Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Autopatrolled

Not wishing to detract from the discussion about redirects, but a curious concourse of circumstances led me to discover again an autopatrolled editor creating dozens of short articles that are barely notable or not even notable at all. Normally I would simply remove the autopatrolled flag, but in this instance, the user is an admin. Autopatrolled comes bundled with adminship. What should we be doing in cases like these? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My initial thought was to propose removing autopatrol from the sysop package of rights as it isn't in anyway linked to a sysop's work. However, given the focus at RFA on content creation by candidates for admin, it'd be surprising if any new admins were appointed who didn't have sufficient knowledge of article creation best practice. You don't name the "offender" but I am guessing it's a long-standing admin (from when less questions were asked)? If so, maybe just a friendly pointing out of what they are doing wrong is sufficient? QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with QuiteUnusual, as addressing it directly would be best. However, I think a situation like that calls for a de-sysop for cause per WP:CIR and it's at least an argument for a compromised account. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support the removal of autopatrol from the bundle. While I'm all for content creation, 25 articles is way higher than practically all RfA voters will ask, and one can demonstrate knowledge of content creation (e.g. for RfA) without necessarily creating 25 articles from scratch. Being a prolific content creator is separate – and should thus be treated separately from the toolset. ComplexRational (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also support the removal of autopatrol from the admin bundle. In addition to addressing the issue raised here, it could make RfA a bit less of a gauntlet for new candiates. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one RfA that I opposed that I would have supported had autopatrol not been included with the sysop toolset. That having been said, I agree with others that talking to the editor in question here is probably the best step one, maybe taking this issue to WP:Administrators noticeboard is step two. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has been creating dozens of short articles (but which are definitely notable under a SNG as I attempt to create articles for all Caldecott Medal winners) I'm not going to be critical of someone creating short articles. Stubs are not, according to our guideline, inherently troubling. It is only when they are lacking in notability and/or verification that they are against guidelines. It sounds like this latter bit (lack of notability) is the issue here. As such I would talk to the editor in question. I would probably do that before pulling the autopatrol permission in any regard - getting it is not a reward but Loss aversion tells us that taking it away does have a negative effect - and in this case that must be the first step. Beyond that I think we'd have to look at some sort of community imposed solution - such as requiring the sysop to go through AfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If the editor was not an admin I would have pulled the autpat. flag already. Unfortunately I have a feeling that there is more to this than meets the eye. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A quiet discussion is more likely to be productive than tag bombing the articles or a notice on a project talk page. Also, "pas devant les enfants", it's not good for the grown ups to bicker in front of the kids. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Where do you suggest holding that quiet discussion? And with whom? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Judging from your contributions just before you started this thread, Missvain's talk page. Cabayi (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

...though, if Sarah had email enabled, that would be my first choice. Cabayi (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

AfC is backlogged and hard enough to navigate for reviewers as is, so I don't believe that's really a great solution. I'm open to other suggestions, though, and I also think a reasonable first step would be to consult the user on this matter (e.g. invite them here, or start a new thread on their talk page) – but it may not be quiet. ComplexRational (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If your looking for a quiet word, why not Discord or on an IRC channel. I think it is a case of the bite the bullet. scope_creep^Talk 01:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I accidently found somebody this morning who is autopatrolled, not an admin but certainly creating many hundreds of tiny articles, barely referenced, and many that look non-notable. I added the top 100 odd to the NPP queue. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm being singled out for creating stubs that some people think aren't notable. LOL. Let alone in after thirteen plus years of editing Wikipedia (and one of the few highly productive women, yay!). I suggest improving before tagging and simply getting more familiar with sources outside of your normal lense. For example, I do not expect a man who works in technology who lives in Germany (just making this up) to know about women's fashion magazines based in the United States. Before you just start tagging things left and right, consider the subject and perhaps be friendly about reaching out regarding notability rather than using robotic, unfriendly patrolling tools. All of the articles - except maybe one which now I'm questioning even myself about making (Hans Nichols) that have been "questioned" recently have passed GNG. I don't expect every Wikipedian to understand the subjects or sources that I write about or use. I don't care if you remove autopatrol from packages, blahblah, but singling me out for creating stubs that can be improved is bizarre and has brought up a lot of uncomfortable feelings I haven't had in a few years here on Wikipedia (that singled out thing is extremely uncomfortable). There are surely other users who could possibly be doing worse work - creating tiny stubs left and right. Also, I don't let users email me because I have been dealing with years of harassment by users and non-users on Wikipedia. Kudpung has already brought this matter (the notability and sources) up with me after I questioned his work on his talk page of tagging away with that page patrol tool. Then he questioned why I make such short articles on one of the talk pages of my articles, which is a notable subject (Atomic Liquors). I should not have to defend creating stubs, let alone lose autopatrol for doing just that. I have three jobs and make time to edit Wikipedia. It's moments like this when I just feel like giving up. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And of course, it doesn't matter that the majority of the articles I write are starts and I have multiple Good Articles under my belt and extensive lists I've written over the years. But hey, write a few articles about bartenders, journalists and bars that are notable for stubs and all hell breaks lose...! Very demoralizing. Missvain (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you should leave the editor alone. They have been creating stubs, with secondary sources, of notable articles. I don’t think wikistalking them is helpful and you are discouraging a good participant on Wikipedia.

