Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 13

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Conflict of Interest - of a different kind

We all know what COI means, but in another context I would be interested to know what the team thinks about the user rights of Autopatrolled, Reviewer, and OTRS agent, being appropriate for a paid editor. Someone mentioned to me that it would be like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I started from a position of respect for the editor in question but the lack of judgement in accepting their client's version of the spam article, and the lack of judgement in haranguing most of the delete votes at AfD, gives me pause for thought. It's not just a matter of the material that gets spammed onto the wiki - do we now have a paid speedy queue through OTRS? I'd find myself double-checking contributions where such checking hadn't been on my radar in the past, which undermines the whole point of Autopatrolled & Reviewer. Cabayi (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I would support a change to the autopatrolled criteria that supports rejection or revocation for declared paid editors. I think this is in line with the principles beyond WP:COI: any editor that has a conflict of interest should have their contributions and suggestions reviewed by a neutral editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Paid contributors includes an admin. A more general & all-encompassing discussion about paid editing and privileges may be required. Cabayi (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll never get desysoping through for this at first: too many feelings around desysoping by the community. Setting clearer revocation rights for other minor user rights would be much easier, and would also give the community something to study if an RfC involving desysoping for paid editing came up. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Cabayi i went through the list and the only admin I saw there was User:cyberpower678, who discloses that they received funding from InternetArchive to help maintain the bot that autoarchives content to InternetArchive. Is that the one you meant, or are there others? In my view the internetarchive thing is not problematic, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, yes, that's who I spotted. I agree, the internetarchive thing is not problematic, indeed it's beneficial. However, it struck me as uncomfortable to see an admin with a paid user declaration. There can be positive paid editing. This is one example. Wikipedians-in-Residence can be another. On the flip-side to that I have encountered a WiR whose presence seems to have given staff at the host institution the impression that they can use Wikipedia as an open Dropbox for their research papers. The question isn't as clear cut as Paid/Not-Paid (though that is a good general guide), and a nuanced discussion needs to cover the whole issue. Cabayi (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Cabayi, I agree with nuance, especially re: WiR, but we have had some issues with them before dumping advocacy papers published under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or a compatible license into en.Wiki. They are by far the least concern here, but their work should still go through the NPP process in general. I don't think it raises the issues of whether their main account should have the autopatrolled right like it does for other paid editors, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support that paid editors should not have admin tools, autopatrolled rights, be involved in AfC, etc. Admins have far too much influence, and are sought after by PR companies for that very reason. It's hard enough dealing with COI at a highly contentious article like politics or religion without adding paid conflicts. Atsme📞📧 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Some opinions reflect a view that advanced user rights which call for significant trust are absolutely not compatible with paid editing. And some believe that paid advocacy in any form whatsoever should be disallowed - but that may not necessarily be a solution that everyone concurs with. That said, a team is examining the possible impact that some changes to policy may have.
For the moment, feedback is welcomed from Reviewers, COIN, SPI workers, and AfD closers who see this sort of thing first hand and/or are working through the massive sock farms. This also encompasses a first broad approach suggested by Cabayi. It's important that we address issues like these carefully and by stages. If the informal chat gets very long we can always move it to a sub page here. Then perhaps later a straw poll at the VP before drafting what may become an RfC for a more formal call for comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no reason I see to deny any editors the standard advanced rights merely because of they receive monetary remuneration for their work. The C and O of COI do not stand for corruption. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
but the lack of judgement in accepting their client's version of the spam article Is something that should be addressed, for ALL editors, not just paid ones. Setting up a system with which to determine if the GNG is passed before creation would save a lot of time. If any editor, paid or not, consistently introduces "spam" (in quotes because its not by design) by failing to do proper checks before article creation, they would of course have their autopatrolled rights yanked, and would be subject to standard sanctions against creation, or blocks. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Two points: 1) The conflict is that by having autopatrolled rights it is preventing review by a neutral editor who is familiar with policy. That is actually very much out of line with the COI guideline (both on en.Wiki and most standard COI guidelines IRL.) 2) We already have the process outlined above: AfC. There have been some who suggest before that we should generally make everyone go through it. I don't think that will every happen: ACTRIAL was hard enough to get started and that required the lowest level permission possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
If a paid editor was able to get AP, they should be able to keep it. You can't get autopatrolled just by cranking out 25 (or less) articles. They have to be proper articles, at the very least notable, and at most properly formatted, no CopyVios, spelling on point, linked, referenced, categorized etc. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No, because it defeats the very purpose of the four eye review for COI issues: if you have a conflict of interest, someone else reviews your work. All autopatrolled does for an editor who has it is make your article hit Google faster. Revoking it should be no big deal if an issue becomes apparent where your articles require additional review for any reason: we do this for copyvios and other issues. I don't see why enforcing the spirit behind the COI guideline should be different. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
So you are saying that paid editing counts as "any reason"? A subject pays an editor to get an article, not a rotten article. The only thing the reviewers will care about is whether or not the subject is notable. If a paid editor can create 25 articles that are notable without getting indeffed, I trust them to write more. Articles should not be reviewed in the light of whether or not their creator is paid, it should be notability. Do you think that being paid will interfere with them becoming reviewers? L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that paid editors may not get a choice on what they're told to write about. And they may have gained the autopatrolled right because of unpaid articles that the paid ones don't match. Picture this: someone edits Wikipedia as a hobby while at college. They do a good job at it and receive autopatrolled. They then graduate and get a job at a PR firm and carry on editing Wikipedia using the same well-regarded account. Their boss then gives them an order to publish articles about the company and its CEO (who aren't notable). It's an order and they can get fired if they don't do it. See the problem? Mixing professional and amateur editing of Wikipedia from the same account is a recipe for people making bad decisions. Blythwood (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Or another one: I'm an admin. I lose my job and I'm desperate for work. A company hires me to revert and revdel embarrassing information on their business, and offers me a bonus to ban someone who puts the information back. See the