was created partly on my initiative), the solution under discussion is a technical one, not a battle of wits with the AfC 'mentality'. In fact you would appreciate the easier and more thoughtful system than the current Helper Script (which has served us well - in the right hands) and it will better filter out the trolls (39 so far this year) who join this list (and the number of blocked accounts on it is staggering) - please read the rest of the threads and you'll probably find your answers, except perhaps for the necessary software code. You'll then understand the difference between merging, as opposed to closing one system down (which plenty of people are calling for) and forcing the workers to migrate from one system to another - which you know of course wouldn't work. That said, just because NPP doesn't have a vibrant social club like AfC (in fact patrollers don't communicate with each other at all - and that's half the problem), doesn't mean that NPP doesn't work at all, indeed complaints from creators are far lower there than at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Staggering?" I see one blocked account on the active participants list, Zpeopleheart, and one more, Musa Raza (who never reviewed a draft), on the inactive list. Year to date, about ten editors have added themselves, gotten blocked for something, and generally been promptly removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Worldbruce. Please review the history again. I have blocked and removed at least two myself in the last two or three weeks and another was removed today. If my memory serves me right, around 39 names of inappropriate entries have been rejected so far this year, if not more - not including removals of inactive users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

And another just a few moments ago, Worldbruce.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kudpung: I haven't kept up with the developments around the scope of extended-confirmed protection, but if the community has/does/will allow it, we could consider applying that protection level to the participant list. (Pretty sure the idea's been floated before, although I'm on mobile so it's a pain to track down the actual discussion.) I know the AfC reviewing criteria are actually stronger than mere extended-confirmed, but it might be a positive start nonetheless. /wiae /tlk 18:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kudpung: A blocked user is one that is being prevented from editing Wikipedia by an administrator-imposed block. If you are calling Snowycats a blocked user, then you are using the term to mean something it doesn't normally mean on Wikipedia, which is confusing. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thank you again Worldbruce, I think you do need to get up to speed. I am an admin you know, and have been for quite a while - I know all about blocking policy. I also introduced the Draft namespace and the current 90/500 threshold for reviewers. I really cannot see for a moment where I might have even hinted calling Snowycats a blocked user - I know full well he isn't because I've recently asked him to refrain from patrolling new pages as well until he gets some experience. I also launched the RfC to get the page full protected but it was defeated partly on the strawman argument of giving admins too much power. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kudpung: To recap, you wrote "... this list (and the number of blocked accounts on it is staggering)". At the time there were two blocked users on the list, so in an aside I questioned the use of the word "staggering". It seemed like hyperbole that detracted from your argument. From your responses it became clear that what you meant by "blocked" in the original statement, in "I have blocked and removed at least two myself in the last two or three weeks and another was removed today", and in your use of Snowycats as an example is not what most Wikipedians understand "blocked" to mean. I think it would cause less misunderstanding, and thus potentially convince more readers, if you didn't overload the term, but I won't be offended if you don't take the advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Worldbruce, replying on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am curious to know what the community thinks of this scenario. Suppose an editor submits an article to AfC. The article is rejected. The editor then creates an article with the same content directly in mainspace. Does this violate any policy/guidelines? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can't see why this would violate any rule - AfC is not a requirement and a user is free to write in mainspace at any stage of an AfC submission. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem, AFC is not compulsory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It rarely does them any good, anyway. If it wouldn't have passed AfC then it will probably just get CSDed or PRODed, with none of the feedback we'd have provided. Joe Roe (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only real hassle it produces is if the article is decent then you'd have to MfD the draft given it already exists. Nothing is violated, even though it does irk one if they do it because they see their article wouldn't leave AfC. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

