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)

Page Curation Update - FEEDBACK NEEDEDEdit

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

Adding a "Potential COI" alert to the feedEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template to useEdit

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

Thanks for creating Article Name

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Status Update for Project Posted on Meta-Wiki (August 20, 2019)Edit

Hey, everyone! I've just posted a status update and a question for the community on the Page Curation & New Pages Feed improvements project page. IFried (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In case you don't want to click over, the update reveals that making the curation tool available to other Wikis won't be done. It also says that implementing sorting or filtering by page views of an article in the queue is not feasible but is it worth giving development time to just noting that information in the queue? I have give my thoughts on the discussion page and would encourage interested reviewers to do likewise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback on T207238: Special:NewPageFeed - add option to filter by pageviewsEdit

I posted this update on Meta-Wiki, but I'm sharing it on Wikipedia too, so we can get some more input (see details below)

  • T207238: Special:NewPageFeed - add option to filter by pageviews and the associated spike: T225169: [4 hours] Investigate whether it's efficient to order by tag value (DBA input requested): This work presents significant challenges, but there may be an alternative solution.
    • First, the challenges (according to analysis from the engineering team): In order to filter/sort by inputted numbers, the numbers must be stored in the database in a specific manner. This first step alone would take several weeks, if not months, according to the estimates provided by Wikimedia database experts. Then, we would need to populate the sortable cells with pageview data, which comes from an external service. To do this, we would need to create a process that pulls the data from the external service and stores it in MediaWiki’s PageTriage table. Then, we would do this work repeatedly, so that the numbers would remain up-to-date, over the entire PageTriage database (which consists of tens of thousands of rows, if not more). This process is both uncommon (in MediaWiki servers) and complex; we would need to define this process and identify the correct way to implement it, in collaboration with Operations and Database experts. In total, we do not find the request, in its current form, within our scope. For more details on the technical analysis and discussion with the database administrators, you can check out the associated investigation ticket.
    • Second, the alternative solution (as described in the T225169 investigation): We could display the number of pageviews in the article record, without allowing for sorting or filtering. Would this be a satisfactory alternative to the community? And, if so, how would you like the number of pageviews displayed (e.g. average per day, median per day, total views in the last 30 days, etc)? Note that the results displayed will be from 24 hours earlier than the display time, and we’ll want to query from a maximum of 30 days ago (for the sake of general efficiency and manageability of this feature). We do not yet know if we can do this work — but, if we could, would it be worth our time and effort, in your opinion? IFried (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Example of what it may look like:

Example of how the page views could be displayed

Pinging some people who haven't responded yet but may have some feedback (regarding the question above). @Kudpung, DannyS712, ONUnicorn, Nick Moyes, Sadads, Innisfree987, MrX, SshibumXZ, PamD, Usernamekiran, Swpb, DGGMduvekot, Hydronium Hydroxide, and Vexations: Thanks! IFried (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on this feature. I will comment on meta regarding the message feature. Pinging @DGG and Mduvekot:. (Previous ping failed). —usernamekiran(talk) 10:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For the way most people work, sorting would be much more helpful than display, so if sorting is impractical, I don't think it is worth the trouble to display them. As for me, I review preferentially in subject fields I know (as do only a few others), so I should recognize them. Additional considerations are: Something with a major unexpected spike would normally have attracted the attention of others than the NPP regulars. That 24 hour lag will be a significant minus, as the the most recent time period is what really matters. But I am undoubtedly biased by the lack of usefulness for the particular way I work, and if others think it would really help them, my idiosyncrasy shouldn't count for much. I'll comment on the message feature above. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • IFried (WMF), apologies for being late, I somehow missed this. I'm not sure of the importance of displaying the page views. It's not a feature I would use for patrolling a page. I'm also concerned that every new bit of meta information we add to the entries in the feed will slow down the loading of the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 you weren't pinged by IFried (WMF) on this. Perhaps you should have been. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I wasn't but interacted on this topic on meta. I share your skepticism that this is a net improvement for reviewers as proposed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio tool down?Edit

