Open main menu
Caution Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)


WP:NPPDRAFT vs. AfC acceptance criteriaEdit

WP:NPPDRAFT suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace.

Primary AFC acceptance criteria is that the article is unlikely to be deleted at AFD. Based on my AFD experience, I beleive safe to say that an article about "a generally acceptable topic" is still not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. The other policy-based reasons for AFC rejection are severe NPOV and copyvio issues. I beleive NPP articles with these issues are usually disposed through G11 and G12.

My preference is that we strike the Draft option for NPP reviewers. I've been told, without supporting evidence, that moving underdeveloped new articles to Draft space works well. If so, perhaps the advice can be tightened up to mesh better with AFC policy.

I originally posted this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#WP:NPPDRAFT and have copied it here at Barkeep49's suggestion. Some additional background discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Move_to_Draft_space_as_an_alternative_to_deletion. Please share your thoughts. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've actually done a bit of work in both venues. I think the issue is that the AfC criteria is the one that needs altering. I think the bar "ulikely to be deleted at AfD" too low. When you combine that with the concept that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup (which is an essay, but not a policy - however, it is cited regularly), there are articles that clearly meet WP:GNG, but are in no way ready for mainspace. Case in point are articles about villages, or other entities which would meet WP:GEOLAND, but are entirely unsourced. Using the AfD standard, a patroller would simply tag the article unreferenced, leave a note for the article creator, and move on. That article then might simply be permatagged. Moving to draft seems to prompt better response than simply tagging, and encourages articles to at least be properly sourced. That being said, I don't think there's been a single instance where I've felt the urge to overturn an article which has been approved through the AfC process and send it back to draft (I could be wrong, but I don't think so). I have, very rarely, taken an AfC approved article to AfD (don't think it's been more than once or twice in the last 3 years). Having done AfC, and at one time been quite active in it, I appreciate the work that you and others do there. But in the end I think the draftify option is a valid and effective tool at NPP.Onel5969 TT me 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
We are not going to be able to resolve inclusion/deltionist tension here. If you think WP:AFC acceptance policy should be changed, let's talk about changing it over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. My problem is that WP:NPPDRAFT is worded in a squishy way that is difficult to apply consistently and is in conflict with the unsquishy AFC acceptance policy.
As for your claim that draftify is an effective tool, we first have to decide what effective means. If it means keeping marginal material out of mainspace, I agree, it is effective at that; the great majority of Draft articles are eventually G13 deleted. I don't think it is an effective approach to improving content. ~Kvng (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
A few points:
  • Are you using "AFC" as a shorthand for "newly created article" rather than "has been accepted by WP:AFC"? There's of course plenty of material turning up in mainspace that was directly created there and never vetted by AfC. Consequently it may miss AfC criteria by a mile. - Having said that, AfC-the-Process is no more failproof than NPP; I've sent at least four AfC passes straight to AfD. However those were notability issues, where assessment by an individual always has more variance. I don't think I've ever draftified an AfC pass, since draftification doesn't help with actual notability problems, as noted elsewhere.
  • I don't see a downside to the classic "undersourced, incubate in draftspace" move. The creator of an article has a responsibility to provide reasonable sourcing; if you can't be bothered to search out some minimal references, you are just putting the work on others. Maybe it's time to expressly codify that in the guidelines. Having the article handed back to you with a note saying "hey, some minmal effort please" is very often a useful and productive nudge.
  • Third, I think the NPPDRAFT formulation is usefully broad because among other things, it allows us to be helpful and kind. A frequent case is the student project that is moved into mainspace while in essay form complete with "Introduction" and "Conclusion", with references in brackets and rampant bolding. If the topic is notable, technically this could be left in mainspace and to the hope of gradual improvement. Practically it's going to be brutally cut down, unsuccessfully CSD'd, sent to AfD as "irretrievable essay, nuke it", and generally savaged. Alternatively, it can be sent back to draft with a friendly note explaining what needs to be done; and the author, invested in their article, will spruce it up in their own time and republish. This almost always works, in my experience, and almost in itself justifies the existence of this option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am an active AFC reviewer, when I say AFC, I mean AFC. I am an inactive NPP reviewer and know about all the stuff that gets dumped directly into mainspace.
  • The onus is generally on the community, not an individual author or editor to provide citations that demonstrate notability of something in mainspace (see WP:BEFORE). BLPs are an exception but I'm not talking about BLPs and I assume you aren't either. AFC is another exception but we're talking about treatment of mainspace here.
  • Have you tried to get an article through AFC lately? There's a 2+ month wait before you even get to enter the gauntlet. There's a different kind of pain available at AFC but I wouldn't call it friendly. There is no problem with offering authors the informed option to move their article to draft space. The article creation wizard has already given that option and they decided not to take it. ~Kvng (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A few more points: WP:NPPDRAFT suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace. - thing is, we don't. We move articles to Draft so that they can be declined or the creator invited to work more on them for a limited period.
The processes of NPP and AfC are closely related but are nevertheless as different as they are similar, their functions are however beginning to converge somewhat (which is what several users and I have been striving for) at least in terms of quality and application of notability standards and deletion criteria. The main difference is that NPP is strictly a triage (and please look that up if its military meaning is not immediately clear), and an official function, with the strictest criteria, while AfC is only a Wikiproject and not a policy, is more subjective, often handled by users with less experience (not obliged to have read WP:NPP or go through a vetting process), and can and does do some very easy fixes - but is still not obliged to. Nevertheless, neither system is a Field Hospital or a MASH for lazy article creators or ones who pretend not to understand our laws of creation, especially UPE and COI creators (see WP:BOGOF) - the WP:ARS is the best venue for such articles that might show some potential for surviving AfD. Note that this is not however an exercise in belittling the work of AfC which has now become, since the creation of the Draft space and the NPR right, a very necessary de facto official function.