AfC is not mandatory and should never be mandatory. It isn't gaming the system to abandon a draft that's languished without a review for months or one that has been caught up with an idiot reviewer who declined the article for inappropriate reasons. Frankly, I tell people to NEVER use AfD because it's where good ideas go to die. Montanabw^(talk) 03:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Montanabw, you probably mean "AfC" in that last sentence, right? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are plenty of examples of articles which were (unreasonably) rejected at AfC, then published, and which have either passed a nomination for deletion, or never attracted one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only issue would be lack of attribution if the person creating the article did cut'n'paste copy of someone else's draft. Comments made by AfC reviewers are merely the views of a single editor, and carry no more authority than those of any other editor, including a draft's author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Instead of deleting the draft in the circumstances of a cut and past move, we can redirect it to the article, as it was used in the prep for it. The writer probably would have used the move function themselves if they understood it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

27.106.89.170 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC) This Is The Best Side For The Popular Person Information.Reply

  Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed a 30-day ban on SwisterTwister's declines here at AfC as as part of a remedy for a pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing in deletion-related activities. Some of the comments on this proposal claim that there is no issue with SwisterTwister here at AfC. I'd like to get additional feedback about this. I am happy to modify my proposal if there is no AfC issue. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bloody hell, not again... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see an AFC issue, at least not an AFC issue that is of sufficient magnitude that the drastic remedy of banning a reviewer from declines at AFC, when most articles at AFC are crap but some are good. I am aware that the original poster of this thread has a view on crap drafts that is honorably different from those of most of the community, that most of the authors who write crap simply need handholding and encouragement to become good editors. However, banning a reviewer from declines is not an answer, in my opinion, to any real or perceived problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hope that Northamerica1000's WP:AGF is not actually something that is "honorably different...from most of the community." Do others here share this prejudice that most of the submissions here are crap? Your post at ANI also suggests that the WP:TEAHOUSE, not AfC reviewers should be helping AfC authors (and that somehow authors should know this without being told). ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

New essay of interest to AFC folks: Wikipedia:Stop writing. In a nutshell: When drafting a new article, concentrate on finding sources, not on writing. Please feel free to edit the eassy if the mood strikes you. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I really don't agree with this advice. It's Articles for Creation, not Stubs for Creation, or List of Sources on Notable Topics for Creation. We shouldn't even really be declining drafts for lack of sources, as long as the subject is notable and the information is verifiable in principle, because that's not a valid rationale for deletion. Joe Roe (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Joe Roe: I don't think you're considering that the essay is for new editors. Too often new editors start editing because of a bias and they create drafts on subjects because these new editors are subjectively convinced of their subject's notability against guideline. If a draft doesn't show me independent reliable sources I'm not looking for them. I agree with this essay because new editors need to focus less on wordsmithing and more on providing sources. Wikipedia as a propaganda platform attracts writers that are more concerned with the words they want the audience to read rather than the citations that I suspect most readers don't even notice, let alone check. Also, what does "the information is verifiable in principle" mean? I absolutely !vote delete at AfD regardless of the concept that sources might exist even though we can't find them. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's based on the principle that a well sourced stub is superior to a thousand words of improperly sourced or unsourced blather and puffery. BTW a stub is a legitimate article. There's nothing wrong with creating stubs as long as they meet the minimum standards of WP:N and WP:V. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Stubs are great. I love stubs. But longer articles that need the fat trimming or more inline citations, but are otherwise accurate, are equally good starting points on the path to a good article. My concern is that by advising AfC submitters that they should only be writing stubs, we are further discouraging new content contributors who are doing the right thing and seeking peer review, when they're already held to massively higher standards than they would be if they simply created a page in mainspace.