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

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

Need someone to double check Draft:Charles N. FindleyEdit

Draft:Charles N. Findley is a memorial with a looong tail of material copied from another wikipedia article. I thought the subject was obviously non-notable, so I rejected it. I selected an option that I thought would link to WP:NOT but turns out it links to 5P (I think it's same difference but I don't know for sure). I don't know how to amend/take-back a review that's already posted, or where the page is that says which option generates what messages. So, it might take me awhile to find and read, to be able to know exactly what to do. I am also not sure if G11 is too insensitive for a memorial page. Advice, links to help pages I am looking for, appreciated. In the meantime, would someone care to look at the draft and fix anything that could have been handled better? Thanks!Usedtobecool   15:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There is an obituary "Findley, Charles N. 1986-2017". St. Joseph News-Press. 13 September 2017. which can be used for biographical details if the article on the disaster has a section discussing the victims. Otherwise I would suggest simply explaining our notability requirements to the author as you would to any one else. If the bulk of the material is copyvio and from Wikipedia either add a dummy edit with attribution or, since is is unlikely to become an article just G11 it -- for the sake of sensitivity maybe leave a personal note rather than a template on their talk page. Cheers. Jbh Talk 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ayoub El Amloud - for exampleEdit

I know I keep droning on about this in various places, but this article is typical of the reason why I totally fail to understand why academics are considered non-notable by default until they have jumped through many, many hoops, but the quarter million bios about soccer players are nearly all like this. Something needs to be done about this kind of SNG. Maybe I'm just biased - I am an extremely rare breed of Brit who can't abide soccer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion at the start of July which seemed like it might lead somewhere but ultimately I think people got tired of the conversation and nothing ended up happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I expect it's because the demographics of our readers and contributors somewhat match that proportionality of "interested in soccer" vs "interested in academia", and consensus in the end is driven by these proportions. Vide Pokemon and friggin' wrestling :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are a couple of other genres too that enjoy absolute minimal notability requirements, books and albums for example, but IMO, popularity of the subject is not a reason to debase our notability quality to almost nothing. Problem is that when this kind of thing goes to RfC, naturally all the soccer and Pokemon (what is Pokemon?) fans turn out to vote.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Very disconcertingEdit

