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

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


 * This has not been decided yet and as both  the previous and current  RfC state, will  be discussed when the criteria have been established.
 * There are several possibilities: a technical  MedWiki tweak -  which  is most  unlikely, or a technical  access to  the helper script or something  like it, or a social  one on  examination whether the candidate meets the new criteria or not. If  users persist  in  reviewing  without  having  passed the scrutiny, there is of course the possibility  of imposing  sanctions after a request  to  refrain  from  rewiewing but  this is more difficult to  control especially  as there may  not  be anything  actually  contentious about  their reviews.
 * One of the main objectives therefore is not  only  to  secure the services of competent  reviewers, but  also  to  keep  track  on  who  is actually  reviewing  submissions which  is not  currently  always possible, and hence poor reviews slip  through the net, as they frequently do  at  NPP, for example.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A technical tweak to the core software is more than unlikely, it's not possible. It's also not possible to restrict access to the scripts, they can always be loaded through the custom JS interface.  Social enforcement is the only option, and therefore this shouldn't be a userright, and this RfC should be reframed in terms of how we will do the social enforcement.  Gigs (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * On en.Wiki any  user can nominate any  article for deletion.
 * The AfC permission will allow a user to  carryout  all  the current tasks that  fall  within  the remit  of AfC. Currently  there are no controls over who has sufficient experience to  do  this which has produced an accumulation  of issues that  led the community  to  decide it  is time to introduce some criteria of experience.
 * Once the criteria have been established, the community will  decide on how access to  the AfC system will be either technically  or socially  controlled. Users with  permission  who  persistently  make poor reviews or who  abuse the system  for their own ends will  almost  certainly  have their technical  permission  removed, or will  probably  be T-Banned from  the process if it  is a social  permission. I  hope this answers your questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


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


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

Noted AWB requirements
On Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage it says users need only give a reason for wanting to use the software if they have less than 500 mainspace edits. On the Commons, one must give a reason but here on WP it doesn't seem to be the case. Best wishes, Rain City 471 (whack!) 22:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommend suspending this discussion for a month or two until AFC and DRAFT are coherent
With the new DRAFT: namespace, WT:WPAFC is discussing how to best integrate with that namespace.

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

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


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


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