@Chris troutman: "Verifiable in principle" referring to the widespread misconception that verifiability means a little superscript number after every sentence. The sources should exist, of course, but it is not actually the contributors responsibility to provide them – at least not until challenged. Similarly, while I understand that given the volume of submissions we get at AfC that in practice reviewers can't be expected to chase down references, technically there is no requirement that articles or drafts cite sources that show notability, only that they exist (WP:NEXIST). Joe Roe (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

See WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) @Joe Roe: Maybe we have a philosophical difference but I'd say as reviewers we can see statements that "are likely to be challenged" and should therefore anticipate the need for a "little superscript number." Your statement that "there is no requirement that articles or drafts cite sources that show notability, only that they exist" does not agree with either WP:WHYCITE or WP:UNSOURCED, the latter of which is policy. I also challenge your assertion that AfC submitters are "already held to massively higher standards" compared to other editors; WP:NPP should be doing for those new articles what we're doing for drafts with the exception that we can help improve and nurture drafts. I am displeased with a general trend of finding unsatisfactorily-sourced articles showing up at AfD with their survival hanging on the willingness of keep editors improving the article to make a case for notability that should have been made from the start. Wikipedia, as a whole, is suffering from too much WP:AGF because nobody wants to say "no" and stop our collective pouring of effort down a drain. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chris troutman: WP:WHYCITE and WP:UNSOURCED both relate to verifiability. Sources are required to be cited for verifiability, sources are simply required to exist for notability (again, see WP:NEXIST). As for high standards at AfC, there has been much discussion of this recently and I don't think I'm at all alone in thinking there's a double standard. But you only really have to look at the NPP queue (and it's 13,000+ backlog) to see that NPP is not nearly as fine a filter as AfC.

Don't get me wrong, I've always been of the opinion that AfC should hold submissions to a slightly higher standard than "would survive an AfD" and have been reviewing that way for years. I also share your frustration with the amount of crap that's slipping through the net these days and think we should be a lot better at saying no. I just don't agree with this particular essay's solution. It makes AfC into even more of a game of "find the sources" and draws attention away from writing good articles, which is what we ought to be cultivating in new editors. I would prefer to tighten up notability standards across the board and do a better job of conveying to new users that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle before they write a draft. Joe Roe (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• There's another essay that's been around a little longer called Wikipedia:Amnesia test, which I think addresses this topic too. It does not even encourage users to start with a stub, but rather it advises users to forget everything that they already know about a subject and start researching as if they know nothing. From the sources that the user found, and only the sources that the user found, they are encouraged to write an article. But if they find that there are few or no sources to use, the subject may not be notable. I think it's a great way to approach notability for new users. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I really like the Amnesia test essay, very good advice. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most of the articles I've written have actually been about topics I really knew nothing about before I started my draft. A very easy way to get into this "mode" of writing is to trawl through animal or plant genus articles, which generally contain a comprehensive list of all the known species in that genus. Pick a redlink off the list, feed the name into Google Scholar and you will almost always get enough material to begin at least a good stub. Notability is not a problem because for a species "proof of existence" normally comes in the form of at least one scientific journal article. The IUCN's databases are very good for sorting out any possible name problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a useful essay. Authors are often surprised to learn how critical reference are and that the stronger submission is often the shorter one. This last point is not covered in Wikipedia:Amnesia test. I don't think it is useful to debate whether this essay advocates creating stubs and whether that is a good things or bad thing. At AfC we review whatever we receive and accept submissions that are unlikely to be deleted - could be anything from a stub to a feature article. If the advice results in short articles with 2-3 strong references, the submissions would be head and shoulders above most of the stubs already in the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

While it may have been mentioned above in jest, the idea of a Stubs for creation (SFC) wikiproject is something I would totally support! Not as a replacement or competition to AFC, but simply as a more structured alternative/sub-project. SFC would concentrate strongly on showing notability, and strongly discourage excessive prose in the drafting stage. Thoughtfully considering it... -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe even just a project to convert topics into lists of RSes. I think that would simplify things a bit. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I like that idea! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday and today have seen 300+ requests at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects for words all sourced to Dictionary of Obscure Words, a site where the owner introduces the dictionary as the "International House of Logorrhea" where logorrhea = an excessive flow of words, prolixity.

These requests first and foremost raise the question where the line between plausible and obscure should be drawn. I'm inclined to say that this looks more like an exercise, rather than an honest request for creation of something that was found missing, and I'd say they fall under both obscure terms as mentioned in WP:COSTLY, and under WP:CHEAP#2 "However, this does not mean we should preemptively create redirects for their own sake."

