Page semi-protected

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While the opinions are fairly well split between the three options, but with Options 2 and 3 having the same base rationale (i.e. "keep separate") they outweigh the singular option to merge the two. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about whether AfC and NPP rights should be merged or kept separate. This RfC is an attempt to gauge the community consensus on the relationship between these rights. What should the relationship between permissions for Articles for Creation and New Page Patroller be?

  • Option 1 Merge these two rights - the work is similar and share an interface, so editors should have similar experience and capabilities. Someone with one right should be fully capable of performing the tasks of the other right. The details of how this merge would happen should be worked out in subsequent discussion.
  • Option 2 Keep separate - Because AfC reviews are routinely checked by new page patrollers, AfC may be granted to editors who are missing some experience or capability expected of new page patrollers
  • Option 3 Keep separate - The experience and capabilities needed for each right are different and so the permissions are not comparable

Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


  • I think there should be explanation of what "Merge these two rights" means to help people make informed comments. NPP is a software-defined usergroup. AfC by contrast, is a user script which usage is restricted unless one is added to this list. So if we "merge" them, what does that mean?. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Ammarpad, I've edited slightly to reflect that should Option 1 gain consensus details would be worked out. My goal with this is to stay big picture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The easiest solution would be to have the AfC script check if the editor is in the NPP group instead of whether they're on the AfC whitelist. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Barkeep, please link where have there been lot of discussion about whether AfC and NPP rights should be merged? It would give a context to whether there is a need for this RfC and whether this solves any current issue existing at the project. Currently, things are progressing pretty calmly and I don't see any need for this RfC. Thanks, Lourdes 03:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the conversation that has occured at this RfC has been productive, which was my hope above all else in starting this, and I'm glad you've been a part of it below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Please could you answer this important question asked by Lourdes? A direct answer would be most helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: it is possible for any auto confirmed editor to publish a draft without the accesss to the script. The script just makes it automatic like closing AfD with twinkle. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2. Since accepted drafts at AfC still have to go through NPP, it makes sense to grant AfC access at a lower level of trust than NPP. The risk of merging them is that an unqualified editor (or one with a nefarious agenda) could accept drafts and review them without anyone getting a second look. That said, some editors will have an interest in one and not the other, so a track record at AfC should not be seen as a mandatory prerequisite for NPP. But either way, they should not be handed out simultaneously without being evaluated at both venues. – bradv🍁 05:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Support to the extent that it is positive with respect to efficiencies of tool writing and management. New Page Reviewing, and AfC reviewing requires basically the same skill set, a skill set proven by successful experience at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    SmokeyJoe, I would endorse the view that a track record at AfD is a prerequisite for both perms. – bradv🍁 14:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 contains a terrible notion. People with limited experience should not be invited to AfC review. Instead, ther should edit, and then they should get AfD experience. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 includes a wrong statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 has an assumption - some AfCs reviewed by those with NPP rights are also patrolled by that editor, other editors leave it to another patroller. That discussion has been had and left to the reviewer/patroller to make their own judgement on whether to do both. The fundamental point still stands (a reviewer without NPP rights would mean it was checked twice, so lower access barriers might be permissable), but clarification could be beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: what does any of this have to do with WP:PERM? We don't handle "AFC" here, do you want us to? If the AFC people want to allow access based on 'patroller' that is up to them and should be discussed there, while we do handle AWB here at PERM, I don't really want to add in AFC checklisting. — xaosflux Talk 11:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Keep in mind, YAAHS was never "fully" gadgetized and just loads a personal script from @Enterprisey:. Enterprisey, any comments on this? — xaosflux Talk 13:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: I think it was to allow Enterprisey to maintain the script without (int)admin intervention. That is bad practice, from a security standpoint, but at any rate he is now an int-admin so we should move it. I asked about this last year and he gave the go-ahead. MusikAnimal talk 19:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    Xaosflux, I've noticed a number of AfC reviewers getting NPP perms without asking, even if they have been previously denied at PERM. I think this RfC can provide some important clarification on whether that is appropriate. – bradv🍁 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Administrators should have the right to grant NPP perm to editors who they feel are trusted, whether the request has been made at the PERM desk or otherwise. If an editor has been refused NPP previously by an administrator, and if another administrator has granted the NPP away from the desk, then the appropriate method would be to point the same out to the granting administrator. However, forcing administrators to "only grant NPP to editors who request the same at PERM" may be a very narrow view. And irrespective of your statement, this RfC is not about the venues, but about merging the two rights or not merging. Lourdes 14:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think I suggested that. I'm merely suggesting that there is a natural progression between the two perms in order of risk to the project, and that should be matched by the level of trust required. But that obviously doesn't work if people are given NPP automatically when they request AfC access. – bradv🍁 14:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    "there is a natural progression between the two perms in order of risk to the project" – This view is not represented in the guidelines to granting these two rights (the current guidelines are absolutely similar for both). If you wish to address this specific issue, or if you wish to propose that editors with AfC rights should NOT have NPP rights (to allow your proposed double check system), you