Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

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)


NPP Source Guide progress report and next stepsEdit

For those of you who don't know, I and a few other editors have been compiling a source guide, primarily for NPP, which is over at WP:NPPSG. The purpose is to help combat systemic bias in NPP by providing baseline, consensus-backed reliability information about sources for all topics and geographic regions. The main differences between it and WP:RSP are that NPPSG is sorted by topic, and that it has a much lower bar for inclusion on the list.

I started out this project by first transcribing all of the RSP entries to the list, and then further expanding it by keeping tabs on RSN discussions as they are archived. However, this reliance on just monitoring RSN means that while there's still some useful information at NPPSG (and more importantly, useful information that would not belong at RSP), we're not closing our systemic-bias blindspots at anything faster than a glacial pace. Barkeep49 and I were tossing around some ideas for how to proceed here, but the crux of that discussion is that we should move to start having regular discussions about regions that are underrepresented on RSP, possibly using RfC format, and inviting editors from NPP, relevant WikiProjects and other language Wikis, and the broader Wikipedia community to participate. Given that the close for the recent RfC about moratoriums at RSN included language about not having RfCs about sources that have never been discussed before, we may have some bureaucracy to push against in order to get community buy-in from this proposal. Thus, I'm raising this discussion here to get feedback from new page reviewers, with the intent of workshopping a proposed process for evaluating sources from underrepresented regions, and then either going straight to RSN or to the Village pump (either to Ideas or Proposals). It is my opinion that a lot of the pushback against reliability RfCs was from editors who were alarmed that these were being used to aggressively deprecate sources; I think that by identifying the purpose of this project as fundamentally being about addressing systemic bias and as being disinterested in producing consensuses for deprecation, we can possibly gain the support of editors who have been vocally opposed to reliability RfCs in the past.

Here is a draft of what a regional source discussion RfC could look like. Barkeep wisely pointed out that some editors could object to the amount of background summary provided; I would be amenable to cutting down the introduction to a list of links to relevant RS and Wikipedia articles, and to leave only completely uncontroversial statements in the sections for individual sources (any further relevant information I, or whoever else sets up a discussion, can always just add in a signed comment in the discussion section).

So, what are people's thoughts? signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Newslinger, who has also been involved with work on NPPSG. I'm also mulling over if it's appropriate to reach out to WikiProject Reliability and WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 23:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Let me add-on a few thoughts. First I think Rosguill has done amazing work already and what's present now is a great resource for all NPP - I know I've already been using it. The limitation is making this truly global so as to be useful in a wider variety of contexts. So it would be useful for people to weigh-in on these three things:
  1. If you're as excited as I am about this as a tool (and if not that's fine - all the more recent to make your voice heard)
  2. To say whether they think the method that Rosguill and I are suggesting is the right way to complete this guide (and if not - what could be?)
  3. If this is the right way forward, does the format presented seem right?

If this recieves support, after what I hope to be a bit of further brainstorming here and among other projects Rosguill mentioned I think the next step would be to go to VPP for wider buy-in before a first actual RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a great resource to reviewers, as for the RfC process, are you going to do it by country (like the Turkey example) for each and every country in these under-represented regions? That's a lot of work, but might be worth it in the end.Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Short answer yes. Long answer is that we would do one of these at a time and wait at least a week and maybe more after the close of the previous one (depending on how long it stays open). We need to not burn out those who would be inclined to participate, though Rosguill's idea of reaching out might draw in editors who only participate in one of interest rather than do so in an ongoing manner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
One thing I'd add to this answer is that we're also considering including topic-oriented discussions as well (e.g. anime, a topic whose sources I personally often feel lost evaluating).
Another is that while I admittedly used a lot of systemic-bias language above, as things stand there's a decent amount of regions that we wouldn't consider as canonically subject to systemic bias for which we nevertheless have very little in the way of source guides (e.g. France, Germany). Maybe these are less of an issue based on the current skillset of our NPP team (I for one am familiar enough with French and German sources such that I wouldn't really need such a guide...but I'd still appreciate help for say, Northern Europe or Iberia). signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A1) I am very excited about this resource. I haven't used it before - you've probably pointed me at it in the past BK, I must have overlooked it. It looks like it will be of great benefit already, and its worth developing further. Huge thanks to Rosguill for all that work. A2) I think your proposed method seems fine, so long as these RfCs get advertised in the right places - the WikiProjects suggested above look sensible, plus presumably the project for whichever part of the world we're looking at for any particular RfC. I know what Onel means about it taking a long time to go through each country individually; then again, if we break some places up into large chunks (e.g. do West Africa as a single RfC), does that risk introducing an element of systematic bias into our attempt to rid ourselves of systematic bias? A3) The RfC template looks straightforward and easy to use - I think it's a goer. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Regarding the suggestion to break up regions in chunks, I think it depends on the region, and ideally we'd have an editor (more) familiar with that region take point on setting the bounds for that discussion. For instance, I think that a West Africa RfC would likely not be productive, as there are many highly populated countries and a fair amount of language diversity in the region. However, it could be appropriate to bundle say, South Africa with Eswatini and Lesotho, or to do the Gulf States (or at least some of them) together. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • One question; the way the sample RFC for Turkey is structured, (and this may be an artifact of using WP:RSP as a starting point) the impression is that we're only interested in establishing reliability for news sources. However, with the amount of predatory publishing out there, especially prevalent in some regions,  we should probably also be looking at academic journals. Also, there are problems with some historical sources, such as those produced by the British Raj in India and various other colonial powers. If our object is to address systemic bias by collating reliable sources for underrepresented regions and topics, we may want to ask specifically what academic journals and historical sources exist for a given region that are generally regarded as reliable, as well as what news sources exist and are reliable. On the other hand, if our purpose is merely to have a guide for new page patrollers to use in determining if they should AFD an article because the poor quality sources used fail to demonstrate notability, then news probably constitutes the bulk of sources we'll be evaluating. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think that the top priority here is getting consensus evaluations for sources that new page reviewers are going to come across, and I think you already identified why on your other hand. This is not a campaign to rid Wikipedia of unreliable sources once and for all, it's an attempt to level the playing field in the article creation process and to make sure that new articles are properly assessed for notability. Now, if two or three years from now we've finished evaluating news sources for almost the entire world we could consider what sorts of sources are worth tackling.... signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Ros and will just add that judging something for notability can be different than judging something as a best source for information. So inclusion of a book in Spark notes is a good quick way to say that a book is probably notable. But we shouldn't really be using spark notes for cites in well done articles. Some of the sources ON points out might be good indicators of notability even if they're not our ideal sources for information. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure I have time and patience to write a part of such guide about Russia but I volunteer to answer questions about Russian sources (and, to some extent, on sources coming from former USSR countries). May be it could be mentioned in the guide.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This regional sources RfC format is a wonderful idea. Regional sources are indeed underrepresented on the perennial sources list. Less popular sources are typically given the benefit of the doubt if they have an editorial team, and haven't been the subject of a reliability dispute. However, in many cases, the lack of guidance around regional sources causes new page patrollers to skip articles that are based on these sources, especially if the sources are in a foreign language. As a result, articles based on these regional sources receive less attention, and aren't vetted as rigorously as articles that are primarily based on international or English-language sources.

Supporters of the proposed moratorium on general reliability RfCs mentioned two things that I'm going to address in the context of this discussion:

  • Some editors pointed out that the term generally reliable could be misinterpreted as an endorsement of a source for topics outside of its areas of expertise. To address this, I've renamed generally reliable to generally reliable in its areas of expertise in WP:RSPLEGEND. In a regional sources RfC, it would be appropriate to ask editors to specify which areas a source is generally reliable in, if they elect to use that term.
  • Some editors opposed the concept of deprecation, which allows for the possibility of implementing technical measures (e.g. edit filters and auto-reverts) to discourage editors from citing deprecated sources. A regional sources RfC can bypass this objection by simply not listing deprecation as an option. If an editor thinks a source should be deprecated, they can submit another RfC to gauge consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard.