problem? Blythwood (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I concede, and in the latter case I would hope our admins have more integrity then to stoop to such low levels.L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@L3X1: - Thanks. My reasoning is that there are going to be cases like this come the next recession: people gotta eat. It's by setting clear rules that we can avoid problems and avoid people getting trapped in situations they aren't comfortable with. Blythwood (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Paid editors should not be afforded advanced user rights because such privileges are based on community trust. The reason we're here is to build an encyclopedia with no motive other than to advance the expanse of knowledge Wikipedia provides. By definition, a conflict of interest editor, particularly a paid one, cannot have this motive at heart and they therefore fail community trust. Whether this puts people off declaring is another matter: I'd say it's better to have a declared paid editor than an undercover one seeking to get advanced user rights. DrStrauss talk 14:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No advanced or discressionary rights for paid editors Paid editing, though not against our policies, is a corruption of the ethos of Wikipedia - financially benefitting from the voluntary contributions of the community. My years of experience at AFC has convinced me that for many paid editors even autoconfirmed is too much trust. You can either be a paid editor or a trusted community member, not both - they are absolutely mutually exclusive. Knowingly giving a paid editor the ability to avoid the review processes mandated by our paid editing policies, such as the autopatrolled right, is a violation of the policy. We are required to tolerate paid editors (like a dog tolerates its fleas), not enable them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
By that definition, the entire WMF is corrupt, they get rich off our labor. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
WMF employees are not allowed to edit articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would oppose granting a paid editor (that accepts money for creating promotional articles) rights that involve autopatrolled or new pages reviewer. Of course, if the editor does accept money for paid editing but has never accepted money to create articles that contravene our policies, then they would be exempt from this (but they should be held to a higher standard, considering that they are paid editors). And if we do see those paid editors going against our policy (ie by advertising) by using these tools, then the tools should immediately be taken away from them. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No autopatrolled publishing for paid editing accounts - I have no objection to paid editors in principle. They're going to exist and they fulfil a need, and it's better that we know who they are and they get to know what their obligations are than that random people try to edit articles to add spam and keep getting reverted. But it should be quite clear that you can't use your autoconfirmed/admin right to publish an article if you got paid to do that - it should be clear what hat you're wearing at any given time. Given that the UK economy looks likely to implode in the near future and it's easy to imagine many experienced editors looking to monetise their experience (yes, that could easily include me) we should be fair but firm on this. If you're publishing articles on Wikipedia for business you should either disclose it and surrender your rights or do your paid editing from an alt account that clearly says that it's doing and doesn't have autopatrolled privileges. Blythwood (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
An alt account (clearly declared) is also my thought. One question is, what would the terms be? If a paid contributor recurrently uses their alt to submit substandard articles under pressure (or whatever other reason) from their employer(s), do both accounts get sanctioned? Innisfree987 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Such an alt system would require strict guidelines re: marking your own contributions reviewed if you had it on your main account. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, I suppose I was taking it for granted that that would not be allowed; even now, it's implicitly that case that if you have a legitimate alt for say, privacy, it'd be out of line to use your main account's NPR right to approve your alt's creations, no? But for sure, it'd be worth spelling out. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be unfair to force people to disclose the link publicly (which could involve making it quite obvious who they are and work for) if they agreed not to use both accounts simultaneously. A private message to Arbcom and marking their amateur account as inactive would be enough, I think. Blythwood (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not appropriate for a disclosed paid contributor to have the autopatrolled user right. Paid contributions must be reviewed by an unconnected, objective reviewer. It does not matter that a paid contributor has demonstrated that they are capable of writing articles that would earn them autopatrolled if they were volunteers; their paid contributions should not skip review because all paid contributions should be reviewed, regardless of who created them. For what it's worth; a quick comparison of members of the autopatrolled group and users in the Category:Paid_contributors gives only one such user. It is also not appropriate for a paid contributor to have the new page reviewer user right. Advanced user rights should be restricted to trusted editors. Disclosed paid editors are not trusted members of the community. Every contribution of a disclosed paid user should be subject to scrutiny by an objective editor. One cannot be both trusted and subject to scrutiny. That precludes reviewing articles. Again, for what it's worth, I have compared the members of the new page reviewer group and users in the Category:Paid_contributors and found that there is currently nobody in the intersection of those two groups. I would not object to restricting advanced user rights to trusted users and clarifying that trusted means no paid contributions. BTW, as far as I know, there is only one administrator who has disclosed that he has been paid for his contributions, but those are not contributions to articles, but for software development. Mduvekot (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of one who is in NPR and declared paid contributors (as well as autopatrol and OTRS so I assume this is how the question came up.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I, for one, think that any concessions about paid editors are a necessary evil at best. We can’t eliminate them, but it should be our objective, even if known to be unattainable, to eliminate them. The fact that the Terms of Service only require that they disclose doesn’t mean that we should think that they have a proper place in Wikipedia. They have an improper place, and we can’t change that in the foreseeable future. However, since being a paid editor isn’t good for Wikipedia, being a paid editor should be incompatible with any privileges that imply any sort of trust. It should be that simple. We can’t trust paid editors, and we can’t trust them to check their pay at the login door. They shouldn’t have advanced privileges. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: Is a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence bad for Wikipedia? We need a more nuanced conversation. "And some, I assume, are good people" may work for Trump's campaign rallies, but it doesn't work when we're dealing with complicated issues on-wiki. Absolutism is making incremental progress in how we handle paid editors difficult. ~ Rob13Talk 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • BU Rob13, the Wikipedians-in-Residence and similar programs are actually why I nuance my phraseology on this matter: I am not 100% against paid editing because of that. In terms of non-formal programs, if I held an academic posting, I would love to apply for a grant where I could hire an undergrad assistant to work on all the papal conclaves before the 20th century to actually be sourced to academic sourcing and not a self-published website of a person with a MLIS. That would be good paid editing. At the same time, people don't typically mean those programs when they refer to paid editors. They mean PR firms or people/businesses who market themselves to create a Wikipedia article for a BLP or business.
