Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Archive 1

Archived requests
=Talk= ''Do we really need this section? Talk should be directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.'' EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No we don't,, you are quite correct that general talk should go  to  the main  talk  page, so  I'll  archive this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change  to , as they cannot use the helper tool until they are on the list. --George (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 08:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can make changes to WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/header which is not protected. I've made a few changes myself. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that! Cheers Martin, --George (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

question
Does anyone know how "a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles" is checked? Is there a script that does that and is the code available? I've been wanting something like that for purposes completely unrelated to AFC. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 50.0.205.75. Go the person's contributions page and scroll to the box at the very bottom. Inside that box click on Edit count and it will produce that information and much more. Here's yours, for example. Help:User contributions has some other tips. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. This tool allows you to see all the articles an editor has created including the deleted ones (if any). Just type the user name in the box without the "User:" prefix. Here's an example showing a user with both live articles and deleted articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, thanks, yeah, that's less useful than what I was hoping for though. I misread "undeleted edits" as "unreverted edits", i.e. the person contributed info to an article that actually stayed in the article.  I didn't realize "deleted" meant the page that the edits were on had been deleted. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that first tool will tell you how many edits have been outright reverted. Take a look at the one for me . Under the Live Edits heading it shows 33 reverted edits (scroll down). But I think that tool only picks up straightforward reverts. It won't pick additions that get removed or drastically altered after intervening edits by other users. Voceditenore (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh that is interesting, I didn't know about it, it's still not what I'm looking for but it's a start. Thanks! 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some questions
So, since it appears that the RfC to fully protect this page will succeed, there are a few questions I want to ask:
 * 1) Will admins be able to reject editors even if they meet the requirements?
 * 2) Will non-admins have any part in the approval process, or is it an admin-only area?
 * 3) Will this page be attended to, or will requests stay around for days? I already see a request that was made on the 24th and hasn't been answered.
 * 4) What will happen if a reviewer is inactive? Will he be removed from the list, and forced to reapply? -- Biblio worm  01:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In reply to #3, if and when the PP happens, editors will be instructed to use Template:AFC Request, which will automagically add a Edit protected request template to draw admin attention. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why full protection is not needed
It seems that the RfC to fully protect the participants page will succeed. However, I think it is important for others to hear a detailed case on the other side of the story. There are several reasons why the page should not be fully protected.
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As I once read, the goal of a wiki is not to make mistakes difficult to make, but rather to make it easy to correct them when they happen. Protection should be avoided whenever possible. To quote WP:PROTECT: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors." Unqualified users adding their names to the AfC participation list is not an critically urgent matter, and I fail to understand what is so difficult about pressing the undo button with a quick explanation in the edit summary. I don't see an unmanageable situation. Over the span of three months, for instance (December 2014—February 2015), there were about 20 unqualified additions that were forcefully reverted. That averages to roughly one unqualified addition once every 4.5 days. Surely, we're not so lazy that we couldn't simply ask more experienced users to add the page to their watchlist and occasionally revert unqualified additions, right? Of course, there were some days when there were more unqualified additions than usual, but temporary protection for a few hours should be enough to fix that. The point is that supporters of the indefinite full protection are exaggerating the severity of the problem by making it seem that it takes a lot of trouble to deal with unqualified entries.
 * An approval process adds more complication and bureaucracy to a simple WikiProject. Signing up to review submissions is not like applying for RfPERM/RfA/ArbCom. The trouble of going through this approval-by-admins process will cause more trouble than it's worth, because users who just want to help may be discouraged by being forced to write some application and then letting it sit for a few days on the approval page. (Let's not kid ourselves; everyone should know perfectly well that bureaucracy is always slow.) This will decrease the amount of new reviewers and will encourage the backlog to grow. Also, I must say that it is my personal opinion that the importance of AfC is being exaggerated. From what I gather, AfC was the process introduced as a result of the Seigenthaler incident so that IP users could still (indirectly) create articles. In my opinion, AfC should simply be the process by which it is ensured that there are not critical problems with an article, such as BLP issues, vandalism, or something that qualifies for speedy deletion. If a person wants to directly create an article, all they have to do is create an account, which doesn't take but a few seconds, so AfC is not especially preventative.
 * An approval process opens up an opportunity for the approving user to impose their own criteria upon the applying user. For instance, a person handling applications could refuse to add a user they simply dislike, because they could come up with an excuse which says that the applying user hasn't shown satisfactory knowledge of the AfC guidelines, or something similar. (Besides, I think that particular requirement is rather silly, anyway, because we'll never know how good a person is at anything unless we give them a chance.)

Thanks, -- Biblio worm  15:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Include Draft: namespace articles in search results for editors creating new pages
Draft articles are great. But they lose a lot of their potential if other people with the same topic idea for a new article don't notice them. I think the search box at Article_wizard/Subject for the selected subject should show Draft: namespace articles by default. And so should landing at a page that doesn't exist. Current example: Alice_Bowman doesn't note that there is an existing draft: Draft:Alice_Bowman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcb (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a point on your last point - we can't have a note at *every* page that there is a draft that might at some point resemble a reasonable article. This is (in particular) because not every draft will become an article, but also because it would mean creating thousands of new pages that only said "someone's making a draft on this subject." Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be able to do this on the fly next to 'You may create the page "Foolandffaseq"' on a search for a string. So instead of 'You may create the page "Foolandffaseq"'., it says 'You may create the page "Foolandffaseq". A draft has been created at "Draft:Foolandffaseq", do you want to look at that?' or something similar.Naraht (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Primefac, sorry for the confusion. Thanks, Naraht - that's exactly what I was thinking of.  Essentially 1) changing the search box, when used under such circumstances, to include Drafts.  Then 2) be sure to enable searching drafts when the search is done from pages that don't exist yet.  If that seems to be working, it would be straightforward to 3) have the auto-generated page for nonexistant articles include the search results for the exact same page title in the Draft namespace, without actually creating any pages.  Of course there would be some performance impact, and I don't know how much, for doing step 3.   ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Argumentative and Wiki-litigious potential reviewer
Please see WP:AN3 Report 1 and WP:AN3 report 2. Report 2 may be merged into report 1 or vice versa at some future time.

I am expressing concern that an editor with small track record of edits is insisting in a combative manner on forcing their way into becoming a reviewer rather than waiting to serve their necessary number of edits. I feel that a combative and argumentative attitude is counter to our requirements of a reviewer, someone from whom we require a collegial way of working and empathy with new editors over their often rather challenging submissions.

