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)


Inactive reviewersEdit

There is a consensus to remove the reviewer user right from people who have been inactive on Wikipedia for a year or more. While there is some support, there is no consensus to remove the reviewer right from people who have not been using it but are still active on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The fact of having over '700' reviewers totally conveys the wrong impression that we have plenty of reviewers doing the work whereas in reality it is not more than about 30 -50 who do 90% of it. It has been discussed many times that the bloated list of reviewers should be culled. Perhaps in much the same way as at AfC by Primefac. However, interest on this issue has waned since ICPH's participation has relaxed due to perfectly understandable circumstances, and my haphazard availability for a while, but in view of the very low number of truly active reviewers, and the intolerable backlog, this issue seriously needs to be addressed. As a first suggestion, I would consider putting all the non-active and or very low activity reviewers on a three-month probation that would automatically cancel their right if they don't make themselves useful or don't apply for it permanently again. This does not require a major policy RfC and is something that can easily be agreed on locally here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung you have much stronger feelings about this topic than I do. Will taking away the rights from all the inactive patrollers make them motivated to rejoin? I bet most will feel ill-will for the PERM being removed. If warning is given would some start to use it? Maybe and if you give the warning you'd need to follow through. For people who are active on Wikipedia I'm mildly opposed therefore to doing this. I am, however, strongly in favor of removing the PERM from someone who is not active on Wikipedia so that their account can't be compromised and taken over by someone who would use the PERM perniciously. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I would disagree with having it taken away, but agree with friendly reminders that they have the right - it took quite a few e-mails/newsletters like that for me to properly get on board - my activity has varied greatly depending on real life and other priorities on Wikipedia, but the friendliness here and the clear need brought me back, and the persistence of the messages! Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
A fair number of permissions (or semi-permissions like AWB) get revoked if they're not used in 1+ years. If NPR is not already set up like that it would be trivial to come to a local consensus to implement (at the bare minimum) that activity criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: technically NPR is set up that way as well under "Guidelines for revocation" but I don't think it has been enforced as of late. I support going through the list and enforcing this guideline actually. We need to keep the # of reviewers as acurate as possible. If the editor becomes more active later on they can always reapply for the PERM just like any advance right. After all NPR is the firewall of English Wikipedia we should be treating it as such and it is possible for an inactive account of 12+ months to be hacked and use the NPR right for malicious purposes. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 22:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: Yes, comparable, but a different case. AWB, AFC pseudo user rights are removed for space convenience. Not because many users have AWB access, few are doing AWB edits. They are primarily removed to not clog the permission-check pages with inactive users, who as time passes would outgrow the active ones. This is not the case, with reviewer right. Please correct me if this is not the main reason. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
What I would call the "big four" (AWB, Template editor, Page mover, and NPR) all have clauses that say revocation is automatic for editors who are inactive for 12+ months. Additionally, sysops and 'crats are held to this standard. It has nothing to do with size limitations and everything to do with potentially unsecured or compromised inactive accounts. There is zero harm in a procedural removal of an editor from any permission for being 12+ months inactive, and restoration would be nearly automatic upon their return (assuming they request it again). This would be an easy first step, because it's already written in our guidelines for the NPR permission. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Seeing the idea of a "warning" compelled me to comment. So this basically means a warning message is to be sent to volunteers for not volunteering: To reviewers for not reviewing. A good faith idea, but also a bad one. I'd advise against it as something similar recently backfired. We should rethink the whole idea of inactive patrollers or the notion of "users not doing enough review" leaving "90%" of the work to few people. Even the all-important sysop right is not removed from admin merely for not using it. It's being removed (purposefully in an apparent lax way) only for security reasons. There's no obligation on any reviewer to review any article. You can review one article per week, you can review 350 articles per day. To me, the latter is more suspicious, and is what I'd be leery of. (This proposal is leery of the former). For instance my reviewing (in particular, not sure why others review less or don't at all) receded due to transient shift of interest, but I am still active in other areas and occasionally do review. Wikipedia is insanely as wide as the world we live in.
    It's important for us to understand that there would never be a time when the "700" reviewers would become on a par in terms of reviewing. There would always be the "few" super heavy users who do "all" the review. The super users who do "most" of the review; users who do "many" review and so on. This issue ("problem" if you want) is not peculiar to reviewing, and cannot be solved here; it's debatable whether it needs to be solved at all. For instance take look at this page which contains raw data of what I am saying. The first hundred users have made cumulative edits more in number than the total edits made by the next 5000 users following them. Also worthy of note is the fact that eight (8) "super heavy" admins have deleted more content than the entirety of all the remaining 1000+ admins. The trend is the same in blocking, protecting, rollbacking, page moving, article creation, pending changes reviewing and... page patrolling. It's the same everywhere. It's been so always. There's nothing to panic about.
    The remedy for growing backlog is twofold, in my view. First to understand that there would always be backlog. Wikipedia itself is a backlog; full of backlogs. Second, recruit more reviewers. Simple. More reviewers more review.
    If we must remove user rights (for whatever benefit) let it be based on real inactivity. If an account is totally inactive (that's no edits on Wikipedia) for two, three years, then that can be an argument for removal. But to send warning or even note for not reviewing is akin to sending message to all rollbackers and asking them why they are not rollbacking. Or to admin asking them why they are not blocking users. I am quite sure neither is a good idea. So let's face the reality; recruit more reviewers to do the work. Forget about those who do less (Wikipedia requires no more patrolling than what editor feels they can do). – Ammarpad (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ammarpad - While I have no comment on Kudpung's proposal at this time, I would like to point out that if sysop is synonymous with Admin, then inactive admins can have the mop removed if they have zero activity for 1 year, see WP:INACTIVITY. This is different than what is being proposed here, since it is not simply failing to use the mop for a year, but total inactivity. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    It's removed "for security" reasons associated with the access NOT merely because the admin no longer edits. I have mentioned this. Before that policy came in force, admins held the right for more than a year without any edits. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to break from some of the conversations above to avoid clutter, do we have a list of 12+ month inactive NPR members? I found the "most active" for the past year, but if we have a dbase of inactive members I don't know where to find it. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In the recent past some stats were extracted, I believe by ICPH.
  • What is being suggested here, onel5969, is a parity with the system operated at AfC by Primefac - which no one complains about. The two systems are closely related and I do not support Ammarpad's reasons for not culling the list of New Page Reviewers. There is no reason to defend holding the right if it's not being used. Extended user rights are not awards for good work - there should be no shame in losing them. What those of us who work the applications are acutely aware of however - which is missed by non-admins - is that a significant number of requests are ostensibly hat collecting. Indeed, it is not unknown for applicants to get aggressive when the right is not accorded, even those who have conveniently ignored the minimum requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the expanded explanation, Kudpung. While I wouldn't be against a program at NPP which mirrors Primefac's program over at AfC, but I like the thought of helping program outlined below.Onel5969 TT me 23:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not understand Kudpung’s aggressiveness in wanting to cull low activity reviewers. I think there was a disrespect for “hat collectors”, is that it? Or is the concern the of occasional low quality review? If that’s the case then the answer is rolling reviewer review and continuing education. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Calling it 'aggressive' would touch on other users' sensitivities, fortunatey I'm thick skinned. It's no more aggressive than Primefac's handling of AfC reviewers. 'rolling reviewer review and continuing education' would be very nice - are you volunteering? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Something I had suggested in the past, and would continue to think a good idea, is a NPP peer review where a group of 4 (or more) editors are all assigned another editor (or ideally two so you get multiple perspectives) and give some thoughts about what they see. People seemed to like the idea but no one actually volunteered to join me in going under the process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, I find it feels aggressive, for you to tell me: Do more NPR or lose the tool access. I think we want more NPR not less. Am I causing others to do less reviews? Was Primefac aggressive to an AfC reviewer? Interested, show me. He grumped at me once, but I’ve never seen him aggressive or even grumpy anywhere else. Yes, I volunteer for “reviewer review and continuing education”, but is it needed? Ping me if it is. A problem reviewer? A difficult review? A difficult response to a review? I thought the only real problem currently is the backlog. I recall talk of past over-hasty reviewers, but not recently? I think spinning the idea as “NPR Assistance” might be better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
While the backlog is an issue, I think it is also imperative that we also look on quality of reviews. If folks thought I might have something of value to add to a 'rolling reviewer review and continuing education', I'd be more than happy to contribute.Onel5969 TT me 23:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What are the current concerns with the quality of reviews? I have occasionally reviewed the curation log, and not found a glaring problem. I am concerned about WP:DRAFTIFICATION being used as a back door deletion method, but that is a process problem and I haven't seen signs of it being done on pages that should have stayed in mainspace. It there a way to navigate to AfD discussions, or PROD or CSD queues, for NPR approved pages? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe you are talking about something completely different, please don't change the course of this discussion.. No one is discussing the quality of reviews here - at least I'm not.You are using words like 'aggressive' but the only tone that is even borderline aggressive here is yours. There is nothing whatsoever aggressive about the way Primefac culls his list of active reviewers. Remember, it was I who introduced the scheme there anyway and without damaging anyone's sensitivities, and Primefac took it sensibly further by ensuring that a list is maintained of active reviewers - and no one has complained. If you have something personal about me making these suggestions, take it to my talk page and explain what your personal problem with me is.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's drop the word "aggressive" in favour of "advocating changes that seem unnecessary". I haven't meant it in the sense it is being read.