        Even in these cases of good paid editing, the autopatroller right is still dubious to let someone have: we've had example brought up on this page and (I think) COIN of people paid by major international NGOs introducing biased and/or advocacy material into Wikipedia. While people might prefer this to commercial paid editing, it is still in conflict with our policies (NPOV and NOTADVOCACY), and because that potential exists for new articles, it needs review from neutral editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a difficult conversation and very much depends on what type of paid editor we're dealing with. Per WP:INVOLVED, no user rights should be used regarding content associated with a payment you've received, obviously. That's existing policy. But do we desysop a Wikipedian-in-Residence? Equally obviously no. This needs a more nuanced conversation than "yes" or "no" to barring advanced user rights for paid editors. ~ Rob13Talk 20:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that some editors here believe that autopatrolled rights rely on editors having created articles. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • By accepting commissions to write articles for promotional purposes paid advocates agree that undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia for financial gain is acceptable. Rejecting other commissioned articles would be rather hypocritical on their part, and they absolutely cannot be trusted to do it. A quick scan of freelance job websites indicates that discretionary or advanced permissions are highly sought after by those that wish to abuse Wikipedia for marketing purposes. We should deny them this privilege. MER-C 11:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Anyone who has accepted money to make edits on behalf on another party (not including editors who have their good faith work supported by an institution, e.g. Wikipedians in Residence) has shown that they are willing to go against the overwhelming community consensus for their own financial gain. That lack of integrity means their edits need to be scrutinised by at least one other editor, and by extension they can't be trusted to review others' work. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Paid promotional editing needs to be monitored. Therefore agree that advanced permission should not be given and removed if present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: I probably agree narrowly with autopatrolled, although I think if they segregated all paid edits to another account, that would then be fine for perms. But again, we need nuance here. I assume you don't mean to desysop Wikipedians in Residence, so if there's to be a proposal, it must be refined. ~ Rob13Talk 03:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Our TOU specifically excludes WiR at like minded organizations from the definition. Specifically it is in the Q and A.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would think that an editor unethical enough to use his or her privileges to push through inappropriate articles would also be unethical enough to fail to disclose their paid status. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
People don't always have a complete plan in place from the very beginning. EEng 04:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Paid editors often apply the rules in bits and peices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Very true, but if someone knows from the beginning they will be giving up privileges to self-report as a paid editor, suddenly we've now provided a pretty strong disincentive to self-report, even if that person didn't expect at the time to edit unethically at some point in the future. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stigmatizing paid editors by withholding standard editor hats is going to make them less willing to disclose their paid status so may make the problem worse, not better. I've seen a lot of quality contribution from paid editors. I get hints in this discussion that there is a specific editor or two that have sparked this discussion. I would appreciate background information on that to help us determine whether this is a general issue or an issue with problem editors. I can dig up my examples of productive paid editing if that would help the discussion here. We certainly have a lot of unpaid problem editors and are able to deal with that without abandoning WP:AGF. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I have seen one or two productive paid promotional editors but 100s of poor ones. Interesting in seeing the list of those you feel are doing positive work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kvng:My sentiments exactly. If we revoke privileges because someone places the {{paid}} template on their profile, all that will accomplish is to make actual paid editors think twice before doing so, even the ethical ones. Do we restore them once they remove the template and are no longer paid, or are they forever labeled as untrusted by the Wikipedia community? Besides, I am sure every one of us could easily come up with a number of ways to circumvent it, making it even harder to monitor the bad apples. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's be clear what we are talking about instead of vague "advanced permissions". We aren't talking about page movers, rollback, or pending changes. We are discussing autopatrolled mainly, and to some extent the NPR right. The whole point of autopatrolled is that it is granted to users who NPP doesn't need to check their articles. This is the exact opposite of what is suggested for COI editors in WP:COI.