The Draft namespace was created thus allowing the useless WP:INCUBATOR (where articles were left to rot indefinitely) to be deprecated. Drafts can be quasi automatically deleted G13 if they are not touched for 6 months, and this is good, but the namespace should not deliberately be used as a perma-junk repository or a backdoor route to deletion.
At the moment however, we simply just do not have the peoplepower to address them, and as clearly shown by the current backlogs in both systems where for example of the 700+ holders of the WP:NPR user right, only two (yes, 2) are doing well over 90% of the work.
We need fewer minor-rights hat collectors, and more truly active skilled and qualified AfC and NPP reviewers who can work quickly but judiciously through their respective article feeds - which incidentally are now both available at the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:NPPDRAFT is that promising but subjectively substandard NPP articles are moved to Draft space. From there the author would have to submit to AFC for review. I am concerned that these authors may never submit the draft or/because they don't know how to make the improvements requested by the reviewer. I have anecdotes from my watchlist but don't have scientific information about what happens to articles in Draft space. What I do know is that the collaboration that happens in Draft is limited to reviewers telling authors what's wrong with their drafts.
I don't think the solution to not having enough manpower to process our backlog is to throw the backlog over the wall into Draft space (where most of it is deleted 6 months later). But if you like that idea, you may also like this recent proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it would be an improvement to have the default move-to-draft process not include AfC instructions and instead include instructions for moving the article back to mainspace themselves. We'd still potentially have an issue with that becoming a backdoor to deletion, but at least we wouldn't be flooding the AfC process, and it would be clearer for NPP editors that this is an option to be used only when they think that the initial editor of the article in question can make the necessary changes by themselves. signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd hope that the AfC notice could be optional in the same way that notification is. I find I end up removing the banner on some number of my DRAFTIFYs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I see - I hadn't understood that part of the issue was the perceived consequence of being dropped back into AfC as a result of the move to draft. That clarifies a few turns of argument above that I found puzzling :) Agreed, this is often not helpful. I make that a case-by-case decision, and usually I do remove the submission header post-move if it seems that the author is unlikely to run up against any AfC thresholds. The student-essay type cases in particular don't need that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Kvng, I've already commented there, please follow the discussion. You'll notice also that nobody is advocating throwing the backlog over the wall into Draft space. For one thing, the only drafts that come to NPP are those that have been accepted by AfC. Any other new articles at NPP have been created by users who are already autoconfirmed. That's what I fought 6 bitter long years to get ACTRIAL through and ACPERM established and this very New Page Reviewer right created. You should have seen what NPP work was 10 years ago; the system we have today is pure luxury but today's patrollers don't appreciate it and we still have unsustainable backlogs. If the New Page Reviewers are doing their job properly, [I] know about all the stuff that gets dumped directly into mainspace sounds more like a rant than an objective statement. I know I sometimes throw sweeping statements into the pot, but but I think you are going to be in the minority in the discussions in all three venues. If you want to get a consensus, consolidate them or use the project that was created for the purpose: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I did see the old NPP, supported ACTRIAL and ACPERM and have participated at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. I'm going to take your advice and not open discussion about this in another venue. What I'm looking for here is to make a change to WP:NPPDRAFT so that it is consistent with AFC acceptance criteria because we shouldn't be putting stuff into Draft that already meets this criteria. Before proposing changes, I was trying to understand how WP:NPPDRAFT is used by NPP reviewers. I am getting the impression that it is used differently by different NPP reviewers. I guess given the squishy wording, this is to be expected. I will reply here with a proposal shortly. ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Kvng But AfC does not have any policies. Because I wrote WP:NPPDRAFT, the use of 'Move to draft' by New Page Reviewers is, IMO, clear and unambiguous, and the feature isn't actually used very often - and shouldn't be, it's not a catchall for NPPers who don't know what to do. On the other hand, AfC reviewers do not come under the same scrunity as NPPers and are often far less experienced, hence the disparity in the quality of their reviewing or the criteria they appply. It's not the Draft namespace that needs fixing, its the AfC reviewers. That said, not wishing to rule out your concern entirely, it would help if you could list some concrete examples of where you feel the 'Move to Draft' is not being used correctly, and make a suggestion for the syntax and semantics you would like improved at WP:NPPDRAFT. I realise that WT:NPP might seem like the best venue to discuss it, and I would agree, but nowadays this talk page here gets more eyes and comment for things directly pertaining to NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I can propose some improvements to WP:NPPDRAFT. There seems to be some openness to that. It doesn't appear that we're going to get a consensus here to kill it. Should I do that here or over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol?
Also, I think I used the wrong word, AFC has a criteria. Policy is something grander.
Also, I wasn't aware that NPP reviewers were better than AFC reviewers. What sort of scrutiny do NPP reviewers come under? AFC declines are checked by other AFC reviewers when an author resubmits. Accepts are checked by NPP and eventually by general editors and readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Kvng, the Draft is a namespace I was partially instrumental in getting created, replaced the now deprecated WP:Incubator, and as it is now essential for ACPERM new users, there is very little chance of getting it abandoned. The answers to the questions you are asking are all around you but you may wish to see what new Page Patrollers need to know, and then how they are accredited, and WP:PERM for how they get there (many of the applications are rejected). For AfC reviewer authorisation, see WP:AFCP - incidentally another original initiative of mine, which Primefac admirably takes care of. Some, but far from all, AfC reviewers are holders of the NPR user right. New Page Review is the 'senior' process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I can propose some improvements to WP:NPPDRAFT. There seems to be some openness to that. It doesn't appear that we're going to get a consensus here to kill it. Should I do that here or over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol?
Here is a proposed replacement Moving to draft paragraph. Changes are in the first sentence only: ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Moving to draft

A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but may have serious issues which do not meet criteria for speedy deletion but make the article likely to be deleted for other reasons. Such pages can be moved to the draft namespace manually. An explanatory note and link to the draft should be left on the article creator's talk page. The resulting redirect should be suppressed if you have the page mover user right, or tagged for deletion with CSD R2. The MoveToDraft script is a useful tool for automating this process.

I have implemented this proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
And I have reverted it. No consensus has been reached. Onel5969 TT me 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the new verbiage. Older version is more appropriate. Onel5969 TT me 23:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment That was a fairly bold implementation! Support onel5969's revert - that change requires serious consensus. I lean towards the current verbiage personally (i.e. the version onel5969 just reverted back to), but would be open to considering the arguments of others. Leave this open for a while, we don't want to rush a change like this. GirthSummit (blether) 00:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I beleive I have made my arguments above. I have tried to understand and merge the intent of the guidelines here with AfC acceptance criteria. I posted a specific proposal here and got no feedback for 4 days so it's clearly time to be WP:BOLD. Best I can tell, onel5969's objection is that the AfC accept criteria is too low. Girth Summit, this is the first we've heard from you in this discussion. There are arguments of others to review above. Which specifically cause you to support onel5969 on this? ~Kvng (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that there are arguments of others above, I have been watching the thread; most of it has been quite general discussion, not focussed on this specific verbiage. You ask your question in an interesting way though - I have to confess that what makes me want to support onel5969 is in large part this - Onel5969 does a significant proportion of the work at NPP, appears to do it very well, and if they are concerned about the change I think it right to give their view considerable weight.
More objectively, I think your new wording is tantamount to deprecating WP:NPPDRAFT. Draftify is useful for borderline cases where you think there is some useful content there, but the article as it stands is seriously deficient. Tightening up the language in this way greatly reduces the amount of grey area; I think that is what you are trying to achieve, but it leaves little but the black and white of AfD versus tag and mark as patrolled. Draftify is not an option that should be used often, but it's useful to have it available for certain cases.
However, as I said, I'd be interested to read the thoughts of more experienced patrollers on this specific verbiage, and am open to being swayed. GirthSummit (blether) 06:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks onel5969. I just noticed this and also thought it was premature. Functionally, the proposed wording nails the draftify criteria down to the first point (2a) of Wikipedia:Drafts#During_new_page_review - "would fail AfD". This ignores a number of other use cases, including the one I alluded to above: creation by an inexperienced editor who needs some pointers and a little time before throwing the article into the grinder. I'm not sure the wording requires an update, honestly, provided people take heed of WP:DRAFTIFY. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree Elmidae - although I do think that it would be nice if AfC got more inline with our concepts of what is ready for mainspace.Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is everyone familiar with WP:DRAFTIFY? Also WP:DUD and every editors right to not use draftspace, and how you must use AfD if opposed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The latter bears emphasizing. There's a temptation to shove articles back into draft a second time if the author just ignores the first draftification and re-publishes right away, warts and all. I've succumbed before and been rightly slapped for it. It's a one-shot approach, at least for non-admin/non-wider consensus purposes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. While this is only anecdotal, I'm guessing 99% of the time I draftify an article, there is no drama. Either the editor is no longer interested in the article, or the editor works on the article and gets it ready for mainspace. Also, draftify shouldn't be used instead of one of the deletion routes. I only draftify articles which appear to me to meet the notability criteria, but are simply not ready for mainspace in one way or another. Many times, if the editor is still interested in the article, they will contact me (either on my page, the article's talkpage, or on their talkpage in response to the notice I leave there). Well over 90% of those times, the article is made ready for mainspace, and moved back in. But if I draftify an article and it's moved back into mainspace without improvement, then I either take one of the deletion routes, or let another editor take a look at it. The only time I can remember this happening, however, was when another editor, who was pretty active at AfC, started mass moving articles into mainspace. I think I moved one of those articles back into mainspace, but without checking the history, so I didn't know that it had been moved out of draft. But many of those articles were moved back into draft (or taken to AfD) by other NPP reviewers. Can't remember the editor's name, but no longer see it at all, so not sure what happened to them.Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm learning here is that we don't want to clarify conditions that justify draftify. The preference is to not specify additional constraints. A wide gray area is desirable and "one reason or another" is sufficient specification. I don't think this is good process design but if there really is a consensus to operate this way, I guess that's the way things will operate for now. So, is there any significant support for my proposed changes above? ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Like Elmidae and Onel I prefer the longstanding version to the proposed version. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles over 90 Days OldEdit

I just want to note that we now have hundreds of articles that are unreviewed and are older than 90 days sitting in the queue. This was a bit of a shock to me when I just discovered it and thought that this has perhaps snuck up on some other reviewers as well. After our big spike in the queue between April and June we seem to be headed back in the right directionoverall but the oldest side of the queue could probably use a bit more attention and so if you're doing some patrolling consider patrolling from that end. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thanks for bringing this to attention. I'll try to help out a bit at the back in the coming days. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it needs attention. I try to hit 15-50 articles at the back end when I begin my NPP each day. I think we should all start there. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd go further: we should be focusing all of our reviewing on the back of the queue until we fall back under the 90 day mark. signed, Rosguill talk 07:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
They are likely coming from the AfC queue, but need attention anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, unfortunately the data doesn't support that. April 8 is the first date which has a bunch of articles and 6 of the 10 articles did start in draft/userspace and were moved later to mainspace. However if we go to April 17 (e.g. day 91) in the queue only 8 of the 84 articles started in draft space, 2 of them were moved that same day, and the rest were moved April 18, April 20, April 21 (x2), May 1, and May 2 (and none of them I'll note were AfC accepts). I suspect that general pattern holds up - the closer we are to 90 days the more articles there are yet to be reviewed and the greater percentage of which did not start off in draft/userspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I patrolled some of them, and they seem to be coming genuinely from the queue. Probably we indeed need a drive.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is actually quite serious because there could be any amount of totally inappropriate content about to be handed to Google. The only answer is for our (sadly far too few) active reviewers to have a systematic drive at the back of the queue. It's my guess however, that a lot of them may be the more difficult ones that are getting left 'for someone else to do'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll try to do as much as possible in the coming days/weeks, in addition to my other edits at Wikipedia. I think organising a GOCE-like drive would be a good idea. --MrClog (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Just so I understand, any article created in the NPP pool prior to April 23 (if today's date is July 23) can simply get moved to the mainspace without review? Onel5969 TT me 02:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. They should be reviewed when we see them. We can't always catch them, but we should when we are able by whatever oddity of the system--and we should consider trying to get a query for unreviewed articles of any date. We shouldn't however panic: here have been many times over the years where the queue has gotten past 90 days. And until a few years ago, new articles went into Google immediately. Not even counting the higher standards over the years, there remain in WP perhaps a hundred thousand inappropriate older articles. (rough estimate--I think for the first 10 years we reviewed or autoreviewed only about 9/10 the articles, which would make about 400,000 unreviewed. & see WP:Size of Wikipedia for the size of WP in earlier years. Remembering the days before we had Draft, possibly 1/4 of them were never appropriate. Even if my proportions are 2-fold over estiates, that's 25,000 inappropriate) . DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Any article in the article pool older than 90 days has been indexed by Google (and for knowledge panel purposes this means indefinitely). This means that BLP violations, Spam, etc could theoretically be indexed. Ideally unreviewed articles (how many ever there are) which are in the queue would be less than 90 days old. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
DGG and Barkeep49 Thank you both for the info. Very enlightening. Onel5969 TT me 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, BLP, subtle spam, and COPYVIO should be given the highest priority at the back of the queue. Always bearing in mind that rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Sloppy reviewing is not an option. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

17 JulyEdit

Two years and one month ago to the day, I wrote this essay which characterised the long and hard struggle that finally resulted in not one, but three victories for our NPP community: ACTRIAL, ACPERM, and the success at the Christmas Wishlist for Curation/New Pages Feed. The essay documents how negotiating with the Wikimedia Foundation is neither easy, nor fun, and how they need to be subjected to enormous pressure to accept that they are not only not always right, but very often completely wrong. Those of us who have been following the current WP:FRAMBAN affair will realise how in fact little has changed in the relations between this community of unpaid, unrewarded volunteers, and the salaried WMF staff - over 100 of whom are booked on aircraft and into luxury hotels in Stockholm for yet another junket next month. I won't be in Sweden, but I hope some of you will be able to come to Wikimania 2020 next year here in Bangkok and let me buy you a beer. Thank you everyone, who keeps NPP alive and running.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

unreview an articleEdit

I found that an editor took an existing dab page (New Story) and overwrote it with a new article. I restored the dab as it was, and then put the text of the "new" article into New Story (charity). I am technically the creator of the new article, and since I have autopatrol, it's not in the new page feed. I can't find a way to make it un-reviewed/patrolled. MB 01:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MB, right now there isn't. Rosguil helped you out. This is on the list of things to change so hopefully you'll soon be able fix this yourself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I had meant to chime in here earlier, but my internet conked out while I was unreviewing the article. signed, Rosguill talk 04:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, is anyone still keeping a regular watch on what's taking place at Phab for all the requests? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Kudpung, yes I am actively watching every ticket hence my incorrect worry on meta last week. I gave input on the date range sort today after an update for instance. I know others are also watching and would hopefully pick up the slack if I were hit by a bus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Initial thoughts - autopatrolled redirectsEdit

Related to phab:T227250#5363710, I'd like to see what people think of a potential bot task to automatically patrol redirects (and only redirects) created by users in a pseudo-user group.


A new pseudo-user group is created for users that do not meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Autopatrolled but have a consistent track record of creating "clean" redirects.


Prior to the creation of the autopatrol user right, User:JVbot/patrol whitelist was used to control a bot that would automatically patrol articles created by certain users. A similar set up would be used to control User:DannyS712 bot III, which would automatically patrol redirects created by certain users. Redirects that are later converted into articles are added back to the new pages queue (phab:T223828).


Pings: @Rosguill, Barkeep49, MusikAnimal, Insertcleverphrasehere, Kudpung, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Elmidae, DGG, and Onel5969: --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What do people think of this idea? This is not an official proposal at this time, I am merely trying to assess if this should be pursued. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • DannyS712, Sounds better than the current system where there are just way too many to patrol and many just fall off the back of the queue. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Conceptually that sounds fine to me. In general I think reviewer time is better spent on articles than redirect so ways of minimizing the redirect queue sounds like a win to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the bot still ran manually? I would not support this sort of pseudo-user group unless the mechanism to auto-patrol is fully automated. Let's say you create 200 redirects in the span of a few hours. You must wait for the human to run the bot when they wake up for them to be patrolled, all the while patrollers are reviewing those redirects unnecessarily. That aside, WP:PERM is as hectic to administrate as ever, so I'd be hesitant to add another thing for people to hat-collect unless we really need it. Maybe the list could be internally maintained here. But it's better I think that we attack the root of the problem. We'll find out soon if we can extend the backlog for redirects (phab:T227250), and phab:T92621 should help with the redirect->article->redirect scenario. We can also discuss increasing the rate limit on patrolling redirects, specifically, since that seems to be holding some of you back (and fast reviewing of redirects is realistic, as opposed to articles). MusikAnimal talk 01:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea but impractical and invites too much new bureaucracy for little gain. I fully concur with MusikAnimal.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I too agree that this is not a priority. Articles are the priority. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with MusikAnimal, this user right may be for people to hat-collect. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. I don't meet the requirements for autopatrolled but I do create a lot of redirects when reviewing request on WP:AFC/R. Or we could just restart the bot. Masum Reza📞 00:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


In the last NPR newsletter, it said "announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators". So has anyone stepped up to be one?___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In the last newsletter it said: Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication. (The bolding is mine). If, and only if, the election takes place, candidates will be provided with the venue for putting themselves forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, thanks for the clarification. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


Insertcleverphrasehere, do you have any idea what this means precisely? Phab is still an enigma to me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, It means making the NPP toolset available to be used on other language wikis. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, yes I know that, but is that the reason why they are delaying the work on it for us? I never understand all the different statuses and progress. Sometimes a non WMF dev just breezes into Phab and shunts smoething off into a holding bay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, Not sure. Sorry. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Time away from NPREdit

Hey everyone I just wanted to drop a line here and let y'all know I'm still around work right now has been very crazy and they have implemented mandatory overtime for the foreseeable future. This is why my NPP activity and Wiki-activity in general has been scarce in general lately. I will try to get back to normal as soon as I can. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

thank you for note--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


usernamekiran(talk) 14:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but a quick question. What exactly triggers the disappearance of the curation toolbar (or link in tools to bring it back). I'm guessing it (???) days and reviewed? 30 days? (as that's what special:new pages says and shows) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched (talkcontribs)

@Ched: yes, the curation toolbar stays for 30 days since after the page is marked as reviewed. But sometimes it gets disappeared in a week too. To bring it back, I usually add the code at the end of the address bar in the browser. I don't remember it now, and I am on mobile. But you can see that in a page with with toolbar. It is similar to the noredirect thing. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, do you have that link? I can't find documentation of it and recently had wanted to use it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Appending ?showcurationtoolbar=1 to the address bar will reveal the toolbar, though no guarantee to work all the time. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 and Ched: apologies for the delayed reply, even with this page being in my watchlist, and the ping. I was going to post the same code as Ammarpad has posted above. Like he said, it is unreliable. And for redirects, one can use &redirect=no This comes handy especially if you are on mobile, and dont want to switch to desktop view. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Curation Update - FEEDBACK NEEDEDEdit

IFried (WMF) and the team have continued to be at work updating the NPP toolset. Our request for 'Potential Issues' from ORES should be flagged in Page Curation Toolbar Page Info flyout is now live. Yeah! There are a couple other areas under development where some feedback/discussion among us seems like it would be useful. I'm creating separate sections for those two below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a "Potential COI" alert to the feedEdit

Through discussion this turned into a request to use Abuse Filters 148 and 149. In her latest update IFried wrote: "Here is what we propose:
We indicate if there is a match between the username and article title.
We don’t indicate if there is a match between the username and external links in the article. This is due to technical complexities, which would make it difficult to consistently and accurately provide useful data. We came to this conclusion after discussing username + link matching in greater depth. If you would like more technical details, we can certainly share them.
Since this work will specifically check one form of potential abuse, we think this feature should be renamed. Rather than calling it “Potential CIO” alert, we can call it “Username in Article Title."

With this in mind, we have two questions for you:
If we go with this proposal, will this be satisfactory? Or do you feel that it’s not useful in its current scope?
If we go with this proposal, do you prefer that we only check new users (i.e. the current behavior of AbuseFilter 148) or all non-autopatrolled users? If we choose the latter, this may give the “Username in Article Title” some additional functionality that is not found in the current AbuseFilters."

Does anyone have thoughts on the two questions? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Potential COI is also potential UPE. It should be possible for the system to detect if the obvious (not so obvious to all reviewers) hallmarks are found for paid editing and flag the article as such in the feed. I've already mentioned this recently somewhere but I can't remember where. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Kudpung, so is that a "No it's not useful in its current scope?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Check all users.
Indicate if there is a match between the username and article title. Call it 'Potential COI'
Indicate if the criteria for paid editing are met. Still call it Potential COI'
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to run a check on the article creator's userpage (not just the username)? They may have an innocuous username, but display on their userpage that they work for the relevant company (through a standard COI disclosure statement, or just in plain text). GirthSummit (blether) 19:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: That would probably take more time and programming than we have available to us at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

IFried (WMF) posted a more detailed explanation of this on meta and so you can read and/or respond there if you're interested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Send Message to creator without needing to 'unreview'/'re-review' the articleEdit

In order for this feature to work they will need to separate the review from feedback buttons. I have indicated this is no problem. They will also need to call on a specific template, Template:Sentnote-NPF for this to work. The toolbar started calling on that new template already and Bradv created a redirect to the existing message template, Template:Reviewednote-NPF. Do we want identical templates in this scenario? If not someone can do some work there (ping to Winged Blades of Godric who I know has done NPP template work in the past). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we've actually been asking for here. I have been expecting something on the lines of:
  1. Tagging, but leaving unreviewed: Thank you for creating xxxxxx. A reviewer has tagged the article as needing your attention before it can be accepted for indexing by search engines."
  2. Tagging, but passing as patrolled: The standard message, with the message details completed by the reviewer.
  3. A further idea: For all new articles passed as patrolled, a thank you template with a few (really just a few) links to help pages, the Teahouse, and 'Your first article'. Most of the new articles are created by new users and this would also help demonstrate that there are a humans behind Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clearer. What's being asked here is what do want the template Sentnote-NPF to look like? Right now it's redirecting to Reviewednote-NPF. Is that what we want or do we want a distinction between the two? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
1. New template: "Thank you for creating xxxxxx. A reviewer has tagged the article as needing your attention before it can be accepted for indexing by search engines.""
2. Template:Reviewednote-NPF
3. A new template that should automatically be sent when an article is passed as patrolled without further comment.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, so returning to this #3 is outside the scope of this project and would have to go on a new wishlist and so I'll add it to the suggestions page shortly after this reply. IFried (WMF) can correct me if I'm wrong but I sending a message to a user is now completely separate from whether it's reviewed or not. So there might not be a way to to make both 1 & 2 happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup, Barkeep49, you're correct. We have decoupled two sections that were previously tied together: a) “mark as reviewed,” b) send a message to the creator process. They're now separate processes. With that in mind, we’re requesting that the community adds the following template: Sentnote-NPF. This template is already being called in the code, so we’ll need it added in order for the new custom message template (sent to page authors) to be available. Thanks. IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Barkeep49. I have yet to put it to the test. I may be one of the the 'grandfathers' of NPP/NPR but although I still do a bit of patrolling and keeping a casual eye on things, I admit to not being entirely up to date with all the technical improvements we successfully called for in the last Wish list. If sending a message to a user is now completely separate from whether it's reviewed or not, is working, it's important and useful, while #3, while it would be nice, is not urgent. My argument is that it would serve as encouragement to new users whose articles have been reviewed, by showing them that there is a human interest in what they are doing - this would be in complete contrast to the myriad of templates pasted on new users' talk pages by the greatly abused 'Welcoming Committee'. Although it shouldn't be difficult to code, if we can't get it squeezed in somehow, let's definitely earmark it for the next wish list, although I think the wish list system is a terrible way of begging to get stuff done. There is plenty of money out there to do these things, but nothing much will change as long as the WMF continues to largely ignore the stakeholders in preference for the stuff that the devs themselves want to do.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I think being dependent on the wishlist for improvements is less than ideal as well. You might have noticed (and putting it out there for others who read this and haven't noticed) that I made another suggestion which would hopefully be a top priority for any future wishlist to have things be less hardcoded. I look at all the amazing work happens with Twinkle and think that even a small portion of community talent brought to curation regularly could do some good stuff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:Twinkle is worth reading and I fail to understand to this day why the WMF did not develop Curation as a js gadget. Perhaps it's something to do with rivalry WMF vs the Community - Ryan could answer that one ;) However, it was offered to us as a compromise for their refusal of ACTRIAL so we weren't going to look the gift horse in the mouth. With ORES in the Feed and the current enhancements to the Curation tool, I do think we now have a very good set of tools for both NPP & AfC reviewers, with just a few more tweaks to make, but the progress on development is not as good as on Twinkle where the devs will quickly incorporate any new ideas or requested changes; the great advantage (for me at least) is that all the templates are user-configurable. On glancing through Suggested Improvements I note that this one is actually tracked at Phab. Perhaps in hindsight, it's probably kinda really what I was wanting above. Let's hope it gets done.
BTW, I'm still curious as to how Vincelord is reviewing new pages and why he is not using Curation. How do we maintain accurate stats if not all patrols are in the right logs? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, presumably through twinkle or the "mark as patrolled" option which can appear in the lowerleft when page curation is turned off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Template to useEdit

If I hear no objection in the next day or so I will port over the current wording of Template:Reviewednote-NPF which reads:

Thanks for creating Article Name

NPP Reviewer's username while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:


To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with Re:NPP Reviewer's username}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

This way the new send message feature, which would go live on the ability for us to send a message to the article's creator, regardless of whether or not we mark the article as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's try it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now done this. See the current template at Template:Sentnote-NPF. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Something important I hadn't fully realized, but now the only way to leave a message is to click the "Add a message for the creator". Typing a message in the box and clicking review will not leave a message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We need to get this right. Messaging the creator should be made easier for the reviewers and encourage them to use the feature more often. Can you look into it? You know best where these things are tracked at Phab. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

On masking IP addressesEdit

The WMF has been thinking about the best ways to handle IP editing. The WMF-Community discussion is at m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. This is of particular concern for NPP, AfC, and others who control new content and combat vandalism. Please consider joining the discussion and weighing in with your pros and cons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Criminal: France, Criminal: Spain, Criminal: Germany, Criminal: UKEdit

I don't know what to do about these. These are clone pages from the same user and the third one came online like this. I have warned them, but their standard approach seems to be to just blank the talk page, so it's not easy to get a clear picture of how they've approached editing here for the last 14 years. I thought about proposing a merge but these also seem to be WP:CRYSTAL (will film). I've come here because I thought it likely that by the time other editors get to them, they might not get a full picture like this. Advice? Usedtobecool   21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the second editor I am aware of who goes heavy on the Netflix article creation. No time to do deeper thinking but I wanted to throw that out there as a thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, I see that they're currently all marked as reviewed despite there not being any corresponding item in the article's logs? What's going on here? signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, it looks like JTtheOG reviewed them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill I didn't even understand the question (too new at all this). But hopefully, Barkeep49's reply answers that. Surprised to find the Germany one was still going by France (I'd just assumed it'd be promptly corrected by the creator, so took the permalink quickly and left) in the lead sentence. I have just changed it. Usedtobecool   22:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, yeah Barkeep's comment cleared it up. You can find a page's logs (for all sorts of things, including page review) by clicking a link from their history page. For some reason, the patrol logging for these articles was not listed under "all public logs" but was listed under "patrol log". signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I found the answer with Superlinks. I think it's by far the most useful script for NPP because of all that it shows you without leaving the article page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting up a merge proposal for the lot - there's as yet no need at all for separate articles, and the cast lists could well be accommodated in one place as well. It would probably be a good idea to advertise such a discussion on the relevant project noticeboards - mergers of freshly created content often suffer from lack of page watchers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User Curation logsEdit

Best Damn Brewing Co. (now at AfD where it should be, whatever the outcome), is shown as having been patrolled by Vincelord. However, their Curation log shows a total of only 7 pages ever being patrolled, which was in Oct/Nov 2018, whereas Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers shows them to be one of the more frequent reviewers. Is this a bug, or am I looking in the wrong place, or just simply missing something? My own Curation log seems to be consistent and up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a bug – Vincelord just isn't using Page Curation. See his patrol log. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh townsEdit

I keep finding, in the new pages feed, articles on Bangladesh towns / districts where editors are adding and then immediately after removing redirects. Eg. [1], [2], [3]. I've asked User:Great Hero32 why they are doing this but they are not the only user doing this it seems. I can't fathom why they would be doing this, any ideas? In anycase, it's clogging up the new pages feed so unless there's a legitimate reason we should ask them to stop? Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

They've replied on my talk page. Seems to me to be an unnecessary burden on the new pages feed.Polyamorph (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is somewhat bizarre. I don't really understand the convoluted explanation they present, but my guess is that they may consider this the only method to create a new article - make a redlink, click on the link, then create the article following the prompt. Maybe if they were gently informed that they can just search for the term and work from the search result, or work from draft, this could be avoided? I agree that the current practice is annoying and borderline disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've left the user a note, we'll see if it stops them. I think the IPs are the same user logged out for whatever reason. Polyamorph (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio tool down?Edit

Earwig seems to be down for me. WBGconverse 09:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Transient or on your end? Works for me right now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It has been giving me spotty trouble, but if I click on it two or three times when that happens, it seems to go through.Onel5969 TT me 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It sometimes happens to me too. It works if I refresh the page. Masum Reza📞 19:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It's been down for several days. As a result, I've temporarily given up reviewing pages. Perhaps someone should report it to whomever is responsible for is upkeep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had any issues with the earwig tool recently, which isn't helpful to you, but this notice has appeared which might help? "Update (16 August 2019): You may have seen an error about "JSON could not be decoded" recently. This should be fixed now. Please let me know if you continue to see it.". Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It works most of the time for me, and when it produces an error message, I just try again and am usually successful the next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".