What is the disadvantage of a long list of NPR enabled editors who never use the tool and review? It seems to me to only discourage them from returning to reviewing. I would think that only reviewers who don't respond to advice to improve should be dis-enabled.
Primefac culls his list of active reviewers? What list of active reviewers? When culled from Primefac's list of active reviewers, does that prevent the editor from doing reviews?
NB. I agree that new page reviewing is very important, and more reviewing is strongly desirable. Personally, I regret that I find the task unenjoyable. I keep finding that performing a valid rejection causes me pain for the pain I imagine the poor page writer will feel. Talk page invitations or reminders on my talk page are slightly motivating. Maybe more motivating would be a public naming and expression of thanks to the top reviewers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The list is at WP:AFCP; inactive members are moved from "Active" to "Inactive" and need to re-request access when they become active again. AFCH access is based on the "Active" list. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
, unfortunately personal emotions are not part of the equation. Anyone who has been reviewing new pages since ACREQ was rolled out knows that any pages that are tagged for deletion nowadays are almost always either deliberate attempts to exploit the encyclopedia for gain or publicity, totally inappropriate autobios, blatant COPYVIOs, or unadulterated rubbish. One does not need to feel any more sorry for the authors than one does for a driver who killed someone because he refused to obey the traffic rules. Crass analogy, I know, but that's life and unfortunately 90% of our so-called reviewers are about as useful as speed bumps in a housing development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The best reason I know of to remove people who aren't using the permission is around making sure a compromised account doesn't have the ability to review articles. Beyond that - which would obviously not apply if someone is still active on Wikipedia - the only argument is to have a true sense of how many people hold the PERM in terms of making sure it's need is being satisfied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
^^^This. I have said the same thing above, but got some odd response explaining something else. There's zero benefit to Wikipedia in removing user-rights of active editors who did not misuse it. It's a pointless makework. The chief reason (aside any invented reason) of culling AFC and AWB checkpages is because they're wiki pages and to keep the pages manageable; because without removal they'd grow to thousands of names to the point of crashing in edit mode. This is not the case with NPR. It's done software-side, it's technically possible to have 10 million NPRs without any issue. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:NPP states that "Reviewing is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation." It would therefore be improper to impose an obligation retrospectively. For me, NPP is not part of my daily routine and so I just do a bit when it occurs to me or I notice a prompt like this discussion. For editors like me, an occasional nudge would work best. Consider something like the feedback request service which would suggest articles for review based on the type of topic or other criteria. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't an NPP problem. It's an everywhere problem. Admins, license reviewers, OTRS agents, CUs, AfC, you name it (see also 80/20 rule). Having said that, at least OTRS does send out periodic activity reports that often remind me I haven't contributed in a while and ought to help out. NPP used to do this IIRC? GMGtalk 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
NPP has never done this. Contrary to the misunderstandings voiced by SmokeyJoe, the nearest we ever get is mentioning the backlog in our newsletter that only appears every two months, in the hope that because it is sent to all NPR rights holders that some of them might read it as an encouragement to use the tools they asked for. We do not need to preachto the converted. It never works of course - what the hat collectors do is simply remove themselves from the mailing list, which speaks for itself, n'est-ce pas? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I feel like we've had almost this exact discussion before, but a large part of the problem is that the pool of experienced users you're drawing from for NPP, is the same that everybody else is drawing from for everything else. The overlap with AfC is so thick it's a perennial proposal to merge them entirely. We're probably much more likely to be OTRS agents and vandal fighters. We're the same people that respond to RfCs and community debates. Some of us actually still like to write articles, and some of us wear hats that have nothing to do with the English Wikipedia at all.
At the end of the day, you're not going to get very far on a volunteer project trying to shame people into contributing. You need to find a way to encourage them. In my opinion, find the nearest bot, find a group of volunteers that will sign a note on behalf of the bot, and drop people a talk page message when they've been inactive for six weeks. If you take away my flag because I may only do a few reviews a month, the only thing you're going to do is lose a few reviews a month. You're probably going to come of as an a-hole for taking away my flag, and I'll just wind up doing a few more of something else a month. GMGtalk 00:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo this isn't what this suggestion is proposing. We're not talking about the people who do a few reviews a month, were talking about rights holders who have practically never done any reviewing or who have not done so for a long time. I don't see Primefac being branded as an 'a-hole' very often for removing users from his active list at AfC. Let's stay on track. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, you know as well as I do how well people react to having flags removed of any sort, from the top to the bottom. AfC isn't a flag and people don't get a big nasty notification when it's done. You also didn't specify what you meant by "very low activity" and so I'm not entirely sure whether I'm part of this proposal or not, but I'd likely react similarly as you did when you lost OTRS. GMGtalk 01:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo people get upset about losing rights because they perceive them as some kind of badge of merit. That's why there are so many hat collectors at PERM. I'm not a hat collector - no one at my age needs anything to brag about in the schoolyard. I didn't kick up a fuss when my OTRS was removed, and in any case, I neither have the time nor the interest for it now. Rightly or wrongly I consider myself a fairly active editor and admin, but I certainly don't expect all editors to provide that kind of performance, but it would be nice if they would use the tools they begged for. It's possible that many of them didn't find out what NPR entails before they asked for the right, then found it a bit of a challenge or didn't like and and then don't bother. Like SmokeyJoe says, it's basically vermin control, but if it's not done it gets worse, which is what's happening. At least since the NPR right was introduced there is a much better quality of reviewing - but not enough active reviewers. That fake number of 700 makes people believe we have enough reviewers and that's why many users don't bother. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Primefac on lots of things here. I agree with Kudpung's first/original post completely. In the past, i have come up with similar informal proposal(s) actually (just in random discussions); when I was active. I think any active editor who hasnt reviewed a page from mainspace in 3 (or 5) months, should be considered as an inactive reviewer. Any editor who has completely stopped editing since last 6 months should be considered inactive as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OTRS is a prime example as mentioned above by GMG. Many years ago I was kicked off OTRS without warning by an over enthusiastic admin , for apparently not being busy enough. Ironically, I was right in the middle of handling a particularly delicate and disturbing BLP issue. (Joe please take note). However, not being a hat collector, I didn't give two hoots about loosing the 'right'. I they don't want my skills, let them get on with it, was my opinion, and I've never been bothered about asking for the access again or wanting to be of help there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • OTRS may be a thing of sufficient unseen powers and responsibility to follow up that a threshold of activity is appropriate. I don’t thin NPP and AfC reviewing is at that level. Once qualified, and I suggest AfC experience and reliability is at the top of the qualifications, why shouldn’t I be able to dip in to reviewing once in a blue moon? AfD, NPP and AfC reviewing, I think I am very well qualified for all three, but all three I find unenjoyable unless I am in a grumpy mood. It reminds me of vermin control, unpleasant necessary and something I would like to stay abreast of even if it is not on my daily activity list.
    • I see that User:Primefac has indeed labelled me as AfC inactive and taken away my AFCH tool access. I guess he didn’t know that I seem to be using the AFCHbeta tool, and that by far my most frequency AfC review action is to redirect the page to a mainspace article. The knee jerk reaction certainly is to be offended. Second thoughts is that this tool removal and labelling inactive is creation a separation of subcommunities of Wikipedians. That certainly matches my observation that the culture of AfC is different to the culture of rest of the community, starting with putting comments on talk pages or not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm? That's strange, you're supposed to get a notice I believe after two months of inactivity. I've gotten mine once and it encouraged me to come back. (At the same time, I had ACC access, for the life of me couldn't figure out how to use the interface, and let it go without a care in the world.) GMGtalk 00:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo ACC isn't going to build up a backlog of toxic new pages if you don't use it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post your induction into OTRS, I see that you dealt with four tickets within four days.
    The logs show a long absence thereafter and you return about 13 months later. I presume this return was catalyzed by some inactivity-removal-notification. At any case, you dealt with 3 tickets on that day, one of which was concerned with a very delicate case of BLP and has a second response from you, the day after.
    You were removed from OTRS, the next day citing inactivity reasons. LOL. FWIW, I see that the ticket went on to be one of the most protracted ones in OTRS history.
    May-be, you can ask them to induct you back, because the removal seem to be prima-facie botched? WBGconverse 13:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have taken this up with an OTRS administrator. It will be interesting to know what their criteria for inactivity are. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Kudpung it seems like your OTRS situation is illustrative of why some are concerned about purging the NPP user-right rolls; perhaps if you hadn't been removed from the OTRS rolls you would have popped back in over the years since to deal with a few tickets. Since you were (wrongly) removed for inactivity, you instead lost interest in the task. The degree to which removing the flag from accounts that aren't using it would help/hurt is not known, and so we're left guessing. However, if the primary concern of those interested in flag-removals is that the large number of flag-holding accounts is deceiving, then perhaps it would be sufficient for us to stop mentioning the number of accounts holding the NPR flag (712 + admins), and instead just mention the number of "active" reviewers (e.g. the number of editors who have reviewed more than 5 pages in the last 3 months, which according to Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers#Last_90_days is probably a couple hundred? That list cuts off at 100, but I'm sure we can get a list that doesn't cut off). The threshold for "activity" will be arbitrary, but at least it'll give others a more accurate sense of how few editors are keeping NPP going, and avoids the potential drawbacks of removing the flag from accounts that aren't using it currently. Ajpolino (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Whatwe might want to look at is those who have not been active at WP at all for more than a year. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