On NPR, I actually have mixed views: I would support *some* restriction on how the NPR right is used here short of revocation, but can also see why some people would want it revoked. I haven't made my mind up yet on that topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is best to strip away irrelevant details like whether an editor is paid or not when assessing users with advanced rights. If they're abusing the right or violating policies, remove it, nothing more. If a paid editor is contributing paid garbage than there shouldn't even be a debate, remove their rights and maybe block them. Esquivalience (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 to the above. By refusing to grant permissions to disclosed paid editors, we are only encouraging them to go underground, where upon they are far bigger a problem then disclosed editors, whom we can keep an eye on. I am strongly of the opinion that whether an editor is a paid editor (who follows the rules, obviously) or not should not make a difference at PERM. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 more to this. I'm much more interested in conduct than in paid or unpaid status. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No advanced rights for paid editors. Disclosing a paid editing already confers the benefit of continued unrestricted editing without block. Perhaps all welcoming talkpage messages for new accounts (not only for genuine newbies) should explicitly mention WP:COI. A fox in charge of the hen analogy is apt here. A fox is often hungry, so will eat at least one hen, unless sated. Brandmeistertalk 10:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Positive paid contributions

Above I offered to provide some positive paid contributions. Doc James was interested. These are the interactions I've been involved in that have not yet scrolled off the respective WikiProject talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. Inkian Jason on Huawei Honor 8 Pro
  2. Methicskirmo on Mobile signature and related topics
  3. CorporateM on Juniper Networks
And none of those accounts have the autopatrolled bit, nor should they. They only one that has PERM grantable user rights is CorporateM, and he has none of the ones related to new content. That is what this specific conversation is about. I'm very anti-paid editing, but I recognize that some do some good. The question is whether or not we give them additional permissions dealing with the review of new content when they have declared COIs, to which consensus here seems to be no, we shouldn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Another positive editor (at least from what I can tell) is KDS4444, who has autopatrolled and NPR, with only one of their four paid articles up for deletion and only 2/150 articles deleted at AFD. They're also very up-front about declaring (see their userpage). Primefac (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac, I'm pretty confident that was the editor that caused Kudpung to start this thread after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson. FWIW, I was pinged on their talk page by Jytdog re: NPP and autopatrolled and this was my response. I think nuance is needed here, but that autopatrolled should in general be a red line of sorts here: even productive COI editors need review: that is not necessarily a negative thing, just checks and balances that are in line with our COI guideline. Autopatrolled makes that technically more difficult, so I think it is inappropriate in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • That would seem likely. I came across their edits via a conversation with them I'm having in another location, and I mentioned them mostly since it seemed relevant to this thread (and a lack of names above, which I can appreciate, since the original thread seems to be a general query). Primefac (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • A declared alt (under the "dedicated role" rubric?) would solve the technical problem autopatrol poses. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
        • It would, but it is also about optics: I'm all for AGF, but it would be very easy to declare some articles and not others: Trust, but verify here: we trust that editors who use alts for this purpose will not abuse their main account, but we ask that they put themselves to the same level of scrutiny that the majority of users of this sight go through when they create an article, and don't bypass it. Its the same reason behind why we authorize CU to verify the need for IPBE: these people are trusted or they wouldn't have that bit. We verify the need and that they aren't abusing it. Applying that principle to NPP and paid editing I think makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I hear you. I suppose I'm just wondering why we trust folks not to pick and choose which paid edits to declare, but we wouldn't trust them to assign them properly to one account or the other. Especially when this all springs from someone who came to NPR to ask how to overcome the technical problem autopatrol posed in preventing uninvolved eyes from getting to their paid contributions... As this conversation, and parallel conversations, go on, I'm increasingly sympathetic to the perspective that we better serve the encyclopedia by giving a clearly defined, non-stigmatized way of managing paid edits, rather than tightening the screws and driving scrupulous folks off the project while incentivizing unscrupulous folks to underground... Innisfree987 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No paid editing is positive however good the articles are. It exploits the thousands of hours invested without any compensation in this project by genuine dedicated individuals; I once said somewhere that it's like taking pennies out of a blind beggars bowl. It's also like the local police chief saying to his friends "We won't fine you because you're a good driver and we'll give you a blue light and a siren so other drivers won't ask questions, and we'll also allow you to advertise on walls where it's normally prohibited." I'm still surprised at even the merest tolerance for paid editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am the editor whose editing caused Kudpung to begin this conversation. The above texts includes questions about what actually happened, and I would like to explain as I think it will be useful for whatever decision is finally arrived at.
I was contacted by an individual who asked me to put together a Wikipedia article on him, and who offered to pay me to do so. I explained that I would need to see evidence of notability before I would consider this. He sent me links to a number of published articles, including some from the Boston Globe, that discussed him specifically. I was also sent a link to an interview with him that was published in a newspaper. I then conducted my own search for sources, and found a few more. I put these together into what I felt was a neutral article, and showed it to my client. My client was not happy with what I had written (which shocked me). He claimed it had errors in it (like the work title of one of the other people mentioned in the article, though that title had been published erroneously in the Boston Globe). I offered to fix the errors, such as they were, if he would itemize them for me. Instead of an itemization, what I received back from him was a completely new article written by him. It was replete with unsupported claims and peacock terms, and I told him that if I published this, it would probably not go well— and I begged him to let me publish the version I had written. He insisted otherwise; he reminded me that he was paying me, and explained, "My version has the facts— no one is going to delete an article with the facts in it." My warnings fell on deaf ears.