I am asking Kudpung, DGG and any other AfC/NPP reviewers who may be interested to please review the cited sources listed in this diff. Please do not comment at that discussion or I will be accused of canvassing. What I need to know from our experienced reviewers applies to the sources only, and if they are indeed (a) RS, (b) the information is verifiable, (c) the sources unequivocally establish the Catahoula bulldog as a notable breed, (d) does not require any OR on the part of the editor, and (d) the information provided by the sources is enough to satisfy GNG. Once I see the results, I will make a determination if I'm going to continue as a NPP volunteer. Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 01:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, the first thing is that Wikipedia does not categorize on whether a dog breed is notable. What we aim for is to establish if the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I've spent a precious hour this morning going attentively through that list of sources and without analysing them all individually here, without prejudice to the AfD closure at the time, I would say that GNG is met by enough of these sources.
Those of us who do a lot of NPP will certainly not win all our XFDs - I have one running at the moment which is being shot down in flames (I see now where I was technically wrong, but I considered the article to be run of the mill news however tragic). Of your 273 AfD votes, without considering "No Consensus" results, 82.3% of AfD's were matches and 17.7% of AfD's were not, and this is very good and the standard to be expected from an experienced editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, the first thing is that Wikipedia does not categorize on whether a dog breed is notable. What we aim for is to establish if the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I've spent a precious hour this morning going attentively through that list of sources and without analysing them all individually here, without prejudice to the AfD closure at the time, I would say that GNG is met by enough of these sorces all our XFDs - I have one running at the moment which is being shot down in flames (I see now where I was technically wrong, but I considered the article to be run of the mill news however tragic). Of your 273 AfD votes, without considering "No Consensus" results, 82.3% of AfD's were matches and 17.7% of AfD's were not, and this is very good and the standard to be expected from an experienced editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Kudz, this is about my work at WP:WikiProject Dogs and the mess we have in our encyclopedia. I don't think you are grasping the gravity of this situation. We've got advocacies wanting to euthanize dogs they say are bully types. It's horrible. I won't get into that here but something has to change because they are using WP to get recognition and validate these bully dog breeds so they can target them. That is not what WP is about. See my comment here and some of the sources being used to include a non-notable dog. They fail WP:V and WP:NOR - they're using sources based on anecdotal information - none of it verifiable. It's a joke. I'm about to throw in the towel, Kudz. I'm embarrassed that we have dog articles that are sourced to websites like this, and this...and that's what they're using to establish notability. Atsme Talk 📧 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, your original question was abut the Deletion Review for Catahoula bulldog. Wikipedia is not an advocacy venue for or against anything. Your correct pit stop is WP:Reliable sources noticeboard - there's no need for you to throw your toys out of the pram, we need all the help we can get at NPP. It would be the same as if I were to give up because I as the granddaddy of NPP am embarrassed of what I firmly believe to be the atrocious and ridiculous SNG for soccer players, which with their five-word stubs and single source make up half of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on the encyclopedia, half the daily intake of new pages, and WP:FOOTY is definitely a much bigger mess than WP:WikiProject Dogs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! There are dozens of "fully professional" leagues and you only have to have played for any length of time in a single match to be considered notable. Almost a quarter of the pages I see in NPP are for eminently forgettable players that will never get past permastub status but because they meet NFOOTY they get a green tick. Wikipedia is becoming a repository for sports fan trivia it's an uphill battle. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
My advice to Atsme is to forget the dubious notability of dog breeds if they are causing you so much angst. Walk away. Take the articles off your watchlist. Go back to writing and improving articles on fish or some other uncontroversial subject where your expertise can really benefit the encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thx all for the advice. I'm taking a semi-break, trying to capture some shots of hummingbirds - you could say it's one way to shoot the bird without getting into trouble. 😉 Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Embarrassing questionEdit

Okay, I should know this, but I apparently don't. I reviewed an article back on 8/10, Sharmin Sultana Sumi, restoring it as a redirect. The editor then created another article, by adding (singer) to the end. Regardless, I simply want to unreview the article, but can't get my curation tools to appear. I know there was a discussion about this just a month or two ago, but can't find it in the archives. Help. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, would be what you want but because the article isn't in the queue it won't work... yet. I believe that the ability to load the toolbar on any article is coming out this week, but I could be wrong as I've lost track in my mind where they are with the improvements underway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Beautiful. Thanks Barkeep49. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Curation toolbar not advancing?Edit

Anyone else having trouble advancing articles in the toolbar? Having the same issue from the new and old sides. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

So this is a little bizarre. When sorting by the oldest Narsingdi won't advance for me but Russian imperialism (two articles later) will. Sorting by newest Maximal ring of quotients won't advance but Money Honey (web series) does. Something strange is going on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
me as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This has been going on for a while. My suspicion is that it is somehow connected to deletion tags, particularly since this seems to occur far more often at the ends of the queue as opposed to the middle. I'll run into this issue five or so times in the first ten articles at the beginning of a reviewing session, but once I clear the slew of difficult articles skipped by reviewers and the ones waiting for their PRODs to expire I rarely have any issues. signed, Rosguill talk 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Phab ticket filed and noted here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Curation tool messageEdit

The canned message template wrapper starts with:

"Thanks for creating Jayagovind Harigopal Agarwal Agarsen College! I edit here too, under the username XXX and it's nice to meet you :-)"