But I'm posting here in order to hear for a start what other editors think about the matter. Pinging latest reviewers/editors (Clpo13—Woodstop45—Zzuuzz—Eagleash—Wiae—Nyttend—Music1201—Godsy—Gap9551—Krishna Chaitanya Velaga) ... and a few more (Rcsprinter123—DrKay—Huon—Paine Ellsworth—MSJapan—Steel1943). — Sam Sailor 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The large number of these requests, together with what you've shown to be a potentially nonserious rationale, means that I'd suggest that they be mass-declined without prejudice toward rerequesting on a more manageable scale, i.e. one or a few at a time. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Nyttend. Quite a few of those requests might even be misleading. Huon (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)In addition to WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I'm going to go further than Nyttend and say that we should delete en masse with prejudice, and blacklist the site. Here's why: it's clearly a personal site [1], and the guy states in the FAQ that he's got fake words in there (Q1 in the FAQ) to thwart copying, but won't say which they are. Therefore, it's not going to meet RS, because we have to rely on the source to be truthful, and we can't do that in good faith.MSJapan (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good point; I hadn't checked the site. But there's no reason to decline redirects with prejudice; probably most of the words are legitimate, and if derived from a reliable dictionary, it would be absurd to say "  Declined. Someone suggested this word ten weeks ago as part of a series of bad-faith requests". If someone brings requests for a reasonable number of these words in the future, treat them like any other request: that's what I mean by "without prejudice". Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• We shouldn't decline them because there are too many requests, but rather because the source appears to be self-published (from looking at the notice on the bottom of the page).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Certainly feel no reqs. should be accepted on the evidence only of that site. Eagleash (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
• I'm with MSJapan. Why would we, an encyclopedia, create a redirect for a so-called obscure term no one will be looking for anyway to get to a tangentially-related article where no explanation of the archaic word would be found? We create redirects where it makes sense. Take for example a redirect for accourt, which has an entry at Wiktionary. Why create a redirect to Entertainment for no good reason when the term seems to imply the romantic entertainment, especially? Why create a redirect for accoy pointing to Pacification, a disambig page? This is exactly backwards. I wouldn't attach prejudice but I'd definitely reject the whole batch, warn the requester, and put the site on blacklist. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Creating a redirect might seem innocent but it opens the door to IPs and new editors adding inappropriate content replacing the redirect and effectively circumventing AfC. Several times patrolling at WP:NPP I've found exactly that, where new content was added by a non-editor to a redirect created years ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Noting that this is a real, demonstrated issue. There was a case earlier this year where a user requested redirects relating to Formula One at WP:AFC/R, and when the redirects were created, they would turn them into substandard articles a few days later, effectively circumventing AFC. There was an ANI thread here that discussed the incident briefly. Ultimately, it's difficult to combat beyond reverting. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• As Nyttend said, there is no reason to decline redirects with prejudice, or because there are too many requests. The site http://phrontistery.info/, that was mentioned as source for all the requests is of course a self published site, and cannot be treated as a reliable source. But I made an individual google search for each word, and found some of them are correct, some are fake /word doesn't exist. So IMO, it better to accept the requests which are close to the target subject. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Reject them because the site is self-published, because of Q1 in the FAQ, which means the website is not a reliable source for English words. Also, perhaps it should be mentioned right on the page in the box at the TOP that redirects without mention in the target articles should not be submitted for creation.  Paine  ^u/c 12:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
• They should be rejected because no one would search for terms such as those, this is not a Dictionary or Thesaurus, the source is self-published and unreliable, and some of the terms don't even exist. As far as what Krishna Chaitanya Velaga said, it would take too long to go through all of them and see if they are real or not, when most people wouldn't even search for those terms. Woodstop45 • Talk ^(Contribs) 17:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Thanks for the ping, Sam Sailor. I tend to find these requests mostly useless. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would ever look up most of these words in an encyclopedia, and there's also the point mentioned above about the website not being an WP:RS due to the mountweazels. Then again, I'm by no means an expert on redirects and usually just handle the obvious/easy requests at WP:AFC/R, so take my opinion with a suitably large number of grains of salt. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Due to the self-published issue, I would also mass-decline the redirects, but the specific names can be re-requested as long as the submitter provides sources that are more reliable (i.e. not self-published). A useful code for mass-declining is {{AfC-c|md}}, which collapses multiple requests with a message "These requests have been mass-moderated and declined, unless otherwise marked. Please do not modify them." Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• So, given the discussion above, I have gone ahead and mass   Declined all of the requests, allowing users to re-submit individuals ones on the condition that they provide better sourcing. I have no strong opinion about blacklisting http://phrontistery.info/, but since it has been shown to be unreliable, I would not be opposed to it. Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