SummaryEdit

Here's how I would summarize this thoughtful active discussion:

  • There is consensus to remove the reviewer user right from people who have been inactive on Wikipedia for a year or more.
  • While there is some support there is no consensus to remove the reviewer right from people who have not been using it but are still active on Wikipedia.

Does this feel right to everyone? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems right to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Haven't participated in the discussion, but if this were a proposal, I would be in favor of it. My only question is how those who lose the permission can regain it. I assume it would require a new request at PERM? Wug·a·po·des​ 22:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It generally does, but from my experience with other perms it's usually "I went inactive, I'm back again" and it's re-granted. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • User:Kudpung, can I ask & suggest that when about to remove the permission, or when removing the permission, a templated explanation be posted to the user's talk page? When returning from inactivity, it is nice to find notifications plus explanations of what's been done to yo in your absence.
Primefac, can I suggest the same for AfC reviewers? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I pinged WBG about the querry and plan to take a look. The idea of a "thank you for your service" message is a nice one if the editor ends up coming back and being active. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, it would be very remiss of me if I had not already considered doing that. I have a boilerplate on my Mac in Typinator which I use for many of my own custom messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, returning viewers after a hiatus: FWIW, I usually ask for 3 consecutive months of regular editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
That's more or less how I do it - I check the "activity requirements" against their most recent editing as a baseline. And yes, I'll start templating users when I move them from Active to Inactive. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles created in template namespaceEdit

This may of be of interest to you: WT:AFC#Articles created in template namespace. For the record, I do not believe this is a means to evade new page patrollers. MusikAnimal talk 04:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Michele Martinez and Karina Macias - several curious issuesEdit

While patrolling a Michele Martinez article today I was alerted to the fact that it had been previously deleted at AfD, so I AfD'd it again. I note that the script has a bug, see how the new AfD has appeared at the foot of the old one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Martinez. It would be great if someone knows how to fix this.