I don't know who wrote this template but I do feel that this text is silly. There are plenty of creators I send messages to who are not nice people and it is no pleasure to tell them they are spammers, vandals, or attackers. Can we rethink this text please? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That language was added to {{Taggednote-NPF}} by Winged Blades of Godric in this edit last December. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I would second addition to the concern of sending friendly messages to clearly unconstructive editors, I feel that even for editors that I do want to be friendly to, adding a ":-)" to the end of the message sends the wrong idea of the kind of tone that I (and many others) use on talk pages. signed, Rosguill talk 06:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I do think that here on the en.Wiki, template texts should be written in standard and/or fairly formal English. I have lived and worked in regions where English is good and widespread, even official, but it's local variety may not be totally apt for an international publication such as Wikipedia. Just my two cents of biased opinion as a professional in applied linguistics ;) I have modified the text. If anyone disagrees, please BRD (with emphasis on 'D'). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
is there a reason that there's a hyphen after the colon before the actual message content? It seems like a typo, if a long-standing one. signed, Rosguill talk 07:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Removed. It was the residue of the smiley that was there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Inactive reviewersEdit

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)


Just over a year-and-a-half ago in another venue I wrote this:

There is so much to do on Wikipedia that people with real skills are always wanted and welcome in other areas, such as WP:NPR, for example, where such work used to be generally quite lonely and haphasard until I turned it round. In just over a year, motivated individuals have been able to reduce a 22,000 page backlog to under 600, but the work needs to continue to keep it there; without introducing hierarchies, it now needs replacement leadership to continue the coordination of that work.

With the rollout of the NPR right, ACREQ, ORES, and the insistence that the Curation system continue to be technically enhanced, I stepped back from micromanaging NPP/NPR and organised an election that would establish some form of formality for the organisation (not authority) within the system. The elected user did not take up the option to be coordinator. Others have taken the lead in some respects or another until they too became unavailable.
NPP coordination is a complex list of tasks (Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Coordinator_tasks)
NPP corodination needs someone who will often have need for the admin tools - it was what made my job as defacto coord so much easier all those years. A de facto coord is simply someone who has seen a lot of work to be done and just gets on with it - it does not confer any authority.
We now have someone who has not only been doing just that, but who has very successfully been elected to adminship.

I am therefore proposing that Barkeep49 be confirmed by the NPR community as recognised coordinator. Barkeep has confirmed by email that he would accept the position if the NPR community reaches a consensus in favour. This simple poll will be closed in 7 days by a non-involved user, or earlier if a clear consensus is reached.
Note: This is not a request for alternative nominations or suggestions; if necessary, that can and will be handled in a later, separate process.