should initiate a clear RfC with these objectives. The current RfC, as it is worded, does not propose this. Thanks, Lourdes 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    I didn't start this RfC, but perhaps when this concludes we can reevaluate the criteria for the different perms. While the numbers are the same for both, some of the other criteria are different. For example, AfC currently requires experience with deletion, but NPP doesn't mention this. But NPP requires experience with moving pages, which isn't as relevant to AfC. – bradv🍁 14:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed. Let me also add a line from the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers page that may support your argument: "It is very possible that regular reviewers from the AfC team will apply for the New Page Reviewer flag; this is highly desirable given their related expertise." Lourdes 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2, per Bradv rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per SmokeyJOe; the criteria for both are about the same and both are granted by administrators; and in both cases, administrators have the discretion to disregard guideline in case they perceive the editor needs more experience. Lourdes 13:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep separate, these are both issued "admin discretion"; patroller access encompass more than just "new articles" - it is "new pages" while afc is only about "articles". "AFC script access" doesn't actually give anyone any special access to anything that they can't already do - while patroller access does. All that being said, if the AFC regulars would like to request that Enterprisy add something like (or groups_in 'patroller') to his script, fine by me. — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lourdes: I'm speaking from a technical perspective on that matter only, not the guidelines for that wikiproject. — xaosflux Talk 14:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux part of the reason I brought it to PERM is that I think depending on the consensus here it has permissions related implications (as bradv already noted). If the consensus is that AfC is a stepping stone, then the current quasi-perm of granting access to the script suffices. If the consensus is that they're not comparable or that they should be merged perhaps we rethink about how we handle articles in AfC (which is related, but distinct from an article in draft space). I think this is a fundamental question, where consensus has perhaps changed since the last RfC, that can then clue in where, if anywhere, productive future conversations might occur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't this about the need for 'checks and balances'? I'm currently minded to support Option 3, and have the utmost respect for both NPP and for AFC reviewers. Let me explain my perspective: I believe I'm a reasonably competent editor (intending to go for WP:RfA soon). I already have NPP permissions (not hugely active), but for the last year have not felt I've had anything like enough free time to commit to the  WP:AFC process, and what I envisage as the much heavier engagement needed to respond to AFC rejections and follow ups. Whilst the work is similar, I do occasionally see decisions at AFC that don't match with NPP perceptions. Having two different groups of editors working in these two related areas seems to me to offer very sound and sensible 'checks and balances', and an opportunity to limit damage done through incompetence of one editor who is given one or other of those permissions. (I could provide a recent diff of such a concern, but it might be deemed invidious for me to do so). Whilst one activity/permission could be a good stepping-stone to the other, I do see a number of editors who like to hatcollect. I currently believe retaining the 'status quo' of Option 3 makes a lot of sense. Maybe it's too late in the evening for me to appreciate the subtleties of the above interactions, but I see no overwhelming arguments to merge these permissions, or why doing so would help protect the encyclopaedia in any way. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a significant number of AfC declines that don't line up with NPP ones due to notability grounds (an NPP one referring to delete would need to do a good BEFORE check, whereas AfC is based off the present sources) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Yep, I do know that. So, keeping permissions separate and having two different sets of reviewing editors (some who've applied for both permissions, and others who have applied just for one of them) seems to me to provide the best checks and balances. The skillsets and commitment needed are indeed different. Thus Option 3 seems most appropriate to me, yet Option 2 delivers the identical result. I don't really see why Option 2 and Option 3 rationale's weren't merged together. Just not Option 1. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I strongly support what bradv said. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 has the most correct rationale. Options 2 & 3 contain incorrect or poor rationales. However, the rationales are not decisive. Poorly posed RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I kind of feel like this is a solution in search of a problem, especially because of the concerns raised by others that AfC isn't even a permission per se. However, I'd support an automatic addition of all NPP reviewers to the AfC list, since I'm hard pressed to think of a reason that an NPP reviewer wouldn't be suitable for AfC reviews. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: The permissions are for different purposes. NPP is ideally one of the best ways to double check to ensure sub-standard content (i.e. Spam) isn't being passed out from AFC to the mainspace and then rarely (if ever) looked at. I do think there might a use case for including the membership of NPP into the AFC list (as indicated by @Rosguill: above) but the reverse should not be automatically granted. Hasteur (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    If that is desired, it could be possible for the script to check "are you NPP OR on the list", thus automatically making all NPP's not cause a script reject. — xaosflux Talk 03:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 these should have been merged years ago. There is no reason whatsoever to have them separate. I also think the "let them learn at AfC" idea I've heard suggested is bad: just give NPR to reasonable people. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science, and learning "on the job" isn't really that hard. I have always thought that keeping them separate only exists because of the different cultures of the NPP and AfC projects, and I do not see that as a good reason to not do the obvious answer and merge what is effectively the same user right at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, I'll state it even more clearly: option 3 is completely wrong even though it has been the historical objection of the AfC project. The only problem is no one has ever pointed out how they are different nor how admins assess differently (hint: we don't except it is easier to get AfC because the standard is intentionally lower right now.) I don't think option 2 makes much sense either, but I think option 3 is out of this world incorrect. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