I will be inviting here formally in addition to pinging them and also placing an invitation on relevant AFC fora for editors to offer opinions. I am making no proposal here at this stage, simply expressing concern. Fiddle  Faddle  13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to get it out of the way up front, I did not handle this as well as I could have. While the discussion about this user should take place here, the move to actually direct them here should have been done on their talk page. My apologies for all of the hassle this has caused. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so up front about that, . However, one has the right to expect someone wishing to join a project handling the submissions of inexperienced editors to have the inherent ability to determine where, how, and whether to continue with a course of action. While your actions may have been a contributing factor to the unpleasant behaviour I do not think anyone can see them as the cause, with the possible exception of the editor concerned, of course! Fiddle   Faddle  14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now invited them, and placed relevant invitations, including one at AN3 Report 1 (above). Fiddle   Faddle  13:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really an unpleasant behavior I should say. Particularly concerning considering the area of work (AfC), where there's a lot of dealing with new, potentially ignorant editors, which requires a significant amount of patience and cooperation. The requirement to be a reviewer is very meager. I'm not sure how an editor not patient enough to meet this meager requirement will be patient enough to handle newbies... *sigh* Regards -- JAaron95 Talk   13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pray tell how I might have initiated a combative stance when I made a clear representation that I was prepared to open up amicable discussions on the issue |here I don't understand why you keep using my number of edits to define my level of editorial skill to be honest, I feel that is rather judgemental and it isn't exactly conducive of a proper "non combative" discussion. The facts are that one or a group of people thought it was decent and acting in good faith to revert my name contribution to the list so that I am able to use the tool despite the fact I offered to open up amicable discussions. It's not exactly showing of a "non combative stance" when editors decide to relentlessly revert my contributions simply because they seem to judge me as ill experienced based on ? It's not my intention to bulldoze in here and get what I want by throwing policy around, I am acting in Good faith. My only desire is access to the tool so that it can help me make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I'm not subscribing to a cartel community simply because it's forcing it's way onto me. I appreciate that my edits and contributions are subject to editor review and even reconstruction ect however I simply won't accept that I am being refused access to a tool that can make my Wikipedia life simpler simply because I want to curtail my direct involvement with a community formed around the tool. I've shown my ability to make non disruptive edits. You guys are slightly scary I have to say, I've not used Wikipedia in quite some time and when I return I get caught up in editors seemingly hell-bent on expelling anyone other than "pro editors." There should be room for new people to come in and make useful contributions while being supported by the community ... Not set out against by it. olowe2011 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This shows the difficulty. WP:AFC requires substantial tact and diplomacy, something we all fall short of at times. Most folk when wanting to join a particular area with rules await their full compliance with those rules, rules made clear on the joining page. Most folk do not attempt to bulldoze their way through the door and then complain to whatever they perceive the authorities to be when the tracks are removed from their bulldozer.
 * Expelling? Not so. You have not joined. And you are not the victim here. My worry is that the attitude you are continuing to show will be expressed in any reviews you might make of submissions by new and vulnerable editors.
 * In short, at present, my view, one you have just reinforced, is that you are unsuitable for this project. Fiddle   Faddle  14:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Olowe2011 should thoroughly read relevant policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Recent actions indicate that they are not (fully) familiar with the main policies. I would also say that they should wait until they have enough experience in mainspace before reviewing drafts. I think this behavior is not suitable to this project. Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the reason behind your opinions, but I am also beginning to doubt your experience. There are many tools with requirements as to how many mainspace edits an editor must have, for example, AWB, Twinkle and STiki. Requests for bureaucratship and adminship also require reviewing the editor's edits. Even if an editor shows a clean track record, concluding that he or she will therefore use the tool properly does not seem very wise if he or she has very few edits. In your case, you have less than 300 mainspace edits, and editors at your "age" are usually "immature". It is perfect sensible that there is such a requirement. Furthermore, it is difficult to find proof that you are an experienced editor. Then comes the matter of principle. It doesn't seem right for editors to be allowed just because they have a strong stance and insist that they are capable. Just like a court case, a bad example is to be avoided. These are just my personal opinions. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Please note that Olowe2011 is starting a 24 hour block, whose details may be seen at the AN3 links above, at least until they are archived. Fiddle   Faddle  14:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Seems like you are caught up in a disagreement with other editors. We all make mistakes and we correct it. I should make one thing clear. No one here is a PRO editor and no one is trying to scare you off! In fact we want you to stay here and make Wikipedia, a better place. All are equal. We gotta abide by some policies and guidelines and that's it! There are many policies and guidelines in Wikipedia and I'll point you to the relevant guideline (answer to 'why you were reverted?').
 * First off, article for creation is a place/wikiproject, where new editors (I mean 'new' not you!) submit articles they've created for review, and reviewers (the people in the list where you were trying to add your name) review the article and publish them to mainspace (ordinary articles) if it passes all the Wikipedia guidelines or decline them stating that the article cannot be accepted at that time and requires further improvement.
 * B, to be a reviewer there are some minimum requirements. Your account must be 90 days old (which you clearly pass! ) and your account must have atleast 500 mainspace edits (which BTW sadly you don't). Don't believe me? See for yourself! Go to this link and the red portion on the pie chart is the number of mainspace edits you have (you had 232 edits when I saw). Isn't it less than 500? Unfortunately you don't pass the requirement now and I request you to kindly abstain from re-adding your name to the list. But, there's a good news! You are forever free to add or remove your name to the list, once you pass the 500 mainspace edits mark!
 * We count on you, and I hope you'll understand! Regards-- JAaron95 Talk   14:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good teaching appears to be virtual education. Nannadeem (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to AfC. I understand your frustration, and I've never personally supported the editcountedis system, but it recieved consensus to be enforced, because it was better than any other system proposed at the discussion. A few points:
 * Accusations of misconduct should be supported with diffs or other evidence at every level of dispute resolution, including the informal "holding a discussion with the editor". This makes your argument stronger, allows the user in question to refute the diffs individually instead of on a general "I wasn't doing it" way, and allows neutral third parties to evaluate.
 * To be perfectly clear, the "30 days/500 mainspace" rule is not a policy or guideline; it received consensus and can be enforced, but has never been designated a policy or guideline.
 * Edit-warring is never ok, and will get your arguments ignored, even if your argument is good.
 * As many of us have stated, it's very usual to make mistakes sooner or later on WIkipedia; don't fret it or anything. I appreciate the attitude you've usually used in these discussions.
 * I realize you've already been told the majority of advice here, but I wanted to reinforce it, if you don't mind. Thanks for your time. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of a reviewer
I am requesting a second opinion on a recent addition to the AFCH list,. While they meet the 500 edits criteria (barely), I believe that their grasp of notability is not suitable for reviewing drafts. This is due to the seven pages they have created and have since been deleted, as well as a draft that has been declined multiple times. Rather than engage in another edit war, I thought I would get opinions from other experienced editors. I welcome Arifjwadder to give comment as to why they feel that they should be an AFC reviewer. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * the pages which were deleted was the initial pages i created. The draft page has not been created by me. My total page creation is 19 so far and not seven. Arifjwadder (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I did not say all of your pages were deleted. However, I did notice that a good number of the remaining pages are tagged as potentially being non-notable themselves. My question to you was mostly questioning why you want to be a draft reviewer, and if you feel you are comfortable with the different reasons a draft can be declined or accepted. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Rest of the articles have been tagged non-notable by only one person who tags whatever i work on.Arifjwadder (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur. Latest creations, poorly/doesn't comply with the policy. When my article doesn't meet the criteria, how come I'll be able to judge other articles? I would like to see a bit more experience from this user. Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk   19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Question
I was removed from the Participants list. I'm assuming this is because I have fewer than 500 article edits. I have two questions. One: is there a way I can demonstrate that I don't need 500 edits to be responsible enough to review? Two: if not, will I be welcomed back once I attain this goal? Thanks, and I admire your guys's work, Fritzmann2002 23:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You need 500 edits.
 * Yes, you will be more than welcome! -- -- -- 23:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Something to look at
With the new protection level created 30/500 which requires users to have the extended confirmed user right. This right automatically granted after 30 days and 500 edits. The requirements to be a reviewer is beyond or equal to those standards. Understanding that currently this protection is a type of arbcom protection, I feel it may have some uses in project space, would it be beneficial to look into having the protection of the WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants page increased from Semi to 30/500? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. Would save us a lot of reverts (and hurt feelings). Primefac (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Excellent suggestion. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New review of a reviewer
There have been a few notes left at Tseung Kwan O's user talk regarding their reviewing record and some of the issues associated with it. As a brief summary, they seem to be mechanically declining (or accepting) drafts simply based on the number of references, they have missed copyvios, they give poor feedback, and in general they seem to be discouraging new users due to a lack of advice and/or replies.

I know we don't often kick people off the project, but I was wondering if I could get opinions from other helpers. I'm pinging, , and as they were involved in the original discussion,  since it appears they are involved in the "cleanup" effort, and  as it is their AFC future we are discussing. I should mention that Tseung Kwan O has not responded to any messages left for them, either from AFC members or draft submitters. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * missing blatant spam too, and counting, but not checking, references. This user really needs to do more editing to see how things work. Good intentions aren't enough if there are half a dozen experienced editors clearing up the mess. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would note that has been responsive on their talk page, as is evident on their talk archives. A lot of the talk page sections on their page, including the current notes in question, are likely written after their latest editing session. So we cannot be sure if they are being unresponsive.
 * I agree with everything else that said though.
 * Soni (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, and I should have noticed that they have not been on-wiki for a few days. I have stricken my above comment. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be watching to see if he returns. In the meantime I'm trying to answer the people who have been askign questions and deal properly with their articles. I could use some help with that.  DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The 30/500 criterion for AfC reviewers was introduced on my initiative. What many forget however is that this requirement involved mot only the  metrics being met, but also a level of  competency. Which means in effect, that every new subscription to the Helper Script user list should come under scrutiny, most particularly in the case of those who enroll the moment their EC reaches 500.
 * In the case of, we have someone who is enthusiastic, but who is a non-native speaker with an unacceptably low level of English, who is very young, and who admits to not even being able to master their native Devanagari script yet. They have now taken to creating new articles that take longer to clean up than it took him to write. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what needs is an experienced reviewer willing to take him under their wing and point out any mistakes they happen to make. He's obviously editing in good faith, and as DGG points out, he's generally been relatively responsive on his talk page when approached about this. This user seems enthusiastic to help, so instead of outright banning him from AFC, we should help him, and teach him how to review submissions. We do need more reviewers here, after all.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 02:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think needs to simply stop dong any maintenance tasks  whatsoever. He's now been systematically placing 'no context' and other tags on dozens of perfectly normal articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the lack of response to our continuing comments (both here and on their talk), as well as issues brought to light by NPP staff (the bottom few sections of, I have removed from the AFC helpers list. If they wish to continue reviewing drafts I feel that they really need to post a response somewhere. Primefac (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

SweetCanadianMullet
I have removed this editor from the list. Thy have 502 mainspace edits, but their editing history demonsrates that the are far from having sufficient experience to be doing this or any other maintenance tasks. This user edits under signatures that do not reflect their user name so extra vigilance is required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

LeProf
I am genuinely unsure of whether should be reviewing drafts. However, I think this is one of those cases where a discussion is necessary (as opposed to "this person clearly isn't ready").

I have severe reservations due to their unilateral changes to our reviewing instructions, some problems with abiding by the guidelines as they're set out, and most importantly this ANI thread, which mentions various episodes of tagging every single unreferenced statement on a page with cn (example of the ridiculousness AnomieBOT has to deal with). Additionally, their usage and interpretation of OR and VERIFY are rather suspect (Exhibits A, B, and C). While they weren't wrong about the status of the article in Ex.C, it wasn't "OR" issues, just a lack of references.