Those in favour of Barkeep49 being confirmed as CoordinatorEdit

  1. As proposer, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Jbh Talk 21:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. The candidate has excellent communication skills. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Makes eminent sense to me. --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. As I said at their recently successful RfA, not just yes, but hell yes.Onel5969 TT me 22:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  7. Since a rational is not a requirement for a support... gonna get one anyway! Someone who is interested, willing, and has recently obtained a mop bucket should certainly be an asset to the project.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support - he is eminently qualified, if this is something that he'd be willing to take on, I'm delighted to support GirthSummit (blether) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  9. The obvious choice. – bradv🍁 23:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  10. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  11. Strong support from me. As I have stepped back there are a few things that deffinitely need doing from a coordinator who is active. Barkeep49, lets have a chat at some point and I can pass a few things on to you. Cheers thanks for offering your service. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  12. Support - Absolutely qualified for this, no doubt. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  13. signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  14. Clearly, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  15. Of course. Vermont (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  16. Sure, not a problem. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  17. Makes sense to me. It seems leadership in this nook of the wiki is ever-changing... But regardless, Barkeep49 is a natural fit, especially when it comes to liaison with the WMF. I (we) greatly appreciate your general oversight and wisdom throughout this project. MusikAnimal talk 05:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  18. See his name come up in the right places a lot. Kingsif (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  19. Support - Experience matters a lot. Hitro talk 07:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  20. Why not? Masum Reza📞 07:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  21. Seems a logical addition given his excellent NPP training and other experience Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  22. As long as this doesn't unduly reduce the amount of other good work he/she does ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  23. Me too, as long as he is up for it. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  24. Support - Seems well qualified and enthusiastic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  25. Support - I learned the NPP process by working with Barkeep49 and can only say that not only does this user know what is needed, but there is also a level of support, concern, patience, and balance present here that is greatly needed on Wikipedia. I strongly support this proposal. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  26. Aye. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  27. yes. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  28. Support:-Barkeep49 is a really worthy Wikipedian for this. They have very well experience in NPP and a really helping personality. Very helpful user for new NPRs. Their supportive, impartial and patient attitude can be a gift to the NPP.--PATH SLOPU 17:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  29. Support - thank you for volunteering. Hopefully having someone explicitly at the helm will help with organizing. Ajpolino (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  30. Support - obviously. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  31. Support absolutely. Polyamorph (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  32. Support CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  33. Support - Usedtobecool TALK  06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  34. Support DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  35. A resounding Support Atsme Talk 📧 15:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  36. Support Seems fine to me-- BoothSift 01:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Those not in favour of Barkeep49 being confirmed as CoordinatorEdit

Those not in favour of a confirmation processEdit

Note *(see preamble, this section was not part of the original discussion as proposed): This is not a request for alternative nominations or suggestions; if necessary, that can and will be handled in a later, separate process.

  1. In favour of Barkeep49, but not in favour of the confirmation process. Neither TonyBallioni nor Insertcleverphrasehere nor Barkeep49 have needed confirmation to step up to the role. I fear that a confirmation process will inhibit the next coordinator from stepping up when/if (experience says "when") Barkeep49 moves on to other wiki-interests. I see no benefits to the confirmation, just a potential downside. Cabayi (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Cabayi, my thoughts on this is that there is nothing stopping anyone from taking on coordination duties, and in general people do when there is a vacuum (and barkeep has already been doing many of these things in my absence). The confirmation is merely an endorsement by the NPR community of someone already doing the work that they are supported in that effort.
    The idea that went about a while back to do an ‘election’ (e.g. multiple candidates running against each other) didn’t really work out, so I’m not a fan of that method. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Cabayi, I think your concerns are unfounded. Admittedly I was an unconfirmed de facto coord of NPP for many years and I believe in that time I did a lot for the process - because nno one else was doing it. After I had achieved the maximum I could for it, I wanted to step back and move on to other things. In the interests of maintaining some leadership (all large Wikiprojects have some form of coordination) I was careful to organise an election on the same lines as Wikiprojects.
    I am sure that if Barkeep49 wishes at some stage to give up his coordination of NPP, he will make provision for a process to ensure that NPP is not left without a competent individual at the helm. I'll point out once more that coordination of NPP is a combined collection of tasks that require active initiative on several fronts, and not one of authority. None of the tasks are the exclusive domain of the coordinator - everyone can help and that is the very reason why it needs regular coordination, so one can look on it as a process that needs a 'go to' person with 'access all areas'.
    You are apparently currently on a hiatus for reasons which have largely been precipitated by the near total lack of structured management within the WMF. However, this coordinator confirmation process is obviously important enough for you to comment. Actually, one coord isn't really enough and the position requires a lot of support. Perhaps you would like to help out when you return. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Given that NPR has never had effective elected leadership, and that the only time the baton has been dropped was when those elected didn't step up to the role, I fear that anointing a non-exclusive, unelected leader with non-obligatory duties is more likely to be an albatross for Barkeep49 than a benefit for NPR.
    On the hiatus issue, I have hope that a resolution is in sight, that the Foundation won't try to usurp the community's role again (it's been like building services crashing in on HR's role), and that the fourth pillar, civility may get some more respect. I note the quote on your userpage from JamesBWatson and guess you'll also be in favour on that final point.
    As for my future activity, I'll continue advocate for Special:NewPages & WP:Twinkle and to speak out against a monoculture. Keeping a dirty browser history means that S:NP flags up page recreations very effectively and has led to my interests developing toward WP:SPI where I'll shortly be resuming my work as a trainee clerk.
    That being said, NPR's future development belongs on the Special:NewPagesFeed & WP:Page Curation track. Cabayi (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Similar to what Cabayi said above. I have no problem with Barkeep49, but I'm not sure we need an election process. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    ONUnicorn, that why we haven't held an election. However, it will be up to Barkeep49 if he wishes to organise one at a later stage. Most Wikiprojects have annual elections. The only reason why the previous election was not a success was because the successful candidate was not able to take up the position. If you are particularly concerned for NPR, maybe you would like to help out occasionally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Are you saying I haven't been helping? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    No, ONUnicorn, but as I want to move on from NPR and concentrate more on outreach in schools and colleges while I still can, I'm trying to get people interested in taking on some initiative and leadership to organise getting the 6,000 backlog reduced and follow up with the tech development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments and QueriesEdit

