Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions was reached as follows:
 * While there are good arguments on both sides, I think the fairest close here would be not to implement this proposal at this time. While there does seem to be an issue to be addressed (low quality of reviews) highlighted by almost all of the supporters, the opposers also raised several valid points about this giving admins more power, likelihood of reducing volunteers to AfC, as well as the ease to bypass the whole system. Overall, consensus seems to be to maintain the current system, and improve support and education for reviewers. While several users suggested abolishing AfC, this is not really an area being discussed here, and would need to be discussed in a separate RfC. Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Background
Reviewing submissions at Articles for Creation using  the Helper Script is currently restricted to users who have:


 * a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old.
 * a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles.
 * thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions.
 * a good understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.

Currently, any autoconfirmed users are able to add their names to the list whether they are qualified or not.

Issues
The page at WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants where users can enter themselves on  a list  that  authorises them to use  the Helper Script is under no other restrictions than semi protection (registered, autoconfirmed accounts). Users can do this whether they  meet the requirements or not. A simple glance at the the page history will show that it needs constant monitoring, but  also  that  very  few AfC regulars are actually  monitoring it. In the worst case scenario, users who have been removed from the list will continue to  review and in  one instance hack  the script  so  that  they  can use it  anyway in  defiance of being asked to refrain  from reviewing.

Other users have been known to enter themselves in order to review their own submissions, and the main problem  is that  many  users hover over their edit count to enter their names as soon as they  reach the 500 edit/90 day threshold but without having any additional relevant experience.

Comments

 * Additional housekeeping comments can be put below this line.

Support

 * 1) Endorse Hasteur (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A sensible move, as long as the reviewing admins remember to AGF. BethNaught (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose BethNaught (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I assume this will only effect new users. Great idea anyways, but per above, admins should assume good faith and appreciate people volunteering to be a reviewer.  George Edward C –  Talk  –  Contributions  14:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Makes sense. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 14:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) It makes sense, even though it may be introducing an element of hat collecting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Endorse. Sledgehammer or not, this tack needs driving home. Fiddle   Faddle  16:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Endorse. I think that it is reasonable to verify that the minimum requirements have been met. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as an interim solution to a pressing problem. I would have liked to discuss first, but then I read teh instructions :-) IMO the hat collecting issue is nullified by the need to have help reviewing articles, and the extra admin power is negligeable - it's just access to a script. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse. No one seems to be disagreeing that the present system has problems. So let's try an alternative - one that's in place for other privileges, and seems to be working well for those. Obviously, the expectation is that admins will respond to requests within a day or so. If that turns out not to be true, then we can revisit this. [Also: for those who oppose this proposed solution, it would be really appreciated if, when you say things like "I think there are better ways to handle it that won't invlove admins", you actually spell out what one or more of these "better ways" actually is. Otherwise, some people are going to think that you're just making vacuous statements.] -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse - It's great people are signing up but not so good they either review there own article or simply sign up with under 400 edits!. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) My first reaction to finding out about this was WP:CREEP, but I do realize that it does nobody any good to have AfCs reviewed by editors who lack the experience and judgment to do a good job, and I don't see any problem with, in effect, making this privilege about the same as Rollbacker or Pending Changes Reviewer in terms of how one can acquire it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- The harm done to new users and to the encyclopedia by incorrect rejections is so great that something needs to be done to reduce it. Though the articles can always rewritten again, almost all users  whose first articles never come back, and are lost to us forever. The very survival of WP is critically dependent of attracting and keeping new users. By my estimate, at least 1/5   of rejected articles are wrongly rejected, about 8,000 a year. And altogether too many copyvios and other major problems are being accepted. Yes, the AFC procedure needs a fundamental fix--this is a preliminary measure to make the problem manageable. As pointed out in the opposes, it won't absolutely prevent people from evading review--but they can evade afc just as well by writing directly in mainspace; we're not likely to find a solution to anything at WP that can't be evaded.  It will I wouldn't call it an emergency--the right term to use is urgent, because while we are figuring out how to fix AfC, or to decide whether it even can be fixed, the problem is accumulating. Material that needs to be speeded is just being declined, and promotional editors are endlessly resubmitting material that they need to be told is hopeless. Articles are   being declined for trivial reasons, rather than being sent to mainspace where the wikignomes will find and fix it. All this adds to the workload. We need more good reviewers, but the key word here is "good",  DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If the problem is about about reviewers incorrectly rejecting articles, why don't we amend the process to make it easier for people to get a second opinion? For example, changing the template to state "if you think this has been rejected in error click here" would reduce the damage done to people whose articles have been rejected. It would also become easy to spot reviewers who are repeatedly rejecting articles they shouldn't be rejecting and the AfC community could then do something about these specific individuals. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Obviously the oposers aren't reading what this is about. It's obviously not about giving more power to admins. The overall quality of reviewing is too low, Few people are taking any notice of what is happening on the user list page, and too many unqualified reviewers are slipping through. This needs an emergency solution especially when the AfC team keeps planning to run more backlog campaigns. This proposed measure will help them enormously. That the access to the tool should be gained on request for permission was already passed by consensus a long time ago (see the links above to the previous discussions). We have just failed to implement the 'request' part, and this will be it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * 2) Support this baby step towards fixing AfC in the right way ( whatever that may be ) —   18:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per DGG and others. A good solution that's sorely needed right now. APerson (talk!) 19:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think that this is a good idea, but that the admins should WP:AGF as much as possible. We do need new reviewers. I agree with Tryptofish about how this should be roughly equivalent to Rollback and PC Reviewer. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support reluctantly, though I hope DGG or other admins here will hep out maintaining the list. At the AWB request page if I don't add in the people, they wait a long time. We should add in instructions so that people know how to put their their own writing into article space via the move button anyway. For AWB it is not an admin power trip, but just a simple edit job. The tougher situations are for marginal cases where someone gets to 500 edits, but has done nothing to show they could do the job.  Perhaps they could but they haven't demonstrated it.  Instead for those that like to say "no", they can make comments on people's requests so that admins only have to deal with the yes cases. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support Consensus in past RFCs has already stated that we can't just let any random person confuse newbies by accepting articles only to have the articles unaccepted. All we need to do is implement it already. I have seen far too many new reviewers in the past few days that need to be directed to WP:CIR and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, after considering both opinions. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 23:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Conditional support I agree with editors in the oppose section that the approving of reviewers shouldn't be done only by admins - not because admins are power-hungry, but because checking out new editors' reviewing expertise would be time consuming and there are plenty of non-admins who could do it just as well or better. However, I can't think of any other way besides page protection to keep newcomers from reviewing until they have been vetted. If the proposal is approved, I would like to see a further process developed, so that editors who are experienced reviewers would have check marks or something after their names, and could request that an admin add a username to the list, after which the admin would take their word for it and just add the name.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I don't see any problem with the proposal. New comers often register themselves as reviewer. Such restrictions will keep them away.  Jim Car ter  03:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support - I recognise Anne's concerns Rankersbo (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support but it is no more than security by obscurity as users can still manually add the script. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support though I am coming round to the conclusion that NPP and AfC would benefit from being merged, and both be subjected to some sort of experience bar to stop (usually unintended) biting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support this as an interim solution. JMHamo (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Per DGG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per DGG --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Conditional Support, as long as it can't be copied to user space as well. Epic Genius (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, again, more or less DGG. (General observation:  AfC is a back corner of the encyclopedia culture, but a signficant and fundamental place for new editors, or new promoters, coming to the encyclopedia. We really need a broader rethink of it.  But nothing wrong with getting some splints on it while we do.) --j⚛e deckertalk 03:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - It's a relatively minor change to the status quo. Instead of endlessly reverting those who do not meet the criteria, assuming somebody spots the fact they have added themselves, why not just IAR and protect the page... I can't see that this has anything to do with 'admin power trips' and I don't really believe it will put many people off contributing as a potential reviewer. As others have noted, and Kudpung has alluded to, this is not an end of the line solution, but a common sense bit of first aid to a project that needs a much wider rethink. Bellerophon talk to me  17:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per DGG. Better than the status quo, but not a complete solution. MER-C 05:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - but only as a band-aid. Too many of those seem to be applied here, though, over time. Time to consider a broader solution. Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Support This will not fix all problems, and probably won't mollify any of the AfC detractors, but I overall the step is a positive one, as it will solve a few problems and I think issues created will be trivial. Nod towards the concerns of Anne Delong.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong support per kikichugirl. She and I have spent an inordinate amount of time the last few weeks sending articles back to draft that should never have made it. While mistakes will always be made, the recent flush of unready participants has been exhausting. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Primefac: My understanding is that articles in the mainspace should not be incubated by a move into the draftspace unless they have gone through a deletion process. See criteria 4 of Article incubator and criteria 3 of WP:USERFY. This is because incubation is a form of soft deletion and must comply with the deletion policy. James500 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support - an especially sensible proposal. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per DGG the  one  sean  01:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ron h jones (Talk) 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) AGF is good, but leaving the door wide open invites people to participate in a difficult area where experience is essential. Any super-fast learners can demonstrate their skill and be given access, while those who can't should not be using the tool. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  It might be a small fix, but it will improve the current situation.JSFarman (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support It makes sense to try this.Worldbruce (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I am for abolishing AFC altogether and just letting new articles run through the front gate and our established deletion processes (SPEEDY, PROD, AfD). There are two contradictory problems with AFC: the growing backlog of articles awaiting review and the problem of wrong rejections. This proposal will exacerbate the first but should help to eliminate the second, greater danger. Again: I want to see AFC gone completely as it does nothing much but alienate those who might become regular volunteers. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, AfC is by choice (for registered users). No one is being forced to come to AfC for reviewing their articles. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  18:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support As an AfC reviewer, I think this is a very good idea. As long as a number of admins regularly patrolled AfC permission requests, it would work fine. I also think that it would help the backlog diminish, as admin-approved users are probably more likely to be reliable in their reviewing.  BenLinus  1214 talk 21:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - absolutely.  I see stubs as a sign unsustainable rate of development.  It doesn't help the project to have 1,000,000 stubs while editors are still working to improve and expand start-class.  Stubs belong in the dictionary, and editors who feel dictionary entries can be expanding should do so.  In the interim, it makes no sense for them to be clogging up cyberspace.  Atsme  ☯  Consult  01:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like your rationale has absolutely nothing to do with the RfC... What are you on about? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Read DGG's rationale if you don't understand mine. Atsme &#9775;  Consult Agent 99  19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose - putting in a tack with a sledgehammer. —  14:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Moving to Support, I guess this is a baby step toward my preference. 18:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Admins don't need more power. Sorry. -- Biblio  worm  15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Agreed on Biblioworm, also some concerns about hatcollecting. &mdash; Revi  16:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not convinced there's a big problem here. Participant list appears to be well monitored. We need all the help we can get here. We don't need any additional barriers to recruiting new participants. ~KvnG 16:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose While I entirely understand the issues behind this, I think there are better ways to handle it that won't invlove admins. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose If this is a genuine emergency it should not need to wait 30 days for approval. Maybe "emergency" overstates it. It should not take 30 days to work up a proper solution. This looks like the sort of situation that would last indef. An emergency measure should be time limited.Commenting also that I'm not too keen on anonymous emergency proposals that give more power to Administrators.  Leaky  Caldron  17:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * +1, well said. Legoktm (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This technically does nothing to prevent any autoconfirmed user from simply clicking the "move" button, or any registered user from copy-pasting their article which has been gathering moss and mould in WP:AFC for the last half-month directly into mainspace one second after they create an account. The script automates various reviewer tasks, such as leaving comments or removing AFC-related templates after the article has been accepted, but is not essential to any AFC task. In this respect, the proposal is useless; it also does nothing to abate the very real problem that AFC (last I looked) is a hopelessly-backlogged nightmare where the few viable or valuable articles are buried under weeks of the usual mess of personal and corporate autobiography, unsourced pieces, poorly-written text and rambling about various subjects which don't quite meet notability - all of which are pending review because of a lack of reviewers to wade through it. Place further restrictions on reviewers and there will be fewer reviewers, more backlog and a greater chance of losing valuable new contributors... all without solving the issues this proposal was intended to address. AFC *is* broken, but this fixes nothing. K7L (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have to agree with K7L. This wouldn't actually prevent users from reviewing articles or approving their own. If they have enough determination to find the helper script, skirt the rules, and figure out how to use it, they will be determined enough to either manually review articles or simply create their in the mainspace. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  18:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'm utterly confused as to how people are being physically restricted. Are we preventing them from looking at the source code? Legoktm (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) No, it'll still be open source. The goal of the proposal is to add an edit protection to the participant list which gets checked client-side by the AfC helper script. Nothing else is changed. I think that the name of the proposal is misleading. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 05:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per K7L. This won't improve things. wctaiwan (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I'm opposed in principle to making any WikiProject "permission only". Specifically, I oppose this proposal, per K7L (and indeed, most of the above).  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. There is overwhelming evidence that AfC is a detriment to the project by reason of being what it is (a form of pre-moderation), cannot be fixed by any means whatsoever (because no system of pre-moderation could avoid having the same fundamental problems), and should simply be shut down. It should simply not be possible to "reject" an article without going through the normal deletion processes (CSD, AfD and PROD). I don't believe this proposal will improve that situation, and giving admins a discretion to reject reviewers might actually make it worse, if they reject the wrong people. James500 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) As has been pointed out every time this comes up, its trivial to just disable white-list checking in the script itself. Deal with the editors, don't keep trying to find technical implementations to fix an editor problem. If anyone cares to, they can take a look at editors who add themselves. If they do things wrong, talk to them and try to get them to improve or stop. If they aren't doing things wrong, there is no problem to fix. For anyone who is counting, it takes literally 4 characters of code to bypass white-list checking, or you could just import the script from someone who already has done it.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All you say is true,, and those things are being done, although it's time consuming and hit-and-miss. Many of the editors who try to review without enough experience are good faith editors who just haven't understood the instructions and policies and so review according to their own opinions instead, and can become good reviewers with some help. People like that would likely be willing to put their names on the talk page for a day or so until an admin moved them to the whitelist.  It's true that technically savvy editors can bypass the whitelist, but it has to be done deliberately, with a clear intention to ignore consensus, and Wikipedia has policies to deal with that situation. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I still stand behind my comments on "RfC September 2013" and "RfC January 2014". It looks like I skipped "RfC March 2014" because I couldn't even understand it (and still don't). I shall continue to disengage from the AfC project in utter sadness at the bureaucratic direction it is taking the project. Jane (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I particularly disagree with other point that right after 500 edits they would start participating in AFCs. Most of them don't.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of them don't, perhaps; far too many of them do. Plase follow the links above for evidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This effectively raises the barrier to joining AfC. At the moment you need to be able to get your head around the myriad of instructions (something I haven't been able to do, despite having written hundreds of articles) plus meet the 500/90 criteria. Now you will also have to pass the test of meeting the subjective opinion of an admin of whether you have "a good understanding of the policies" and have "thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions." What will the impact be? Fewer people applying to join AfC, fewer participants and an even bigger backlog. I'm not getting what problem this is the solution to? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Admins have enough work already. This CheckPage thing takes way too much time. After my username change, the AWB CheckPage admins took 5-7 days to get my name in the list. I would go with PC1/PC2 instead of full protection of the CheckPage. -- QEDK  ♠  T  ♥  C  05:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but that is absolutely not true and is totally unfounded. I was the main admin working WP:PERM for several years until recently and I've processed hundreds of requests. Even if there is a so called 'backlog' there, it's only a question of ten minutes to clean it up. Your delay for AWB must have been a rare exception - things happen - but please don't suggest that it is a common occurrence. We're not discussing PC1/PC2 here, in fact PC is totally unrelated. Perhaps you mean NPP, but even that is not up for discussion on this RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true because it has happened to me. Please do not try to imply that I'm lying. Saying that it was a rare exception is fine but then suggesting what I said is untrue is not. And no, I was talking about using PC1/PC2 instead of full protection of the CheckPage. Comment revised. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  08:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry again,, your comment was a totally false, inaccurate, sweeping and misleading statement - it's in  the history, check it out. I had already conceded that  your case was a rare exception. If you wish to sway the RfC kindly remain objective. I told you that I have processed hundreds of requests at  WP:PERM and such  delays are extremely  rare (and you can check that out too). Requests are usually processed in  a few hours. Just climb down and cool down - neither Rome nor  Wikipedia were built  in  a day. And no, we are not discussing PC1/PC2 here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you, please calm down? I am not trying to sway the RfC in any manner. I was just saying that you not suggest the statement that I was lying because in my case it took exactly 5 days to get approved and 2 more to get added to the CheckPage. I am fine with you saying that it was a rare exception. Your proposal states, Place the page under full protection (editing by adminstrators only), which is what I oppose and which is what I've written in my argument. I've put my personal experience forward and I don't know why you are calling it false. I hope I made myself clear. Very respectfully. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  11:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case the delay is true as QEDK put in a req on 6 Feb and it was actioned on 11 Feb. I am the person who adds most of the AWB entries, but if I am concentrating on something else there could be delays. see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Anyway QEDK still has not done what I requested to confirm ownership of an account yet, so his request is still proceeding ..... But in any case I don't think this is a reason to oppose. If I was the only one to update the AFC list, the same issue might arise, but there are more admins around this area to action requests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We have 1,363 admins. And, we have 6,626 reviewers. Which do you think will be quicker? A CheckPage patrolled by 1,363 user accounts or 7,625 user accounts. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, whatever you are quoting (reviewers?) has got nothing to do with this discussion at all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The first line of your proposal states, Place the page under full protection (editing by adminstrators only) which is what I've opposed from the start. Clear? -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  11:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) moved from support After recent events, I am no longer convinced about the necessity of this move and am more concerned about concentration of administrative power. BethNaught (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how Kudpung closing the RfC early has any bearing on the merits of the proposal. It reflects poorly on him and him alone, not on whether page protection is needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per WP:CREEP.  I regularly train new users and steer them away from AfC as it seems quite disruptive, having a backlog measured in months, for one thing.  The idea that admins should obstruct and bottleneck the process even more seems absurd.  If my trainees should still stumble into AfC by accident, then I would just move the draft page to mainspace, where it belongs, and remove the extraneous clutter.  I once took a look at the templates which are supposed to assist this process but found them confusing and unhelpful.  This entire paraphernalia should be shut down, as suggested above. Andrew D. (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The AfC backlog is not measured in months; you are mistaken. At the time of this writing, Category:Pending AfC submissions contains exactly 1200 pages. This is far fewer than, say, Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover (19,463) or Category:All unreferenced BLPs (1,913). Wikipedia is a backog. If AfC is extraneous clutter, there would be many articles in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old, which is in fact empty at the moment. I think you have misunderstood. Likewise, if AfC is shut down, then NPP would become a bigger mess than it already is. After a while at NPP, it's easy to become accidentally too bitey to newbies. The RfCs linked above have already established consensus for these rules. It is high time we actually started enforcing them - bad reviewers/new reviewers/unqualified reviewers sending drafts to mainspace only to get them deleted simply creates even more confusion for the newbies. If the templates are confusing, I am also happy to explain specifically what the issues with the draft were. AfC may need reform, but this isn't going to be the place to do it. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we look at that category we find pages such as Draft:Christopher Hogan. The template on that says "This may take 2–3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1,167 submissions waiting for review."  So, right away, I can tell that the process is broken.  That page was submitted on 16 January and so it's now over a month that it's been waiting for a review.  Q.E.D.  That article is about an aspiring artist and so seems similar to the most recent article which Kudpung created from scratch: Ed Elliot.  In that case, a draft was created in userspace and then moved into mainspace on the same day.  That's what is required - same day service - and it already exists.  The AfC is redundant, doesn't work and so should be abolished per WP:BURO. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's a bad example to pick. In ploughing through the back of the backlog I had already glanced at Draft:Christopher Hogan, and noted that some of its contents require resolution by "an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". I am not any of these things and therefore cannot resolve the issue... I assume that the Draft page itself is part of a different backlog being worked on elsewhere. That Draft is therefore a very unusual case which is not representative of the current state of the Articles for Creation backlog. On the wider point I would still agree that the backlog is too large. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per K7L.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC))
 * 2) Oppose per Andy Mabbett's objection to "permission only" projects, plus K7L's and Andrew D.'s observations and the lack of visible evidence that having the page unprotected has led to significant misuse of the script, much less enough to require "emergency" measures. I don't understand the relevance of DGG's point that 1/5 of rejected AFC submissions should have been accepted, since there is no claim that they were rejected by people with less than 500 articles edits using the script.  This is really the wrong venue to discuss protecting a page anyway: WP:RFPP is for that. The general attitude behind this proposal (and other over-mechanized aspects of AfC) seems in conflict with the spirit of an open wiki, which is to not even attempt to prevent bad edits, but to instead let them happen and revert them when they do.  Protection and later semi-protection were invented to address some drastic and usually temporary situations such as edit wars or heavily vandalized or highly sensitive pages, but this is none of those.  I'm fine with uninvolved admins temporarily protecting the page when justified per the usual WP:PROTECT criteria.  When those don't apply, it shouldn't even be semi-protected.  FWIW, the issue of people adding themselves too early could be addressed with better documentation or a "check your eligibility" link that could say "you have 973 total edits so far, but only 383 of them are in article space: please come back when your number of article edits reaches 500".  50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Give admins more power to approve members joining a project which seriously requires more volunteers? No thanks. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Can we include a discussion section here for those who want more information before !voting? If so, please tell me how an autoconfirmed user will be prevented from moving a submission into article space by not having the script being suggested? Why wouldn't it be more effective to allow autoconfirmed users free access to the script, in good faith, while focusing on how best to technically restrict a user's participation when they have demonstrated a sufficient lack of competence? I am glad things are moving towards tightening up the AFC lose ends, though I am more interested in making sure we put forth our best effort – and that when we are done, we will have done it right. I am open to being shown that this RFC is our best approach, and I will gladly give my full support once I've been made a believer. I'm not quite there at this time however. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This solution is not intended to  be our best  effort. It  is known to  be an imperfect solution. A review of the information prfovided in  the links in the background and proposal  sectoins will  demonstrate the need for this interim  solution. There are other solutions, ones which  need at  least  some programming  but before we get there we have to prove to the community that AfC is not working well in its present concept. History has shown that on Wikipedia, little changes lead to bigger ones. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)‎
 * It's a "solution" to the wrong problem. The problem is a lack of good reviewers. No script can fix that. K7L (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , the problem is a plethora of inexperienced reviewers. This solution can go a long way to fixing that. This proposed solution is not about fixing a script. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem facing WP:AFC is a lack of reviewers; many submissions from a month ago are still awaiting review. Any attempt to place additional barriers to entry for additional reviewers is only going to worsen that problem, as it will discourage both good and bad prospective reviewers from joining the WikiProject. K7L (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A bad review (letting in an unsourced BLP, for example) is worse than no review at all, in my opinion. See all the time and effort it took to fix what Bonkers The Clown did. And I realize that he was experienced, but still-bad reviews take a while to fix no matter how you look at it, much more than just going unreviewed. Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A small clique, cabal or group of people taking control of AfC and deciding, quite arbitrarily and outside process, who can or cannot review can also create problems, potentially much worse problems. One batch of bad reviews is an isolated incident, but a systematic pattern of driving away good reviewers could damage AfC as a whole. There are some who would like to see AfC break, either because they want to limit creation of articles by non-autoconfirmed users or because a completely-dysfunctional WP:AfC would make it easier to make a WP:POINT that the system should be scrapped or replaced entirely. Unfortunately, we can't afford to drive away prospective reviewers as what was a one-week backlog three years ago is now closer to a one-month backlog, with at best minor and temporary reductions from the Signpost coverage a month ago. Odds are, a new user who submits an article and hears nothing for a month will give up and go to another website. That's a problem if we're depending on today's new users to become tomorrow's experienced users. K7L (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is declared an emergency. Why will it take 30 days? Why is it not time limited to prevent it becoming an open ended emergency solution with no plan to solve the underlying cause? Would not the 30 days be better spent coming up with a permanent fix? Is it the norm for requests citing emergency powers to appear to be drafted anonymously? Leaky Caldron  19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a good idea to prevent users with less than 500 edits from adding their names. Give the page Pending Changes 2 protection. That protection means that all edits must be reviewed by an admin or a pending change reviewer. Simple, non-obtrusive. Most pending changes are reviewed or reverted in 20 minute or less. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here is whether the script would check the last approved version or the most recent version of the whitelist. If the latter, PC2 would not prevent unauthorised use, even if it were brief. There is also the danger that PC reviewers who aren't aware of the standards for AfC reviewership might make inappropriate decisions regarding pending changes. BethNaught (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , please link to information about Pending Changes 2. I can't seem to find it. Thanks. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. This is one of several RfC's, all of which didnt really get anywhere. Technically it never passed into full usage, however limited permitted use seems to be ok. Currently only one page uses it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , Please see NOTE 2 of the proposal above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Break all rules WP:Ignore all rules its not hurting the conversation. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say, that we make a CheckPage and CheckPage talk kind of thing. We semi-protect the talk of the CP, so auto-confirmed users can add names and PC2-protect the CP, so that only reviewers can add names. Then, if anyone adds to the CP directly and it comes up for reviewing, we reject it. That should work. The script then checks the CP, ofc. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  05:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * PC2 is so fundamental a change in editing policy --one never approved by the community but nonetheless used in one truly exception instance -- that it does not seem to make sense to solve a problem that can be solved by many simpler means. WP:IAR is a valuable and essential policy--when we need it.   DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that part of the problem of users prematurely adding themselves to the list has stemmed from the wording of the edit notice, which did not clearly distinguish between overall edits and article edits until User:Jackmcbarn and I made a few alterations. Newer editors, I find, are often not yet fully aware of the differences between the various namespaces (in particular, that user and draft pages are not considered articles). Regarding the proposal itself, I'm torn. As a regular patroller of the list, I agree that more must be done to remove the names of users who – despite satisfying the basic technical criteria – are clearly not suited to reviewing. As pointed out in the section above, however, further restricting access to the reviewer script will not impede those who circumvent it entirely by approving and moving drafts manually.  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , we are aware of that. Most of those who  try to  add themselves to  that  list  have so  little experience they  won't  be aware of it. AFAIK we only  had two  clever clogs who  have tried that tactic and one is now indeffed for pretending  to  be an admin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How much experience is required to find the 'move' button? Four days and ten edits? Odds are, a user will find 'move' before they find the script. There's also the minor detail that watchlisting the list of reviewers makes someone adding themselves easy to spot, while a direct move of a submission to article space is less obvious. The "permission"-style lists might make sense for WP:AWB and the like, where a user can do more damage with the script than without it, but the WP:AFC script is limited in capability and taking it away will not eliminate bad reviews. If you want to be able to spot bad reviews, perhaps the template on a declined article should encourage the user to go to Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Articles for Creation if they feel they were rejected in error instead of just encouraging them to endlessly click 'resubmit'. What's here now is a tarpit (networking) - an erroneous rejection gets the article dumped at the bottom of a month-long backlog, where it will likely be rejected again out of hand because the previous rejection tags appear before the next reviewer even looks at the article body. K7L (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So how do we compensate for the loss of new reviewers?
Ok, so it looks like (at just over halfway through the 30-day RfC period) we have just over 2/3 !voting to impose additional obstacles to the entry of new reviewers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation. Fair enough, but that raises one additional question. There is currently a consistent one-month backlog on review of new submissions which is consistently getting worse. If a prospective good faith reviewer goes to WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, what do they see? A mess of templated messages talking down to them with charming prose like "please do not sign up now, but do come back later when you qualify. In the meantime, you are welcome to familiarize yourself with the process by browsing through the submissions and help pages and observing the work of the reviewers", sung to the tune of Sugarloaf (band) "Don't call us, we'll call you". So basically, we expect a prospective volunteer to sit on their hands and watch prospective new authors leave after their submissions haven't even been looked at weeks later, watch the same few reviewers reject the same flawed prose repeatedly because everything's worded to encourage authors to endlessly click that bright, shiny "resubmit" button, watch Wikipedia at its most disfunctional? I hope none of them actually take you up on that, or they will leave the project shaking their heads in disbelief or at least try to find somewhere else to help out where their contribution is actually valued.

Depending whom you talk to:
 * AFC has too few reviewers,
 * it's "too much bureaucracy and too many crap submissions due to perverse incentives".
 * the problem is a plethora of inexperienced reviewers.
 * too many unsalvageable articles are being endlessly resubmitted, turning the process into a tarpit (networking)
 * AFC has merely become a place where new article suggestions from new users go to die.

That said, each progressively higher barrier to entry (of which permanent full-protection of the reviewer list is just one in a long series) means fewer reviewers. An experienced Wikipedian can't just idly drop by when they're bored, review a submission or two and go back to whatever they were doing short of finding an admin to get them onto a reviewer list from which they'll be removed as soon as a couple months pass in which they make no further reviews (with the script gratuitously throwing obnoxious error messages if the user even so much as looks at a namespace which might contain an AfC submission without going into user preferences and removing "AfC Helper Script" entirely).

As such, this proposed change is not one simple step that can be taken in isolation. If we are to put up an additional obstacle to new reviewer entry, we need to make an equal and opposite effort to recruit new, competent reviewers. If we do not do so, AfC breaks. Sorry to be so blunt about this, but we can't just carve off the question of locking down the review script without also addressing the question of how we ensure enough reviewers remain after this change is made. The two questions are too closely intertwined.