On the other hand, and the main reason for coming here, is that I instinctively checked out the editor's other creations. I find they appear to be mainly BLPs about non notable local politicians or failed candidates, and non notable street gangs. Many have been deleted, some not and appear to have escaped New Page Patrol. Many are unduly negative about the BLP subjects and one article deleted by Diannaa was an outright attack page. I am wondering if there are grounds here for a topic ban on creating articles in mainspace and insisting that all their new creations be submitted to AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the 2nd (or 3rd) AfD notice through the tool has had a bug in it for a while. It happens so infrequently for me, however, that I always forget about it when we talk about fixing bugs or "wishlists". I've simply switched to submit the AfD through Twinkle on the rare occasions when it does occur. The other issues are rather problematic. Does anyone know of a way that reviewers can keep an "eye" on a problematic editor? Something similar to a watchlist? Onel5969 TT me 14:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Onel5969, I thought you could already keep your eye on chosen editors (by how you review my new articles in batches, thanks btw). Usedtobecool TALK  14:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Lol. No, it's just when I see you come up in the NP feed, I check to see if you've created any other article recently. Keep up the good work.Onel5969 TT me 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems you've already fixed it. It's a longstanding issue of the tool that it cannot handle subsequent nominations after the first as Twinkle does. But a work towards that is ongoing at phab:T231357. I have removed the stuff the tool dumped at the first AfD page. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We could set up a subspace to list down the problematic editors but I dont think we insist them to go through AfC if they are autoconfirmed users under the current guidelines. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This editor does have a disturbing and long-term history. If nothing is done about it, they will simply continue to create inappropriate articles and the reviewers on watch won't be aware of the past. I have been hesitant to open a case at ANI, but it might be the best thing to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, they could be tbanned from creating, by the community, through ANI, though. I thought that was what Kudpung was proposing. The editor's approach seems to be throw in everything and see what sticks (seems to have a roughly 50-50 chance of success, without counting). I would support a tban from directly creating articles, assuming the deletion notices are counted as previous effort by other editors to get them to address the issue (which I am not sure is the case policy-wise). Usedtobecool TALK  14:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I really like the idea of the subspace. Maybe we should put it to a vote? And regarding this editor, I would support a tban from directly creating articles. Perhaps even from article creation totally. My fear is that they will begin to flood AfC with tons of these bogus articles.Onel5969 TT me 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
To tban or ban totally from article creation, could the confirmed editor allow to move the page to main space after creating the page via AfC? If they can move the page then we have a loop hole here. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, tban isn't a technical restriction, they can technically do all the things they are banned from. One, at most two violations, are sufficient for any uninvolved admin to sanction (as agreed by the community) the violating user, that's what keeps the ban enforced. So, they could create articles on the mainspace, or move it from AfC draft, but it would get them blocked. Usedtobecool TALK  18:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This is one of the areas where Wikipedia is still flawed - there is no way to watchlist a user's edits, at least I don't know of one. I suppose it's because stalking is a no no. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I think the idea of a "problem editors" subspace would run us afould of policies and community expectations. This user does indeed have a problem with understanding notability - as Kudpung points out I'm skeptical that several articles are notable but these go back to 2013. I have gone ahead and nominated for deletion the remaining 2019 articles. I think asking for a community restirction at AN or ANI - whether a complete new article tban or mandating AfC - would be appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have given the user a final warning. If they create one more article that gets queried for notability or which is an undue BLP, it's off to ANI by the first patroller to notice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Good job tracking all this down, Kudpung. I think ANI is a reasonable next step after the warnings.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing older article.Edit

As many editors have requested to patrol articles that are not in the queue. I think the feature is finally here, you can access the curation toolbar in any pages by clicking on "add to the New Pages Feed" from the left-hand sidebar. Has anyone tried this feature, or it is just me?___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 20:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Before I wind up deleting the main page, is there any documentation on what clicking "add to the new pages feed" does? Will it actually add it to the feed actually add it to the feed for other patrollers to see, or does it just let us use the toolbar? Will it create a log in the patrol log if I click the patrol button on the toolbar? Is there any limit on the age of the page? Wug·a·po·des​ 06:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wugapodes - rather than attempting to do this to the main page,  , there was an article which I've been wanting to do this to for the last month or so. So I figured I'd do a test on that: Sharmin Sultana Sumi. In doing so, after clicking on the link in the sidebar, I got a warning making sure I wanted to do it, I clicked yes, and the curation toolbar appeared on the article. It also showed up on my log page, as well as appearing in the NPP queue.Onel5969 TT me 11:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Onel's answers are correct. The mechanism behind this puts the article back into the NPP Queue. Also rolled out was the ability to find articles by date ranges which is a nice ability to jump into the "middle" of the queue or find articles that are past the 90 day mark. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Onel, I've added the info to Wikipedia:Page Curation#Curation Toolbar. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Creations from moved or copy pasted draftsEdit

