User talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive A

These are discussions that I was involved in that werent on my talk page.

User:OlifanofmrTennant's review history at Articles for Creation
The main discussion has occurred at User talk:OlifanofmrTennant.

The permalink is now at Special:PermanentLink/1173569355.

Brief summary: Fork99 (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OlifanofmrTennant is on probationary access to the AFCH script as an AfC reviewer.
 * She's received multiple messages regarding incorrect or poorly conducted reviews.


 * @OlifanofmrTennant: sorry for not using your preferred pronoun, which is why I defaulted to “they”. I try to default to using “they” if I do not know your pronouns/gender. Fork99 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have closed the main discussion at the user's talk page, the final version is now at this permalink. Fork99 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was elaborating on one of them before the box was frozen it was inrelation to Draft:Olu Akanmu, I wrote "With the last one I would like to contest on the basis which I did provide a decline reason being, context. I accidently removed it and didnt notice. I altered the article to something which made more sense as the orignal heading was Mixed Reactions Over Olu's Exit from Opay Nigeria and how the citations didnt provide proper context." D OLI 07:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @OlifanofmrTennant is referring to a reply made after I closed the main discussion at the user's talk page. Fork99 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have left an ANI notice on these 6 editors' talk pages as they were mentioned and/or involved in the main discussion: OlifanofmrTennant, Primefac, Hammsilv, VickKiang, Ca, Rich Smith. Fork99 (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also link the AfC WikiProject to this discussion. Fork99 (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed over 200 articles so I think I'm allowed to make mistakes ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of issues here - the user accepted their own article at AFC after it had been previously rejected, which is a no-no, even if they could have created it directly. There was absolutely no reason to reject this, especially for the spurious reason "no infobox".  And was this ever going to be a good title for an article, regardless of the fact it was copy-pasted, which is easily overlooked?  However there do seem to be a number of accepts/declines which are OK. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay for Prochnost I added citaton to the only unsourced line. Nothing was improperly sourced.
 * I did accept the Elsie M. Lewis article earlier today, that I will admit I was in the wrong, I should have fixed the errors myself but didnt becuase I was tired.
 * For the coverup one I will also blame that on my tiredness and missing the Johnny & Associates article link.
 * So you admit that since 23 August of this year when you were accepted to be an AfC reviewer/participant (see diff of @Primefac accepting your request here), you've reviewed over 200 articles? I haven't checked thoroughly myself actually. That seems like an awful lot, and a lot of room for error. Fork99 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I mean 100 typo ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Exact number is 148 with 32 accepts and 116 declines. https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/?user=OlifanofmrTennant ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I can nitpick a little bit, there's no rule I'm aware of against accepting one's own draft, however that is not a great look. In that situation I'd just recommend the draft author move their own draft to mainspace without the AFC tools. Also, there's a difference between declining and rejecting drafts: declining is the most common and allows resubmission, rejection is fairly uncommon (I'd guess 5%) and takes away the resubmit button. In this diff mentioned above, looks like it was a decline for notability (says "bio" in the template). I agree that this person looks notable so that was probably an incorrect decline reason. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As the initiator of the discussion, I sense that what might eventuate from this discussion is that the requirements for a user to be granted the ability to review at AfC might be tightened. Fork99 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think its a problem with the requirements its more of an abuse of power. One of the first things I did was start approving my own drafts. I now get why this is wrong but I think there should be more guidelines on what you can and cant as a reviewer ᗡ OLI (she/her) 09:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fork99 I feel that are fine.  At the requirements stated we anticipate the early reviews may contain errors, but expect criticism to be taken on board fast and lapses to become remarkably few remarkably quickly. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's taken 148 articles and counting reviewed by this user in order for anything to be discussed about them. This is within the span of 9 days, from 23 August from which her request of access to AFCH was accepted, to today's date. Fork99 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I sense an overenthusiasm, but the sole interaction I have had with them shows thought and a willingness to learn. Probation at AFC is just that, probation. At present I see them to require additional thought before competing a review, and to need to be a little more cautious, not in the outcome of the review, but in the choice of draft to review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. Wikipedia is after all, a voluntary place that editors contribute to. (WP:CHOICE) Fork99 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see more participation in AfD, the other side of the AFC pancake. My opinion is that one cannot succeed at reviewing without understanding deletion. AfD stats show little participation.