  • @Kudpung and Barkeep49: - with things changing, could you give a few thoughts on what will definitely fall under their rough tasks, as well as no doubt a major amount of "other tasks as required". I've pinged BarKeep as well in case he had any different views or ideas to Kudpung. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Nosebagbear, please read the preamble and follow the link you were provided with. Please note also that this is a straight poll, a 'Comments' section was deliberately left out in order to avoid side tracking and disruption. An ELECTED coordinator can propose any changes they wish - it's obviously part of the job. If the poll closes in just 7 days as unsuccessful, other solutions can and will be proposed. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, I'd read the preamble, not sure how I missed the link. You can delete this section if you wish Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello New pages patrol,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: the div has an extra leading `<` - should I make a bot run to remove it (already approved to fix mass message errors, just need to know) DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, a typo I missed. I don't know if mass messages are transcluded or subst'd. Please do whatever you think appropriate. Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung:   In progress --DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this DannyS712. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:   Done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
What's up with Ballonman. It should be Balloonman, Note: You're still missed.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Tech development followupEdit

@Rosguill, Barkeep49, MusikAnimal, Insertcleverphrasehere, Winged Blades of Godric, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Elmidae, DGG, Onel5969, and TonyBallioni: The WMF have made a great effort to address all our requests on the wish list - and even some that weren't. I've gone through all the items at WP:PCSI, checking back at Phab, hatting some, and querying others, but there is still a bit to do. As we are fast approaching the next round of Xmas Wishlist requests, it would probably be a good idea to start having thoughts on what from the last wishlist is lagging in development (or been put on hold by the devs), and listing anything new and important that should be requested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I had planned on starting a conversation soon, so thanks for kicking this off Kudpung. If we're going to go back to wishlist this year, and until recently I'd have been opposed, the only reason I would support for doing so would be to request the work suggested by MSchottlender-WMF. The TLDR is that the code around page curation is decaying and this presents a significant long-term threat to NPP on English Wikipedia. Addressing this issue now, while the WMF institutional memory of the code base remains high, would be my top (and only) priority. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    (+1). WBGconverse 13:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the changes the curation tool has undergone. Make reviewing a bit easier (especially the copyvio angle). The only two things I can think of are small, and maybe only affect me, so they might not be worth mentioning, but I still can't seem to be be able to get the curation toolbar to appear on a page I want to unreview (that I've reviewed in the past). The other thing is that when I use the curation tool to prod or csd an article, it doesn't add it to my prod or csd logs. This isn't a big thing, but I do occasionally like to go back over them and see if I'm doing something consistently incorrect. Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with the tool. I am concerned regarding Barkeep's issue about the code, so that would definitely be a priority.Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your use of the toolbar's deletion tag is already being logged. Regarding the first issue, most a times may be the articles you're trying to load the toolbar already passes the 90-day limit. Once an article passes that limit the toolbar will never be shown again since any any review/unview after that have no effect whatsoever on the mainspace articles. For the articles still within the time frame, appending ?action?=showcurationtoolbar=1 to the URL would show the the toolbar. It's a hack and not very user-friendly, of course. But it's all we've got for now. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ammarpad, A lot of reviewers (myself included) hate the deletion tag log. It lumps ll deletion processes together and isn't editable for adding notes etc. There was a specific task put in the wishlist regarding this as this is one of the main reasons why a lot of reviewers don't use the deletion part of the curation tools. T207237