The results of these regional sources RfCs would allow new page patrollers to become less hesitant with reviewing articles based on regional and foreign-language sources. I like how the main goal of these RfCs is to identify reliable sources from media landscapes that were previously undocumented in Wikipedia discussions. This discussion does appear to be in the scopes of WikiProject Countering systemic bias and WikiProject Reliability. A notice on the reliable sources noticeboard would also be helpful. — Newslinger talk 03:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Since conversation seems to have died down and people here are generally in favor of the prospective proposal, it seems like taking this to VPP is the natural next step. I'm considerably busier this week than the last two weeks, so I'm probably not going to be able to start the conversation myself (although I'll be able to participate some). If other editors feel inclined to take the lead on moving this along, by all means go ahead. Otherwise, I'll hopefully have the bandwidth to take care of this in a week or two. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    found some time, discussion has been started here. Pinging editors who participated here Newslinger, Ymblanter, Barkeep49, ONUnicorn, GirthSummit, Onel5969 signed, Rosguill talk 04:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

fix pingGirth Summit signed, Rosguill talk 04:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RatelimitedEdit

Hi. As a followup to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 32#Ratelimit, I have recently been coming across the ratelimit more as I try to do some more patrolling of redirects (while looking for potential tasks for DannyS712 bot III). Would other reviewers object if I asked for account creator rights in order to avoid the rate limit? I agree to continue patrolling responsibly. Thoughts? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have no issue with that.Onel5969 TT me 23:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I keep on coming cross the ratelimit more frequently.CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no objections to this. I actually find your bot very handy   Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
But if I understand this correctly it's not for the bot it's for Danny. If that's right well I admit a bit more trepidation as even for redirects the ratelimit seems high enough to be a good limit on making sure thought is being given to what's patrolled. But I'm obviously in a minority here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: well, I sometimes come across a bunch by the same editor, etc. - the feed shows the redirect target in the snippet, and so I open those that are okay and then patrol them as a group. The ratelimit is 1 page (or redirect) every three seconds, and so it limits such batch patrolling. DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
So, does anyone object and/or can an admin take a look? DannyS712 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Just ran into this again - @Barkeep49, Kudpung, and DGG: would any of you be willing to take a look? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
normally giving a bot special rights is a question for the bot approvals group. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@DGG: The bot isn't having an issue, and bots already have no ratelimit rights - this is a request for me (DannyS712) to have account creator rights so that I personally am not limited by the ratelimit. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer of the YearEdit

 

It's that time of year again. It is time to award the New Page Reviewer of the Year trophy. Several newer editors have done a lot of work with Rosguill, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) all being new reviewers since this time last year. Onel5969, Boleyn and JTtheOG were in the top 5 the last two years, so congrats and thanks very much for your continued service. And thanks to all the others who reviewed so many articles (The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here).

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Onel5969 (talk) 45,542 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 38,856 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,858 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,638 Patrol Page Curation
5 Boleyn (talk) 4,499 Patrol Page Curation
6 DannyS712 (talk) 4,081 Patrol Page Curation
7 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 4,013 Patrol Page Curation
8 Ymblanter (talk) 3,719 Patrol Page Curation
9 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,676 Patrol Page Curation
10 Wgolf (talk) 3,373 Patrol Page Curation

The top of this year's list is even more extraordinary at the top than in the past. I would like to nominate Rosguill as our reviewer of the year. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in November August 2018, they have managed to nearly keep pace with the always invaluable Onel (last year's Reviewer of the Year), been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • With 2 months still to go, aren't we jumping the gun a bit? There is also a raft of other awards to be worked out and accorded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Kudpung, Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Awards says for the Reviewer of The Year Cup: Awarded on 5 November of each year to mark the anniversary of the roll out of the New Page Reviewer right. Awarded after scrutiny by two coordinators or consensus of the NPP community at WT:NPR. so I was either a day early or a few days too late. My plan is to give out awards themselves closer to the end of the year - around the time of the December newsletter - whose contents will include a top 10 for the year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, ah, yes, that sounds very much as if it's something I would have written. Forgive my lapse of memory! Go for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

EndorsementsEdit

Carried. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)(emeritus coord and 'founder' of the NPR right)
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.

  • As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like a very good editor maybe needs the mop. CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure. Not to take anything away from Onel5969's powerhouse performance, but that's an amazing ramp-up! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent contributions. Onel5969 TT me 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely a key contender for this award as Rosguill deserves this. Rosguill has been on full flow since 2018. I can even endorse both Rosguill and Onel5969 to share the award. No wrong about it. Abishe (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - for an invaluable new member of the team. While of course Onel5969 deserves just as much credit for their ongoing work, how Rosguill has risen from zero to hero in just a little over a year is remarkable and deserves to be celebrated. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:22, 6 November 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.

6th November Backlog UpdateEdit

 
NPP backlog, number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Orange represents older than 30 days, red represents articles older than 90 days, past the index point.

I haven't done one of these backlog updates in quite a while, but it seems that it is needed at the moment. Currently the backlog stands at 5946 articles. There are also a further 6516 redirects which are unreviewed.

Currently there are just over 200 unreviewed articles in the backlog which have passed the index point (red in the above graph). This is a significant worry, as these articles have been freed to be indexed by Google but have not yet been ticked off by a new page patroller.

We need more reviewers reviewing the backlog at the back; oldest first. These articles are usually more difficult to review, often having been passed over by more inexperienced reviewers. So if you have the skills, please consider setting your New Pages Feed to 'oldest' first.

For others please continue to review what you can, and consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox to your user page!

 This user has taken the pledge to review 2 new pages a day. Help us bring the queue to 0!

Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, thanks for adding this ICPH. Great to have this up again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I find it useful to have a visualisation of the backlog; so that we can see the beast we are facing. I'm sure it helps others just as much. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Given your note about the redirects, I'd like to revisit Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 33#Initial thoughts - autopatrolled redirects, now that the bot does indeed run via toolforge. I won't have much time until next week, but something along the lines of "...consensus among new page reviewers that the redirects created by specific established editors that would not otherwise qualify for autopatrolled rights can be safely reviewed by a bot...", with the specific editors being discussed later (i.e. who would be autopatrolled when it comes to redirects). DannyS712 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, There seemed to be a lot of support for it last time you brought it up. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks. I've started a draft proposal at User:DannyS712/Redirect autopatrol - can you take a look? Note that the survey isn't open yet. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, Seems great. I'd be happy to support it. Kudpung should have a look, as he is usually pretty good at identifying proposal pitfalls ahead of time. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • More reviewers? We have 750! What we need is fewer hat collectors. I have been campaigning for months to get the user right pruned. It's ridiculous that so few are genuinely concerned and having to do most of the work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, What I meant is that we need more of the reviewers that we currently have to be working on the back of the backlog. More active reviewers would certainly be a good thing. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, some users should be feeling pangs of conscience by now if they read the newsletters. Oh well, it doesn't matter what we say or do, it doesn't look as if it's going to get any better. Make my Xmas though if it did. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, we'll sort it out. The carrot works much better than the stick in my experience. Back when we had that 22,000 backlog, a bunch of newsletters exposing the growing problem did nothing to slow it down. But the combination of factors that finally made the difference were more 'positive' than 'negative'; ACTRIAL, advertisements to get more people involved in NPP, a concrete plan, and a backlog drive with an atmosphere of camaraderie are what finally allowed us to crush it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
My .02, for what it's worth... in a total volunteer project, the stick is rarely effective. Except in those instances where you've volunteered for something in the first place. There are over 700 folks listed who have the reviewer right, but only 63 who average over 1 review per day. 41 who avg 2, and 33 who avg 3 or more. So, in reality, we have 41 or 33 true NPP reviewers. The other 700+ dabble in reviewing. And there's nothing wrong with that, every review is one less that those who do the bulk of the work must look at. To me, the true cut-off point should be 5 per day. Using that, there are 21 NPP reviewers. So I understand the comment, "we need more reviewers", but I interpret that to mean we need more active reviewers. I got involved with this project back when the backlog was much higher than it is currently. And I took my share of criticism that I wasn't careful enough. At this point, I think my body of work speaks for itself. I think we need to get more folks involved, whether they currently have the NPP right or not, who are willing to commit to reviewing at least 5 new articles per day (not counting redirects - which is a different animal entirely, and Rosguill has an excellent grasp of. For me, personally I've decided to mainly focus on the back of the queue, and I will review 15-30 per day. But there needs to be more of a commitment from other editors to focus on the back of the queue. I know there are editors who feel folks might simply be "hat collecting" (and honestly, I didn't know what that meant until about 6 months ago when I bothered to look it up), but perhaps there might be some benefit to giving accolades on those reviewers who focus on that aspect of NPP (I don't know if there's a way to track that, but if there is, we should use it).
Yes, it's important to patrol the front of the line. Getting your articles reviewed is a great shot of adrenaline, and should be given as soon as possible, and I'm not suggesting that folks shouldn't do it. What I am saying, is it would be great if we could develop a cadre of 5-10 reviewers who looked at the end of the queue and resolved to review 5-10 of those a day. I admit I haven't done the math, but I think that would help with the articles that pass the mark which go on Google without review.
With all that, we also have to worry about quality of reviewing. I have been a bit dismayed recently by seeing articles "reviewed" with zero, or a single reference, when those articles, with that level of reference, clearly didn't pass GNG. In a couple of instances, there were articles recreated which had been turned into redirects by AfD discussions, and the articles where basically identical to the article which had been through AfD. That should be concerning to anyone who takes NPP seriously. Okay, I think this is the longest commentary I've ever put on WP. But the key is the end of the queue. Onel5969 TT me 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This November is personally an hectic schedule for me as I am taking part in three contests and also working on page reviewing as well. But I am happy to continue the patrolling work as I am accountable to do that as a NPR. I too accept the fact that I have reviewed few biographical articles about sportspeople which are only supported with single source. But I know sportspeople generally pass the GNG so I review those bios. Other than this, I never review articles with only one source in general. Abishe (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We should start by removing the bit from the 'reviewers' who have removed their names from the mailing list. If they're not interested in the newsletters, they are not interested in using the right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No, please don't do that. Some of us might be taking a break. Some of us don't care for newsletters (or guilt trips).- MrX 🖋 12:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, that's a false equivalence. I review regularly but I'm not interested in being harangued via newsletter for not reviewing enough. Cabayi (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is where we need to be careful as a volunteer project. As Kudpung is right to point out we do have some number of reviewers who have the PERM as a hat. However, it does seem to me that care be taken not to insult people like you who help out on occasion - which is also valuable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be clear after all the postings I've made since I created this user right that I'm not insulting any particular individual, It's not something I do on Wikipedia without extraordinary good reason. It's my bad for creating yet another a right for the hat collectors to swarm for, but if the cap fits...
New pages arrive here in the thousands, and I'll say again, it is nonsense to claim that we have 750 reviewers when only ten of them are active in any way - it gives a totally false impression that we are a strong, functional team of patrollers. Those who do only 1 review a year, we can do without. Really - just as we do admins and AfC reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I have reviewed thousands of articles, but I stopped doing it for the most part because a couple of anti-CSD admins kept declining my nominations, one going as far as to suggest that I shouldn't be reviewing articles at all. That was after years of doing it with very, very few declines. I think you know who I'm talking about. It's thankless work to begin with, but it's intolerable when people operating well outside of the norm intentionally subvert your efforts. - MrX 🖋 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: I don't have a clue who you mean - we have several hundred of them many of whom gnome away at just such areas without coming into the limeilight. That said, we ought to be informed if there is anything causing concern, we admins are not immune from peer-to-peer requests to improve our work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I have to admit I haven't been an NPP editor with a high reviewing rate. But I think I am getting the hang of it much more than before. I'm surprised to "hear" myself say that. I'm a very experienced editor, but this has been somewhat of a challenge. I think there is skill involved to be able to review at a decent rate. This is of course just my opinion. Also, I would like to add, if only we could get the 700 + New Page Patrollers to review just 10 pages this week, or over two weeks, we would be down to zero. (If only...) As an aside, I just now started on the back of the queue, to help out there. My overall experience comes in handy at the back of the que. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Steve Quinn, glad to have you aboard. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me personally or the community as a whole if you have questions. I'll also put in a plug for the IRC and Discord channels as a place to ask questions. IRC was very helpful for me when I was starting as TonyBallioni would answer questions which had very established answers that weren't easily findable onwiki anywhere. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Well maybe we should look at the reviewers who currently are blocked first. If someone is on a self-requested block they stay but for the rest that have been either indefinitely blocked/banned they have the reviewer right removed. Granted its a very small number but its a start somewhere and one I don't think would be a controversial reason. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, Users that have the right are those users who are trusted to review articles, should they choose to do so. They are under no obligation to do so. I also think it really doesn't help to pare the list. If we have 750 people with the right (those trusted to have it) but only 50 are 'active reviewers' by some arbitrary metric; then that is just the situation. If any of those 700 'inactive' reviewers decide to start reviewing more, we will welcome it.
If somebody is on the list who is no longer trusted, then they should be removed (per guidelines with regard to user permissions) but it should not be seen some kind of 'reward' for completing some arbitrary number of reviews per year/month/whatever. And I also don't think anyone is actively bragging that we have "750 reviewers" or whatever. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
It's my fault the policy does not have a 'use it or lose it' clause. I just didn't think to include one at the time. The actual wording of the policy was never a topic of debate, but unfortunately to change it now would need to be. At least we're not according any open ended PERMS now, 750 is really is a totally misleading number. It's in the policy page because it self updates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
But so long as the reviews aren't bad (which would mean losing the privilege with cause), what's the point of chopping off the long tail? It's only of any relevance if someone reads more into "750 reviewers" than the claim merits. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that the back of the queue is very nearly been brought back to the index point (currently it is about 1 day beyond the index point). A little bit more of a push is necessary but we are getting there! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We are now a few days ahead of the index point. Keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot patrolled redirectsEdit

As a follow-up to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 33#Automatically Patrolled Redirects, I propose that the following rules be added to DannyS712 bot III's patrolling:

  • Where the difference between the redirect title and target is the use of U.S., US, USA, or U.S.A. (eg I just created [1], which shouldn't be controversial to patrol)
  • Where the difference is the use of & vs and

Any objections? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

These both make sense to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps also include UK / U.K. ? PamD 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Other examples where this comes up frequently is FC/F.C. and SC/S.C.. For that matter, is there any example where string X.Y.Z would not be an appropriate redirect to XYZ or vice-versa? signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: not sure, but its probably safer to have an explicit list of what can be patrolled DannyS712 (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree we should err on the side of what is allowed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If there are no more comments in the next few days, I will file a BRFA that automatically patrols:

  • US vs U.S.
  • USA vs U.S.A.
  • & vs and
  • UK vs U.K.
  • FC vs F.C.
  • SC vs S.C.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Filed as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 63 DannyS712 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

An AfD of interestEdit

I'm thinking this AfD might be of interest to NPP editors [2]. Regards ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As I am guessing I am not the only editor who frequently comes across Eurovision articles this AfD may be of interest to editors here with experience and opinions on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Tagging for deletion not marking as reviewedEdit

Why is a page not marked as Reviewed when I tag it CSD using page curation? Am I missing something?

The tutorial [3] says “ Any reviewing action done through the page curation toolbar by a reviewer marks an article as reviewed (adding maintenance tags, nominating for deletion, etc.)”