Feeling very uncomfortable about the article as it now stood, I felt compelled to publish it and did so with the certainty that other editors would quickly cut it to shreds. However, I realized that my autopatrolled rights meant that no one was going to review it and demonstrate to my client that he had made a grave mistake by having me publish his version. I then deliberately sought a way to have the autopatrolled "check mark" removed from this article, something I could not do myself (for software reasons, I guess), and Innisfree987 graciously assisted me with this. Once the check was removed, the article was quickly tagged, just as I had suspected it would be. I even added the "Orphan" tag myself, as the article was also an orphan. The client saw what was happening, and said, "It seems you were right— what can we do?" I proposed that if I could get my earlier, neutral version reinstated over the version he had asked me to publish, the article might not get deleted. I made this clear in the ensuing deletion discussion, and asked the discussants to consider the earlier version as definitive. The nominator himself admitted that the subject might be notable, but that the article was so promotional that it had to go. I did not disagree with him, and thanked him for confirming my own feelings about it. Subsequent comments by other editors dwelt only on the current version of the article, despite my requests to consider the earlier version, and last I checked, the article was headed for deletion. I have backed away from that conversation because I was finding it so personally upsetting.
Concurrent with all of this, I also published another article on another person for which I was also paid. Again, I contacted Innisfree987 to remove the autopatrolled check mark, which was done. That article was reviewed and received no tags whatsoever. The version I published was one I had written entirely by myself, with very little guidance from its subject. I think it's a darned good article, and I stand by it.
I had no problem relinquishing the autopatrolled status of either article. In fact, I needed the first article to be tagged up and down so that I could finally show the client why his version of it was such a problem. For the second article, I had no doubts it would pass unscathed, and it did.
That's the story, and I hope others find it helpful. I want to add this nuance to the discussion: I am a Wikipedia editor who has been paid to write a couple of articles— I am not a paid editor who happens to be getting work through Wikipedia, and I don't care much for the label. I am frustrated that nine years and 20,000 unpaid edits have been cause to liken me to a flea on a dog. Are there such editors? Probably, yes. Do I really seem to be one of them? I am an editor who has been paid to do a very, very small amount of editing, and I went above and beyond the existing policy requirements in order to ensure that my paid edits were clearly marked as such and would be reviewed by others because I knew this would be best for myself and the project. For this, I am told I have no place here, and that no paid editing is positive however good the articles are. I am not a paid editor, I am an editor who has performed some very well disclosed paid edits, and I think any conversation about paid editing should make some effort to distinguish the two. I would have no problem surrendering my autopatrolled right for any article I am paid to create, and I don't think any honest editor would. Please do not punish me for my honesty or label me unfairly. Any editor who claims to have no tolerance for paid editing anywhere on Wikipedia is not having the same conversation the rest of us are. Sorry for not being able to say all of this more succinctly. KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • After receiving "a completely new article written by <a client>", can an editor place it in compliance with wmf:Terms_of_Use/en#7._Licensing_of_Content: would the article text not need first to go through the WP:DCM process? Finding oneself "compelled to publish it" comes to the nub of the problem of commercial obligation: better in such a case to have shown the client how to create a distinct account and self-submit? AllyD (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You raise an important point regarding the legal issue. It was previously discussed at WP:COIN. Many freelancing sites grant all rights to the work created as part of the contract to the client. Since paid editors and their clients don't generally show a good understanding of our basic policies, it's hard to argue that the clients are implicitly aware that having freelancers post articles on Wikipedia requires releasing the content under a free license. Most of CAT:PAID may be a copyright violation. Rentier (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your candour and am sorry to pile on more criticism, but for me this account illustrates exactly why even otherwise good editors who intend to engage in paid editing shouldn't have advanced permissions. Autopatrolled editors are expected to reliably create articles that conform to all relevant guidelines and policies, and yet you knowingly created one you knew wasn't up to scratch. New page patrollers and OTRS volunteers are trusted to exercise good judgement on behalf of the project, yet you found yourself in a position where your own judgement was superseded by that of your client. These roles are simply not compatible. – Joe (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • User:KDS4444 Thanks for telling your story. This is the first time I have looked at what you actually did in the case of these four articles. What you did in all four cases that was very wrong. You published the articles yourself instead of putting them through AfC so that they would be reviewed before they published in WP. This is what we ask all people with a COI to do - namely to not edit existing articles directly but rather propose edits on the talk page, and put new articles through AfC, each with disclosure so that the content can be reviewed in light of the COI. It is decent that you had the autopatrolled tag removed, but you shouldn't try to claim "above and beyond" at all, since publishing them directly was incorrect. You appear to be unaware that this is what the PAID policy and COI guideline both say. If you are ignorant of what that policy and guideline say, I find that in itself disturbing - we rely on people with advanced permissions to understand the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, I always try to keep conversations on this page away from specific editors: we made NPP/N historical a few months ago, and AN/ANI is the correct place for most concerns with specific uses/abuses of user rights. That being said, since KDS4444 has commented on his personal situation here and you reviewed it, I think it is important to note that KDS4444 is still autopatrolled.