    Another task was for making the toolbar available on any page you'd like to pull it up on (for using the tagging and deletion features etc.) T207485.
    The first hasn't been approached yet, but the second is in development. (see the tech team's page for more info). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Whenever I put ?action=showcurationtoolbar=1, it says "No such action - Wikipedia does not recognize the action specified by the URL." is there something I am doing wrong.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: You should see a "Open page curation" link in the sidebar (for articles still in the time frame). For the url trick you've to append something different, which I don't recall. SD0001 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: There was a mistake in the query string. You are to append ?=showcurationtoolbar=1. Though even then the article has to be within the timeframe. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Ammarpad:, this doesn't bring the error, however it does nothing. It doesn't show the toolbar. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 22:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I know it doesn't work all the time, but it certainly works. On which page you tried it? – Ammarpad (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
─────────────────@Ammarpad:, I have tried it on Yella Beezy, Art Deco architecture of New York City, Halophila baillonis, and Treaty of Potsdam (1805). ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 22:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Patrol QuestionEdit

Hi i created three article and one article topic is very hot at this moment and showing on television too , this film can i request reviewers to patrol this page ? as one editor has fixed the page as now it is showing on i understand that 90 days is a time for patrolling the page but i need to know is there any fastest way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talkcontribs) 21:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

پاک آرمی زندہ باد, New Page Patrollers review articles in no particular order though some priority is given to older articles. I understand waiting can be frustrating but as Operation Swift Retort (film) is only a few days old I can only offer you the advice to be patient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
پاک آرمی زندہ باد, in the meantime, you may wish to improve the page by correcting the many grammatical errors in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Decoupling maintenance tagging and reviewingEdit

In the ancient days ( ), it used to be not possible to automatically review articles by tagging them. For doing the review as well, you needed to enable a 'Mark as reviewed' checkbox at the bottom of the 'Add Tags' flyout. A screenshot of the old workflow is visible over here.

Subsequent updates (T41208) removed the option in a bid to un-clutter the fly-out and reduce maintenance overhead. But the change meant that anybody, who was inclined to tag an article but not review it, was now being compelled to manually un-review it after the tagging. The drawback is that the article creator receives 2 notifications:- one for the review, and another for the un-review ...

I (thus) propose for a return to the old days, which effectively decoupled maintenance tagging and reviewing. See T148353. I guess provisions can be alsoimplemented to set the check-box to either of the two states (as default) and remember it, so as to not interfere with current workflows. WBGconverse 05:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support As a first step. The review/unreview method i'd just clumsy. It also may lead to newer reviewers indexing something that is not ready for prime time because they forget to unreview.

    What I would like to see though is a queue of tagged but unreviewed articles. This would allow more experienced or specialized reviewers to check on whatever issue led the original reviewer found troubling enough not to pass. This would, in my mind, mean issues would be more likely to be addressed before Google indexes the article and take some of the pressure off of reviewers in questionable cases. Jbh Talk 16:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm really confused now. I thought this what was supposed to have been changed already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, really need this right now. This could be like how Twinkle does it.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".