Not all users who submit drafts to AfC are obliged to do so. As soon as they have reached autoconfirmed, they can create what they like in mainspace. However, It may not be immediately evident to reviewers that some new articles may have been subject to multiple rejections at AfC. Please see this case for an example, and be on the lookout for such articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Side comment:
User:Kudpung, here, at 04:09, 25 September 2019, wrote: "The NPR reviews are far stricter than the informal AfC process"?
It is not my obvservation that this is strictly true. It is my observation that AfC reviewer display cognitive bias, like how pilots are known to tend to do what the one before did, and not accept a submitted draft if the previous afC viewer did not accept. Even if the previous reviewer made only a passing comment. In practice, this makes AfC acceptances sometimes very difficult to achieve, which can be interpreted as "strict".
I do agree that the NPR review process is far stricter than the AfC process. For this reason, I suggest incorporating AfC into the existing AfC processes. AfC is a loose process, and one that includes some anachronisms that would be harder to fix than to impose the existing NPR process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Who are obliged to to use AfC? Is it already documented? I believe the answer is the following:
(0) IPs and Non-autoconfirmed users SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
(1) Spammers
(2) Fools
(3) COI editors
(4) Inexperienced editors working on previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages.
(5) Cautious editors, mentioning these here, who are welcome to use AfC although not obliged. Sometimes they need to be reminded of WP:DUD.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, there is only one, simple answer to those questions: you've been around a long time, but you may wish to stay abreast of important developments. One of the most heavily subscribed RfC in history was the recent ACTRIAL which by overwhelming consensus and a trial culminated in the roll out of WP:ACREQ, the biggest change in policy since the Wiki was winvented.
AfC is a subjective process and (as yet) not a formal one, but I don't believe it stretches to cognitive bias; it's not perfect but does basically what it is supposed to. It handles a rather more hard-nosed kind of customer than NPR because it is open to multiple re-reviews before they get the message. Page Curation on the other hand is a formal content processing system and part of the MediWiki software that drives this site. Rather than subjective, it is basically binary: keep, or flag for deletion. We demand a high degree of competency from our reviewers. Like I do from myself as a pilot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, of course I am abreast with WP:ACREQ, and have added the overlooked single obvious one group technically prevented from writing new pages as # (0). I have been more concerned with those who are told they should or must use AfC, without being forced technically.
I have often seen cognitive bias manifest through a long series of AfC declines on a draft that was worthy of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
One important difference between AfC and NPP I see is that there is a lean towards denial at AfC and because of policy there is a lean towards acceptance at NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I would like to see hard evidence of users being told they have to use AfC even if they technically don't have to. I can then do something about it.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I have noted examples, of WP:DRAFTIFICATION, which is a very firm way a NPReviewer can tell someone to use AfC. An example is in the log if Tommy John (apparel company). An interesting example for me. WP:PAID, COI, PROMOTION, sources fail my analysis on independence, but I failed to get it deleted at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, moving an article to draft space does not imply that users 'must' use AfC. If they are autopatrolled they can still move it back to mainspace, whereupon, if the devs have done their job, it will appear in the feed again. AfD is a flawed process and always was, because those who vote are not all sufficiently experienced and of course there's a lot of canvassing and meatpuppetry that goes on there. Also, closers are reluctant to close against a numerical consensus even if the votes are not based on policy or guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, so you are talking technical musts, and I am talking about when person A tells person B "You must use DraftSpace and AfC". Person A is not, technically, correct. Person A is telling person B a "rule", whether it is true or not. Draftifications, moving a page from mainspace to draftspace is exactly that, and if the implied or asserted rule is perceived by person B as a must, well, perception becomes reality. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe I'm sorry, but I do not follow your reasoning. There is no technical obligation to go through AfC. except for non autoconfirmed users and IPs (please familiarise yourself with WP:ACREQ). If the article is already in mainspace it's because the user is already autoconfirmed anyway. I admit the 'move to draft' script is slightly flawed, but it was made in good faith by a user because the WMF either refused to create it or refused to accord it any priority - and now they won't either because a user has gone ahead and done it - the WMF is paid to do these things, but their unwritten policy, (or so it seems to anyone who frequents Phab) is to get the volunteers to do as much of their work for them as possible. Consider taking it up with Evad37, I have an alternative waiting in the wings but I'll not mess with stuff in his user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You do not follow the issue that while there is the technical page creation limitation (WP:ACREQ), there is also a non-technical reality that some people believe there is a rule that some auto-confirmed accounts "must" use AfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I do not follow what you are talking about. As I said above: There is no technical obligation to go through AfC. except for non autoconfirmed users and IPs (please familiarise yourself with WP:ACREQ). If the article is already in mainspace it's because the user is already autoconfirmed anyway, and that means they are under no obligation to submit their drafts to AfC. If there is a common belief they do, as you insist, then please provide some evidence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49,the suggestion that there is a 'lean' towards acceptance at NPR gives me goose bumps. NPR should be objective and binary as I mentioned above: keep or tag for deletion. There should be no grey area, the only exception being 'move to draft' which is not supposed to be a catchall for patrollers who don't know what to do with a page. High level patrollers such as Boleyn, Onel5969, and Rosguill who see a much greater number of new articles than most, please comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC
Kudpung, you're right that was an inept description. I think skilled reviewers separate the wheat from the chaff. How much wheat and how much chaff there are can differ. I think skilled AfC reviewers follow policy by saying "yeah this has a good chance of being wheat. Let's find out". I think many AfC reviews go "Is it wheat? I can't tell, so we'll say it's not." Hopefully that metaphor express my thinking better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, for the moment it's probably best to concentrate on NPR and leave AfC issues up to Primefac and his team - although probably sometime in the not too distant future AfC wil be elevated to the status of an official process, with its PERMs being accorded like other special rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, while NPP remains my focus, I am obviously interested in AfC in the same way primelord is interested in NPP. As you note the projects work closely together and I would be remiss if I didn't think about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, now that we have a competent and dedicated coordinator at the helm, I can now afford the luxury of somewhat relaxing my focus on NPP and I will be taking a greater look at AfC with a view of entering a coalition with Primefac in order to facilitate AfC becoming a more structured and officially recognised process. I was responsible for introducing control over who can use the helper script and collaborated on the development of the AfC feed, so I guess it's what I have to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the binary framing. There's the trivial counterargument, which is that redirect and merging are also options. In addition to that, a new page reviewer needs to decide whether to place maintenance tags, and if so which ones (and it's not as simple as identify problem --> apply tag, because overtagging is also a problem).
Regarding whether reviewing should be objective or subjective, I think that's a false dichotomy. There are objective criteria that articles are evaluated for, but judgments about source quality and the significance of coverage are subjective, and somewhat dependent on a reviewer's familiarity with the subject matter and relevant sources. This extends both to evaluating sources cited by the article, and estimating the likelihood that sources exist that the reviewer is not themselves capable of finding. This introduces systemic bias. Additionally, subject-specific notability guidelines are almost as a rule rather vague and subject to interpretation. And cognitive biases are unavoidable, they're part and parcel of how we think: if I see an article where another editor whose judgment I respect has recently reverted to redirect, my decision is going to be affected by this additional knowledge both consciously and unconsciously, exactly the phenomenon described by SmokeyJoe above.
As for "leaning toward acceptance", I can think of two motivations that a new page reviewer would have for keeping that an AfC reviewer doesn't have. One is that the consequences of a deletion are potentially more BITEy than a decline or reject at AfC. Two is that at AfC, there's a higher likelihood that an editor creating an article will actively work on the article, heed criticism, and generally act as the article's advocate, whereas at NPP, there's a solid chance that if you put a PROD tag on it, no one is going to come to defend that article and look for sources to prove you wrong, so you need to be much more confident that you're right when you say no to an article. Whether this means that NPP leans toward acceptance is up for debate, there's other variables too. signed, Rosguill talk 04:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, it's interesting to see what other users' experiences are. I'd say a good 90-95% of my prods are challenged. If I feel it's a borderline case, I'll leave it unreviewed so that another reviewer can take a look at it. Sometimes that other reviewer will mark it reviewed, sometimes the other reviewer will take it to AfD, so obviously, there is a certain amount of subjectivity in NPP. But that's a small percentage. Normally if I feel that an article's not good enough to prod it, I'll take it to AfD myself if it the prod is challenged. I use draftify when an article appears notable, but isn't referenced well enough to show that notability. For me, this seems to work quite well. If the editor is active, they will usually seek advice, or simply understand what needs to be done and do it. All that being said, I don't think that anyone would say that I "lean towards acceptance". In fact, I get called a deletionist pretty routinely. I don't think I am, preferring to think of myself as an encyclopedist. I do agree with Kudpung's statement that "NPR should be objective and binary as I mentioned above: keep or tag for deletion. There should be no grey area...". However, I simply think that different reviewers have different definitions of black and white.Onel5969 TT me 11:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill and Onel5969: thank you both for your comments. I still maintain that NPP is basically a binary operation because reviewers' decisions, with the exception of 'move to draft' lead either to acceptance of an article or to one of the deletion processes. It's rare to take a new article straight to AfD from the feed, but PROD exists specifically to be used when an uncontroversial deletion is expected and one which is not able to match any of the strict criteria for CSD. IMO, PRODed pages are often fit for very rapid deletion but we have to wait the 7 days, although admins can, and sometimes do, unilaterally delete such articles at their discretion provided they offer a reasonable rationale - there is plenty of unmitigated junk that is not covered by CSD. There is one further alternative to 'keep or kill', and that is 'blank and redirect'. While not in a grey area because it is a kind of (soft) deletion, it is anchored in policy - and I'll stress that rather than leave the belief that it is only a guideline - but it seems to be the solution that most reviewers are unaware of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung - Oh, I use the redirect option quite often. Most frequently when it is in reference to a song or album which simply has a discogs entry. I'll redirect to the album if it's a song, and to the artist if it's an album. But I don't restrict it to those two categoriesIn fact there are certain admins who constantly chastise me in their edit summaries for doing so. I agree with you that it is based on policy (as expressed in guidelines, rather than essays, such as WP:NSONG, WP:NALBUM, WP:NTOUR, WP:NFILM, among others. I've never had a single one of my prods deleted prior to the 7 day period.Onel5969 TT me 00:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Onel5969: , you might use the 'move to draft' feature a lot, but you do a lot of reviewing and you know what you are doing. From my experience, the vast majority of reviewers don't use it. For anyone else following this thread, the clear, unambiguous policy is here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung - Not sure if I use the 'move to draft' feature a lot, but I try to use it as an interdiction, in an attempt to bring an article to somewhat encyclopedic standards. And as I said, seems to be working in most cases. And yes, if I redirect an article and it simply gets reverted without improvement, I normally take it to AfD, as per WP:ATD-R (I've found that discussions on talk pages are pretty much fruitless regarding this, as editors who simply revert without improvement are lazy editors who simply want other editors to do the work). I'm one of those folks who does not agree with AfD is not clean-up, rather, I follow the other essay, Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup. While about 70% of my noms get deleted, another 10%-15% of them get improved during the AfD process to where they do pass GNG. I consider those successes as well.Onel5969 TT me 00:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about AfD as clean-up as I've been on both sides of the fence. However, TNT is, to me, a completely legitimate reason for AfD. Just because a topic is notable doesn't mean that particular version of the article should be the base we work from. Sometimes starting over gives us the article we should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur with you on that - AfD should not be a clean up, although it often turns that way when the creator understands we mean business. Many pages might be notable on the basis of their sources, but still totally unsuitable as topics for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and that is more difficult to convince. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