    At this point I think there is a rough consensus on this page that Advanced permissions that deal with new content, specifically autopatrolled and NPR should generally not be held by a paid editor who is not a WiR or similar. I think the best course of action would be for any discussion about specific editors behavior to continue either on their talk page or at WP:AN (not ANI), with talk page being the preferred option. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note. I will not respond further on the specifics here. This needed to be said once here, however. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, understood: its why I made the point about the autopatrolled permission as well. I was just commenting trying to reign the conversation in before this became a dissection of another user's edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, for my information, could you please link to the policy that says paid creations must go through AfC? I would likely support such a policy if it were proposed but I have been unable to find where it is already set as existing consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent me. I never wrote "must" and no policy says "must" about this. What WP:PAID and WP:COI both say is that people with a COI and PAID editors should not directly edit (the bolding is in the original), and both explain that instead people with a COI should post proposals on the talk pages of existing articles and should put new articles through AfC. That is how we do "peer review" for conflicted editors in WP. It is the same as academic publishing (disclosure + peer review) adapted for our context. (Peer review in academia happens before articles are published.. it of course happens after as well, but the process everyone relies on is prior.) "Should" is strong language in WP; a bolded "should" is a smidge below "must" but is not "must".

Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The relevant section here is WP:COIEDIT, which states you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks Tony. I do think it'd be worth considering making this firmer, so as to eliminate ambiguity. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • KDS444's explanation raises more issues & questions. I can see the explanation that KDS was being paid to provide an experienced wiki-writing service - a straightforward WP:PAID issue. At the point where the client insisted on using their copy it seems that the WP:COI blinded KDS to the fact that the client was now just using him as a cats paw, and that all KDS is now selling is the use of his good name. Now, what if the material the client provided for Stewart Levenson had been previously deleted at Stewart A. Levenson, or Stewart B. Levenson, or Stewart Levenson (spammer) or some other title? We'd now be calling KDS a meatpuppet and raising an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConteRaff/Archive#16 June 2016 shows an example of a paid editor who stumbled into just this scenario. The WP:COI rules exist because of this blindness & wilful self-delusion. Use of higher privileges is incompatible with Paid editing. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have found CorporateM's editing to be problematic. First of all they have tried to put a positive spin on stuff made by their clients such as at Clear aligners. This form of paid editing consumes large amounts of the volunteer communities time, distracting them from more important topics. To determine whether or not a paid for article is "good" one often needs to have some background in the area in question. I assume that the client feeds the paid editor the sources to use, which already creates a biased start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I made an analogy above about taking pennies from a blind man's begging bowl. I think there is another kind of blindness here - the inability to distinguish white and black and only seeing a grey zone of some rules for some and some rules for others. The other analogy is that people don't get a free pass to break the speed limit just because they happen to good drivers. There is only black or white here: anyone who accepts money (or even a free cruise on his clients ship), is a paid editor. Anyone who does not accept compensation for their edits is not a paid editor.
NPP already has a serious problem with with Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? without now having to review autopatrollers' articles - because that's what it's going to amount to. And as far as 'punishing' users by removing their 'rights', autopatrolled is not a user right per se - the only advantage it gives anyone is for paid users to avoid scrutiny. All the other rights are simply not promotions either, they are specialisations. Just like adminship, they are no big deal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In my view, COI is a structural issue, not a personal one. A COI puts a person in a structural situation where they are in conflict. Different people will handle that differently. But the structure isn't personal. It is true that people in that situation often put themselves there. They make choices that lead to the conflict. Sometimes that choice is distant but sometimes very close. Paid editing is actually a choice to put oneself into a conflict of interest.
And on another level, we can describe the various ways people handle it, when they choose to put themselves in this paid conflict of interest:
  • I) Some people appear to consistently work within the system, and appear to always allow their COI to be managed - they appear to always disclose and put edits through peer review instead of publishing directly.
  • II) Some people don't allow their paid COI to managed -- for some people that is intentional, and for others, from ignorance.
  • III) With some people it ~appears~ that the person is sometimes allowing their paid COI to be managed, but sometimes not. We can never really know. But this is something very easy to do, especially here in WP where we strive so hard to protect privacy and actually have no means for verifying anything about what people do off-WP.
On another level, there is the relationship that the status of being a "paid editor" puts the person into, with the community. This too is a structural thing. Choosing to edit for pay, is a decision that is very... impactful to one's reputation in the community at large. Some people might respect them for it, some don't care, some people will hate them for it.... the vast majority will note it and go, "hm... kinda problematic". Questions will almost arise if the person is always disclosing, or only sometimes.
So for me, there are two levels of structural things when someone chooses to edit for pay - the specific conflicts of interest that get created, and the relationship between the paid editor and the community. Individuals handle both levels, differently, and not always consistently.
On both levels, then, it is ... kinda problematic, structurally, for someone who edits for pay to have advanced permissions. In my view, this is something that there should be a presumption against. It is something that should not happen, due to the trust issues it raises, on a structural level.
In my view:
  • it is very unwise for someone who edits for pay, to seek advanced permissions
  • it is very unwise for someone who already has advanced permissions, to start editing for pay.
Like everything in WP, we generally don't do hard-and-fast rules. (OUTING is one of the few things that must not happen.)