However, when I tagged Samson Tijani it didn’t show as Reviewed until I manually clicked the green tick a few minutes later. Lineslarge (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Per the flowchart, while articles nominated for AfD should be marked reviewed, PROD and CSD should not. The reasoning for this is that if an article is nominated for AfD, it will necessarily go through a thorough review which will establish whether or not the article should be kept. However, if a CSD is declined or a PROD is removed, that does not necessarily mean that the article should be kept; it just means that it does not meet the specific deletion criterion specified (in the case of a PROD, it's that the deletion is not uncontroversial). signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I now see the tutorial text for PROD and CSD was updated to say that about a year ago too. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen different advice given in the past (to avoid multiple reviewers looking at the same page that has been marked for deletion as you can’t tell from the feed who marked it). Anyway I’m happy to follow this approach so thanks for explaining. I might look at updating the wording I quoted to remove ambiguity. Lineslarge (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
One other thing that's changed relatively recently is that now we can autofilter articles with deletion tags out of the queue, so if you don't want to see tagged articles you can just tweak that setting, and the concern that it gets in the way of editing is thus less pertinent. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bugs when marking for deletionEdit

When marking pages for deletion, the curation toolbar failed to complete the nomination, once for an RfD and another for an AfD. Upon submitting, I was shown a series of error messages in popup windows, before finding that it made a mess on the log pages, requiring several manual edits and self-reverts to correctly complete the nominations.

  • When I tried to nominate a page for RfD two days ago, this happened. Neither the original target nor the rationale was copied to the log.
  • Similarly, when I tried to send an article to AfD earlier today, a mess was created and I had to manually undo the nomination before using Twinkle to properly complete it. I think I missed a step, accidentally submitting before adding details (the rationale), resulting in the AfD subpage not being created and transclusion of a then-nonexistent page in the daily log. I then tried again, making sure I added the details, but this too failed to create the subpage. Notwithstanding my oversight, I don't think this should happen, or perhaps an attempt to submit an incomplete nomination should be blocked. (I cannot provide diffs as the AfD subpage now exists and I made sure the transclusion was correct.)

Are these known bugs? To replicate (or perhaps reveal an error on my part), use the curation toolbar to send a page to RfD, and similarly send a page to AfD before providing details. Sorry in advance to inconvenience anyone. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ComplexRational, I'm not sure if Page Curation is designed to handle RfDs. I admit I've never tried this. DannyS712 or Rosguill can you weigh-in? As for AfD the foundation just did some work on this and so it's possible something broke. What was the article where you experienced this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: The article is Ilsenburg Factory, and the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsenburg Factory. The page history says it all. ComplexRational (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ComplexRational, Barkeep49 I just use Twinkle for all of my deletion nominations. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, have you ever tried and/or encountered bugs like this, or did you use Twinkle from the very beginning? In light of these issues, I likely will stick to Twinkle as well (at least for now). ComplexRational (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ComplexRational, as I remember it, the page curation deletion tool wasn't working at all when I first started, so I've been using Twinkle the whole time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ComplexRational, Just so I understand this was caused by a single use of the toolbar? I have not experienced that bug and will be happy to file a phab report once I confirm that's the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, those were two separate taggings (two uses of the toolbar). After the first tagging with the toolbar did not create the AfD subpage, I tried again from the beginning and made sure I did not omit anything, but this second attempt did not complete either (leading me to rollback and use Twinkle). I am wondering why neither attempt created the AfD subpage – if anything, that part is most important for phab. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I've reported this issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thanks Barkeep. As for me, I will continue to use Twinkle for deletion nominations until they enable CSD Log functionality of the page curation tools (one of the as-yet unaddressed wishlist items). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Barkeep49. ComplexRational (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Probably related - just had two instances (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Lalbhai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred R. Stevenson) fail with "target page could not be created" (I believe). AfD daily list entry was substituted but actual AfD page was not created, and had to be rigged manually. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Redirect autopatrols and botEdit

Please take the Neelix episode into consideration. Some users here might not remember it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Indeed - that may need to be addressed (for those who don't remember, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens,Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary redirects, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix, and WP:X1) DannyS712 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, yeah, obviously your name being included on the list should not be regarded as a blank check for mayhem. Just as being autopatrolled should not for articles. It should be said that it is advisable that some of these users' redirects be checked periodically (DannyS712 is it possible to code the bot to leave out a few every once in a while?) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: probably; can we keep the discussion to User talk:DannyS712/Redirect autopatrol for now? DannyS712 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP Flowchart and paid editing/COI editor checkingEdit

 
The NPP step-by-step flowchart

Something I've been thinking about for a while is that the flowchart that I made a while back doesn't really make any consideration for checking who made the article and if they have a COI/are a paid editor. This is a difficult one, so I guess I'm asking you guys if there is a way we can incorporate this into the flowchart in some way. But also more broadly want to discuss how we deal with paid editor submissions and identify paid editors.

Advice on how you guys identify paid editors? In my experience it seems largely a "I know it when I see it" situation, which isn't really ideal as this is difficult to explain to new reviewers.

Certainly If you can identify a paid editor there is one extra thing that isn't shown on the flowchart at present; you can unilaterally move the page to draft regardless of the state of the article, as all PAID new-article submissions are required to go through AfC (per WP:PAY). However, it isn't really clear what to do when they re-create it in mainspace (as they often do). Normally when you draftify something, and they re-create, you are kinda required to pursue other channels to review the article (per Wikipedia:Drafts#Requirements_for_page_movers). With paid editors, they really aren't allowed to be creating the article in the main space at all, but I don't think repeated draftification is really a solution. AfD isn't really a solution either, as the issue might not be with the topic itself (it may be notable) but more to due with non-disclosure and subtle promotionalism (blatant PROMO can be CSDed), which is why they are required to go through AfC in the first place.