*Comment. I am a AfC and NPP reviewer. Both projects are here to patroll/review new articles and yet there are some differences in guidelines and processes, Listed the diffs below for the discussion and welcome to add or correct if any. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

# Topic NPP AfC Note
1 Review Follow NPP chart GNG & SSN notability and content policy within what provided in the draft article
2 Source Not judging by article sources but what is available outside the article Based on what indicated in the draft article NPP - sources will only be included by interested editor to support the content claimed which would take years or no sources are added at all

NPP - reviewer can moved article to draft page under WP:NPPDRAFT if no source or only dependent/not relaible sources presented in the article

AfC - editor who input the info responsible to provide source - inline with WP:PROVEIT or WP:BURDEN verifiability guidelines

3 spam/promo/COPVIO/attacked page/vandalism/nonsense via CSD via CSD
4 CSD A7 via CSD - go through admin reject - reviewer decision
5 Question of meeting notability via PROP or AfD decline (but not reject)
6 Merge/redirect tag on page inform editor
7 user right min requirement - at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace.

no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months
experience with moving pages

at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace.

requires experience with deletion

both given by admin
8 Process via page curator via script
9 Reviewers/Patroller in need of help via NPPSCHOOL via AfC talk page

NPPSCHOOL - enroll the program and guided by experience editor (trainer)

AfC talk page - New or experienced editors get help from other experienced editors (A robust talk page)

10 Diffs

1.accept upon credible claim of significance even without sources if sources could be found by reviewer - place the responsibility reviewers to look for sources on behalf of the creator

2.accept and tag NPOV

3.No communication or advise by reviewer

4.Only one reviewer but if found unsoundly accepted, other reviewer can unreview the page

5.Page would be indexed by after 3 months in NPP even the page has not been reviewed

6.Reviews do the tagging (unreferenced/stub/improve cat)

7.Review AfC approved article unless the AfC reviewer hold both AfC and NPP user rights

8.Design for autoconfirmed user. Any PAID editors' article need to move to "Draft" space (AfC review) irregardless how many edits or page created by the PAID editors in the past.

9. NPP discussion page - mostly among reviewers

1.accepted if independent, reliable sources present in the article - place responsibility on creator to provide sources so they would comply to Wikipedia content policy

2.decline if NPOV (accordance with WP:Content policy)
3.Automated recline message and reveiwer's comment on draft page to creator on how to improve/what is need

4.Multiple reviewers could review a page if the page is previously decline

5.Could be G13 for stale drafts after 6 months or postponing G13

6.Reviewers do the tagging (cat, Wikiproject, article class assessment)

7.No need to review NPP page.

8.Design for new user who is not familiar with Wikipedia, but autoconfirmed editor would move drat to main at will where AfC review will be replaced by NPP review.