LeProf has contacted about receiving AFC guidance, and I invite Robert to comment on the situation, but based on everything I've dug up I see another Tseung Kwan O issue arising where we end up doing more cleaning up than is really necessary. Primefac (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, not sure if you watch this page but if not here's a ping. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Leprof 7272 - Please reply to these concerns before reviewing any more articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have stated my concerns on this reviewer's talk page. I in particular am troubled by their unilateral changes to the reviewing instructions, which suggest that they don't understand consensus and that they should have discussed the proposed changes to the reviewing instructions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They haven't edited since they started discussing on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * LeProf says a lot that I agree with. I guess the issue here is that LeProf seems to want sourcing beyond what the consensus feels is necessary. I think LeProf is correct in saying that the "regular committed editors here need to stop having patience with past and continuing violations—no new material should appear without citation, to inhibit the article's decay, and past unsourced material must be systematically checked and replaced with material tied to sources." However, when we edit Wikipedia we have to do so based on the rules as they are, not as we would like them to be or wish the to be. (Apologies to Donald Rumsfeld.) To that end, it is inappropriate for LeProf to be reviewing articles if they can't stick to our policies and guidelines. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Chris. In response I will just say, that I believe that I am editing according to the rules as they are. All policies and guidelines I have seen, say that material in violation needs to be brought into compliance. I simply state one mechanism, in one particular article's case—that no further edits without citations be allowed to appear in an article out of compliance, which then allows progress to be made on the longstanding past issues. (I do not advocate blanking articles or sections, but neither do I advocate ignoring the problem.) In the same simple but rigourous way to excellence that this envisions—stop backsliding, make progress on quality—it is my observation, through much broad reading here, that articles continue on trajectories they are allowed at acceptance. Unsourced articles at time of acceptance continue on this path. Regarding how I will practice with AfC, and my responses to the statements made by Primefac in particular, see examples and content following. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Applicant's response to all but last
With regard to edits made to the reviewing instructions, I will certainly move that matter to Talk. I did not realize the guidance to edit boldly did not apply there, but since objection is raised, I will of course look for consensus. The edit was motivated, very simply by the fact that the one bullet point said there were four reasons, then went on to mention only two. That is, as a rigourous academic, I did not believe the summary was being true to that source. As one very concerned with plagiarism, omitting half the reasons requiring inline citations in the instructions given to reviewers was, and remains, very concerning to me.

I have explained, at length, why I place tags throughout sections of some (very limited) articles. When coming to an article, and finding WP policies misused or ignored—e.g., commonly, citations appearing at end of paragraphs, where the source does not begin to cover the factual content within the paragraph—I do, after having spent the time to make a rigourous assessment, indeed mark the paragraph, very simply because as one works on it, one can remove them after ensuring the content in that paragraph has been sourced. That is, the tags are temporary placeholders, while skilled and informed editors, in some cases (including this one), professionals with experience as to what is, and is not permissible vis-a-vis standards of plagiarism, work through the content, making sure that the content is (a) verifiable, and (b) true to source. You will see this sentence by sentence tagging is not done all the time, but only when needed, and when I am trying to be a part of the solution. (E.g., it was not done at the Op-amp article.)

Three further points. First, the Primefac summary and critique, as often happens here, fails to mention, for instance, the very significant time spent on the radio program article, alongside the strong critiques made, or the facts that there are generally no reversions from me, but instead editorial work with significant edit summaries made for each edit (source additions included/especially), or that the matters described are accompanied by significant Talk entries, etc. That is, the critique is, formally speaking, tremendously one sided. If the predisposition is to reject me, please go ahead and do so. But good form and fairness require an analysis that is "on the one hand… but then on the other…", and not a presentation as if I am a drive-by tagger, or an editor with an agenda (other than the excellence to the encyclopedia). Summary judgment is all too common here, and why many of my colleagues have long ago come and gone. If it applies here also, I will not fight it.
 * Along this same line, the cursory, negative mention of me alongside one "Tseung Kwan O" is not something against which I can defend myself, or to which I can otherwise respond. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Second, on the subject of WP:OR violations. If some part of an article is unsourced, specifically or generally, and is neither common knowledge, nor plagiarised (mildly or egregiously), then the only option that remains is that the editor is writing from their expertise, and we are being asked just to trust them (and the encyclopedia for allowing this). (There may be other explanations, but this covers the bulk of situations.) Bottom line, logically and formally, there are few available, formal options in assigning an assessment regarding content sourcing. And WP:OR is a clear one, if there are large blocks of text indicating no source whatsoever. Per WP:VER and WP:OR, observations of editors unreported elsewhere, new syntheses that should be in a published in secondary sources, elsewhere, rather than appearing first in WP — all of these violate our policies and guidelines (as I understand it).

And to the contrary, if we aim to make sure material is sourced, one can—an editor can, a reader can, a teacher hopping to use an article with their students can, etc.— quickly asses quality of source, and the accuracy of sampled sources to sample text. For instance, in the guidance I offered to Draft:Steelism—see the edit summaries, there—through an edit and reversion, the example edit of the lede found significant discrepancies between source and original lede content. What better time to engage and instruct editors, and to put articles on the right trajectory, than when in AfC?

Third, note. We each only live once, and I have had my fill of conflict here. I will not fight about the fact that I bring value. Should you decide to reject my participation here, if that is within rights, then do so, but understand that I am committed to Wikipedia's being true to the laws of copyright and publishing, the accepted standards of honesty in presentation of written content, and to excellence in the encyclopedia in general. In the sense of Abraham Lincoln's choice and relationship with his war-time cabinet, you can decide whether you want the best hard working, talented, opinionated people in the camp, or out.

Otherwise, I stand by my critical assessments—see the A-B-C links above—of [A] the POV/COI submission by the physicist who works for the company selling the products covered by that submission, [C] that the situation at the radio program's page was, as described in Talk, appalling with regard to WIkipedia policies and guidelines, as long lists of material are presented absent source, turning that article into an IMDB mirror, or other such non-encyclopedic web tool, and [B] the fact that the longstanding situation at the op-amp article requires attention, as the pattern established there has been that content additions do not require sources, based on earlier long tracts of unnamed source-derived technical content. The equation to which attention was called in Talk was a simple case in point of the rampant disregard for sourcing policies and guidelines at play in various academic areas of Wikipedia. In these, assumption of original expertise of edits allows material to accrete that is not expert either in scope (whether new material is needed at all) or accuracy (if material is needed, whether the material is accurate to the preponderance of scientific/technical sources). Both concerns are impacted by lack of verifiability (if no source is named, if primary sources are used absent secondary, etc.).

In closing, I ask,, practically, (i) that rather than simply reverting the edits I made, about the current Reviewer instructions not being accurate to the WP document they propose to summarise, that instead a compromise edit be offered, in the spirit that things can be wrong, and that newcomers can bring needed perspectives, and (ii) that you take at face value the fact that I approached M McClenon, stating as I did, that I did so because I found his focus and approach to be exemplary, and consider this as how I might likewise be able to address backlogs.

Finally, I again point you to Draft:Steelism, that has been declined twice, to see the edit and reversion I did, as an example of the potential hard work and value I can offer, to bring to the encyclopedia a smaller backlog of unreviewed AfC submissions—and for ones accepted, a strong trajectory from stub to well-sourced article, and for ones rejected, a clearer future path to acceptance. That said, having reviewed the statistics on the acceptance-rejection rates, and M McClenon's reasons for rejection, I cannot imagine I will impact either that ratio, much, or that I will practice my AfC work outside of the pale evidenced in his and other individuals whose work I have reviewed.