I do think checking for paid editing should be represented in the flowchart above, but if so, where should it fit? And what form should it take? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess the other thing is that there should be a step where you check for automated 'issues' that have been flagged, and I guess that should be around the same time you check for paid editing (at least in terms of the flowchart progression). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Random comment: Doesn't 10 minutes seem a bit quick? And given that there's almost always a backlog, why not pick up with articles 24 hours (or more) old and let the younger ones age a bit? Because I do see complaints here and there about articles strangled in the crib before they've had a day's chance. EEng 05:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Strong agree, with the exception that stuff like attack content, copyright violations, etc. are always unacceptable.
    On a related note, I think an addition that the flowchart needs (that I think also touches on the issue that Insertcleverphrasehere has identified) is a step 0 which is "check the page history". signed, Rosguill talk 06:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    EEng, 10 min is based entirely on the CSD criteria requirements. I could add 'at least' if you want. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Well, it's based on a somewhat tepid footnote in the criteria. My point remains: if we (and I say we somewhat loosely -- I haven't done any patrolling in years, but I'm behind you guys all the way!) make a habit of patrolling pages that new, two bad things happen: (1) if it's under the 10-minute cutoff you have to abandon the review, without marking the page as patrolled, and whatever review you've done (earlier in the flowchart) goes to waste; or (b) you sometimes tag a 11-minute-old page that, indeed, someone really was working on, causing gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair. So my point remains: except in those golden, fleeting moments when the backlog is almost gone, why not start with pages an hour or a day old, so the 10-minute issue doesn't come up? EEng 16:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    EEng, it's tough because we need people patrolling at the front, to catch attack pages, hoaxes, copyvios, etc early. We need people at the back patrolling the tough ones that everyone else passed up. Patrolling from 24 hours down is a third spot, and currently all the tools don't really make it that easy to patrol from there (You basically would just have to manually scroll down the new pages feed). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    I figured that was it. In that case I'd suggest that those skimming the front of the queue -- looking for A2,G1,G2,G3,G10,G11 candidates as you describe (these being the first two decisions in the chart) -- I'd suggest that they stop after those checks (maybe plus the G7 check) and leave A1/A3, and everything else downstream, to those who will re-patrol later. If these different modes of patrolling (some doing limited checks at the front of queue, others doing full checks working from the middle or end) are well established then you might think about integrate these subtleties into the chart. To you, or whoever did all the work on this chart: good work, very useful! EEng 20:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Insertcleverphrasehere, with the new date filters it's fairly easy to start 1 day in which isn't quite 24 hours but close enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, That's true. I forgot about that new feature. Wishlist is finally pulling through!
    I'm all for waiting a bit (and next time I update the flowchart I'll change it to 'at least' 10 min.), but trying to mandate something like waiting a day for A1/A3 to be a pretty fruitless endeavor. Likely instead somebody else would delete it, or it would get lost in the queue until it hit the back and got deleted (honestly, not the worst situation, as blank/nocontext articles are not really that big of a deal so long as they are not indexed). Even if it were enforced, it creates a lot of duplicate reviewing, where multiple reviewers all see the same blank article and pass it over until the 24 hours pass. All in all, the current situation isn't that bad; worst case the new editor re-creates it with a bit more context/content. If anything, I'd say the correct approach is to try to get consensus on reworking the A1/A3 templates to be less scary, and be more of a "Sorry, but not sure if this was what you meant to do, if you want to delete this message and expand the new article, feel free to do so!" — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it even proper to attempt to check for undeclared UPE/COI authorship?
See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Paid editing disclosures and deletion. If UPE is not a deletion reason, what basis is there to hold back an otherwise OK draft due to suspected COI? If there is basis, if the community every agrees that UPE is a deletion reason, then how can you objectively tell? I suggest discussing at WT:DEL, as discussing here is premature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, Well, I didn't say to draftify based on a suspected COI, I said when you can identify a paid editor. For example, I recently found a company article where the author had written his name as his user name. A quick search later found his Linkedin and showed that he was an intern at said company. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's assume you identify a UPE. Are you sure? What do you do about it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Policy seems clear: "f you believe an editor is conducting undisclosed paid editing as defined by this policy, please report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard if it does not involve revealing the private information of an editor. Otherwise, please email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with why you believe an editor is engaged in paid editing and there is private information. You may also email a member of the CheckUser team directly.". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, In this case I moved the page to draft and ultimately took the matter to WP:COIN. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On the 'where to insert it' question, that's a tricky question. Suspicions are usually raised quite early on in the process - around about the 'Is the article patent nonsense... ...or exclusively promotional (G11)' stage. However, if you can't quite convince yourself that it's exclusively promotional, but it whiffs of UPE, you'd still do the stages like a copyvio check to see whether other CSDs would apply, or whether poor sourcing would indicate a draftification or nomination to AfD. So, on balance I think that the right place for this would be on the 'Yes' path coming out of the 'Does the article have two or more references...' box. Basically, if there aren't grounds for deletion based on the standard procedures, but you suspect subtle promo/UPE, that seems to me to be the stage at which I'd be digging deeper to see if there were any other grounds for concern. GirthSummit (blether) 20:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Girth Summit, So somewhere down at the 'tagging' stage, where you would add the 'UPE' template and send a notice to the creator. I could add a specific box here to help indicate that this needs to be addressed. Along with a step zero of checking the user/history details (as suggested by Rosguill), this could go a long way towards making the flowchart a bit more complete. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    Insertcleverphrasehere, yeah, I think that's about the right place for it - although, thinking about it more now, I'm less confident. If you suspect UPE, but can see a clear route to deletion or draftification, that doesn't mean you should overlook the UPE does it - if we can establish clear guidelines for how to investigate and react, perhaps that should be higher up the chart, and run concurrently with the steps towards deletion for the individual article you're looking at? GirthSummit (blether) 17:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Topics of assumed notabilityEdit

Whatever the deletionists contend, there are exceptions to the requirement for sources. New Page Reviewers are an elite force and are expected to know about them. Human settlements, for example are presumed notable, and indeed sources can usually be found in seconds rather than simply placing an ugly 'Needs more refs' tag on an article. Reviewers are reminded once more that rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling are essential to good reviewing. See: Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Yes, but there are also exceptions to subject specific 'presumed' notability. As is sometimes the case with sportspeople who might technically pass the WP:NFOOTY guideline for example, but only because they got subbed in for 20 min during a single obscure game. When you can't find sources, especially when the subject is contemporary (from the internet age), it is kinda awkward what to do with these articles that will never get expanded because there aren't any sources available. If there really are no sources to satisfy the GNG and you take it to AfD it is often a coin flip whether people agree to delete or just parrot "Meets NFOOTY". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There are no buts when it comes to Geo which is what I am talking about here, and which is quite specific. I don't throw these comment in lightly. I have mentioned it because too many reviewers are wasting other reviewers' time by incorrectly tagging articles that are presuned notable. Footy is a completely different issue, and it happens to be a personal bone of contention considering the hoops that academics and scientists are expected to jump through. Firstly because they get an an article based on the flimsiest of notability from their footy SNG which their project insists overrides GNG which, if for example the school deletionists are to be believed, SNG do not override GNG. WP:FOOTY get their own way because due to sheer numbers of editors for the word's most popular sport, they will win every argument. There are no such numbers to defend articles about researchers and scientists who have made made grounbreaking discoveries in all the major sciences and medecine - remember there was a kerfuffle recently about a female scientist about whom an article was only hurriedly cobbled together when she won a Nobel prize. I don't think a 17 year old footballer who has played in only one league match is in the same league. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, Yeah that is a bit of a bone of contention for me as well, but like it or not, we have to base our coverage on reliable sources, and scientists often keep a low profile and don't exactly make the news, where sports figures are the exact opposite. I don't mind so much, but yeah the rabid group of fans can sometimes be annoying when they !vote opposite of the GNG even in the complete absence of sources. I recently decided to test the waters with an AfD on one such figure (A sports figure from a second division footy league that was submitted with only links to stats pages). Despite literally nothing that can be found to support the GNG, I received nothing but opposition in the form of "Meets NFOOTY - presumed notable". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, Kudpung I'm not sure it's as bad as all that for notable scientists - I thought thay NPROF allowed for articles to be written about academics who have made significant contribs to their field even if secondary sources don't exist. I nominated a new article (which was exceedingly puffy and smelled of COI) to AfD a few months ago, when I could find literally zero independent secondary sources. A strong consensus to Keep developed within hours because his citation figures were off the chart - I was advised by a couple of regulars that with figures like him, bare-bones factual articles sourced exclusively to dependent sources (university websites and the like) are acceptable. The article was kept after (after a significant redraft), and I adjusted my internal flowchart to allow more leeway for heavily cited but personally obscure academics. GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It is though, Girth Summit, and you've actually just explained why: the NPROF system is so complicated I can't even get my head round it - it would need someone like DGG to explain it to me over a coffee, while all those people who have kicked a leather bladder around a field for 90 minutes just need a listing on a squad - and that's not even a fleeting mention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, don't get me wrong - I'm not in the 'NFOOTY overrides GNG' camp - I was just dropping it in that there are ways to get an article kept about a well-cited but private academic. GirthSummit (blether) 18:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
{:Girth Summit, I didn't get you wrong, and that's wasn't what I inferred. I was just reiterating for the Nth time how the footy clan ostensibly insists that their simplistic SNG overrides the stricter GNG, while it's harder for a scientist or academic to have a page than a mixtape rapper or a garage band. Apart from the obvious exceptions at, for example, NGEO, there really is no consistency accross Wikipedia for notability. Another one that conveniently and frequently gets overlooked is NBOOK; the encyclopedia is full of vanity-press on-demand-print self-published tomes - anyone can get an ISBN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Is WP. There are BUTS to everything, and exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, and the entire structure of notability is a guideline which means that it doesn't always apply, but it the usual practice unless there's some reason not to. There is an actual policy, WP:NOT, which is worded in such general terms as to be able to include or exclude almost everything. What we actually do in keeping articles can be determined in only one place, which is AfD, which is itself consistent only about 80% of the time, and is subject to temporary popularity and erratic attendance. WP works that way, and always will.
  • But as for the specifics, interpretations change. GEO now insists there be more than an identification on a map. WP:PROF is more likely to accept GNG as a substitute for young faculty or even grad students who are not yet notable by WP:PROF but meet GNG because of local publicity ; even football, has been making some combination articles for , e.g. players on a team who have scored fewer than 2 goals in their career. (and they've always needed to have actually played in a game to be included at all, not just been listed in asquad) None of these are changes in the guidelines. All of these have been in the guidelines for at least the last 10 years. They are being used more now. Notability is how we use it. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, the one true fundamental policy that really matters, is WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC) ,
Kudpung - a few reactions on the original concern - 1) there probably cannot be a complete exception to requiring any sources due to WP:V, not to mention the risks of allowing fictional/hoax settlement articles unless there is some reference to their existence; 2) a "more sources" is a verifiability tag, not a notability one; of course a notability tag would be out of line for such settlement articles; 3) for sources, do reviewers actually have a formal WP:BURDEN for finding and adding these, or are they simply free and perhaps encouraged to do so time permitting?; 4) sometimes there is unreferenced material in a settlement article, such as WP:OR WP:TRAVELGUIDE stuff, although the place's existence (and therefore notability) would not be in question; of course such content could be cleared out (and spam should be ripped out), but that could be balanced against Wikipedia:New pages patrol's caution about "bitey reviewing"; 5) NPRs "are an elite force"? [citation needed] But agree we can do better to keep WP:NGEO and similar guidelines in mind in our reviewing. Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interestEdit