182.182.74.156 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: No change made. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

As it stand there is no link, or any explanation, as to how to create a new article on Wiki without going through AFC. I've come back to Wiki after a few months away and now have no idea how to create a new article wihtout putting it through AFC (which i had been vaguely aware of as an alternative to creating the article yourself but had never used) - I always just search for the topic I was thinking about writing and then used the old link to create an article with that title. As it stand, it now looks like AFC is mandatory and the only route to creating new articles, which I understand it isn't. The AFC page should be updated to include at least minimal information on how to create pages without going through AFC FOARP (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi FOARP. You are an extended confirmed user which means that you can simply create the article directly and can bypass AfC completely. You can go to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission and use the second option. Or simply create a red link Article name, add your text and click save. Alternatively, you can create it as a draft, and then move it into article space when you are ready. To do that create a red link Draft:Article name, add your text and click save. Be aware, though, that new articles appearing directly in main space are quickly patrolled, and if it doesn't indicate the significance/notability of the subject, supported by at least two independent reliable sources, it will probably be tagged for deletion. There's a fuller explanation for students that I have mentored over the years here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

FOARP, Voceditenore, this of course epitomises the highly critical issue that I am trying hard to get the WMF to address. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kudpung and all, apart from the meta-problem with the WMF (which may take quite a while to sort out, if ever), there is one simple step that could be taken now.

1. Explain clearly on the initial landing page of Wikipedia:Article wizard that autoconfirmed users are not required to use it for creating articles.
2. Explain that autoconfirmed users are not required to use it to create their own draft
3. Explain that they are not required to submit their draft for AfC review, but can move it to mainspace themselves when they're ready
4. Provide alternative instructions for 1. – 3. on how to bypass the Wizard like the ones I outlined above

Editors are frequently directed to the Article Wizard from various help pages, and this misinformation/confusion needs to be cleared up. Its current set-up confuses even relatively experienced editors like FOARP. Many times I've accepted AfC drafts from autoconfirmed and often relatively experienced editors which had been rejected by reviewers who lacked the specialist knowledge to assess them adequately. I then tell the editors of the drafts I've accepted that in future, they can and should skip the Wizard/AfC process. The usual reaction is "Oh, I didn't know I could do that." Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The heading should actually be "How to NOT use AFC". It would indeed help reduce the backlog if we can avoid having to review obviously competently written drafts. BTW we really need to work on recruiting more subject specialist reviewers. Many attempts to implement a draft sorting and tagging system have come to nothing. Hardly any WikiProjects actually use the "class=Draft" parameter in their project templates and very few drafts are actually tagged as such anyway. A proposal based on the existing Stub sorting system has also been ignored. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Formerly discussed above as Stubs for creation, the idea has been updated into...) Topics for creation (TFC) is a proposed project to fill the gap between Requested articles and Articles for creation by assisting editors in preparing a list of independent, reliable sources on a requested topic. Please feel free to join the preliminary discussion at Village pump (idea lab)#Topics for creation. Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply