Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NPR)
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)


Deactivate inactive/very-low activity NPR accounts?Edit

The claim in the section above by the paid editing ring to have accounts with New Page reviewer and page curation rights is worrying. This concern I think is enough that I think we should purge the inactive NPR rights holders and institute a minimum review count as a rule for retaining the right. I'd suggest we remove anyone who has done less than 10 reviews in the last 6 months, then add it as a rule on the NPR rights page that if you do less than this number, your NPR rights may be deactivated by an admin at any time. I previously wasn't keen on this option, but if paid editors are abusing the NPR system, the least we can do is remove the inactive ones in the hope that we catch them in the net. As it is it might be very difficult to notice a sleeper account that only makes 1 review every few weeks/months (reviewing paid creations), as the review count wouldn't show up in the bot page. There are some 300 NPR rights holders that have done no reviews in the last 6 months, and another 150 or so that have made less than 10. Ping KudpungInsertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

    • What makes you believe that if someone were a paid editor they wouldn't review many articles? Natureium (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      Natureium, Nothing makes me think that. But they might, and this is low-hanging fruit. We might as well go for it and cull the inactive reviewers as they contribute next to nothing to the project anyway. (Moreover, I am of the mind that such infrequent reviewing probably isn't enough to be able to keep from getting rusty with the NPR system, which is complicated enough that regular reviewing is almost essential to maintain a mental roadmap of the reviewing process without forgetting crucial steps).
      As for rooting out paid editors who also do regular-ish reviewing, this is a much harder to accomplish task. Others such as TonyBallioni (who frequents WP:COIN) might have more insight or ideas on how that might be accomplished. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Insertcleverphrasehere, what makes you feel that paid editors are abusing the NPR system? I don't see any evidence. WBGconverse 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric, We for one, that's what the message claimed in the email that Goodyear received. While this is only a claim, paid editing rings have been discovered with reasonably experienced users at the helm in the past. It isn't a stretch to consider that such editors would request NPR rights (and/or AfC) to try to skip the review system. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Are you into Upwork and all that stuff?
    As James/GSS might agree with; I have come across numerous users (with quite good hidden portfolios) that claim to have NPRs, sysops and what not. I refuse to believe that we have 100s of NPRs and sysops; who are into UPE and colluding in such nefarious activities. That's plainly irrational.
    During the times of ACE; you will find pretty many banned/blocked users boasting off-wiki about how they voted through their 13th sock. We don't go crazy and start a manhunt after each !voter to identify whether they are anybody's sock.
    Once you start taking decisions based on a shadowy foundation, (that oft lacks any semblance to truth), you start going down a slippery slope. I believe that the current level of awareness among our reviewers and sentiments in our community is quite-conducive as to screening out UPE; than that was a few years back. But, that's not a license to be even more aggressive and turn this into a wild goose chase.
    I, for one, don't understand the sentiments behind these proposals of right-revocation and fail to see about how this will improve the circumstances in any manner (If anything; it's far far easier for someone like Onel to push a borderline stuff courtesy his sheer volume of reviewing and (if caught) escape by the virtues of his other good reviews; Onel, I have great admiration for your tremendous work and if you read this, please don't take this as a reflection on your motives et al) esp. that IMO, every additional review contributes to the culling of backlog. Additionally, I am not a frequent reviewer (by any standards) but can assure you to have a clearer mental-roadmap of reviewing than a majority. WBGconverse 17:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    To your ACE point, scrutineers do check each vote. Natureium (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    I know that; though there is some related bean-sy stuff. They claim to vote in a manner that evades the technical-mesh of CU whilst simultaneously venting about their socks getting Glocked in a regular fashion (which pretty much proves their capabilities). Also, the number of strikeouts is quite-quite less than the cumulative volume of all these claims which, if taken in a true sense, ought to lead the broader editorial community into launching behavioral investigations against all the users who remain largely inactive but become visible at the voter-logs. My opinion is that both of the claims are near-equally overblown.WBGconverse 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    And more broadly if people aren't using a PERM I think it should be best practice to turn it back in. Whether or not that helps us with this issue, I suspect it would be of modest help since someone who is paid would be motivated to do enough to meet what would (and should be) a modest standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with the first point on moral grounds:-) WBGconverse 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric, I'm not claiming we have 100s of UPE's in NPR; but there isn't much reason for these people to have NPR if they don't use it, and it lessens the risk of sleeper accounts if we deactivate inactive or mostly inactive NPR rights holders. This isn't the only reason to require some minimum amount of activity, as I state above, but I think it is the first reason that has convinced me that we should probably do it.
    I was previously of the opinion that having inactive NPR accounts didn't do any harm, which is why I've generally been against deactivating these accounts, but now that there is a reason, I am convinced that culling the NPR list to only users of a certain activity level is now the way to go. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Hi WBG - To be honest when I first read your post, I was miffed. Why the hell was I being dragged into this conversation? But after re-reading it a couple of times, I completely get your point.   Folks who are more active are less likely to get noticed if they are approving crap. I think that's one reason why I did get miffed a few months ago when an editor I highly respect suggested that I wasn't performing my reviews well. But I take NPP pretty seriously. I do think, as other editors here do, that it is one of the most important functions of WP editors. Regarding the inactive editors, I'll leave my comments at the end of the whole thread.Onel5969 TT me 23:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Hi Onel5969. I think, what WBG is trying to say is: if someone wanted to perform one paid review, then they would review 100 articles. In that case, if caught, it would be overlooked as a mistake.  usernamekiran(talk) 00:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    While I am broadly supportive of purging inactive reviewers for any number of reasons including this, I think implementing such a change would need to be supported by an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, Yes, I agree. We can discuss it a bit here to feel out how receptive people are, but ultimately we should probably have a !vote on it. It would be much easier to be able to point to the RfC when removing the rights from inactive of low-activity reviewers. My '10 in 6 months' figure was a number I just pulled out of my hat, if anyone else prefers a different bar, they should suggest it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    If someone is getting paid to make Wikipedia articles, I'm guessing he/she will find the time to overcome any activity barrier we put up. The only benefit of purging the rolls that I can imagine would be to clear the rolls of inactive accounts that could become compromised in the future (analagous to the reasoning for desysoping admins for inactivity... though a compromised sysop account can cause more headaches than a compromised NPR account...). That said, I'd support removing the NPR flag after 12 months with 0 reviews with a warning before the flag is removed. If we're lucky, the warning may inspire a few quiescent reviewers to do some reviewing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A few weeks ago, I thought about the same as Insertcleverphrasehere. But there is a problem with the solution. If some non wikipedian is getting paid, they stand-out. If some "wikipedian" starts accepting compensation/money, then it is difficult to track them down. More experienced the user, more difficult to track them down. If we increase the bar, it will also increase the knowledge/experince of the undesired(s).
    Before my activity decreased (in this interval/period; i hope to be back soon), I came across a meat farm active in Indian television related articles. Around the same time, I found out in real life that there are PR firms, advertisements firms that are including "wikipedia" in their online marketing section. After I James Jesus Angleton-ed the on-wiki situation, I realised there must be a few experienced editors giving out tips to avoid CUs, and on-wiki scrutiny/behavioural similarities OR in worse scenario: a paid editor had a "clean start", and is now an experienced but still a paid editor. A perfect good hand account, without any socks.
    For a few different reasons, I think we should make a concrete rule of removing the NPR perm of certain inactivity. This would make a small impact on paid reviwers, it would also be beneficial for us to track suspicious reviews, and it would also get rid of the incorrect number of current reviewers. A bot can easily track the reviews, and create a list if editors to be removed from NPR group. But unlike desysop-ing, it should be done without email. I think we should have an RfC to avoid objections later, it would also be helpful for cementing the policy. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Usernamekiran, get rid of the incorrect number of current reviewers? And, what good does that do?
    Running a query and retrieving data on active-reviewers (you can define activity by quite-complex means non necessarily limited to a part. number in part. time-span) is pretty easy and fast.
    If you are urging the reviewers to be more active and believe that the wrong net-count is responsible for not instigating them enough; you can easily send out some lesser number (ext-linked with the query) that gives a realistic view of the net-active reviewers over the newsletters.
    And, as I said suspicious reviews are far far easy to be sneaked in-between tens of good reviews. WBGconverse 05:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Website offering paid editing. A thread backing-up my concerns. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree an RFC is needed, but I would support removing the privilege from inactive users after a year. I honestly don't know about the paid editing aspect, other my normal despising thereof. Onel5969 TT me 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • One of the very reasons why the NPR right was created was to prevent New Page Patrolling from being used for corrupt practice. My views on the removal of NPR rights are well enough known. The current problem is partly my own fault because when I wrote the rule book for NPR I omitted to include a specific inactivity clause. If I had, it would have been there and would not have been disputed. Now we have to apparently go through the whole rigmarole of RfC to get even minor changes made to it.
Obviously with around 650 NPR accounts some are going to be used for UPE and let's not forget that we've had blackhat UPE by admins, autopatrollers, and OTRS agents using their privileges for money, so why not NPR? See KDS444 and this Signpost report- and while we're doing , that ascertain why the reincarnation of previously deleted, probably still non notable article originally created by KDS444 or Renee Hoyos was passed as patrolled (I made a private off-Wiki bet that he would be back as soon as CU data has expired).
I think fewer than 10 patrols in 6 months would be perfectly reasonable. However, if it has to go through RfC, it needs to be carefully planned - many RfC fail simply because the proposal was not well worded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide a few diffs for blackhat UPE by admins in recent past?
    And, (without any comments on the quality of the review), Hoyos has been reviewed by Ipigott; someone who has been here for quite quite long and has 78 reviews in the past 6 months. Given that the thread concerns with paid NPRs; where are you going with this?WBGconverse 05:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric, where are ‘’you’’ going with this? What is the problem with removing advanced permissions from users that don’t even use them? or use them so rarely as to be more of a liability than help? I don’t think we need direct evidence of UPE NPR’s to know that it is likely something that UPE’s would seek out. If we can clean up the NPR group it might help (and also might have no effect). But where is the great harm in doing so? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    I am strongly against your statement which implies that all those who are not using their rights currently are a liability.
    This is a volunteer project, where we are free to work per our own wishes and it's not prudential to demand a certain workload (10 reviews is way too much). Also, my view is that you are over-blowing the security-concerns and those who wish to abuse our system will go on unabated; except that they will be more difficult to trap due to the enforced volume (with which they will comply) and that they will further have the excuse of hiding behind .....That's one bad review across so many; I'm innocent!!..... Also, in my opinion, EVERY additional review (even if one every year) counts towards a reduction in the backlog.
    And, since, we have thrown data-driven-talks out of the window, I note these, three and examples of NPP-flag revocation on UPE-concerns. you might wish to check their patrol-logs and activity-levels:-)
    To be fair, I recalled the above from my memory and they are not random. So, it may be perfectly plausible that there exists cases, wherein rights have been revoked from folks who would have failed the proposed activity barrier. Feel free to dig them up.WBGconverse 09:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that there has been 156 NPP revocations (many of whom might have got them back; later) till date. Will look into adding other relevant stuff to the query, once I get some time.WBGconverse 06:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Exclude those who are currently sysops and the number drops to 133, add names and you see not only cases of promotion like Tony Ballioni, but also sabbaticals from sysop duties like Kudpung. Some of the other names I recognise as locally blocked or globally locked. At least one that I see was granted the right with an expiration date and has not (yet) requested renewal. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • An analogous case is AFC where 6 months of inactivity results in removal of script access. Given many of us want to merge that quasi PERM with NPP we should align the inactivity requirements. Make NPP a flag that can be rerequested which allows a quick review of the user's activity. This will cut out the hat collectors. I do not think we need an RFC if we align NPP PERM with AfC inactivity removal. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Eurovision Contest and WP:MUSICBIO Criteria 12Edit

I am working with Girth Summit on training for NPP. As part of this he came across Arion (band). His question, which I don't know the answer of what we've done in the past and so I thought I would seek the wisdom of the group is They were finalists in the Finnish competition to select an representative for the Eurovision Song Contest in 2013. They came fifth in that, so wouldn't pass criterion 8 of WP:NMUSIC (coming 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a major competition), but the contest would presumably have been televised, and they might pass criterion 12 (subject of a substantial broadcast segment. Since there are a lot of groups that go through Eurovision at the country level, I figured that this has come up before and didn't know whether there was agreement that it satisfied criteria 12, or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interestEdit

An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion - Patrolling ScriptEdit

Hi. I'd like to get a sense of what others think about me making a script to be able to patrol pages more easily. This would, initially, only work if activated on the page itself, but would mean you just have to hit patrol with the tool rather than navigating to the page curation bar. This would do very little differently, at the start. However, once that works I would want to submit a BRFA to automatically patrol pages that were created by the wikied program. @Joe Roe and Sage (Wiki Ed) and I previously discussed this in other fora; Joe wanted to see what others thought before giving my test account NPP rights (I already have them). What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

For reference here's the discussion with Sage and here is at least part of the discussion with Joe, which might also encompass this. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, it has long seemed to me that patrolling mainsapce was/should be the focus of patrols and that patrolling userpages was of limited project utility. But I also figured there was an aspect to this that I didn't understand which provided benefit to the project. Pinging Kudpung for his institutional memory and general perspective. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I think automatically marking WikiEd pages as patrolled is a Very Bad Idea. They often have many problems. Natureium (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: (edit conflict) For now I just want to know what you think of me developing a script to manually mark specific pages patrolled. I'll post again about whether it should be done automatically later; even if the bot doesn't gain consensus, I could still incorporate the script into some other tool (for manual use). --DannyS712 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) DannyS712 This may not be the correct discussion to raise this concern, but I've come across a fair amount of wikied articles that have serious issues and would thus be opposed to automatically patrol pages made through that program (unless more oversight is added on the parts of instructors). Concerns with quality vary, and overall I think the wikied project has a net positive effects, but I've come across articles from that process that didn't meet notability, that replicated existing articles, or that had significant POV issues (memorably, I came across one article that appeared to be a cfork of Serbian nationalist apologia about the JNA in the Bosnian war, and there was an entire class writing articles on Country Y and the World Bank that almost uniformly failed to include any non-World Bank affiliated sources in their articles). signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Again, for now it wouldn't be automatic. But, in the future, it wouldn't be patrolling the articles they create, only their user pages (eg User:Victoria.bacon, User:Victoria.bacon/sandbox, User:Emiliedietz, and User:Emiliedietz/sandbox.) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
But why? What's the benefit of this? Is it that much of a burden for someone to check it off if they come across it? Natureium (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: No, its not a burden. I don't particularly see why developing this script is controversial; it would only be used manually. What could be controversial is a bot, but again, this won't be doing anything automatically. The bot may come later, or not at all. This is just a simple script to prove the functionality of patrolling pages via the api --DannyS712 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 The ability to mark user space pages as reviewed exists and since you're responsible for every edit you do with a script, if you want to spend time on it, well it's Wikipedia and I don't generally judge how people choose to volunteer their time. But I would want to see some sort of benefit to the project before we would equip any bot with that kind of ability. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The bot may come later, or not at all -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it's just a script that you will use yourself to manually mark pages as patrolled, I'm not sure why you are asking for input. Unless it's going to make a mess by doing things automatically (super mass rollback or whatever that was), you don't really need permission, but I also don't see why you need a separate account if they're going to have the same perm. Natureium (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: I'm asking for input because Joe Roe said that I should seek input first. I want to do this from another account because I often start work on a script, then loose motivation, and not come back for a few days, and I want to still be able to patrol pages normally from this account. Does that make sense? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stubs created by ShevonsilvaEdit

I have come several times across a large amount of stubs created by Shevonsilva. Whereas it is commendable that they are willing to work in the areas nobody else is interested (in this case, third-level administrative divisions of various countries), the quality of these stubs is unfortunately substandard. I have patrolled a number of articles on Argentine departments yesterday, which sometimes had a wrong name, sometimes a red category, and never interwiki links (though the links exist, the Spanish Wikipedia and about a dozen other Wikipedias have articles on all Argentine depentments). I corrected some of the issues, but I did not have time to go through several hundred atricles, and I left a message at the talk page of the user, asking them to slow down and not to compromise on the quality of the content. They were responsive and said they have corrected the issues. The first article I came across today, Carare-Opón Province, is about a non-existent department in Colombia (abolished long time ago, and the Spanish Wikipedia mentions this, as well as one of the references), and the only category is red. I am not sure how I must proceed. Escalating blocks? Are we moving towards a site ban? Advise would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The user first registered 13 years ago but did not begin serious editing until a few weeks ago, and I believe they edit in good faith. Possibly the best solution would be to offer them more help to understand what they might be doing wrong rather than considering sanctions already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: "did not begin serious editing until a few weeks ago"? No. I'm sure many editors still remember the saga of the slew of articles on units sourced to a dubious source back in 2014-2015 - talk page not archived, but here's an example. PamD 10:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
And see this ANI thread. PamD 11:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I remember that ANI thread (before my time actually, but it got dredged up apropos another weights & measures kerfuffle), and would agree that the "GF newbie who should be treated tenderly" approach is not suitable here. Shevonsilva just has bloody low morals when it comes to verifiability, sourcing and common sense. If they don't respond constructively to the very helpful advice left by Ymblanter, then we should be looking at some sanctions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks. It was really hard for me to grab references for the sub-regions of Colombia. There is a mis-understanding about Carare-Opón Province. Administration division is still there and its name was changed to something similar to provincial nuclei. I didn't applied any naming to it as there is no English naming convension is made (ref: and Current naming convension is given under Santander Department until refute is made. I did not refer much about the spanish article as it has much more unreliable information and poor quality and it has no references. Sorry, for harsh dealing with Colombia provinces: it is really hard to find information on this subjects, and, I had to add a number of citation needed tags in other colombian departments too. Thanks for the consideration. I will do my best for the improvements of the quality of the articles. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the real issue is that he (as I recall) is generating fantastic numbers of stubs (I reckon many thousand per month), using some personal software scheme to expand lists of locations into separate articles, without thought to how likely these are ever to become non-stubs. How does one find the total number of pages created by a user? Although the majority of his recent creations have been "locations", of various hues, there is no obvious strand of expertise running through them; we find pages sourced entirely to documents in Estonian, we find silly misprints, which we can reasonably guess are replicated 100s or 1000s of times, and similarly wonky English. (E.g. "The" (sic) [Grampian, Highland and Islands]], a vacuous expansion of the table in Sheriffdom). To bring these 1000s of articles up to scratch would require a fantastic amount of work, and I cannot see that the net added value to WP is positive. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae, I am on mobile so I haven't checked the pages in question and am sure it is a problem. But someone with low morals promotes Nazism on Wikipedia not low level administrative units. I would ask you to consider striking the part of your comment which is a personal attack. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I will give more care for the missing top level administrative entries which are to be searchable (e.g. through maps) and which are lack of more reliable sources for the searchable entries as an encyclopedic articles. These articles are given a lack of attension and I do not know why. My consideration is only given to administration levels above Municipality level or 1st or 2nd level administrative divisions. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Case study: Unincorporated Top End Region is one such stub, but by following the infobox hierarchy up and down again, we find there is already a real page Top End. The stub is thus pointless: should I redirect it? Is it really a useful redirect, even, given that the "Unincorporated" is descriptive, and not part of the name? And the stub includes a reference to the "Australian Bereau of Statictics". I could mend these things, but only manually, and no editor can compete with robot-generated junk. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I will explain this when I am back. Shevonsilva (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the case study Imaginatorium. It does appear from the sourcing that this is a distinct administrative unit. WP:PLACEOUTCOMES tells us that these kind of articles frequently survive at AfD which has also been my experience. However, I will quote as expressing my feelings Opabinia regalis who said, " I have no doubt these were created as a good-faith de-redlinking effort - as were the masses of stubs about athletes before this, and the masses of stubs about villages before that, and the masses of stubs about beetles, and the masses of stubs about algae, etc. I think it's been pretty well established by this point that indiscriminate stub creation from a list of redlinks without adding any substance to the articles is not a good way of growing the encyclopedia.."
Shevonsilva you mention maps, but I notice your infobox creation doesn't even include a map. My suggestion to avoid problems here is to add additional content rather than the barren stubs, which are small enough that they might not ever be improved, when you create these articles. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Unincorporated Top End Region is an administrative area. Top End is geographical area. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I will try to add additional content later too. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Shevonsilva, I understand it's an administrative unit (and say so in my second sentence). I am saying a well-developed article on an administrative area should include a map of that area. See this for instance. This is one way you could improve the level of content being offered in these articles. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we have any tool to cover an geographical area in a map? (Sorry, my answer was only for first paragraph of the case study section, in my view and not as a reply for your response. ooops, just now corrected the alignments.)Shevonsilva (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Shevonsilva, This is not my speciality but I would start at Template:Infobox_settlement with use of some of the supporting templates. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I will go through it too. Shevonsilva (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Shevonsilva You say "Unincorporated Top End Region is a administrative area"; what evidence do you have for this? Both cited sources include the sequence of words "Unincorporated Top End Region", but is this the name of an administrative area, or is it a statement that this, the Top End region is "unincorporated", i.e. essentially not an administrative area. The article Unincorporated area might help; it actually includes information about the unincorporated areas of Northern Territory, and makes it fairly clear that the claim in your stub is false. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your case study. I already gave a clear answer in which the sources of the article were already supported; the sources are clear about this in both articles mentioned. I will have a surgery soon. Can anyone else kindly explain my answer for him better than me if it is possible? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Shevonsilva What do you mean by your "clear answer"? I can't see one. Do you understand what "unincorporated" means? If an area becomes an administrative area (with a council of some sort administering it), then AIUI it is said to be "incorporated". How usual do you suppose it is that areas are incorporated with a title beginning with the word "unincorporated"? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the case study. That is the common name used. FYI: Administrative structures are different from country to country.

Someone, please help him to clarify these. I am typing while I am on hospital bed. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Today, I found two templates of Rio Negro Province in Fiji articles: onetwo. The next time I see it I am going to block their account.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Three (from the same batch) and counting--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
And here, in addition to the Rio Negro Template, the name of the article does not match the content. I am more and more convinced that we have serious conpetence issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Sorry, you can see it is not for the whole batch. Something wrong with my machine and look like some key strokes automatically insert templates. debugging it. I take your responses are too rude or hard for wiki users, as, while I was correcting errors you have suddenly opened a discussion here. That was too quick as I believe. I personally do not know you. If you continue like this, you will loose editors, as you know wikipedia is not an academically reliable resource. People spends time here do a service here only, not to do a job here. I really believ you have to calm down yourself first and guide others patiently. This not the correct Mentoring process. I feel a bit bad, if you can stop reviewing my articles a bit, it would be great in this context. Thanks. I need other people to involve this discussion about how to carry out mentoring. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will take it to ANI later today, we are clearly ready for this. Advising me to "calm down myself" in response to me pointing out to your repeated negligence and inability to work according to our standards to me is crossing the bright line. Input of all other users is obviously welcome though.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No. There is nothing wrong with pointing out mistakes. That is good. There is no connection between calm down and pointing out mistakes (again, that is your assumption). If you patiently guide users, they will provide more input: it is motivational. It is better to ask reasons why the mistakes are happening. I have already informed about there is a problem with my machine. I may have to install Windows again. In your wording, I felt like I am such a bad guy and I am doing mistakes purposely. (Please read these messages with positive mind set.). I really feel bad about this.

I don't really think there is anything to discuss in ANI, as I got no problem with you. This matter is already solved as I have already explained what is happening with my machine and the feeling I got. I believe there is a misunderstanding between you (u think I am neglecting your comments purposely) and me (I was unaware that my machine also got a problem). We don't really need to waste time with ANI, as, we both are trying to help Wikipedia. Best wishes. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

. Got the error. There is a local caching bug with wiki editor and cursur movement, which is difficult to fix. I will inform it to the technical team. Sorry for the above conversations. Sorry Ymblanter. Best wishes. I can avoid these templates errors. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Wrong name thing happened due to versioning issue due to caching. Solution is to check the articles again after 30 minutes of creation. Don't jump into blocking things as I am also trying to finish those in two weeks as I have to focus on other things after that, or, stop those now. Just let me know any further issues found, as, I have to correct those on the way. Shevonsilva (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I am really expecting a reply from you in order to proceed.??? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what reply you mean. I told you repeatedly that the articles you created must be above the minimum standard. This is not happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I have already changed the flow of creation. If there is an error, please just let me know asap. These are happening not by purpose even though I gave full attention, there are some cases with browser caching and wiki editor and key strokes sometimes. I will check the articles with certain time gaps too. Please don't jump into quick decisions by thinking I am not absorbing user feedbacks. Hope this will solve the issues. I will start creating some missing administrative divisions later, but, much slowly. Thanks for your awareness. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Now I am progressing with major time gaps for debugging too and if any minor errors are visible, please let me know. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your work to address this, Shevonsilva. Please make sure you are concentrating on your health though - I hope all goes well. Personally, I find sub-stubs useful, they give the basic information and references where you can find out more. All's fine as long as they're accurate. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am also still thinking like that and those are used in wikidata and and some third party tools like Grammmerly effectively providing more accessibility for disabled people too. Yes, even though I am considering accuracy and standard, still need support from other reviewers as there is a possibility to miss something. Thanks for the encouragement. I am really trying to finish this gap of knowledge in Wikipedia as I have already started to finish it. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll play bad cop - while many of these articles are good, there are too many problems for the volume of creations. A variety of articles on districts of Amman, Jordan (Kherbet Al-Souk District and Al-Yarmouk District, for two) have references that do not verify their existence. If Shevonsilva doesn't remedy this issue, I will have to ask for a Topic Ban from page creation at ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
These appear to be districts of Greater Amman Municipality, not of Amman Governorate as the articles claim. I am yet to find a reference other than Google maps here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't weighed in yet, although I've reviewed literally hundreds of this editor's stub articles. I don't mind geographical stub articles (have created a fair amount myself) as I feel they serve a purpose as per WP's other priority: a gazetteer. However, there are way too many errors not to comment at this. Misspelled names, wrong designations (as in the example just above), variants of articles which already exist (like Sagnarigu Municipal District), creation of articles which don't fit the designation given (like Weija Municipal District), inclusion of bad reference links (like on Jezreel sub-district), the creation of articles which are totally unsupported by references, like Moruka/Pomeroon Neighbourhood Democratic Council, and the continued lack of providing page numbers in their sourcing, like at Katihar Municipal Corporation. The editor, I think, has a lot to give to the project, they simply need to slow down and be more careful. Perhaps they simply need a mentor. Onel5969 TT me 03:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I have already told them to slow down and make sure they do not have crucial errors in their articles at least four times, and they seem to have had prior issues with that as referenced in this very thread. Every time I point out an error it turns out that there were solid reasons to make this particular error for them, but they are eager to correct it. And next day we have the next, completely unrelated mass error. I am afraid we have had enough and, indeed, either a series of blocks or a topic ban for article creation is needed. If I have more time today I can go to ANI myself, otherwise anybody is welcome to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the interest. As usual again with misunderstanding, references for Kherbet Al-Souk District and Al-Yarmouk District are there in second reference with different spellings. These spellings are varied from source to source as there is no clear convension is made. I used the common name with current convension in Wikipedia. I will check the rest of the comments later today probably. I have to give a different kind of weight for these articles with different language translations and current wiki spelling conventions. Kindly please take these things into account while reviewing too. These articles are really painful for me too. I really wanted to avoid Jordan districts due spelling varieties, but, later I included those due to Pilgrim sites and tuaristes attractions.Shevonsilva (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
No, they are not - I've double-checked and triple-checked [1], and the districts are not there under any name whatsoever. Only districts of Amman Governorate are in that document, not those of Greater Amman Municipality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, I changed the flow of articles, and, I will try to assure myself about the references to reduce the workload of reviewers and going to review the articles in my own, and reliability of the sources can also be suggested by other reviewers as I am spending hard time with different languages and government publications and commonly used names. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I am expecting to finish this at once as I want to give full attention on this at once. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD: I just nominated the "case study" for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unincorporated Top End Region. It seems to me this is an egregious example of the competence problem. Shevonsilva operates by scraping lists of words from documents, and seems to be unable to address the most obvious pointing out of problems. I also edited the Top End article to add mention of the unincorporated parts, and I'd be glad if someone who "does" geography articles checks it. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New articles by Shevonsilva--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Outline of German languageEdit

What should be done with the new page Outline of German language? I see that the same creator has produced Outline of Esperanto. The articles must have involved a lot of work in production but their style is not encyclopedic and I wonder about WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I will ping the creator @Klarst:. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be trying to recreate Portal:German language. So I would suggest redirecting to the portal? Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that type of cross-namespace redirect discouraged? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fed up with thisEdit