Any suggestions? K7L (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In principle, those being restricted in the new scheme are already restricted now. They simply won't be able to add themselves anymore (only to have it reverted quickly by someone else). I.E. there is no material change.  (Some desire to up the requirements, but that isn't really going to be answered one way or the other by this RfC.)
 * As to the backlog, what we need are more good reviewers, not simply more reviewers. Bad reviews just waste someone else's time sooner or later, and potentially alienate future contributors to Wikipedia.  After the recent writeup in the Signpost the backlog has been falling steadily from 3000 article down to 1200 as of now.  For all but a handful of articles, the wait is down to <3 weeks (and none are a month or older).  In other words, the article seems to have attracted new reviewers and things are moving in the right direction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. It's been more than the two (or however many) months since I last looked at AfC or reviewed anything, even though I had reviewed more than ninety successful articles sometime in the distant past. That takes me off this list of yours as inactive. The current change means that I can't put myself back on the list without the assistance of an administrator, which isn't worth doing if I'm just going to get knocked off again for inactivity. The Signpost writeup will make a temporary difference, but only a temporary difference, soon forgotten. Come back in a month and the backlog will be worse than ever. AfC competes for users time with many other tasks, including creating new articles or editing existing mainspace text. We do need to find new reviewers to replace "inactive" reviewers as they drop off this fully-protected list or we will lose new contributors as their contributions languish unread. K7L (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not an additional obstacle, it is merely a proposal for a technical method to enforce the already long established qualification standard for reviewers. Many of the naysayers have absolutely no idea how much damage an incompetent (or even malicious) reviewer can do in a matter of hours. Such a "reviewer" can burn through thousands of submissions and so inflict a lot of harm to the initial experiences of new editors, many of whom never return if their submissions are not handled with due care. Each submission that is harmed by a bad review represents a potential new editor who might otherwise stay and become a productive long-term Wikipedian. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Traditionally Wikipedia enforces its standards by human means rather than technical ones. We wouldn't call page-protecting an article "merely using a technical method to enforce the already long established standard of using good grammar in articles".  The whole concept of an open wiki is to not use technical methods to prevent substandard edits, except in cases of substantial necessity (WP:PROTECT describes the usual criteria for page protection).  We instead accept bad edits on purpose and fix them after they happen.  Page protection is usually considered rather drastic.  Maybe WPAFC/P is one of the occasional cases where protection is justified, but calling that "merely using a technical method to enforce [existing standards]" is repellent.  The AFC wikiproject seems unhealthily obsessed with mechanization and technology and IMHO that's one of the things making it dysfunctional.  Technical solutions (though they are sometimes necessary) should be approached with reluctance, not treated as shiny toys to be adopted at every opportunity. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about placing a PC2 protection? Most reviews are cleared within 20 minutes or so. Or we could have a PC2 and CheckPage kind of system and when a user passes we send them a message saying so and if one doesn't we do otherwise. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  05:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you know how easy it is to get PCR- it's far easier to get than competence to review AFC drafts, and well-meaning new PCRs may think "I can approve users to this list, surely I at least qualify to be on this list". (It took me 4 days of actively editing Wikipedia to get the PCR bit, and at that point I was still basically clueless. The sole criteria for getting PCR is "can this user identify vandalism and BLP violations".) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 06:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But then, PCR is certainly at a higher level than autoconfirmed. I guess a CheckPage and a rolling archive should be fine then, so that we can reassess reviews. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  06:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Kudpung some kind of replacement for AFC is in the works. I'd be interested in hearing more about this if anyone has any info.  Kudpung wasn't willing to reveal any more about it when I asked.  The secrecy makes me skeptical but I'm open to persuasion.  50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems odd to be canvassed with "Of course AfC is broken, and there is a lot of support for that notion in the backrooms of Wikipedia. The best thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and there is a lot of support for that too. But before we can do that we have to convince the community that it's broken."  This seems almost to be making a point of creating new problems. AfC is already broken, that's already known in the bathrooms of Wikipedia, how is adding one more obstacle to recruiting new reviewers going to usefully change anything? It used to be common, back when submission volume was lower and AfC backlog an intermittent problem instead of a constant, to contact experienced Wikipedians who were still active but hadn't reviewed in a while to ask them to come back temporarily to clear the backlog; that won't work now as these editors are not on the fully-protected list of participants and are unlikely to jump through hoops to get back on the list as they'd rather be getting their own articles up to standard instead of wading through the AfC slushpile again. Wikipedia traditionally tries to avoid putting obstacles in the path of good-faith contributors, as they are unpaid and if they feel their efforts are not needed or wanted, they go elsewhere. I'm concerned that further restrictions on entry of new reviewers aren't going to stop bad reviews, but are going to impede efforts to get experienced Wikipedians not currently active at AfC to peek in every now or then and review an article or two. K7L (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any numbers around, showing the rate of AFC submissions over the years? K7L, can I ask how long you typically spent reviewing an article submission?  