See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for a discussion of an issue possibly of interest to this project. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Another NPPer blocked for spammingEdit

Meeanaya, someone who had NPP and AFC rights, has been blocked for UPE. It appears they have been corruptly reviewing articles - suspicious patrols/AFC accepts include Hafeez Rahman, Kred (platform) and Draft:Jayride (I was suspicious of this user for unquarantining this draft). A review of their patrols is warranted. You may find this listing useful. MER-C 12:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this MER-C. It's not the first time and I suppose it's inevitable with a bloated 750 pool of reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Good work for all involved!!. scope_creepTalk 13:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to mass-unreview the pages, and put them back in the feed? DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. The new reviewer needs to know the context about why the previous review was annulled and treat the page accordingly. MER-C 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have gone through and unreviewed pages that are common topics for UPE/COI and for which there was not a clear SNG pass. I accidently unreviewed a couple that should have stayed reviewed but think I have fixed those at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I don't see them in the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, I didn't review pages created by Meeanaya, merely pages reviewed by them. Do you see Belleville Cop in the queue? It seems to be in the queue for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, it seems to be in the queue. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea as we go through these, to unreview even those which should remain reviewed, and then mark them reviewed, so other NPPers will know that it's been "touched" for review? Onel5969 TT me 19:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Onel5969, I went through literally every review he did. Many of them are patently uncontroversial ones - e.g. passes WP:NGEO. It's possible I missed a COPYVIO or some other non-notable topic marked as reviewed but I think it unlikely that I missed potential paid editing related reviewing. I took a pretty broad definition basically unreviewing any BLP, NCORP, and MUSIC related article as well as a few other potential topics. But I would welcome someone to check. That said I already received pushback from one editor for the spam effect on Meenaya's talk page that I did so I would say to anyone considering doing what Onel suggests to keep that in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, Barkeep49, cool. Although I'm not sure why anyone would give a flying... about messages on a banned user's talk page. I reviewed about 15-20 myself before I got busy in the real world, and you're right, most were pretty easy to mark reviewed (geo features, political parties, etc.). Thanks for the response. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 and Onel5969: I may have overreacted a bit at the time, but I just wanted to ensure that you were aware of the messages and weren't doing it unintentionally. The only reason I noticed them was because I was the person who welcomed Meeanaya originally. Even though I have not had any contact with that user since then, I still feel I have an obligation to them in some form. Regardless, whatever the community wants to do, it should do. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 00:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi MJL - hope you weren't taking that as a personal attack, because that's not how it was intended. I have issues with UPE's, and banned editors, simply because the amount of extra work they cause folks who actually contribute to the project. Onel5969 TT me 01:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Onel5969: You're good! I actually had that comment already typed out before you responded, and we edit conflicted. I am not particularly fond of UPE either, but I do feel like it is the job of a person on the welcoming committee to steer newbies into the right direction. I clearly failed to advise Meeanaya in that regard. –MJLTalk 01:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Spammers like Meeanaya ruthlessly exploit our AGF policy. Meeanaya never had any intention of contributing to this project constructively. There was nothing you could have done. They were acting suspiciously from day one. Their first edits were the usual ACPERM gaming seen in UPE editors, but they posted an article about an Indian temple. Their purported crackdown on spam deflected scrutiny, served to entrench their articles and aimed to remove the articles of their competitors. MER-C 08:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Well said MER-C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Yuck. Thanks for calling attention to this, MER-C. I'd be interested in a larger discussion on how to catch this kind of thing, but I suspect that the answer will be "it's a case-by-case evaluation." creffett (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Most certainly. This discussion needs to be held off-wiki for OPSEC reasons. MER-C 20:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Double Kill!Edit

Yunshui strikes again! This one's created a slew of spam pages and, as far as I can tell, accepting AFCs created by socks (Sadaharu Yagi). I haven't checked the patrols yet - see [4]. MER-C 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I mostly just pushed the button on that one - the block was the result of an impressive bit of evidence-gathering by GSS, the details of which I am obviously not going to post publicly. Suffice to say, it's a slam-dunk. Yunshui  15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I am really happy that I can finally see some evidence of action against undeclared upes. Up until this point I thought it was an unsolvable problem, on one side the mad dash for content, on the other upe editors who game the system. I sincerely wish there was a standard process we could follow to identify and report them and attempt to increase the number that are identified. Well done!!. scope_creepTalk 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Would that be paid-en-wp wikipedia.org? MER-C 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A quick glance at their patrol log suggests far more potential for other NPP related issues than with our last one. I don't have time to go through now but there's a good chance their entire record of reviewing will need a double check for another reviewer. *sigh* Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll start on it now. So it looks like just a case of keeping an eye out. scope_creepTalk 17:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree - pretty much all of them are about spam-prone subjects and need to be reviewed. I also quarantined Soul Jah Love and Tatenda Mahachi, which were created by the blocked spammer Hurungudo. MER-C 17:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I have now gone through their patrols. Most again looked fine though the ones that might be UPE raised more eyebrows for me than with Meeanaya. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

NPR Qualification StandardEdit

Perhaps the NPP permission needs to be tougher with a longer period before qualification so that more time is available to identify socks, and upes, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Atlantic306: Currently our qualifications are aligned with WP:WPAFC/P for the most part. However I wouldn't oppose increasing the 90 days to at least 6 months which is similar to WP:PAGEMOVER as it could have prevented the first case. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of moving it to at least 6 months, if not a year. But I think the more important thing is training (and I also feel this way about AfC, but am no longer that active there). I think that every new NPPer should go through training, and oversight by an experienced NPPer. I know we have a program in place, but am not sure how many folks avail themselves. And that program is not a precursor to getting the NPP right. Many times I leave my NPP feed up as I get involved in real world stuff, and then when I go to click on my next review to find it's already been reviewed. I'm a little frustrated how often I'll come upon an article marked as "reviewed", with only a single citation, or 2-3 citations which are not in-depth at all. I know that if it's a village, or a member of a state senate, or even a tv show for a major network, the article's notable... however, often it's a book, or a song, or a fictional character, or a bio. Many times these are not only marked reviewed, but aren't even tagged for needing more references. Onel5969 TT me 21:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree, also the AFC and NPP permissions both need toughening in my view to at least six months as they are the areas targeted by upes and sockpuppets such as Orange Moody and this latest two. Another area targeted is autopatrolled editors who are specifically recruited as upes , imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
        • As much as it probably would help our general effectiveness as NPP to have more people take NPP School lessons, I'm not sure that training is really going to help much with UPEs, as they would presumably be smart enough to perform well in school and then start letting through promotional articles only once we've stopped auditing them closely. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree mandatory training only helps us with good faith new editors - UPE going to UPE. Now higher qualifications might help us slow down UPE. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had around minimums and around expectations - that is should the expectation really be above that minimum. As a person who has been doing a lot of work since I got the bit at PERM/NPR I have no trouble turning people down for lack of experience but once they pass the minimum I would have a hard time turning them down because they've only been around for 3 months rather than 6. So if they don't have experience I can latch onto to show an notability and deletion they're going to get declined no matter what. But honestly I have been looking for reasons to say yes to a person - we want the help after all - and to normally doing that through a time limited initial grant. Now even with that mindset I end up turning down a lot of people - though I normally try to offer a path to a future yes.

