Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria

Implementation

Is this going to be implemented technically or just a social requirement? Legoktm (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This has not been decided yet and as both the previous and current RfC state, will be discussed when the criteria have been established.

There are several possibilities: a technical MedWiki tweak - which is most unlikely, or a technical access to the helper script or something like it, or a social one on examination whether the candidate meets the new criteria or not. If users persist in reviewing without having passed the scrutiny, there is of course the possibility of imposing sanctions after a request to refrain from rewiewing but this is more difficult to control especially as there may not be anything actually contentious about their reviews.

One of the main objectives therefore is not only to secure the services of competent reviewers, but also to keep track on who is actually reviewing submissions which is not currently always possible, and hence poor reviews slip through the net, as they frequently do at NPP, for example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A technical tweak to the core software is more than unlikely, it's not possible. It's also not possible to restrict access to the scripts, they can always be loaded through the custom JS interface. Social enforcement is the only option, and therefore this shouldn't be a userright, and this RfC should be reframed in terms of how we will do the social enforcement. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Implications?

What are the implications of this user right? Will it just affect whether you can move an AfC to the mainspace or mark it as declined, or will it also affect whether you can nominate something for deletion? My main area is the file namespace, but when I look at recent files, I occasionally stumble upon an AfC candidate in which a recently uploaded image is used. If the image is a copyright violation, I often check whether the article also is a copyright violation, and then nominate the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. However, I do not do other AfC work such as checking whether an AfC candidate is suitable as a Wikipedia article; that is left for other people to do.

Also, what will happen if a user ignores the rules? Will you use something like Commons:Special:AbuseFilter/75 (which prevents most users from modifying Commons:User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers) to prevent that users without this user right review AfC candidates? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On en.Wiki any user can nominate any article for deletion.

The AfC permission will allow a user to carryout all the current tasks that fall within the remit of AfC. Currently there are no controls over who has sufficient experience to do this which has produced an accumulation of issues that led the community to decide it is time to introduce some criteria of experience.

Once the criteria have been established, the community will decide on how access to the AfC system will be either technically or socially controlled. Users with permission who persistently make poor reviews or who abuse the system for their own ends will almost certainly have their technical permission removed, or will probably be T-Banned from the process if it is a social permission. I hope this answers your questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that there have been a couple of discussions about some questionable AfC reviews. So this will only affect insertion of {{subst:afc decline}}, moves from the Wikipedia talk namespace to the article namespace and similar tasks, then? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It will affect all tasks related to the correct reviewing of submitted articles and the way the reviews are processed, and access to the Helper Script tool. The current discussion is to define the criteria for experience as a follow up to the RfC where consensus was reached to introduce a permissions system. We're not discussing the actual technicalities yet - we can't until the criteria have been set, but such a permission won't affect any other permission-based operations on en.Wiki outside of AfC. It is entirely possible however, that at some time in the future, {{subst:afc decline}} and the Helper Script may be replaced by something else - our AfC project programmers are constantly working on new technical solutions to streamline the process. The principle of quality reviewing by competent editors won't change though, and that's what we are striving for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted AWB requirements

On Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage it says users need only give a reason for wanting to use the software if they have less than 500 mainspace edits. On the Commons, one must give a reason but here on WP it doesn't seem to be the case. Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 22:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommend suspending this discussion for a month or two until AFC and DRAFT are coherent

With the new DRAFT: namespace, WT:WPAFC is discussing how to best integrate with that namespace.

This will fundamentally affect how AFC reviews are done, what articles are reviewed, etc. etc.

It would be best to wait to see what the job of AFC reviewers will be before continuing to nail down what the permissions AFC reviewers have that non-AFC reviewers don't have. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. While I agree the discussion with regards to integrating AFC into the Draftspace is important, the current RFC deals with an issue that is related, but does not directly overlap with it. This RFC is nearly concluded, as far as discussion is concerned; and I see no harm in letting both of the discussions continue. By the time we reach the implementation of integrating AFC into Draftspace, we can easily implement whatever the final outcome of this RFC is. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• A set of criteria for experience to be able to review AfXC submissions is not remotely relevant to the technical aspects of the reviewing process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)