"Restore_redirect_from_non-notable_album" this is pretty typical, sometimes, unfortunately. Polyamorph (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think the album to be non-notable and/or why are you evaluating notability based on the current state of the article rather than it's potential? WBGconverse 07:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The other editor seems a bit battle-groundish to me but I don't see the point of your's replying to him, when you clearly want to terminate the discussion. WBGconverse 07:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I checked WP:NALBUM And can't find evidence that the album has charted successfully or won any awards. I saw there were references but checking them many were pretty trivial mentions. I don't think it satisfies WP:NALBUM. But after I was reverted I was pretty ambivalent about it but an explanation was requested. So I explained as best I could. They kept pinging me. And then I felt the need to defend myself. Polyamorph (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea on the notability of the album, but AfD looks like the best way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but someone else will have to send it to AfD, I don't want the aggravation that it will no doubt invoke.Polyamorph (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Polyamorph in my edit summaries I put something to the effect of "No indication yet in article of notability per WP:NALBUM" when doing a redirect. The yet is hopefully doing some heavy lifting there. I've actually been surprised that most of the editors I encounter after I've redirected their article are quite genial and I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't happen that often, that was perhaps an over-reaction on my part. But sometimes WP:OWN clearly comes into play. The only problem with adding "yet" is as WBOG, it's not assessing WP:BEFORE potential. BUT redirection is not the same as deletion, and redirection is easily reversible by anyone if a mistake is made. Polyamorph (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
My usual strategy for diffusing these issues before they arise is to mention that they're more than welcome to revert the redirect once they have more/better sources. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Health for All Project Albania hi I reviewed this one a few days ago but it isn't in Google(index)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

ONUnicorn thanks for response on article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why Google hasn't indexed it. I do think it needs more third party sources though. I wouldn't necessarily remove the information that is cited to the organization's own materials, some of that information is still useful, just not in the way that 3rd party sources are. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Came up in results for me second under the org's website. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
yes I think this[2] made a difference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation tool downEdit

Hi, could someone able to tell me if there is another tool to check copyright violation as Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool is not working for the last 2 days - see here. Thanks in advance and cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been spotty for me. You can do it manually the way I used to check copyvio as an editor of a writing site (they built a tool that did this). Select some unique looking text and past in in search with quotes around it. See what comes up. If nothing matches after several such searches the page is likely copy vio free at least for online sources. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Opening a phab ticket. WBGconverse 07:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The tool will be misbehaving for the next few days. See T216312. WBGconverse 07:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac and Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks guys! cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA and Winged Blades of Godric: you may also be interested in adding the pages you want checked to User:DannyS712/cvcheck for afterwards - this is also being used to coordinate within AfC acceptances (see WT:AFC#Copyright violation tool). --DannyS712 (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712, Legacypac, Winged Blades of Godric, and Onel5969: and all, Earwig's Copyvio Detector is up and running now. - see [3] and [4]. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant, CASSIOPEIA - Thanks for the heads up.Onel5969 TT me 00:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: yeah but its not working for me at all... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Hi, It works for me - see [5] and [6]. Try again and see if it works for you, and if not then we might need to let the technical team know. At the meantime if you need me to check any pages for copyvio, let me know the name of articles. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Well, now its working. Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever got it back up and running, Thanks Cass for bringing it to everyone's attention. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New Copyvio scriptEdit

While we are talking about copyvios, this reminds me that there is a new script available that automatically runs earwig's copyvio detector in the background as part of the Page Curation toolbar, then displays the result at the bottom of the 'info' tab in the toolbar (this was another script that I requested over at user script requests, and it was made when I was travelling and I then forgot to bring it here and share it with all you guys). Documentation for the script can be found at User:FR30799386/copyvio-check. Additional help testing the script would be useful, and any feedback should be forwarded to the script creator. It seems to work perfectly for me and is pretty damn awesome. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere Installed, worked and thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bass Rock biographiesEdit

Ehdeejay (talk · contribs) has created about a dozen articles about people tangentially related to Bass Rock in Scotland, for example John Campbell (minister in Ireland). I'm not convinced either way regarding notability here. Thoughts? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, actually, although my personal threshold is low for historic biographies. At least some of these (e.g. John Spreul (apothecary), John Blackadder (preacher)) seem very well documented and make for good historical articles. For others (James Drummond (chaplain), John Campbell (minister in Ireland)) one could make a case that they might be better off treated within the main article, but here as well I'd happily sign off on the articles to start with, and maybe hash it out in subsequent merger discussions. These certainly make for more pleasant reading than most other new stuff :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

New pages feed on the blink again?Edit

This feels familiar - New Pages Feed won't display anything when set to sort by "Oldest". My private issue or anyone else as well? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I think its your issue, it works fine for me --DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Elmidae: Nevermind - it works to sort by oldest when looking at redirects, but not when looking at the normal list --DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".