So, choice is yours. Inside, the backlogs will get shorter, and the articles better. Or, I can go back to other things, and leave it to you.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that 's concerns are not without some justification, but unfortunately I do not have time right now to  investigate more fully. Moving the goalposts without  consensus is however perhaps too bold in  this kind  of context. I  also note that  the quality  of AfC reviewing  appears to  be still  on  the decline and that the  frequency of non authorised users registering  themselves on  this list  has increased to  the extent  that  I no  longer  even bother to  report  it here  when I  remove one. Fortunately, AfC, unlike NPP, is not  critical  to  the way  Wikipedia works or is maintained, but as I  have stated many  times elsewhere, in spite of huge backlogs, an  backlog  is better than poor reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat what I said above, at the opening of my long reply—acknowledging the importance of the bold edit mistake, by covering it first. With regard to the edits made to the reviewing instructions, I have since engaged that matter to Talk, with collegial results, see here . I did not realize the guidance to edit boldly did not apply there, but since objection is raised, I am seeking consensus. Otherwise, note, that the Instructions edit was motivated, very simply by the fact that a bullet point said there were four cases of concern for failing to offer inline citations, then went on to mention only two. That is, as a rigourous academic, I did not believe the summary was being true to that source. As one very concerned with plagiarism (see ongoing discussion of Instruction changes), I argue that omissions in the instructions given to reviewers (e.g., half the reasons requiring inline citations) was, and remains, a problem with tremendous longterm negative consequences on article quality. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I look forward to a consensus that would allow me to begin helping with the backlog. The instruction changes will occur, or not, on their own timeline. Note, the tool not funtioning keeps me from editing, and I will look here, and to that, as a sign I am free to begin, under Robert's tutelage or otherwise. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I've been trying to reply, but can't get a word in edgewise with all the going on. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Leprof: Please log in and sign using your username (as opposed to using an IP). Otherwise, we have no proof that the one responding is actually Leprof. Sincerely, -- -- -- 19:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the confusion. My work situation ends up taking me out of this place fast, and since I have to tuck attention in here as I can, I don't always notice when I start. But I always make myself clearly recognisable; logged in or out, I always sign Le Prof. And as the AfC tools are only possible to use when logged in, there is no issue there. I look forward to a response to the "application." Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I said above, at the opening of my long reply—acknowledging the importance of the bold edit mistake, by covering it first. With regard to the edits made to the reviewing instructions, I have since engaged that matter to Talk, with collegial results, see here. I did not realize the guidance to edit boldly did not apply there, but since objection is raised, I am seeking consensus. I look forward to a consensus that would allow me to begin helping with the backlog. The instruction changes will occur, or not, on their own timeline. Note, the tool not funtioning keeps me from editing, and I will look here, and to that, as a sign I am free to begin, under Robert's tutelage or otherwise. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm willing to assume good faith at this point, and while some of my concerns haven't been addressed I think with 's guidance (if he's still willing to help) you'll be a good reviewer. I will also be available if you have questions or concerns. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac, User:Leprof 7272 - I'm willing for now to mentor LeProf as a reviewer. As to the changes to the reviewing instructions, I said that they were a multi-part diff and to discuss each change separately.  As to reviewing, I would welcome some guidance from Primefac, or User:DGG, or User:Kudpung, as to what the concerns are.  I would suggest that a developer should work with LeProf to make sure that the tool is working.  I would admonish LeProf to always log in, and to use the feature that automatically keeps you logged in, and to learn to see when you are logged in and logged out.  What are the specific concerns?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my concerns, two of them are their interpretation of WP:OR and their cn-tag-bombing. Both may lead to declines of acceptable drafts. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I am not convinced from the material here that they are willing to follow the standards, rather than their own much higher and unrealistic standard. I'd recommend improving articles rather than reviewing them.  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am willing to follow WP:VERIFY to the letter, and to discuss matters of interpretation with Robert. What more are you asking? Were all of you held to this close of scrutiny and consideration, at your starts? For goodness sake. (Without your otherwise being much more specific, I am being damned by impression, and can give no other response.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm starting to swing back towards that opinion, especially given this edit summary and my talk page. Maybe AFCH not working for them was a sign... Primefac (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we move from impression to vagary. You did not respond further at the Talk page discussion, here, to which you make suspicion-raising mention above. There appeared to be a positive close to that largely technical, article-focused Talk discussion. Is the manner of discourse we engaged in there, not precisely how this place is intended to operate? And if that back-and-forth led to discomfort on your part, why was it not taken up there? (Why no response?) I cannot box shadows, or presume to read minds and preemptively, defensively respond. This returns us to the earlier "Tseung Kwan O" matter—raised, but never explained. One simply cannot defend against suspicions involving third parties, impressions felt elsewhere but not raised, etc. And what comment can I have to "[m]aybe AFCH not working for them was a sign." If one cannot AGF and engage fairly, one should recuse. As to the Diff, see my response, in closing, below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

,, : What is the decision here? A priori rejection, or to be given a chance? I have communicated that I respect, and will try to emulate Robert's reviewing style. As someone said above, most articles are rejected for reasons clear at the face. Who is being protected from whom here? Your call, as I said. I am not arguing my case further. I have to believe I am among the most expert and real-world editorially experienced individuals that you can ever expect to volunteer, here. If you think expertise will join you and be completely devoid of opinions and convictions, then you are correct, you are not looking for my assistance. (And there is something really quite wrong with the place.) But please, do review the diff DGG posted. If that is bad general practice—not calling attention to broad expanses of unsourced content—then indeed, reject my offer to volunteer. Life is to short to argue more fully than I have. The backlog is yours, to deal with as you wish. And yes, Robert, once this is past, if it passes in the affirmative, I will gladly turn to a developer to work out what is at issue with the non-appearing tool. Cheers, and happy holidays to all. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DGG - What's the call? My main comment is that the long discourses by User:Leprof 7272 are too long, difficult to read.  (Also, I agree that tag-bombing with cn doesn't help things.)  I will defer to the judgment of others as to whether to mentor him as a reviewer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert, the various claims made against my capability and judgement appear as multiple links (and in some cases, references with no links, that then have and to be guessed at). The walls of text are simply to defend, and I wish I would not have had to do so. With regard to tagging, I again say, that use of repeat tags is a temporary working situation in specific articles, to mark places within a problematic existing text, so that one can take or from unsourced to fully sourced. (Inline tagged is never an endpoint.) But what does this have to do with reviewing the backlog?  Where does tagging come in to reviewing? (I do not understand the concerns, or direct relevance.) I stand by my example of work at Steelism (to which no one has apparently gone to see, judging by no response), and have no doubt I can be of help here with the backlog. But Primefac and DGG have tired me out as well. I will look here for a final decision, but given the way you have left it, what choice to I have next? Can I appeal to quorum? Is 2 vs 1 sufficient to make this decision? I am beside myself. Cheers.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've spent a few hours over the past week looking at some of the articles you've edited. Certainly some of your changes are helpful, but I don't think the tag-bombing is appropriate. For one thing, it turns articles into unreadable messes. For another, per WP:TAGBOMB, if you're prepared to devote great lengths of time to inserting dozens of cns into articles, why not consider whether that energy would be better spent actually fixing the problems, rather than just offloading them to the hypothetical future Wikipedia editor? I would also recommend reading this short but sweet essay by a Wikipedia administrator: User:Ritchie333/Don't overdose on citation requests.
 * First, if you have indeed spent a few hours looking at my edits, I am honoured and amazed. Thank you for the effort. Second, as far as the essay is concerned, I have read it. As I have noted above, inline tags are placeholders for citations going in, in an in-progress body of editing. An example is a paragraph with a single citation at the end. This gives the impression that the paragraph is sourced. If review shows that only a half-sentence derives from that source, the closing sentence, and no other paragraph content, what does one do? If I am working on the paragraph, I place the appearing citation wherever it does belong (attached to any phrase or sentence), and then note the rest of the sentences in the paragraph that are not yet sourced, with . I do then, indeed, go back and look for citations to begin replacing the tags, one by one. This is often a slow, arduous process, because often the material is untraceable, and sometimes even inaccurate or dead wrong. Bottom line, I am not a tag bomber. I work long hours on the articles that do receive tags, and I often put in many more citations than anyone in an article's history. (Your "offloading" accusation is simply unfair.) That said, it is still not clear to me why we are adjudicating tagging when the question is whether help is wanted reviewing, using a tool for a thumbs up, thumbs down decision, acting initially under the tutelage of Robert. Again, I suggest I am getting far more scrutiny than perhaps any in the history of this effort. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for your question about the relevance of tagging to reviewing, I would wager that it hints at your understanding and application of WP:V. Since WP:V is one of the "policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions", it is probably fair to raise that issue here. As for the "Tseung Kwan O matter", it was discussed on this page; you can find it here. /wiae 🎄 00:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This was helpful, thank you. On the Tseung Kwan O matter, apples and oranges. If anyone thinks that I will miss copyvio, not give guidance, etc. (the TKO issues), then they simply are not engaging me and this discussion. The point of it being raised again, is that one should not have to defend oneself against the actions of unrelated third parties. (At no point did I hold him up as an example; rather, I have indicated Robert as one whose reviewing drew me to believe I could be of help.) Otherwise, I am very thoroughly versed in the content of WP:VERIFY. I allude to it, and direct editors to it constantly. There are a range of attitudes toward it—some editors are unfamiliar, others familiar and reject its demands, etc. I am on the strict interpretation and application end of that spectrum. All here know this. If someone thinks this is bad for Wikipedia, they need to come clean and say it. Until then, I view this as the applicable standard and policy to apply. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Applicant calling for a decision, consistent with AGF
If my dedication, hard work, editorial expertise, and humility in offering to engage with Robert are not enough—if the positives I bring cannot be separated from the sins of others, from concerns based in speculation about reviewing (as I have, to date, done none, and so cannot have yet erred)—then let's get on with it. Every minute more spent here, is a minute more spent not working thought backlogs. I cannot bend over backward any more than I have, or engage more in the substance of questions raised. Otherwise, see the paragraph that begins ",, : What is the decision here?", for the last substantive response I offer. I think you cannot have a more upfront, engaged, and editorial proficient scholar as you are being offered. Use him, or no? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My view is that you do not yet understand the purpose of AfC. The purpose of AfC is not to produce finished articles, or even good articles, or even articles that meet all the necessary standards. It is a screening device to keep out of wikipedia articles that will be rejected, both to remove advertising, and to avoid giving good faith new users a bad initial experience. The requirements are set not by the AfC project, but by the general community, as expressed by the decisions at WP:AFD,  If it will probably  pass AFD, the role of AfC is to accept it, no matter what the reviewer thinks of it. A reviewer cannot justifiably be more demanding than the community. In practice, AfD accepts articles where the main facts of the article are verified, even if all the details are not yet verified. The standard used there is "referencable" not "referenced".  Not everyone agrees--some people want everything referenced to start with, some people just want a hope that there might possibly be references.  Even for BLPs, where technically everything must be referenced, the working standard is that the essential facts must be referenced, as well as everything that might reasonably be challenged. WP:V is policy, but the way policy is interpreted is as important as the written rule.
 * If you are going to hold up articles that would be accepted at AfD, because they do not meet what you think ought to be the standards, you should not be working at AfC, but rather at AfD and Deletion Review, which is where the standards are effectually set. If you want to influence us to have stricter standards, there are many editors there who will agree with you. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't say it much better than that, I won't bother trying; this sums up my feelings pretty well. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What of my actual AfC reviewing have you to base your conclusions on? I have reviewed nothing to date. This is why, in vain, I have called for AGF. There is not a whit of actual, real basis, just prospective "If you are going to…" and "If you want… ". Rather than accept that I have said, that I was drawn to this by Robert's example, and would work with him, you decide, instead, to prejudge. (The cognates of this verb do not escape me.) And from where comes the "you do not yet understand the purpose of AfC"?  There is, as far as I know, no examination required to join the league of reviewers; if there is one, direct me to it, and I will take it. (I understand very well what you have written; you have no actual evidence that I do not. Again, I question the standard of fairness you bring to bear.)


 * What we have, absent actual missteps in reviewing, are imaginings how my "overly high standards" might be applied, extrapolations based on no actual reviewing, For that matter, I am not outside the spectrum of editors vis-a-vis expectations for sourcing—it was seeing Robert's positive influences here that raised in me the thought I could assist with the backlog. But rather than wait until there is evidence of actual missteps, you seem committed to a Minority Report / PreCrime approach to upholding your place in that spectrum against what you imagine mine might be, even with guidance from an experienced reviewer like Robert. I am being convicted, absent real evidence, by your imaginings. If prejudged it is to be, I can accept it. If this stands, I will withdraw, but I will ask outside review of your process here. No wonder there is a backlog. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Long Comments
User:Leprof 7272, User:DGG - I am being asked for my comments. I am not a reviewer of reviewers and have not reviewed the work of User:Leprof 7272. However, they say that they have not done any reviewing yet. I have three viewpoints that I have difficulty reconciling. First, based on discussion of the previous reviews of the editor on other articles, it appears that they have an extremely high standard, that they are applying a standard similar to what they would use in peer-reviewing papers for a scientific journal (and an extremely high standard is appropriate for journals). Do they understand that AFC has a low bar (which most drafts, nonetheless, don't clear). Do they understand that AFC has been much criticized for holding drafts to a high standard?
 * I understand this, especially now, and as I have said, would look to your guidance as to where to set practical standards. I can easily imagine pausing in a review, and querying you about how to proceed. (Though after all this, please do not use the thought of continued relationship with me as a reason to reject!) As for my standard, I would say that I apply the relevant Wikipedia standards to which my writing has been held, and not journal editorial standards—my call is always to WP:VER and WP:OR, and not anything else. I do also refer to what it means to honest compositional work, and in so doing, refer to a widely accepted, often cited standard, but this is to make clear the meaning of basic concepts and definitions often not appearing in the WP documents. But as far as applying science publication standards, no, I don't/won't. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Second, it appears that the issue is not whether they should be working NPP but whether they should be working AFC, a slightly different low bar.
 * As you say, I am not volunteering for new page patrolling, but rather in a place where I can help editors, esp. new editors get off to a good start with their articles. I volunteered for AfC, and that is what I am persisting with, until a final decision. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Third, they are unfortunately (understandably, given humans, but unfortunately) displaying a lot of anger, and are insisting that we need to assume good faith, but good faith is the wrong question. The rule to assume good faith means to assume that every editor is trying to improve Wikipedia, that they are not a vandal, a spammer, or a troll. We already know that Leprof is trying to improve Wikipedia.
 * Thank you for the acknowledgement as to my positive motivation. A small correction. Stridency is not anger, and I am not angry here. Frustrated, as you have expressed, and the length of time it is taking to be given a simple chance to perform some reviews, yes. But no anger on this end.

Please do not harp on AGF; it is the wrong question here. The question is whether they will improve it as an AFC reviewer. Considering all of these things, I will ask them again whether they understand that the job of the AFC (or NPP) reviewer is to distinguish 'adequate and potentially good' stuff from crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, in particular, based on review of a number of your decisions made in rejecting articles, and on reading your comments to individuals that offer guidance. See also below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict. I see that LeProf is hammering away, demanding that we Assume Good Faith (when the real question is that we should Assume Understanding of Rules). It is very unfortunate that they are presenting their case in the form of a trial defense, which this isn’t. So: User:Leprof 7272 – Please state what the job of an AFC reviewer is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On your part, I understand that it is not a trial defense; on the part of another, less sure; the AGF is directed to that other, and I will not further address that point here.
 * (and and ), here is the reply to Robert's question, but see also the sentence beginning, "Yes, I do…": "The core purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered when making this fundamental calculation." I could continue, but you know I have read and internalised these, and have looked at your reviewing. I think both are equally informative, the prescriptions to state expectations, and your examples to see how one good and productive reviewer has acted on the responsibility given them. Once again, no anger, just stridency that this examination has gone on as long as it has, and exasperation at how many reviews we all might have done in the passed time writing and reading. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In closing this matter, first, if it is not to be in the affirmative, allowing me to begin work, and, in particular, should explicitly explain how it is perceived that I cannot be imagined to properly bear the burden of reviewing, such as Robert displayed here ("Recent Article Submission."), and that it is unacceptable and unhelpful to create offerings such as this, which I am wont to do (see other Le Prof comments at AfC pages, such as Draft:Steelism, referenced above). Bottom line, connect the earlier precognitive suppositions with these realities.
 * Second, you might then begin a discussion to add to the "Notice to prospective Articles for Creation reviewers: Criteria" on the Participants page, the expanded set of criteria that is reflected by the scrutiny I am receiving. In particular, please add that it is reasonable to presuppose that an editor might make mistakes, and that it is proper to preemptively prevent a reviewer from joining, because of perceived time-savings to editors in correcting the new editors mistakes. (Robert, this "prophetic criterion" arises from explicit elements in the statements of motivation of others of the participants in this conversation.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of SwisterTwister
While I absolutely hate removing one of our most prolific reviewers, I have seen way too many copyright violations pass under the radar. Some of them such as Draft:Patagonia Mussel and Draft:Moravian Mission School, Leh were caught by more diligent reviewers while still in the draft space, but I know I've deleted at least two in the last two months that were reviewed and accepted (plus things like Chad Robichaux and Purple carrot which had to be gutted and revdel'd). I've left multiple notes on his talk page, and he either ignores or doesn't care about them. This is my last-ditch effort to get his attention.

A copyright check should be the the first thing any AFC reviewer does when checking a page.

The. First. Thing.

If a reviewer can't do their job right, they should be removed, and I've finally hit my limit of AGF with ST. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, I've talked to him a few times on IRC about SCHOOLOUTCOMES and how schools aren't automatically notable, yet he continues to accept unreferenced content such as Draft:International Football Business Institute (IFBI). Primefac (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also starting to doubt if he's actually reading drafts before accepting them. is barely in English. I know that's not really a reason to decline a draft, but that combined with the massive CITEKILL means that something should have been done (either decline it, fix it, or at the very least tag it for cleanup). Primefac (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Primefac, why does his opinion on high schools have the least relevance here? The application of this remains debated. Even if his interpretation is wrong, and  he is wrong in accepting any particular school,afd will correct it. All that's necessary for accepting is a reasonable chance of passing AfD, and, given current debates, it's at worse a toss-up. (I will admit to a personal interest here--my opinion on high schools is the same as his, and as far as I can tell, the actual situation is that  he's merely agreeing with my interpretation. Are you goign to argue against anyone as a reviewer who agrees with my view on this?


 * And for that matter, you say that bad English is not a reason to decline, and yet you blame him for not declining on the basis of bad English./ I'm a little puzzled.