I would welcome feedback from the reviewers here who aren't sysops (and thus can't act directly) about what how free or tight I should be with the PERM, but would also suggest if we think 6 months (or 12 months, which on first pass I would be opposed to) is the right minimum we should plan on changing that through RfC rather than just through admin discretion. But we should do all this while balancing our desire to stop UPE from getting the PERM with our overall desire to have an active review corp. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • History: As the quasi founder of the NPR right I think I should explain for those who are not aware, what NPR currently is as it is today, and why. The NPR rules and user group policy are fairy lax because knowing the psychology of RfC, it was first and foremost a question of ensuring that the proposal for the NPR right would reach consensus in a climate where it is difficult to get new user groups created. Many editors oppose such RfC based purely on bureaucracy-creep without even considering what is being proposed, while others support because they like collecting hats. I therefore set the bar fairly low at that time, more or less inline with rights such as Rollback. I was also aware that an NPR right was going to be crucial as a precursor to my anticipation that ACTRIAL would sooner or later win through. My main regret, which I have voiced many times, is that at the time, I did not make enough provision for the removal of the right. The recent introduction of the timed user right feature is a godsend but with already 750 'reviewers' it was rather closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. Thus my claims for pruning that number are based not solely on getting rid of the inactive reviewers and hat collectors, but also on maintaining a strict quality of reviewing.
I understandably don't do much reviewing myself these days, but I do scan through the feed every day and while I'm disappointed that little can be done to address the totally unacceptable backlog and the poor quality of a lot of the reviewing, I'm too tired of it all now to do much about it - I get flak for being a lousy, newbie-biting or pontificating admin if I as much as dare to open my mouth, indeed one user has stomped off the project recently because I very politely and timidly pointed out that mass creating dozens of AfD is contrary to the spirit of AfD even if the AfDs might be partly justified.
What we do have nowadays since the creation of the NPR right is this vibrant talk page maintained by truly dedicated and concerned reviewers; before the right was created, this talk page got fewer postings in a year than it now does in a week. I will support any suggestions that fall broadly within my line of thinking (not that I am always right), and there are some good ideas being brought to the table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we have any numbers on how long most new reviews have been here before they request the right? We need to balance the need for a short enough period to interest new people while they are still excited about WP, with keeping dishonest reviewers out. A truly dedicated upde will wait even 12 months--some of the rings have been at it for years. It's inevitable that the better we get at detected upde , the remaining ones will be the cleverest--frankly, with our open editing system we will never be able to solve this problem --all we can realistically aim to do is to remove the worst, and discourage -- we'll never prevent -- new ones from getting started. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
As a regular at PERM for many years (Beeblebrox too), it would be impossible to deny that there really is a lot of hat collecting going on. This is mainly evidenced by the fact that many editors wait until they have exactly 30 days and 500 edits when they apply for permissions. They believe that these threshold criteria are an automatic access to these user rights which of course they are not - the decision is always at admins' discretion after having examined he user's history in detail. A significant number of these applicants do not even read the conditions or even fully understand what they are asking for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the only way to catch dedicated UPEs would be to institute a second iteration of reviews for articles about UPE-prone subjects, but with us barely managing to keep the queue in check I'm not sure we have the resources to dedicate to this. signed, Rosguill talk 09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ Rosguill--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
At the very least, if you suspect UPE or COI you should either nominate for deletion or draftify. MER-C 11:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A thought: might there be an argument for having some kind of NPP training wheels? So, for example, when you are first assigned the PERM, you are explicitly told that you're not allowed to review BLPs, articles about companies, and any other areas of concern. After a suitable period (three months and 200 reviews, or similar), an admin reviews your work, and either (a) removes the permission, (b) tells you to keep the training wheels on for a while or (c) tells you you're allowed to review anything you want. I don't think this would need any changes to the PERM system - before an article is reviewed obviously we don't know whether it's a BLP or not, so we couldn't automatically prevent someone from working on them in the first instance, but if a user starts reviewing BLPs when they've been told not to, they either lack the competence for the PERM or they have dubious intent, so immediate removal of the PERM without any discussion would be justified. GirthSummit (blether) 13:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to expand on why I think this might help - first, it would significantly raise the bar to entry for abusers, while allowing good faith users to help out in NPP while avoiding contentious areas. Also, the review of their work at the 3 month (or whatever) stage might help identify people who are slapdash in their approach, obviously trying to build up their numbers in order to get over the bar. (Perhaps we could actually engineer it so that we have a disproportionately low minimum number of reviews compared to the time period - maybe 50 reviews and six months - getting to 50 reviews and then stopping to wait for the time period to lapse would raise eyebrows.) GirthSummit (blether) 13:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I like this idea, although UPEs may be able to figure out some of the traps given time.
Do we have a sense of how many of the UPE page reviewers were also sock puppets? Instituting CU checks for NPP editors may be a way of locking out long term experienced editors trying to subvert the review system. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, A CU check is a good call to my mind. GirthSummit (blether) 18:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
+1 to both the "training wheels" suggestion and the CU recommendation. As someone who just got the NPR right a month or so ago, I'm willing to be a guinea pig if needed. Also, I'd be interested in there being a formalized procedure for voluntary CU checks (if there isn't one already).creffett (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Strongly oppose - we shouldn't CU check anyone as a matter of practice - there needs to be something suspicious DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 Is there a policy-based reason for this? There are some areas, like OTRS, where you have to declare your real-life identity and sign confidentiality agreements. A CU check would be a lot less intrusive than that, and I don't see why it would put people off, but I'd like to hear your views on this, maybe there's something I haven't thought if. GirthSummit (blether) 09:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: OTRS doesn't require your real life identify. Wikipedia:CheckUser extends Meta:CheckUser policy, which says "There must be a valid reason to check a user." DannyS712 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, I'm confused - why do I remember being asked to provide my real-life identity when I joined the OTRS team, and why did I do if if I didn't have to? I certainly got the impression it was required, but it was a while ago now, maybe I've forgotten some details. I'd need a CU's opinion on what constitutes a valid reason for a check, but I don't see why a self-request, in order to obtain a particular permission, couldn't be valid. It's not like we'd be forcing anyone to submit to this. GirthSummit (blether) 09:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: "identification" for OTRS currently just constitutes a valid email address. Per Wikipedia:CheckUser#Grounds for checking, On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request... Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, hmm. I certainly gave them my real name, and signed the confidentiality agreement using it; I believe that's what most people do, but you might be right that it's not a strict requirement. Also from the document you linked to: Checkusers are given discretion to check an account...... in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption. Would you care to expand on your thinking on why this would be a bad thing, or is it just that you think it's not policy-compliant? GirthSummit (blether) 09:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: No one needs to know my IP or who I am - I should be judged solely on my on-wiki contributions. It doesn't matter if I'm from India or Istanbul, from Ontario or Argentina. It also doesn't matter if I use chrome or firefox, or internet explorer. The data returned by a checkuser query (if I'm not mistaken) isn't going to be very helpful. Also,   CheckUser is not a crystal ball,   CheckUser is not for fishing, and, my favorite,   CheckUser is not magic pixie dust --DannyS712 (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712Fair enough, I can respect that position. I feel slightly differently, because we are dealing with a user permission that is actively sought by abusers for financial gain, who intentionally game their on-wiki contributions in order to gain it - as we have seen with at least four accounts that I'm aware of in just the last three months. If these accounts are commonly socks that could have been picked up by CU, I'd be in favour of using it as a bar to entry; if, however, it wouldn't help detect them, then I agree it would be pointless. This has nothing to do with where they are, or anything else. GirthSummit (blether) 10:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