9. AfC help desk for creator seeking help

  • Option 3 They are wholly-different tasks and I have always opposed efforts to merge them. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not option 1 - ultimately this comes down to whether the pluses would outweigh the negatives of a merger. I do not think they do, so I do not support a merge. Both reasons 2 & 3 have something to them, but I'm not sure which I would use as the most influential reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Nosebagbear, what are the things you think Options 2 & 3 have towards them? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Whiole the requirements are simialr, and both deal with new pages hoping to eb articles, the optimal attitudes and workflow are quite different. Merging these would, I suspect, be quite unfortunate. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Double checking of AfC productions is a good thing in principle, and frequently necessary in practice. From my own experience, there's a small percentage of articles coming in that way that shouldn't have passed, and a second layer of reviews is useful for catching those. More frequently, AfC articles need a good deal of maintenance tagging and/or basic fix-up, which has typically not been provided at that point. I can't really see what payoffs, apart from some administrative slimming-down, would be gained from a permission merge that would offset the loss of this security net. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There should still be a multi stage process for drafts., whether or not we mergethe permissions. AfC checks very limited things--the criterion is whether the article is good enough that it would be likely to survive AfD. It does not attempt to tag or correct minor issues. the main things to check for are copyvio, promotionalism , a reasonable likelihood of notability , basic sourcing--and eliminating such things as non-English drafts, essays, & personal web pages. But, while it only checks these, it also often involves--or should involve--extensive explanation to the users. The AfC help desk is one resource, but it should only be necessary to go there if the reviewer is not sufficiently helpful, or their explanation is not understood. I've always thought it my responsibility at AfC to guide the author to a possible article, or to explain why we do not accept promotionalism .
In contrast, NPP is a screen for tagging problems, as well as determining basic acceptability. It's a logical second step. Drafts should not get rejected at AfC for problem such as reference format, because if more than the basics is dealt with there the article is likely to be abandoned. Most NPP articles do not need to be sent for deletion--this is very different from the old days when we had only one process, and half of the new pages generally needed to be deleted. The NPP reviewer usually does not get involved with the contributor.
I think NPP easier than AfC. I know I can go faster there. If we do not merge the permissions, this, rather than AfC, should be the first step for a new reviewer. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 do not merge I formerly supported merging the positions. I not longer do, because the two steps dod different things, and should be kept distinct. Otherwise, we'll find AfC reviewers trying to get new contributors to fix minor things, and NPP reviewers forgetting about PROD, and many other confusions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If anything, more or less Option 2, but not Option 1. I say this with great reserve because a) This discussion is in the wrong venue because a dedicated project space (with a mailing list) for this issue has already existed for some time, and b) in order to succeed, such a debate needs to be thought out, well prepared, and presented in such a way that voters will not be confused and will vote with their heads and not shoot from the hip - things which cause many well intended RfC to fail for the wrong reasons and thus further setting back needed progress. I will open a comments section below in which I will expand why I think this discussion as proposed comes too soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative Option 2 not really convinced on merits of merging the two except for simplicty which I'm all for. Option 3 is wrong. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - As someone who has both tools, (but should probably use them more), they are fundamentally different, and serve different roles. NPP should be our "last-first" line of defence, so it is where we have users reviewing articles before they are indexed by google. This is where we should catch a lot of shoddy articles, and poor practices. AfC is different. Nothing stops a user completely bypassing the process. Heck, usually, even when a user needed to have auto-confirmed access before posting an article, this still occurred before a review in the first place. I think it is best to keep AfC as the first line against clear PAID editing, copyvios and the like, and a great place to give feedback to new users (I've always thought of it as an article specific teahouse when the editor is in goodfaith). NPP isn't the same as this. NPP can allow good feedback, but it is non-negotiable (well, in most cases) and is there to be a set of eyes that always see an article. I think these are fundementally different. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
With that being said, if it's a case of the tools being merged, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to. I like the AfC helper script, I think the NPP toolbar could do with being a little bit more like this (if there is a script that does this, please link me). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep separate - COI and PAID editors are pretty much required to use AFC. Merging NPP and AFC results in said content being scrutinised once, when they need to be scrutinised as much as possible. As a reminder, both NPP and AFC have been infiltrated by spammers recently (Mar11, Stevey7788). MER-C 11:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is better, because drafts accepted by AfC reviewers may have problems to be addressed and a second review (NPP) will reduce it. Its like double filtering. If these get merged same editor can do the both and problematic article may be accepted (though it can be done if a user have both of them). A double checking is always better than this. Also AfC permission may be given to users before become NPR as part of training. Then, if they are eligible and willing, they can give NPP perm. Some times users with AfC perm may not have enough experience to become NPP, then they can use this as a platform for mastering the skills. This is applicable when only both remains two. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 in that the arguments for Option 2 and Option 3 are flawed. However, having the same reviewers perform both reviews does not mean that they should have the same instructions. They should have different instructions. But one reviewer can have two hats at different times. I have applied the G11 tag to spam both as AFC and as NPP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Make AfC automatic for NPP I was unilaterally given the NPP right by Lourdes for being an AfC reviewer, and my work in that department has since dwarfed my work in AfC; having said that, I do think that the projects are similar enough that cross-pollination can't hurt, although I'll balk at a complete merger at this time. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 seems best to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as an inherited right (i.e., update YAFCH to check for AfC or NPP permissions instead of just AfC). Sceptre (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Moral support for option 1 acknowledging that there are technical issues that need to be worked out before implementation. It just makes sense that there be one userright for reviewing new content, whether it's articles created in mainspace or drafts submitted to AfC. I would go so far as to say that autopatrolled should also be bundled in this - why should we expect that someone is competent to review new articles created by others but isn't competent to review their own work? We're not going to expect that every editor given this new userright is going to do all of the things that they're able to do: some will be generalists, some will continue only reviewing new pages while others will continue only reviewing AfC submissions. The skill set is the same, though, as are the responsibilities. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I totally get wanting to merge them, and it makes sense in theory. Speaking realistically, however, NPP is a fairly restricted user right that is not necessarily easy to obtain, even for experienced and trustworthy users sometimes. AfC is not a formal prerequisite, of course, but it is the natural stepping stone for those users who can not immediately get approved. I feel that integrating AfC into NPP will only make participation in these activities more difficult, further restricting access to AfC and simultaneously taking away the entry level for NPP participation, which, ultimately, works spectacularly against our goal of increasing participation in these areas so that we can eliminate the huge backlogs, both of which are completely out of control as it is. ~Swarm~ {sting} 14:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per WP:BURO. Wikipedia became successful by ditching the constraints and conservatism of Nupedia. As Wikipedia was conceived as very open – "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – we need to keep pushing back on the complexity per WP:CREEP. Merging such similar roles together is common sense and consistent with our core philosophy. Incorporating autopatrolled, as suggested by Ivanvector, would be sensible too; encouraging our competent contributors to be reviewers too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Originally, I had no comment on this opinion. I was given the New Page Reviewer permission by Lourdes after applying to WPAFC. I greatly appreciated the gesture, and it has been very helpful to patrol pages directly after approving them through AfC. However, I do believe that Option 2 is the right way to go. While I'm not requesting to have my NPR permission removed, I don't believe that both privileges should have come bundled together. NPR is a more powerful role, as simply approving an AfC article does not remove it from the list of unpatrolled pages. Those with the NPR permission should be the ones who perform the final checks for an article, and can catch any mistakes made by an AfC reviewer. For one, my request for the NPR permission was denied by User:Kudpung back in July, see here: [1]. Yet, because I applied to be a New Page Reviewer and an AfC Reviewer at the same time, I was given the NPR permission anyway. Now, to move on from my anecdote, I do think that AfC is more surface-level, per se. While an AfC reviewer is expected to have a knowledge of Wikipedia policy and criteria for deletion, it would be good to have newer reviewers require a new page patroller to check over the article for a second opinion. With enough experience with AfC, then the NPR permission could be given as the reviewer likely doesn't need somebody to double-check everything for them. Utopes (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Utopes, You are perfectly correct in your perception of the differences between AfC and NPP. There are however very good reasons why the double check is always appropriate - AfC has been abused in the past. It's not usual,but it's her prerogative as an admin. As a relatively new admin, Lourdes might not be aware of some of the processes involved at PERM - for one, if the process is not used, many of the atuomated features don't get carried out. If she has her own way of doing things and often bypasses the regular process at PERM for according user rights it's nevertheless her prerogative.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Utopes, might I add that in August this year, on the AfC talk page (which is probably watched by Kudpung, who undoubtedly has more years than me, but relatively lesser than many others), I had posted this query that the AfC right should be made into a bit. Probably a matter of chance that more experienced editors did not chip into the discussion there. And then on 8 September, realising that in all these years, there was no mention of AfC on the PERM page, I added information about the right to that page. This is just for information and context about my efforts. Thanks, Lourdes 11:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Lourdes, turning AfC reviewer into a bit has been on the minds of several users since I introduced the current system for it several years ago, and more since I and a couple of other editors collaborated closely with the WMF to develop the draft list in the feed so that new drafts can benefit from ORES, and to provide the reviewers with a central list to work from. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