 * AFC review history shows nothing special in terms of stats, but there are certainly (correctable) issues with some reviews. You will, of course, find that with any reviewer, and I include myself in that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As of the time of this reply, @OlifanofmrTennant has continued to review/decline AfC submissions (or otherwise, interact with Articles for Creation) past the timestamp of which I placed the ANI notice on her talk page at 7:27 (UTC) on 3 September. See an example of a diff here, timestampped at 9:40 (UTC) on 3 September. I respectfully suggest (as a non-admin) that she temporarily stops doing so until this discussion is finalised. Fork99 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This probably could have been handled internally at AFC, it's probably up to Primefac whether or not to revoke the pseudo perm since they are the one that gives them out and they also handle probation, not sure this needs an ANI. The diff where the title of rape at Johnny & Associates" (non-neutral title) was accepted is the most concerning I think. Fork99 mentions some concerns with the reviewer not replying on their user talk page, but all of the un-responded to concerns about her reviewing except for one look to me to be only a day old, so perhaps the reviewer just didn't have time to reply yet. Let's be careful about bludgeoning this discussion, 11 replies in a discussion this size by the same editor might be too many. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Internally at AFC, yes. Me being the sole arbiter of who is on the AFCP list, no. The point of probation is that anyone (though technically only admins since it's under fprot) can remove a probationary member for any reason. I do sometimes miss obvious things; normally a 0-percent-success participant at AFD usually gets a ❌ from me, but without remembering specifics I think I saw a lot of approved drafts and said why not. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this whole discussion the less clear I am about the purpose of opening it here. This is one of the "Big Noticeboards" and being brought here is often viewed as an unpleasant experience, often thought of prejudicial to one's future here. That we have identified deficiencies is clear. Good. We've done that well. But, and I address this to the OP, Fork99, what is the purpose of bringing it here? What is the desired outcome?
 * I submit that User:OlifanofmrTennant is now all too aware of deficiencies, and is also wondering how this will end.
 * May I suggest that the discussion has run its course (0.95 probability), because no-one wishes for a pile on, and that it be closed with the closing rationale "Any necessary action to be taken at AFC" - the venue I feel it ought to have been raised at im the first place. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In a word, yes. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, Primefac? I for one came very close to delisting her, regardless of the OP bludgeoning this thread. Which does not take away from 's evidence, which shows an involved close by User:OlifanofmrTennant's of her own article (that is the rule Novem Linguae), innocuous as it may be. And also a made-up requirement that a bio needs an infobox, which is not a thing. These are significant enough errors where it isn't unreasonable to delist and face the burden of acceptance once more, after a careful re-review of policy and best practices. Crucially, I am not seeing OlifanofmrTennant address that directly. Maybe she did and I missed it, but as it stands, it does not look like this problem has been resolved. El_C 13:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think they should be removed, you are welcome to; probationary members can be removed for any reason by any admin. If anyone feels this discussion should be re-opened I will not object. I will note a parallel discussion has started at this WT:AFC post. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you recommend I do. I am planning to reread policy The self publish I felt was justified as the article I wanted to write was a redirect. However when I began the draft I found that there was a deleted draft that was basicly unusable so I moved the page to an alternate title and copyed over my draft. For the infobox I have stated this was due to my general tiredness at the time and not wanting to fix the formate error. I was reevalutating my declination when this whole topic first started. ᗡ OLI (she/her)
 * OlifanofmrTennant, you declined the bio on Elsie M. Lewis, who was the first African American woman to have formal training as a historian, either because you didn't want to deal with the formatting, or because of the made-up rule about a bio needing an infobox, or some combination therein — I don't quite understand, I'm not sure it's that important that I do (the explanation isn't straight-forward is the point, but it's whatever).
 * What I recommend you do, then, is to try placing yourself in shoes of the person or persons who had written that bio, and who might then see it declined for cosmetic reasons. It risks driving away new contributors. Approach reviews with more care and consideration, especially for a page that at the time looked relatively developed. Just as I've attempted to be cautious with WP:BITE as far as yourself here (i.e. I did not delist you, though I came close), so too are you expected to do the same with those whose prospective articles you review. Thank you. El_C 22:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I intended the infobox section as a comment as to improve. I agree that the formating declination was me being lazy but I didnt mean to come up with some new rule. OLI 04:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly at the expense of that article's writers, as I explained above. A point you still don't seem to be fully cognizant of (i.e. that that is the emphasis and focus). Anyway, rule or reasoning or whatever you call it — it was listed as grounds for declining. But it isn't inherently better that a bio displays an infobox versus not (WP:ARBINFOBOX and all). El_C 05:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Primefac's closure should have concluded whether or not to remove the AFC reviewer permission, as that was the purpose of the conversation here. And once this discussion started here, it is best not to do any delisting unilaterally.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose is whatever line of inquiry a report leads to. I'd also add that it was bad optics for, the admin who granted the perm to have closed a complaint of its mis-use by the user to whom it was granted, including evidence submitted by other admins (the focus of my re-opening). It doesn't really matter ultimately, especially since they stated they do not object to either the re-opening or delisting. On delisting unliterally: that'd been a legit action, I contend. And while I'm unlikely to do so now, I still want to make that clear. And to make clear my focus: I don't want to lose contributors, like the one/s who authored Elsie M. Lewis, due to lackadaisical lapses. I make no apologies for that stance. El_C 00:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You will recall the brouhaha over a new reviewer at ANI and WT:AFC
With regret I still have concerns about that reviewer, and have expressed then on their talk page. I choose not to link it here because I do not wish to create a pile on. There are sufficient concerns for me to suggest you might wish to take another look. You will either remember the editor or be able to look at my today's and yesterdays contributions. I will drop the full user details here if you ping me and request them. I suggest you archive or delete this after looking at it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will take a look when I get a chance. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User removed. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)