What about something like a redirect?  Between good, salvageable, and clearly unsuitable submissions, which were the hardest to deal with?  Thanks.  (Edited). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There seem to be relatively few reliable numbers, unless one goes *way* back to the early days of AfC where each day's submissions were one long page. All but the most recent statistics on WikiProject Articles for Creation are unreliable as failed drafts are now commonly discarded after six months of inactivity; there has been a fair amount of Signpost coverage of the AfC backlog problem back to 2011, but that text seems to give the number of backlogged pages without the number of new submissions per day. Time to review an article varies, it might take a minute or two, it might take ten. That article about Billy-Bob's tiny roadside lemonade stand with no cited sources might quick-fail for lack of notability in ten seconds or less, as the worst pages (stuff that would meet WP:CSD or not stand a snowball's chance in WP:AfD) are usually obvious. For a passable article, a rare few might be quickly accepted without needing anything fixed (either because they're actually ready, or because they're simple things like templates and redirects). It's the middle ground that consumes the time... oh, look, an article on Fanshawe Pioneer Village, the largest tourist attraction in London, Ontario but cited only to the museum's own website (oops!). The topic is good, but salvaging the WP:AfC submission requires replacing marginal citations with independent, reliable sources. That's time-consuming, but rejecting the piece outright leaves it on the bottom of the pile for another month. (That particular topic was rejected a few times over four months in AfC before finally becoming a perfectly-valid article, basically because one of the museum keepers had written it themselves. It eventually got uninvolved contributors with valid, external sources, possibly because GLAM offered assistance because we want notable museums covered.) The majority of submissions are quick fail, usually for notability, WP:COI or advertising. Personal, professional and corporate autobiography are always problematic; yes, it's an author who got one book into print, but is the book notable? It's the stuff in the middle, where the topic is valid but the sources a bit weak, where one really doesn't know how an article would fare if the next user to see "oh look, another AfC special" were to nominate the page for deletion, which eat the most time. Specialised topics (such as medicine or biology) are more difficult to evaluate, but they account for a relatively small slice of AfC. No one in AfC wants to accept a half-baked article on a valid topic only to watch it hit the WP:AfD bug zapper. The clearly good or bad are straightforward, the hard work is in the middle, at the borderline. K7L (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * COI isn't a valid reason to fail an article (although usually such articles will fail for promotional language). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying if someone submits a promising article with insufficient sources, the reviewer is supposed to research more sourcing? Can't they kick it back to the contributor with an explanation of what is needed?  And is the acceptance standard intentionally higher than "this article is reasonably neutral and documents enough notability about its topic to survive AfD"?  What percent of submissions would you say are in the middle "difficult" class?  I'm still puzzled that it takes so long to process article submissions, while stuff like redirects are usually processed immediately.  Thanks for your insights. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's something small which can be fixed in a minute or two, it's sometimes quicker to fix the problem than reject an item, wait for the author to resubmit it and have it languish in the backlog for another month - especially since the templates left on the article from the previous rejection increase the risk of it being rejected again. I'd suspect that it's a small percentage (well below 10%) in the "middle" where they just meet 'start' class as-is or with minor fixes; a large majority of AfC submissions fail due to notability, lack of reliable sources, self-promotion or other issues. Certainly, there are two parallel processes for new articles, new pages patrol and articles for creation. In NPP, articles from registered users are innocent until proven guilty - they survive unless someone nominates them for deletion. In AfC, articles from registered and unregistered users (usually new users) are guilty until proven innocent. They languish in the slush pile unless and until someone moves them out of Draft: space into the encyclopaedia. NPP'ers routinely accuse AfC of accepting rubbish articles, but it's a small minority of AfC submissions which are accepted as articles. If the system were fair, submissions to either stream should have the same odds of being retained as articles - so the 'bar' as to what leaves AfC needs to be similar to the 'bar' for what doesn't get tagged for deletion in new page patrol. In practice, the odds are stacked against the AfC authors, even if nominally IP's are people too. AfC might have been beneficial to new users if it were able to provide advice on improving articles, but its ability to do so is limited by time constraints and backlog; if anything, authors are putting themselves at a disadvantage by using AfC instead of registering an account or ten and submitting directly. K7L (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say the number of pending AfC submissions has dropped below 1000. It has been on a steady decline since peaking at 3k, so I would say the process is not currently broken.  Certainly, limiting bad reviews is worth the small risk of losing some good reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "a small risk". Put up another barrier to entry and we *will* lose some bad reviews and, along with that, some good reviews. Baby and bathwater. That's the way it works. Futhermore, it's normal for backlog to drop very temporarily after Signpost coverage only to regress toward the mean until the next backlog drive. All very predictable. If anything, the backlog elimination drives have been controversial in the past for encouraging reviewers to rush through huge piles of submissions quickly just to bring the huge backlog temporarily under control. It'll be back, just watch... K7L (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is currently against backlog drives. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the topic may be of interest to involved parties. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.