So of course, the community can make exceptions. Say if somebody has an exceptionally sterling reputation for great judgement and actively edits for pay sometimes, perhaps it makes sense for them to also have advanced permissions. But that should be explicitly discussed in the specific case. The exception should be personal; the general presumption against, structural and not personal. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
All interesting points. For my part, I truly was unaware of the recommended step of putting newly created paid articles through AfC, mostly because I haven't created very many. I was aware of the guidelines about posting edit requests on talk pages, but never noticed the bit about putting articles through AfC. I am sure I read it, but I am also sure that at the time I read it, it didn't apply to me, and so I did not "store" it correctly. However, I think no one here will argue that I made any attempt to conceal my identity or my activity or to misrepresent my edits. Having the autopatrolled right allows me to lighten the load at NPP— I do not see it as a tool I get to use to avoid having my edits reviewed (which I think my behavior outlined above makes clear, yes?). In that sense, having the right is only something to lighten the workload elsewhere— I can surrender it and then every article I create, including those with which I have no COI, will have to go through NPP. It's an inefficient answer when I have already demonstrated no desire to abuse the right. Most of the time I forget I even have it. And I suspect that right now there are at least three or four editors who are watching every edit I make very carefully! I believe I am, at least for the moment, very well "patrolled"! Lastly, I just want to reiterate the difference I see between paid editors and editing for pay; the distinction is an important one, and I think it is maybe getting/ will end up becoming/ is already lost (?). KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 22:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no distinction between paid editors and editing for pay; as I have already clearly said, they both prey on the unpaid voluntary work of the people who build this encyclopedia and maintain it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Relation of Review to PROD

I am not a reviewer. I do look at articles when first submitted. I looked at an article and PRODded it. It was subsequently reviewed. The PROD remained. What happens now? Is the review a Good Housekeeping seal of approval? There are three outcomes here: (1) The author is emboldened and the PROD tag is removed. I will have been wrong in my assessment, or (2) someone else will look, agree and the article gets AfD, or (3) the article is improved (unlikely but possible).
I'm just not quite sure what a successful review means in light of a previous ding. Rhadow (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I read it as the reviewer agreeing with your assessment. The article was correctly PRODed and the reviewer would have PRODed it as well so there is nothing further that a reviewer can do. They might have endorsed the prod with a {{prod2}} template, but I rarely see that used in reviews, so they might not know it exists. Mduvekot (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that you can check the log to see who the reviewer is and ask them what they meant. Mduvekot (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, this means that as a reviewer I agree with assessment and since it's a proper one, it has to be removed from articles for review queue. And as usual, I follow such article to ensure proper outcome of PROD and mark it as reviewed. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROD should only be used when no opposition to the deletion is expected. In the NPP context, opposition to deletion would be often be expected from the original author so PROD may not be the best good choice for NPP disposition. There is a WP:PRODPATROL project which will sometimes review and remove or endorse proposals. In the end, a WP:SOFTDELETE is performed by an administrator if the proposal is not removed within 7 days and the proposal looks reasonable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Statements of Faith

In the past week, I have seen several "articles" that are statements of Christian faith. My question for other New Page reviewers is whether there is a specific criterion for speedy deletion to use for them. I have seen them tagged as G11, which is plausible, and in one case I saw one tagged as G3, which strikes me as the wrong thing to do. G3 is vandalism, and vandalism is editing that is meant to be be harmful to the encyclopedia, but these statements of faith are, literally, made in good faith. There isn't a specific criterion for speedy deletion based simply on What Wikipedia is not. A1, A3, A7, G2, and G1 clearly don't fit. The closest is G11, promotion (of Christianity, possibly some particular flavor of Christianity). I don't want to use PROD, because a PROD can be dePRODed, and I don't want to have to take them through Articles for Deletion. Is there a consensus to use G11? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

G11 seems suitable to me--no reason promoting a religion should get special exemption from the promotion of other entities. (After all, as the policy says, "[A]nything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.") I will say, I don't take for granted that these entries are necessarily done in good faith as the encyclopedia understands it: if an editor has been warned about NPOV, etc., yet persists in posting pages contrary to policy, I think that could be outside good-faith encyclopedic contributions, even if in good faith as far as their personal religious convictions are concerned. But yes I imagine much more commonly, the problem is promotionalism, rather than knowing vandalism. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, has there been an on-line challenge that would explain why these are happening? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you link to some? I'm typically pretty good at figuring out how to deal with Christianity issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to be edgy, you could go G3 as a hoax. (This is humor, people, move along.) ~ Rob13Talk 03:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought stuff made up by the creator was A11. Cabayi (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Curation tools interaction with common.js

resolved issue

I have a number of tools specified in my common.js file. Since I joined NPP, for most pages in articlespace, I have to force a reload of the page to get these tools to show in the toolbar. It seems like it's a sequencing error (but most of this .js scripting still seems pretty obscure and exotic to me). It's as if, when the curation tool sees articlespace pages that it does not want itself to appear on, it exits in some way to finish displaying the page without running my .js file. On pages from the NPP feed, my tools do appear in their normal place.