New features in the New Pages FeedEdit

It is now possible to select pages by date range. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

makes it easier for 'older' pages--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we have some feedback on how easy it is to enter the date range. I tried to test this feature this morning, and was not particuasrly impressed with it. It does what it is supposed to but perhaps it would be best without the popup calendars? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I like it. Entering is easy enough. I expected to be entering an age range, but specifying actual dates is fine. I really like being able to review a few days old. Reviewing the top of the list means reviewing while it is being edited, or competing with another reviewer. Reviewing the oldest, which I also used to do ~10 years ago, means facing some really tough cases, which is why they are so old, everyone else has left them, and it takes a lot of energy to get into that. Reviewing one week old new pages, or one week old AfC submissions, means I can do relatively easy ones in peace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Very nice. One tries to chop away at the horny rear end, but taking a break in less calcified waters (i.e., a month in from there) is certainly pleasant. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Messaging the creator from the Curation toolEdit

Are we absolutely sure we got what we wanted? In any case it's not working as I anticipated. It now needs two separate operations to leave a message for the creator instead of one when patrolling an article as OK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I think WMF has agreed to re-look at this. By two separate operations you mean one to leave the message and one to patrol or do you mean something else? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, yes. There should really be three options:
1. Patroll and leave a message (or leave the message field blank) in one operation;
2. Tag without patrolling and leave a message
3. Just leave a message (e.g. if someone has already patrolled but did not tell the creator about any tags.
A further feature that I have mentioned in the past was to automatically leave a message when a new article is straight patrolled, something like: Thank you for creating XXXX. I have approved it for inclusion and indexing. Keep up the good work."
My vision is eventually to have a drop down of canned messages. Perhaps if that could be achieved, we could draft the short messages and add the ourselves to the dropdown. Maybe I'm just being too hopefull. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi guys, just coming back to NPP after a month of absence and finding that the message functionality now just plops a big fat error message on the recipient's page - as is visible here (bottom of page). This happens when any message is included, but not when a commentless review is committed. Is this a known (phab-tracked) behaviour, or a fresh delight? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Elmidae,welcome back! I am away from my computer at the moment but will dive in when I get home. Hopefully it's something we can fix with a template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Elmidae: I think I have fixed the issue - it was asking for a template that also left a message but this template doesn't exist at the moment. Can you clarify which steps you did to produce this broken message and confirm that that my fix works? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Nope, still borked. I used the Mark as Reviewed button and included a message; the result was that the article was not marked as reviewed, and the author got this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae, Hmm. That's a different template and set of actions than the first one. A bit troubling because I used code from that template to fix the other one. Again can you tell me what steps you did to get this error? I'm having a bit of trouble reproducing at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. The = in Elmidae's signature is what caused the problem. Explicitly using |1= for {{quote}} makes that not matter. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's a bit out of left field! Thanks for tracking it down. (Not testing right now because I really need to get to bed, but will check tomorrow.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Rather than start a new thread, I'll post here that I've just reviewed Aranimemis giganteus, leaving a note (or so I thought) that the page was incorrectly named and needed moving to Aranimermis giganteus, plus a couple of other advisory comments to the page creator. (Not having been very active, I'd not appreciated we now have a 'message creator' option. So, I marked the page as reviewed, assuming my comment had gone to the author. I went to check their other creations for errors, only to see that my comment was neither on the page creator's talk page, nor on the article talk page, so was lost entirely. To me, this seems the wrong default position. I would have expected all review comments to go automatically to the Creator on acceptance, with an option to leave comments on the article talk page and/or the creator (prior to acceptance), if required. Simply accepting my review and throwing away the feedback comment entirely seems a bit perverse. Am I missing something obvious here? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RedirectsEdit

New to this and have two questions –

  • It seems that there's several users who create a large minority of redirects. If they're uncontroversial and have been reviewed in the past, am I right in recommending that they apply for the autopatrolled perm or should I not do that? Example: 300+ from the past few days alone
  • Considering both WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY, at what point do you add the redirect to RfD? I'm curious because there's a lot of users who preemptively create redirects with odd/uncommon alternate spellings, word orders, or capitalizations.

Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 04:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

My criteria for reviewing are:


  • Send to CSD if...
  • it's clearly against policy (G10, R2 mostly)
  • It is a highly unlikely obvious typo (in practice, I feel like this is: extremely unlikely single-character errors where the swapped character sounds nothing like the correct one and is not near it on the keyboard, introducing unnecessary and infeasible punctuation, absurd alternative capitalizations, and anything edit distance > 2).
  • Send to RfD if...
  • it's not mentioned in the target and one of the following is true
– there is no indication that it's related to the target
– it is related to the target but multiple other potentially better targets exist (if you are familiar enough with a subject to identify the best target, just redirect it there)
  • it goes against a well-established convention, like WP:FORRED
  • it's a misspelling that is not totally implausible, but is equally likely to refer to two or more unrelated targets
  • it needs to become a disambiguation page and you can't do it yourself
  • it is otherwise possibly wrong or misleading
Additionally, if it should obviously be moved to a different title (e.g. misplaced comma when the correct version doesn't exist), just do it.
There are a lot of objectively bad redirects that don't meet the above criteria. IMO they're not worth the cost of deletion. Also, you can keep the editor-effort cost of RfDs down by quickly closing discussions when you're proven wrong about the redirect not having any relationship to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 05:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"IMO they're not worth the cost of deletion." This is true. I wonder if talking to prolific bad redirect authors is worth the cost, but unless they're creating hundreds per year, probably not. Thanks for the response and the criteria!! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, the most problematic editors in that regard tend to flame out when their redirects get repeatedly deleted; editors who have consistently bad judgment at redirects tend to not be the best diplomats either. Also, we should honestly codify some sort of official standards for redirects, we have such specific guides for article reviewing, and as far as I'm aware nothing formal for redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 05:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
As far as autopatrol goes, I'm pretty sure there's no way to decouple redirect autopatrol from article autopatrol, so I'd bet that most of the editors really creating hundreds of redirects are unlikely to actually be granted the permission. signed, Rosguill talk 06:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, yeah, I have seen that behavior from some creators at RfD. I would also support more standards for redirects (maybe a note on redirect guides/templates on not creating weird/preemptive redirects?), but I'm apprehensive that the most passionate editors in responding to any proposals would be the ones making most of odd ones. It's hard to see that there's an issue without seeing the redirects in the new pages feed every day. originalmessbusta rhyme 02:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 33#Initial thoughts - autopatrolled redirects for a work around DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect as an alternative to outright deletion is a policy - not just a simple guideline. All one needs to do is familiarise oneself with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Kudpung, these questions are about patrolling redirects, not about converting articles to redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah Rosguill is correct, although I might as well become more familiar with it since I'm too hesitant to redirect or submit pages for deletion in general! originalmessbusta rhyme 02:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Originalmess, you made a pretty good argument for obtaining the Reviewer right, which pre-supposes you had read and fully understood WP:NPR. If not , now's the time to do it. It's very complete and and easy to read (although there is a lot of it), and it shouldn't leave you with any questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, I did read it and fully understand it - I'm just personally hesitant to take major actions on anything ambiguous as I am very new to this perm and emphasizing depth over speed. originalmessbusta rhyme 21:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability of upcoming Indian filmsEdit

While patrolling the new pages feed, I have been noticing a lot of articles on upcoming Indian films. And I mean a lot, like dozens of them. The directors and actors often already have their own articles, but that doesn't necessarily make the films notable. What is the current consensus on how to deal with these articles: CSD, AfD, or leave them alone? — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Film production has exploded across the world including India. Running across new Indian film projects is inevitable when doing NPP. I refer back to WP:NFILM. Some of these productions are not notable and thus eligible for deletion (A7 doesn't cover films but other speedy might apply, else there's AfD) while others are definitely notable. Notable directors and actors can be a sign of notability - but this can also be circular and so the criteria at NFILM is a better way to evaluate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit:, @Barkeep49: I've come across a lot too. I would take to AfD, but could I ping Barkeep to check first? Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
In general pinging any experienced longtime reviewer when you run across something where you want a second opinion is welcome. As coordinator I'm happy for it to be me, but it definitely doesn't just have to be me. More on this very soon - am working on a post that touches on this idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234: AfD might blow up to be nearly twice as big if we were to take them all there. I'm leaving them alone for now until we can come up with a consensus on how to deal with them. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there an Indian film wiki somewhere that could serve as a repository for these films? Sort of like how the Star Wars and Pokemon wikis better serve these niche interests better than a general reference work like Wikipedia would. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The crucial criterion is surely the "principal photography" provision at WP:NFF, especially when there is such a lot of media churn of the "X is slated to appear in Y's next production" type: it may never happen, or not under the original title. Beyond that, it can feel a bit pedantic to propose deletion of an article on a film which appears to be heading for imminent public release, but even there I've seen cases where the date slips and slips. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Building off AllyD principle photography is a good cut-off for whether the project really will happen. Despite how the guideline reads (at least to me) AfD has traditionally said if there's 1 RS saying that principle photography has begun that's enough for notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I entirely disagree. Barkeep's WP:OUTCOMES-based explanation is built upon cognitive bias and becomes self-fulfilling. If the article subject fails NFILM, send it to deletion, even if the foolish !voters choose to keep it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree as well. The principal photography criterion should be used as a bellwether for cases where there is borderline-significant coverage but it's not itself a replacement for significant coverage. For example, if there's a lot of coverage of casting in reputable sources, whether or not principal photography has begun can be the deciding factor. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill thanks for this as for me the production piece serves more as a bellwether of when it stops being TOOSOON for an article that has had preproduction coverage as opposed to actually being the kind of source which establishes notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

NPP Feedback PilotsEdit

Hi all. I'd like to try out two new semi-formal programs for us to give feedback to each other. The first is an extension of NPP School and is designed to match experienced NPP with those who've newly gotten the PERM and need a person they can trust and turn to with help. The mentor might also look over reviews and comment on any strengths and any areas for growth as a reviewer. This stemmed from some work I've been doing under the NPP School umbrella with some reviewers but which is qualitatively different than the more intensive training I do at the school. If you think you have the experience to serve as a mentor please sign-up.