Wrong venue: A dedicated project space was created almost 3 years ago to the day to discuss these very issues. It is at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC.
Baby steps: A lot of progress has been achieved in the meantime, including ACREQ, ORES, COPYPATROL, and important enhancements to the New Pages Feed and its Curation tool (often collectively call 'page triage' by the developers), including my (and others) close collaboration with the WMF to develop the AfC section in the feed earlier this year. Following discussion a few weeks ago with Primefac, the de facto coordinator of AfC, I am about to launch a RfC proposing the promotion of AfC to official status by requiring access to its function to be governed by according its right through PERM. This will of course play into the hands of the hat collectors, a big issue we are having to cope with at NPP since I introduced the NPR right by RfC in October 2016 as a result from preparatory workshopping at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. However, more importantky - and perhaps ironically - by providing a few stripes to sew on their sleeves, users may be more encouraged to become reviewers and hence also to work at a higher degree of accuracy - this worked for NPR.
AfC and NPP while not being quite as distinct as apples and oranges, are nevertheless as similar as they are different. DGG and I who have largely steered much opinion, have indeed changed our own opinions over time. Due to more and more accrued empirical experience and lengthening institutional memory, we have gone from firmly wanting to deprecate AfC altogther, to wanting to merge AfC and NPP, to now keeping them close but separate. One of the reasons is that since the roll out of ACREQ, the coal faces and MO of both systems have changed significantly, and a review of these changes has not been formally established - yet. Without going into too much detail here and now, it's all to do with checks and balances, and the type of new artcles that nowadays make up the majority of new submissions to mainspace and/or draft space, but by carefully coaxing the WMF we have achieved the almost unthinkable: lists for AfC and NPP in the feed interface. There are also still many misunderstandings about the function of the drafts, when and if they should be used, and who can move them and/or create articles in mainspace. CASSIOPEIA has provided some good information in their table as points to ponder, and important issues have been raised by Xaosflux and DGG.
Next: IMO, we should treat this RfC as an exercise in testing the waters and kicking the tyres. The first step is to do what I have drafted, and that is to call for a user right for AfC, and define the criteria for it, and together with perhaps Hasteur and MusikAnimal develop truly technical resources - without loopholes - so that only authorised users are permitted to review (accept or decline) drafts, and how the AFCHC banners and embedded template functions can be turned in to a cloned Curation fly-out, which will need some assistance from the WMF and for which is now the time to strike while the iron is hot. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit disjointed but it's now 6:49 and I have to drive 500 miles today for my work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, thanks for your thoughts. I am definitely aware of your future of NPP and AfC space but found that more historical than active (which is why I didn't notice there) and wanted a centralized place to discuss. I definitely see this as a direction setting RfC. If the processes are to be merged, well that will require discussion. If they're not to be merged, the reason why is important and it could perhaps lead to formalized criteria and a real PERM, rather than the informal bit we have now, for AfC. Given all the work you've mentioned I think it's the right time to take the next step forward, but think it important we agree on what direction we're headed so we can figure out which step to take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The AfC "permission" is simply the members of WikiProject Articles for Creation, at WP:WPAFC. To become a member though, you need to meet certain criteria that are akin to those for the NPR right. You can find the list on the participant page. Once you become a member, you can start using the AfC Helper Script and reviewing AfC articles. What is being decided is whether the NPR right should be synonymous with being able to review AfC pages. Utopes (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Steel1943 and Utopes: while AfC has an informal mechanism for controlling who can use the HelperScript, AfC is not (yet) an official process. However, since the WMF created a very useful feed of drafts in the queue on the NPP feed interface, there are good reasons now for creating a user right around AfC - but not necessarily merging the two responsibilities into one user right. This RfC will determine if the two user tasks are to be merged as one user right or to be kept separate. If they are kept separate, a new, and official user right will be proposed for the AfC reviewers and they will have access to the queue for drafts in the feed and the AfC functions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How does automatic revocation of this privileged work?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser (23:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC))

The bot edited in something saying that somebody had the privileges automatically revoked. What triggers that? DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 23:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

DemonDays64, I believe it's one year of inactivity (i.e. no edits) that triggers the automatic removal from the AWB Checkpage. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)