 * Copyvio is another matter, of course, and I need to look at this part.   DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyvio was the main reason I removed him from the project. I can totally accept cv being missed every once in a while (I've missed it before), but I didn't even have to try and I found a half-dozen pages he had accepted or reviewed that were blatant violations. The other stuff were merely extra problems I found.
 * For the schools, I'll concede that his personal opinions have no relevance, but when he's accepting drafts with no usable sources I find issue. What's the point of accepting a draft that will immediately be taken to AFD? But, for the sake of not belabouring a point, I'll leave that as a "you may be right"; it was just something I came across.
 * As for "not declining for bad English" - I didn't say that he should have declined the draft, I'm saying that anything other than simply slapping an acceptance on it would have been good. For example, it took me seconds to add linkrot and rough translation (i.e. normal cleanup tags that any NPR would add). Now at least there's a category saying that it needs cleanup. As it was, the page could have sat for ages without anyone knowing it was barely readable. But again, this wasn't the reason I removed him from the list, it was just something I found looking at his recent reviews and felt I should mention it. In his defence, he's certainly not the only AFC reviewer who does the bare minimum when it comes to cleaning up formatting/refs, but it was just one more thing to add to the pile.
 * I guess the sum total is along the lines of "he's been making a lot of small mistakes that are easy to overlook, but now that I've found this big issue the small stuff is also coming to light." Primefac (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the desirability of correcting impossibly bad English. Normally I correct it if I'm going to accept a draft, rather than just tell the authors to, under the assumption that is easier for me to do it than to teach them. As for reference fixing, I do the bare minimum. That is,I make sure a reference is there, but I pay no attention whatever to formatting it. There are a few hundred people who like fixing reference format, and I let them do it. My feeling is that what;s really important is to make the right decision and either let it get into mainspace or not; it's important not to let delays develop.
 * I especially look for things turned down for trivial reasons, which I jsut accept; and also for things resubmitted repeatedly without improvement, which I either G11 or take to MfD--we've left people working too long on hopeless material, which helps neither them not us.
 * A great many copyvio have gotten past undetected--I think reviewers often do not realize it is not enough to run the programs, but to also check the website. I suspect that probably one-fourth or more of our articles in mainspace about nonprofit organizations are complete or partial copyvio, and maybe one-tenth of the ones on companies. (and similar proportions for visual artists, and quite a few professors). If they're important enough I stubbify,but not if they;re basically promotional.
 * I know I myself miss at least 5% of the copyvios. I've estimated by error rate overall at 2 or 3%, but then I do look for the more difficult articles. I have seen almost nobody get below 1%. For a beginner, the tolerance depends upon the nature of error. In practice, I'd accept 10% error rate on copyvio. People have repeatedly asked for an automated check as a matter of course,--personally I don't think it's a bad idea, but they both miss too much, and also cause a lot of false positives, where only trivial material like names and lists are copied. How hard I look depends upon how suspicious the style seems to be, but it can take quite a while to learn that.
 * It's good to compare notes.   DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
It really kills me to do it, but I'm afraid I have to support in his decision. I really like and I think they are a very good person. Unfortunately, I just see a long pattern of undue hastiness in their actions, for which SwisterTwister has been brought to ANI in the past several times. I've even defended him there on more than one occasion, of which I hope they remember when they read this. Also concerning, there appears to be a pattern of not acknowledging mistakes or constructive criticism. Concerns are raised frequently on ST's talk page, but are just removed without any response (or at best, a quick denial in the edit summary). I understand that some things might slip through, but there's just far too much here to ignore. Even accounting for the high volume, the miss rate (percentage wise) is just too high. I really hope ST will just slow down, take better care when working with articles, and start collaborating more effectively. I think they have a huge amount of potential here and I'd hate to see it wasted. Waggie (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than comment on SwisterTwister's editing, I will posit that it does not help Wikipedia to have AfC reviewers who are approving inappropriate content. It does not help to reduce the backlog at the cost of bringing junk content into mainspace. Repeated problems, unacknowledged by the editor, indicate unfitness for editing. I would be glad to hear SwisterTwister's explanation for this apparent pattern but I have to agree with Primefac's conclusion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What happened to having consensus? I don't care who you are or whom its about, removing an experienced editor from anything, shouldnt just be Ill post something and then act on the thing im posting... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Waggie and I agree with Primefac's action and DGG hasn't clearly disagreed. It's been ten days and you're the only one who seems to oppose this. SwisterTwister hasn't even responded to this discussion to defend their actions. What would you have this WikiProject do? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , first off DGG hasn't agree either, so therefore neutral, however, lets take a look at primefac's contribs, notice the collision of ST and primefac's edits way before any of this brought up and I'm not talking about AfC i'm talking AfD related edits... What about the sudden AN post once I added ST back... Something smells way too fishy... I suggest that DR be sought along with the AN post... I'm done with all the uncivility and uncalled for attitude towards ST within end 2016-present. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have genuine, honest-to-goodness question for you. Did you even read why I removed ST, and why Chris and Waggie supported my decision? Because if this is just a case of "I'm buddies with ST and I think this is unfair," well, life's not fair. ST made his decisions, and I made mine. I gave him plenty of notices regarding copyright violations and checking them when he checks a draft. Leave the conspiracies for someplace else. Primefac (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do disagree with removing the right. The problems can be dealt with. I've given him advice befor and it's helped; I will do so again.  DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the issue,, is that you seem to be the ONLY one he listens to. As explained above, other people have genuinely and desperately tried to work with him and he simply refuses to listen. That's not collaborative behavior.  Must everyone all go to you in order to get him to collaborate? We've indeffed people for far less here, what makes SwisterTwister special in that regard? Waggie (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not special. I try to defend people who are being simultaneously complained about on multiple fronts at the same time if there is anything rational to be said for them. Perhaps it's the wrong approach, but I am primarily concerned with fairness (as can be seen my one or two of my arb votes). Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I unfortunately fail, and I admit that sometimes they prove in fact incorrigible,. It's letting things spill over from other issues, which is beginning to look like wikihounding. I've also observed  the concentrated effort by multiple editors over the past few months to find a wide variety of possible approaches towards removing him, with several of those suggesting a total ban.  (Such as two successive ANIs, the first for using too brief deletion reasons, the second for making too verbose.)  I am not implying that  Primefac is at fault in this, or that he is part of a campaign, or is acting in other than good faith. But I am saying that I personally would never try to remove a userright from a good faith editor with whom I had major disagreements on an unrelated current issue, or in fact from one with whom I had major disagreements at all. I do not trust myself to be objective in such circumstances. I know this is stricter than the policy limitations on involved admins, but that's my rule for myself. I know in my past life I have sometimes done otherwise with very unfortunate consequences, and I am not stupid enough to risk repeating it here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, . I agree with you there in many respects. I believe there have been attempts to "rail-road" him in the past, quite unjustly, by people following him around the project looking for reasons to pester him. I don't feel that this falls in that category, nor the other concerns brought up at the recent WP:AN discussion and some of the AN and ANI discussions regarding him definitely have had at least some merit (even some of the ones I've defended him at, myself). Waggie (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * of course they have some merit. Every one of us here is imperfect, and most aspects of anyone's work can be plausibly challenged at least in part if someone wishes to do so. He makes mistakes more often than he should; but so do I. The only thing I claim credit for is that I correct them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, none of us are perfect, myself perhaps less perfect than many. I'm just concerned that the quantity of his mistakes, and the haste in which he makes them without acceptance of constructive criticism, are just too much. It's very sad, as I truly wish (as I have said defending him at ANI on more than once occasion) he would simply slow down and take his time with things, and try to work more collaboratively with others. I really like him, and hope that he will understand that I'm not trying to be mean to him or about him in this. Waggie (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm in 's camp at the moment; I don't necessarily have anything against ST (even though I do disagree with him on a few things), but if any of the AFC reviewers were making this many mistakes I would have removed them (and I have done so, given the various posts above). A few times after making this thread and reading through the descriptions I was half-tempted to add him back in a show of good faith, but the fact that he has yet to respond (wilfully or otherwise) to this thread (or, indeed, the AN thread) makes me less inclined to AGF. Hopefully all he needs is some time to process this all, because he is a prolific reviewer, and the permanent loss of his assistance would be unfortunate. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have come in late. I don't yet know what my opinion is, which perhaps means that I don't understand because everyone else seems to have their minds made up.  However, my first question is, if I think that a page is ready to accept (and they too seldom are), how do I check for copyright, other than looking at the references to see if they have been copied?  Sometimes, more often at NPP than at AFC, I see a page that I am almost certain is a copyright violation, simply because it reads like an academic page.  I then try Googling on the text, and sometimes find the source, and sometimes don't.  Are there special techniques to find copyright violation?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, please check out Earwig's Copyvio Tool, it does all the heavy lifting. It's not perfect, but catches quite a bit. The one trick is making sure you haven't found reverse copyvio (ie: Someone lifting content from Wikipedia, but usually not the case for Drafts). Waggie (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that only works for material accessible on the internet. For material where the style indicates copyvio but the source does not appear on these tools, the appropriate tag is "copypaste" and a list on W{:Copyright problems. In some instances it's so obvious that I will remove the material--for example if there are reference numbers in the text in the style used in academic writing that do not correspond to any actual references in the article, or such tell-tale phrase as "in the next chapter.... A proper search for copyvio in printed books requires someone who is so familiar with the literature that they will remember enough to find the material by scanning the actual copies. Some of us can do this in limited fields, but we can rarely count on this.   This is one of the inevitable limitations of our not being experts.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * Not sure how this works, how exactly do we proceed? For consensus, would a poll be appropriate or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , nothing to do. ST has clearly not expressed an interest in coming back. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't commented simply because no one seems to actually view the outside POV: No one ever notified me of an actual removal beforehand in executing it. Presuming that I'm not coming back completely goes against how this community should work. None of what's happened follows WP:Consensus policy and therefore cannot be taken a policy-based event. Like with others, I'm especially unwilling to comment when there's personal attacks on everything I do, including articles. Such events especially violate WP:Consensus as it has to be independent, not people involved in other current controversies. Without a formal consensus, there's absolutely nothing supporting a removal, especially not when one of the 3 doing it is the proposer. SwisterTwister   talk  15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting- I also disagree with the somewhat unilateral removal of one of the most prolific and talked about reviewers on this project on such an obscure talk page- I was not aware ST had been removed until his AN thread. I view ST as very valuable in declining the most promotional garbage so that other reviewers, myself included, are not demotivated by having to go through several 'no-hope' drafts before being able to provide feedback on a draft that shows promise/can be promoted. I can certainly see how having AN thread after AN thread about you can be demoralising and start looking like HOUNDing, but clearly ST has now taken a break from AfC for a while, perhaps if he acknowledges some of the criticism or even just a quick note that he'll check through drafts he wants to promote a bit more carefully, then I support adding ST back as a reviewer- I think he's definitely a net positive. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , while I agree that ST's work on the project was prolific and certainly helped keep the backlog down, how many warnings are we supposed to give someone before enough is enough? I had left at least two (if not three or four) notes on his page regarding copyright violations, and mentioned it at least as many times on IRC. I'm also not the only one who has commented on the issue; it's been brought up on his talk page as well as the various ANI discussions in which he's been involved.
 * If it were just an issue of questionable notability or cleanup or any of the other half-dozen minor things that I have been overlooking, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But when he consistently (and in my opinion intentionally) does not check for copyright violations, that becomes a liability issue for Wikipedia as a whole. I have no issues with adding him back to the project, but only if he actually admits that he hasn't been checking for copyright violations and agrees to check for them in the future. His response above, however, is rather telling - he'd rather play the "everyone hates me" game than actually admit that he could improve on something. This happens every single time his conduct gets brought up, which makes me think that he really isn't interested in a collaborative process.
 * As DGG said above, no AFC reviewer is 100% accurate when searching for copyvios, and while that's certainly true (I know I've missed a few) there's a huge difference between even 50% accuracy and 0% accuracy 75% and 35% (see below) . I'm not asking for perfection, I'm just asking that he put a little effort into it. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect ST and think they are a good editor and I appreciate the work they have done in AFC, however I'd like to point out that I don't believe the issue is someone missing a copyvio in declines but actually moving content into mainspace that has significant copyright violations. I'm not talking obscure searches as a requirement but we have a tool that is meant for this and that should be the first thing any reviewer does before moving something into main space. We also have a script that allows use of this tool in one click so it's not too burdensome on reviewers. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac, if I took you literally, you are saying that he has missed detecting  100% of the copyvios in the drafts he has examined?   That's an extraordinary statement, and I think you might want to be careful before using this sort of  rhetorical  exaggeration.    DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are completely right, and I apologize for making uninformed exaggerations based on a lack of evidence. It was improper of me, and I have updated my response above accordingly.
 * In an effort to be as fair to ST as possible, I crunched the numbers on his last 250 edits to a deleted draft. Out of those edits, there were 30 pages that were deleted as G12, and only 11 of those he tagged himself (the full results/numbers are here). Three of the 30 were drafts he accepted, and one even had the G12 tags on it before he reviewed the page. That gives an "accuracy" rating of about 37% (as an interesting point of note, of the 22 pages he accepted, 11 of them were later deleted, but it's possible we all have numbers like that based on what I've seen at Article Alerts)
 * As has been said repeatedly by every person commenting on this thread, no one is perfect. However, missing copyright violations at least 63% of the time is really not a good thing. I and other members of the AFC team have removed editors from the AFCH list who are not performing to high standards, and if this were anyone other than ST I bet no one would have batted an eye. And to reiterate (again), this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards ST. He and I have our differences, but I know he's doing good things for the project by keeping the backlogs down, and thus I don't pay too close attention to things that bother me personally. Copyright violations don't fall into that category, though, and so here we are.
 * ST has yet to confirm or deny whether he actually checks for copyright violations as part of reviewing drafts (in any of the times I've tried to discuss CVs with him). So in order to resolve the question that I have been asking myself for months, and finally culminating in this thread, and which I hope he'll stop being so god-damn defensive about and actually answer, I ask:, were you checking for CVs as part of reviewing drafts (i.e. checking cv for every draft)? Primefac (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, so this is the reason the backlog has been rising out of control again!
 * I don't know the history and the merit of either parties issues but there appears to be history between SwisterTwister and Primefac but I remembered seeing SwisterTwister oppose Primefacs RfA here citing past issues. As such this could be seen as personal and it would have seamed prudent for Primefac to have either put this up for discussion first before taking action or asking a non involved admin to double check to avoid the percieved conflict affecting the decision.
 * On the main issue of copyright the claim above by Primefac does suggest 100% failure which I believe only an admin can check as in most cases copyright violations would have been deleted and I assume only admins can see the history of deleted articles. Unfortunately SwisterTwister does not use Twinkle and have a CSD log, and I don't believe they post notices to users talk pages with all rejections so ancillary evidence either way is hard to find. However the "0% accuracy" can be refuted with this Draft:Loom Systems where SwisterTwister did raise as cpy vio and Primefac did the redacting. Other examples this now resurrected via OTRS, this, this and probably this. However, it is not just Primefac that has brought copyright violations up to SwisterTwister, as Diannaa did here
 * In conclusion I think that if this action of correct or not depends on what the real level of missed copyright issues is? With the amount of work SwisterTwister has done in AfC it's likely a significant number of mistakes will exist and some of these will have been noticed by others. If it is possible for admins to scan edit summaries including deleted ones they could see an indication of how many times SwisterTwister has flagged for copyvio/per reviews and compare to other reviewers? Due to the past history between SwisterTwister and User:Primefac, and the incorrect "0% accuracy" claim I think it would be prudent for another admin to review this decision. Just my two cents, All the Best KylieTastic (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , it might be worth checking out my post directly above yours - it took me a while to write so we had an edit conflict. I actually did run those numbers, with an outcome of "ST finds CVs about 37% of the time". You speak of a "significant number of mistakes" potentially being made, but personally that seems like a rather significant percentage. As a minor note, ST rarely uses constructive edit summaries, so searching through the ESs will be a rather pointless venture. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update and clarifications Primefac. I know ST may not put 'copyright' themselves in the edit summaries, but I was thinking of the AFCH tool edit summary for a copyvio decline. Also I would say I'm more concerned in the percentage of missed copyvios that get accepted than just in drafts edited, as by that judgement it would be don't touch a draft unless your doing a full review. I often do minor checks, tweaks, tidy up while doing other RL work, so probably have missed many by that metric. Unfortunately it does appear that if ST used the standard helper tools such as "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" and Twinkle, as well as clearer edit summaries a lot of these issues would not have existed. On a side note we really could do with a bot that runs the Copyvio Detecting and tags any articles with high percentage to mitigate this issue for all reviewers. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the pages he marked as copyright were using AFCH, which gives a good summary. Regarding "just commenting": as I remarked on my "results" page linked above, my main concern was "pages deleted as G12 that ST had done something with" - all but one of these he had actually reviewed, so while there were deleted pages in which he simply commented on (mostly G11 or G13), the actual CV deletions were pages on which he had reviewed.
 * As for making the copyvios tool automated: it's been discussed multiple times over the years, and because it does cost the WMF a small amount of money per check, fully automating it to check every submitted draft would end up costing them a surprisingly large amount of money. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've actually stated this before but I always had checked for copyvio on every Draft (and going far back into my reviewing will show this, including mainspace) so the fact there's ones listed above is not and should not affect the overall number of Drafts I've reviewed. Edit summaries should have no affect on whether the reviewing is effective or not. Without allowing Drafts to be reviewed again and have Drafts checked for copyvio, nothing can be determined as a fact or not if it hasn't happened and if we won't allow the chance again in the future. SwisterTwister   talk  15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm up for allowing ST back on as they have agreed to have their next AfC contributions to be checked through to see if they are still accepting copyvios. If he is still accepting copyvios above the normal error rate for an AfC reviewer after being let back on, then he should be removed more permanently. Primefac- thanks for the statistics above and for your detailed response earlier- what % of accepted drafts were G12 deleted? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the three mentioned (out of 22 accepts), which is about 15% deletion rate. I'd say that's a perfectly acceptable missed-the-cv-and-it-was-later-deleted percentage, compared to ~60% for drafts. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Apparently, based on Diannaa's post below, the error rate based on this (relatively) small sample size is rather off compared to the actual figures. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We actually do have a bot checking for copyvio on all additions over a certain size (reports are here). It checks article space and draft space (but not userspace, Wikipedia space, or talk pages). At the time I complained to SwisterTwister on 8 March 2017, there were several such cases every day of userspace drafts they approved having enough copyvio to trigger a bot report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In my  experience with bot reports, the problems they identify are of varying degrees of importance or even existence. For the sort of articles I work on, about half seem to be uncopyrightable material.  I need to look at the specific problems myself, and I am grateful they have been complied.   DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister is a prolific reviewer here, at NPP, and in various XfD. They do good work generally, and a lot of it. The only mistake free editors are the ones who do nothing. It's very easy to take someone for a public flogging at ANi where editors who have no evidence and no research saying crazy things. It's time we stop beating on our most productive editors. I urge adding this hard worker back into the project. Legacypac (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm uneasy about this thread. ST is one of the good guys and tags a whole lot of junk. Reading the comments above, it may well be that he might benefit from slowing down and going for quality rather than quantity, at AfC, but I'm reluctant to see sanctions against this editor Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we remove all the reviewers who are less than perfect, who will be left. Very few of the most experienced editors seem to want to work there.but it's a necessary function. What we need to do is keep track of the ones wee do have and teach them how to do it right.. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think we also expect when users are given criticism for their actions, they should at the very least acknowledge and respond to the post. ST has posted a grand total of two times in a thread that is now over a month old with almost 50 comments; his responses have bordered on passive aggression and sum up to little more than "I'm not going to bother defending myself if everyone is against me." It's unfortunate that he feels this way; I'm not "against him", I'm just acting as a reasonable course of action based on multiple warnings, notes, and discussions surrounding the issues. If he has no desire to defend his actions and at least make an attempt to say "I'll try to be more thorough" (rather than what I interpret from his last statement, which is "I do a check, but that's immaterial because I do so much reviewing"), then I see no reason to reinstate his name to the list. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, I acknowledged the concerns above and I will continue doing what I once had which was copyvio check manually with the bot, I mentioned it and others support the restoration. Stating this and my open willingness of returning is something I stated clear. I absolutely never said I do a check, but that's immaterial because I do so much reviewing". The only thing I ever asked and I repeated it many times above and it's a fair honest request:via That I had been consulted before such a serious action, especially because I never actually got a talk page notification, I was only notified when the system placed a notice itself. So I have both acknowledged and responded, many times now.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Your willingness to help, despite how it seems, is much appreciated. I do notice that you seem to be working to join such discussions now, they are critical in collaborative editing environments. Thank you! Regarding the action of removing you from the participants list, I agree that Primefac should have notified you when he did it, and I wag an admonitory finger in his direction for failing to do so. He did, however, alert you on several occasions to the copyvio issues and failed to get a satisfactory response, so you were made aware that there were problems. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, I was not aware that it was required to remove someone from the Participants list if there were clear problems, though perhaps Primefac should have requested an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to do the deed. It's water under the bridge now, I think all parties have been chastised enough (another admonitory finger-wag in Primefac's direction). I think the only thing moving forward is to understand how the copyvio check process can be more effective for you moving forward as there obviously were problems. As copyvio is the #1 item for quick-failing (and deleting) a draft, is obviously very important to make sure these get done properly. Quality over speed is more important, especially in this regard. How can we improve that part of the process for you? There's a script to help check copyvios, do you need help getting that installed? I don't see a problem putting you back on the list if we can get that sorted, and if you're willing to slow down to check things more thoroughly. Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance of a reply? I'd quite like to see you back on the reviewing team. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented about it above. SwisterTwister   talk  15:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you find collaboration so damned difficult ? Nick (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , hi there. You commented above, but didn't respond to my message, which I believe is what was asking for. The most critical parts were that you commented: "I will continue doing what I once had which was copyvio check manually with the bot...". However, if you continue exactly what you were doing before, then nothing will have changed and we still have a problem. I asked if there was some way we could help your copyvio checks become more effective. There's options: there's a script that will help do the copyvio check right from the draft, we can help you learn what is and isn't copyvio, etc. I was really hoping that you were open to better collaboration, and I was really trying to find a way to move forward in that spirit. I think you have a lot to offer if you can accept constructive criticism. If you can't accept constructive criticism, then I'm not sure what else to do. I'm trying to present constructive solutions here. Waggie (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Weggie's revert of adding ST back into to the list. ST commented above. There are plenty of people on the list who rarely do AfC work. If ST is not on the list they can't do AfC so we can't see if they will come back. We should let them have the opportunity to continue and stop hassling them. I'm sure they recognize any copyvio sloppiness and will be more aware - and copyvio is sometimes hard to detect. I'm also sure ST can correctly identify copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , so far ST hasn't shown any interest in returning, even if he has the tentative support of most of the people in the conversation. He's barely made any contribution to this discussion, and hasn't made any reply to the most recent requests to reconsider rejoining and just being more careful about it. That speaks loads in my mind. If and when he's ready to return, he's able to re-add himself to the list. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, if ST adds themself back in the list you will not revert? Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for coming here to discuss. ST was removed by Primefac after to letting too many copyvios pass after attempts at discussion on his talk page. We've tried to work here with ST to help improve the effectiveness of his copyvio checking, but all he's committed to do is to "...continue doing what I once had which was copyvio check manually with the bot...", which apparently wasn't enough, as copyvios were being let through. I've asked him directly if we can find a way to make his checks more effective, but he didn't respond to my above comments in 7 days. He may feel as though he's responded to people, but he's not actually addressing the concerns that his previous efforts at copyvio checking were inadequate. As he doesn't appear to be willing to collaborate on something so critical to Wikipedia (copyvios is a serious legal issue), I can't support a reinstatement at this time. For the record, , ST actually has stated interest in returning. Waggie (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The confusing data presented here does not convince me their failure to detect rate is below standard. Forcing them to admit an unproven problem before being freed to continue is not right. I'm confident several editors will be watching their future promotions for copyvio trying to prove their is a problem. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with you, but we do need SwisterTwister to be prepared to engage and work with the AFC project, to stop and ask questions when they come across an issue, to be prepared to seek a second and third opinion, to generally be collegial and collaborative. I was prepared to revert your (re)addition of ST back onto the list, not because of what has happened in the past, but because of my concerns of the present and how it bodes for the future, none of my concerns surrounding their ability to collaborate with other editors are being assuaged with their head in the sand approach currently demonstrated. Nick (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's confusing. There was a clearly proven problem where multiple drafts were accepted without effective copyvio checks (Primefac gives a few examples at the beginning of this thread), and when discussion was attempted by Primefac on ST's talk page, the attempts were ignored or dismissed. The lack of willingness to collaborate is a serious issue, as is the copyvio problem. ST's responses haven't convinced me in any way that either problem will be resolved in future. If consensus is to add him back anyway, then it's out of my hands, I just want to make sure my concerns are noted. Thank you for your time. Waggie (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi regards "so far ST hasn't shown any interest in returning" -- I notice you said the same thing in the earlier revert here - I would argue this is factually not true as SwisterTwister used AFCH on the 17th, 19th and 21st. Usage demonstrates "interest in returning" and the number of edits would maybe indicate a more careful approach. I too am frustrated by SwisterTwister's lack of just a simple response stating they understand the cpy vio mistakes and put extra effort in that area. However I also understand they may just feel embattled and its pointless if admin(s) are against them. Maybe if you could put the simple terms you think need to be agreed too that ST can either agree to or not. I would think from this wall of text it boils down to agreeing to check for cpy vio on every article before accepting, and failure of more than x% will result in re-removal, but I would suggest the evidence of failure should be first posted here for rebuttal/discussion before final action is taken or not. Well that's just my two-cents in trying to reach a resolution here. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, "... put the simple terms you think need to be agreed too that ST can either agree to or not" is exactly what I thought I and others did, and got no response. The problem is that every concern put to him either gets ignored or dismissed and the concerned person either just throws up their hands out of frustration, or they pursue it and it turns into this and he becomes "embattled" and then people rush to defend him because he's being "bullied". It's a pattern where he just keeps ending up at various noticeboards, and eventually enough people come in to defend him so that nothing actually changes in the long run and we just end up back in the same place a few months later. It's very frustrating for people who work in the same project areas as he does to frequently have to keep coming back to this point every time they want to try and address a problem with him. I tried for almost a year to help him improve things but every attempt was dismissed. I defended him at noticeboard discussions, I tried to explain why people were upset, and I just got nowhere. To you, , there is no great conspiracy against you and we don't hate you. We want to just talk with you and have you actually hear our concerns and take them seriously. Ignoring people that come to your talk page, or responding dismissively in an edit summary while deleting their comment is effectively hanging up the phone in the middle of a conversation (extremely rude). That is not collaborative behavior. Waggie (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To be honest I'm still not seeing anything where he says anything other than "Presuming that I'm not coming back completely goes against how this community should work" that implies he wants to come back, but the return to the tools is good enough for me. Hopefully everyone walks away from this having thought about some things. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So he's back in then? I think a message should be left explaining that he's back on the list, we'd value his contributions to the project and a gentle reminder to check for copyvios- (I don't mind writing it). jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but under protest. Mainly because of reasons I won't bother getting into to avoid aspersions, but also because I'm sick of fighting this battle. ST is acerbic, refuses to cooperate with others in most circumstances, and has an incredibly negative attitude towards anyone who is remotely critical of his work. That being said, I do value his contributions to the project, as he does knock down a ton of useless garbage that clogs up the project, but at no point in this entire discussion has he ever hinted that he might change what he's doing. That is my issue. He was notified multiple times about the cv thing, seemingly refused to change, and when something was done about it all he says is I will continue doing what I once had and blames others for the hassle, which implies no remorse or indication that things will change. That's all I was looking for, and what it seemed like (without putting words in their mouth) was looking for as well. However, seeing as how I'm unlikely to ever get that, and there's mounting pressure to put our golden boy back on a pedestal with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, I'll just go back to deleting copyvios and reviewing Very Old drafts like I was before.
 * He seems to have figured out he's back on the list without a talk page message, but if you want to say something knock yourself out. Maybe he'll listen to you. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it's not been fun for anyone involved but hopefully this will all be water under the bridge and things will work out. Lets just wait and see and judge the future on what does and doesn't happen. Hopefully no more cpy vio concerns, and the backlog being reduced, and everyone will be happy. KylieTastic (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)