The second idea is a peer review cohort that we could run periodically for moderate or experienced reviewers. The idea is that each member of the cohort would look at roughly 10 recent reviews of two other participants in the cohort offering positive feedback and asking any questions which arise. Rosguill has kindly offered to serve as coordinator for this program with a tentative launch date for the first cohort of November 13. If you're interested in participating in the cohort please add yourself to the participant's list. If you have questions, suggestions, or other feedback about either of these please don't hesitate to throw it out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I don't have the experience to join this, but I still think it is a great initiative. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfCEdit

A RfC on the relationship between the AfC and NPP user rights has been posted. Editors here are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Scientists for FutureEdit

I've added Scientists for Future back to the NPP feed, because although I reviewed that was for the version in which I'd removed the list of facts. Since my actions were reverted I've put it back in the queue for someone else to take a look. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. the list is copied word for word from https://www.scientists4future.org/stellungnahme/facts-2019-03/ Polyamorph (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Polyamorph: It should have still been in the queue, and you just unreviewed it; see also phab:T234587 DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi DannyS712 that's what I thought, but my tool didn't appear on the right hand side until I clicked "add to the NP feed" on the left hand side.Polyamorph (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

This has turned now into a total shitstorm with one user arguing that I was wrong to remove the copied (and in my opinion promotional) and now revdel'd content and another arguing with admins over our non negotiable copyright rules. Most of the time NPP is fun, but sometimes it causes a lot of unnecessary hassle.Polyamorph (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CoI editors who refuse to answer questions on paid editingEdit

How can I find out who reviewed a newly created article? The article in question is Volodymyr Zubyk which was created yesterday in one edit and has had only one further edit, by @Discospinster:, who may have marked it as patrolled, but it does not appear in his patrol log? The reason I ask is because the creator has failed to answer my questions on paid editing and has resumed editing after a gap and a final warning. And then there is Myroslav Prodan, created by the same user a month ago. I wonder who marked this largely unreferenced BLP as patrolled? Is someone bypassing the system? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, the page logs will show who marked them as reviewed. [4] [5]bradv🍁 05:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that it looks like a direct translation of the Ukranian article: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зубик_Володимир_Володимирович. Which would explain creation from one edit. So it should be checked for language and tagged as machine translation if necessary. If you are looking for an innocent explanation then language barriers could then explain the lack of response to warnings. Polyamorph (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(I've removed the unsourced eulogy part form Volodymyr Zubyk, put a sources (BLP) tag on and marked as reviewed. It's pretty bare-bones and neutral in its current state, and notability as a politician seems okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC))

Edit

Okay, one of my weaknesses (of which I am sure there are a plethora of), is in recognizing paid editing. Are there resources on WP that can help me understand what I should be looking for? My question is borne out of a newly created article, Proviz Sports, I removed a promotional section dealing with non-notable awards, but this was created by a spanking brand new editor, and seems quite well constructed and formatted for a newbie. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The guideline is at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Conflict_of_Interest_(COI),_paid_editing. I wrote it so if it's not clear let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
onel5969, the main and most obvious hallmarks are if a page looks too good to be true: Was posted by a relatively new user often in one edit, is cleanly formatted, and has a plethora of sources all perfectly formatted but on closer examination prove to be Internet barrel-scraping, and usually (but not always) on topics from South Asia. Less obvious are BLPs masquerading as corporate spam and BLPs made in the run up to an election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The guideline Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Conflict_of_Interest_(COI),_paid_editing is written very well, in my opinion. I think it is written as strongly as possible given the WMF's and community's failure to state or agree on any actionable response. There is an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Paid editing disclosures and deletion. If Undisclosed Paid Editing (WP:UPE) is not a reason for deletion, then the ToU statement is toothless. If it is a reason for deletion, then methods for judging are a major challenge. Kudpung offers some good points, but I continue to think that only inexperienced UPEditors will be caught, and that by using their throwaway account they learn, and that there is a very large amount of UPEditing by experienced editors that is rarely detected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I agree the NPP process is well-written, and it is what I have been going by. Yet I still have a difficult time discerning paid editing. I go back to the example of the article which prompted this above, Proviz Sports. Well written, structured and formatted, slightly promotional tone, and a very new user. Is this something either one of you would slap a Paid Editing tag on? In the past, I've had such tags removed with some pretty acerbic comments from some pretty experienced admins. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
One of the common patterns your see it may be written by spa who uses paid for articles on places like Forbes as references, which is a common pattern. Another one, like is that you have a SPA who does a couple of hundred edits in a attempt to disguise themselves and then drop a paid articles, which I think fits that. This first ref should be to establish bona fides. It should be rock solid secondary source that established the notability absolutely. If it doesn't and the three or four refs after that are similarly and sometimes on Forbes, or Inc, or Medium, or investment sites if it a startup, then paid. If it event pages or name drop or those four or five, then it may be paid. scope_creepTalk 13:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Examining it: The first ref is forbes, is a small paragraph among several other named companies. That is known in advertising as how to get it on peoples lips. An advertising technique that is more 35 years old. So the first is not secondary ref, nor of high quality. It is paid content, a name drop. They've paid to put a small paragraph on a page. Look at at next reference, on Bailiwick Express. This could be genuine, but it worth examining their site to determine if they have editorial board which is a sign of quality. They do state of the video Video: A promotional film for Proviz., which indicated the content is probably paid for. The third one, look at the bottom of the article. It has company url plus a statement by founder. A classic. Taking some words from the the statement We are immensely proud to be celebrating our 10th anniversary turns up several other sites, where they have paid for content. That indicate a press release as the source, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The fourth, same, the press release again. So the first four references are a fail. They don't even match WP:THREE which is becoming the standard to establish notability. scope_creepTalk 13:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Excessive focus on charitable contributions, supported by passing mentions in seemingly reliable sources like the BBC's one-word mention of Proviz. Non-notable business awards are typical, like the Amazon Growing Business Awards. Reliance on product reviews as sources. Reviews are not independent reporting. Another tell-tale sign is the use of sources that are rehashed press releases, typically in trade magazines. A publicist will try to create press for a company and try to make it look like independent reporting, which it isn't. Look for the the use of nearly identical phrases in different sources. Vexations (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a good one. I forgot about that. In similar vein, sometime they'll setup fake sites to show they are philanthropic or charitable then abandon them when the article has been established. I saw that recently for an energy company. The gall of it. scope_creepTalk 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Looie496/Watchlist pingingEdit

While strolling around Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination, I came across a see also link to this very interesting essay. This indeed sounds like a good way to allow patrollers to follow up on an article after some days. What's interesting is that this can be implemented as a user script (almost exactly the way it's described in the essay), following the same general architecture as another script I recently wrote – User:SD0001/T-Watch which lets you watch pages for a specific duration (check it out!).

So, are folks interested in this? I guess it would take me about 2 hours of work, which I can devote if there are at least 2 interested editors. SD0001 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, I would definitely be interested in this. You should be aware that the foundation is looking into time-limited watchlist entries but this would be useful in a very different way. I hope someone else joins me in expressing interest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, I'm not a patroller (I just watch the page) but I would find that functionality very useful. Right now, I either rely on the watchlist to track articles I should follow up on, or I add a "to do" link to my user page. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I also would be interested. With over 7200 pages on my watchlist, most only need to be watched for a week or so. The Wikimedia project Barkeep49 mentions can be found HERE. Onel5969 TT me 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware. But then, this is the WMF. Who knows how many months or years it's going to take them before it's a reality? BTW, even IFried (WMF) checked out the T-Watch script. SD0001 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes please, would be very useful. I've also been hoping that time-delimited watchlist entries would become available soon; until that finally rolls off the line, I'll have to check out your other script... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This idea would be great if implemented. I would suggest highlighting the 'ping' in a different colour so it doesn't appear like any other item on the watchlist. Cheers, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done see User:SD0001/W-Ping. Any feedback is welcome. Please report any bugs/issues if you find any. SD0001 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".