I realize this is a pretty technical question, but if there's a better place to ask, please direct me. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

jmcgnh, which tools are you using? The two ones that are probably the most vital are User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which makes the new pages feed easier to access by putting a link to it on your top toolbar, and User:The Earwig/copyvios.js, which creates a link on your side toolbar that runs the current page through a copyright violation detector. Since Page Curation is a Media-wiki extension, nothing really directly interacts with javascript to my knowledge (though I'm sure I could be proven wrong on this). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni: I picked up the Earwig copyvios script based on the recent NPP newsletter. Here's my current list
Tools list that needs forced reload
  • What links here
  • Related changes
  • User contributions
  • Logs
  • Email this user
  • View user groups
  • Upload file
  • RTRC
  • Special pages
  • Permanent link
  • Page information
  • Expand citations
Tools list after forced reload (additions bolded)
  • What links here
  • Related changes
  • User contributions
  • Logs
  • Email this user
  • View user groups
  • Upload file
  • RTRC
  • Special pages
  • Permanent link
  • Page information
  • Subpages
  • Dab solver
  • Dablinks
  • Dab fix list
  • Checklinks
  • Cite maker1
  • Copyvio check
  • reFill(options)
  • Expand citations
But now that I look at the code for Copyvio check, I may be misremembering when I first ran into this problem. I'll take another look at my common.js file to see if refactoring the additions would allow me to solve my problem. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I simplified the Earwig Copyvio code so it looked like the other tool additions and it made no difference. The difference between tools and no tools still seems to be whether the curation tool is active or not. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Resolved. I used the when-ready-done code from Lourdes to wrap all of my calls to the tool installer and it now seems to be working more reliably. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

CSD vs Moving to Draft

Howdy! Longtime listener, first-time caller. I've been getting more active in reviewing new pages here lately and I'm wondering if there are specific criteria for moving pages to draft versus simply tagging an article for speedy deletion. Personally, I'd be much more inclined to simply move articles to draft than to CSD them since it's less "bitey"; however, I don't see that happening by others very often (likely because the pages vanish from the Feed) and it makes me wonder if I'm missing something. Any advice you can provide would be very helpful. PureRED | talk to me | 19:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Usually, I only move pages to draft when I think there's a chance for it to survive deletion. Otherwise, I'd nominate it for deletion or request speedy if they fit the criteria. — Zawl 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Thank you! PureRED | talk to me | 20:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm still quite new at this as well, PureRED, so I've asked similar questions.
At the top of this page there is a pointer to a discussion about adding more process to draftifying. Moving an article to draft space substantially reduces the number of editors likely to look at improving it, so it's not, all by itself, a great solution. I have to assume the reason you don't want to tag for speedy is because there is some doubt in your mind about whether the article qualifies for a specific criterion. Violations of those criteria are supposed to be blatantly obvious. You also have proposed deletion and Articles for Deletion processes available where you think there's a decent case to be made for deletion but it's not a slam dunk CSD.
For most new items, there's a hierarchy of tests that should run through your mind. The four most important (at least in my mind) are
  • copyvio
  • notability
  • referencing problems
  • tone or promotionality
The grey area at NPP for me are articles where the notability is not properly supported by the references offered but where your independent assessment says that the subject is likely notable. In other words "WP should have an article about this subject, just not this article." Is this the sort of circumstance under which you'd like to draftify? Do you also mean to subject it to AfC review? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I completely missed the pointer. It has some good content that covers my question pretty well, too. PureRED | talk to me | 21:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd personally agree with jmcgnh's last comments, draftification is best used when the subject looks like it might be notable, but where the current article is so woefully undersourced and/or badly formatted that it is likely to get deleted anyway. I first look to see if any CSD criteria are clearly valid, and if so, I will tag for CSD every time. If it isn't CSDable, then my checklist is as follows: 1) If the topic doesn't look notable, and a quick search doesn't come up with anything, I'll take it to AfD (or possibly throw a PROD at it and see if it sticks first). 2) if the topic looks like it might be notable, is acceptably written, but the sourcing is so-so, I'll tag it with various tags as appropriate and leave it to develop in mainspace. 3) If the article looks like it might be notable, but is badly written and the sourcing is so-so (or nonexistent), then I'll consider draftifying as a solution. 4) If the article is badly written but the sourcing is good (at least 2 good sources), then it usually doesn't quality for any deletion critera and I would also discourage draftifying it, but rather would look to other solutions like tagging, or just cutting the bad material and writing a single sentence with the existing sources to suffice as the article until other editors start chiming in. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 04:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The draft for guidelines rules restrictions for unilateral draftification are here: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification. It's focus is on what may or may not be draftified. A NPReviewer may draftify any unreviewed page if the NPReviewer considers it speediable, on their discretion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC) On non-speediable poor articles/topic, I think it is important to find the balance between giver reviewers the power and discretion to properly review and act accordingly, but to prevent validity in the perception that reviewers can freely impose immediatism onto newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
We now have a corps of around 450 reviewers (although most of them have never, or rarely used the right they asked for). Draftification is something they should all be competent to understand, and use with the correct discretion. One issue that remains however, is that its use, AFAIK, is still open to newbies, younger and other inexperienced users, who the Reviewer right is supposed to largely discourage from messing around with new pages and biting brand new users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the issues pressing for documented restriction are (1) unilateral decision dratifications by newbies, as you mention, and (2) unilateral draftification of non-new pages as a back-door method of deletion, something for which I haven't seen evidence for having happened much, but about which multiple editors have expressed concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do think it's a little strange that the right to draftify is open to folks who aren't in reviewer group--(and that includes myself). It seems a little bit like a strangely powerful tool that's been left unguarded. I'll be extremely careful with it, I just wanted to get the insight from some experts. I really appreciate all the feedback. PureRED | talk to me | 18:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Draftification is simply a cross-namespace move, which is open to anyone who is autoconfirmed. Nothing more, nothing less. To change that you would need to have an RfC that restricted cross-namespace moves (most likely to extended confirm). That would likely be unsuccessful, because extended confirmed is not supposed to be a big deal. Reviewers don't by default have the right to suppress redirects, which is part of the standard process: only pagemovers and admins do, so for the less experienced users, there will always be a CSD tag an admin has to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, got it. So there's always a little bit of a paper trail left behind until you're in the "pagemover" group. Makes sense. PureRED | talk to me | 18:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_13"