what might help, and I'm looking for suggestionsEdit

is some new rules for ORES, based on the experience we've gained getting things started. One obvious target is waiting the minimum time for ACC, and then immediately entering an article. But we do not need ORES to be more suspicious, if we remember that anyone's first draft of page on an advertising susceptible topic is at least 50% likely to be , if not upde, coi editing. (That 50% was deliberately conservative--for some fields, like nonprofits, I'd say it's more like 90%) And there's my rule of thumb--new or old, anyone listed in the lede sentence or infobox as an "influencer" is coi at least, and anyone listed as a speaker is almost certainly coi.

And I have another anyone with a clearly professional portrait is coi especially if it's a really good one, or shows someone really cute or handsome, and particularly if they claim they took it themselves. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There are basically 7 kinds of UPE:

1. The PR/Marketing departments of companies and non-profits exploiting Wikipedia as a platform for free publicity and business directory. Even government high schools such as The Bewdley School which has been persistently made spammy and promotional by school staff for a decade or more, even faster than the coords at WP:WPSCH can keep up with it.
2. Political campaign managers for parties and/or candidates - the UK politics are in a mess at the moment what with Brexit and a general election in a few weeks. There will be attemps to use Wikipedia
3. Those who work through the Wikipedia paid editing agencies such as Upwork.
4. Free lancers who write to notable people offering to write a Wikipedia article about them. They often hold advanced rights and OTRS access.
5. People and celebs who register an account then email users such as myself, offering us (sometimes big) money to write an article about them.
6. The nastiest kind. Their MO is to write a negative and even slanderous , but notable BLP usually about a woman or a child (and in the worst case scenario a female child), and then under a sock account offer to clean up the article for a fee, stressing that the sourced information is public and therefore the article cannot be taken down, only cleaned up. This is monstrous criminal blackmail and extortion, but even the WMF is not interested.
7. In house: Finally, even the WMF itself among its 350+ employees does not have clean hands. They fire their senior staff when they are caught out editing for money, but ironically the en.Wiki allows them to continue as admins and OTRS agents! The ensuing major reports on the scandal in the US and UK national press do not exactly enhance Wikipedia's reputation either. Not only are many of us not only providing and policing new content, but we're having to defend Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality and quality.

Yes, we are certainly faced with some challenges, and unfortunately many New Page Reviewers are not ready to meet them. IMO it's time to revise the 'anyone can edit' mantra to 'anyone can edit - but conditions apply'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: you may be interested in the lists of suspicious new articles I post every now and then on WT:WPSPAM, which follow a similar approach to what you suggest. Happy to share more details off-wiki. MER-C 08:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll get in touch, because further details really shouldn't go here-=which raises the question, if we identify patterns that would benefit patrollers to catch them, how do we communicate this?
And two general questions about the limits of what can be looked for:
A. Is ORES etc still limited to title and log information, but not text within the article? (yes, I know the practical difficulty of looking deeper)
B. Are we capable of lookinga an article in context of otherarticles from the same user (again, I recognize the extent of the added complexity)
If, as I suspect, A and B are not now feasible, a great deal ofthe screening will continue to need to be done manually, because human reviewers can indeed do both of these. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Problems with filter optionsEdit

This may be a stupid question, but the green 'Set Filter' button disappers when I try to press it, becoming hidden behind the bottom grey bar on the New Pages Feed. Please help, thanks Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234, it seems to be working now. Are you still having the problem? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I think the problem was that I had the CTRL+F bar open meaning the green button moved down a bit so it was hidden. The problem is still there, but I will remember not to open the bar. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Mexican women footballers articles by SecondralEdit

Please be very careful with these articles. In the selection I checked two of the three references are fake, and some information is not confirmed by the remaining one source. I will now reach out to the author, but care needs to be exercised.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on autopatrolling redirectsEdit

NPP Related UserboxesEdit

 
Current logo
 
Revised

CASSIOPEIA has been doing some great work at NPP School and has now designed some userboxes for graduates. As part of that they also drafted a possible new NPP logo. Thoughts on sticking with our traditional logo (top) or the newly designed logo (bottom)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I will support that new logo because of CASSIOPEIA's commitment. Abishe (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Just by looking at this new logo it just feels odd. It wouldn't be consistent with other user rights logo. The image is JPG converted into PNG with a white background. The image quality is poor. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I prefer the old logo. Andrew Base (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I appreciate the effort but the new draft looks a bit too much like something that an actual cabal would use. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • FWIW I've no strong opinion on using it for our official logo (I think I can lean towards the current but could be easily convinced otherwise) but I quite like it as the logo of NPP School and would expect even if consensus continues that we would use it for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thanks for putting in the effort! But I would suggest that we should avoid using an emblem that (at least to me) gives off "police force" vibes. NPP actions tend to get a lot of pushback already from people who feel that we are assuming more authority than is actually vested in us (which, beyond clicking that one check mark, is really very little). I'd be happier if we could stick with the clipboard-carrying, making-factual-annotations icon. - No issues with appropriating it for the School :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

New NPP help with merge/redirectEdit

Hello everyone, I am reviewing Battle of Firmum and in its current stub/single-sourced form it would, in my opinion, be better to merge the content with Social War (91–88 BC) and leave behind a redirect (Battle of Firmum could be a stand alone article--actually it was a siege I think--but would require access to some good databases/libraries). I've read the tutorial and the flow-chart but I am a little unsure on how to proceed. Do I nominate Battle of Firmum for merge through this process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers ? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, you can feel free to just boldly complete the merge yourself. If it's undone or otherwise contested then you can follow the merge procedures. If you use Twinkle there is a merge option in tags for you to use. One caution: If the topic is notable it's OK for it to be a stub and doesn't have to be merged. I am currently creating a some 3 sentence single sourced stubs for Caldecott Honor books in the hopes that other editors will help expand them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This would make a perfectly okay stub based on notability and sourcing. Consequently, whether to merge is an editorial decision and not something that falls within the review ambit (i.e., the workflow won't direct you in this). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC
Thanks for the replies. I'm going to add some more sources/content to this tomorrow. It may make more sense to redirect it to Siege of Firmum based on what I have found. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Concerning bug: recreated articles persist reviewed statusEdit

Today I noticed that Masoom Shankar came up in my Watchlist. When I checked the page, the page curation tool was opened, and it showed that the article had been reviewed. However, when I checked the logs, the only person to mark it reviewed was me...6 months ago, as part of an AfD nomination where it was ultimately deleted. If I'm correct that the bug here is that review-status persists after article deletion, then we would appear to have a glaring loophole where an article could be deleted, recreated, and then escape notice. signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've filed a bug report. If I'm right about the nature of the bug, one stop-gap solution would be to stop marking AfD-nominated articles as reviewed. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I think DannyS712 got it right on the phab ticket. It was marked as patrolled because a sysop Missvain accepted it from AfC. Anyone with autopatrol, which includes all sysops, will have the page marked as reviewed when accepting an AfC draft. I don't think there's any bug here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".