In fact, if we look at an example of an article you tagged - Evel Pie - I can see that it has more than a few things that could make it notable. It had decent secondary sources and seems to be a local eatery of some notability. It is fine if you disagree, but it wasn’t something you should have prodded. It should have gone to AFD. I question your judgement. Perhaps you should be more careful in using PROD?

Also, I don’t see you bringing this up with the admin. You most certainly didn’t tell them about this discussion.

Even more concerning is that you said it “wasn’t you job” to even do a cursory Google search to determine notability.

Then I noticed you tagged a journalist, Hans Nichols. You clearly are misusing the tagging facility. Stand down, please! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Missvain, Kudpung. My take on this whole thing is that Kudpung saw some early stub work from an admin that was somewhat dubiously sourced. Having had a look at a bunch of them, I think there is a bit of a specialty source knowledge gap here (as Missvain suggested), and also a bit of Kudpung expecting a high standard from autopatrolled users and admins. Overall my take on the articles is that a few of them were borderline as presented (when Kudpug first came across them), but that notability can be established, depending on how you weight various sources which aren't obviously high quality but probably are. In any case I don't see serious issues here from Missvain, nor do I think that Kudpung's actions and coming here and asking for advice were unwarranted. I think everyone could do with calming the farm and stepping away from the situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I am concerned that Kudpung believes he shouldn’t first do a cursory check to see if something is notable or not. On Talk:Evel Pie he stated that he later checked and found a bunch of sources. Then on Talk:Atomic Liquors he seems to have found a source showing the articles notability. He should be doing this before tagging the article! I’m also concerned by the fact that he stated that he felt that Missvain’s work needs to be “controlled”. I can’t say I’m at all impressed by an experienced and good faith editor being lectured in the tone he used either. Very disappointing. I’m sorry Missvain had to put up with it, frankly. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Kudpung needs the New Page Reviewer role removing if this is how he treats editors who create stubs: failing to follow WP:BEFORE and wanting to strip rights from an admin - even proposing changing the rules to enable this! What's wrong with a topic being "barely notable"? Remember you're not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to read my post again, and point out where I am wanting to strip rights from an admin and where I am proposing any changes in the rules. I am not, and it was not and is not my intention. I came here asking for feedback. Let's be quite clear about this, shall we? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that Missvain needs any support from the likes of me, as her work is exemplary, but I am in her corner. I have worked with her for more than a decade so I use the lens of time to make this statement: let's move on. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nor that she needs reminding of the minimum criteria of quality for creating new articles? Being a prolific content creator and admin is not a passport to lower our standards. Missvain has built a reputation on giving advice to other users. One could expect an experienced editor to at least properly complete one article before creating the next. The problem here is that the articles I tagged - and I did not single 'Missvain' out - were out of character for someone of her experience and so much so that it even crossed my mind that her account may have been compromised and being used by an UPE. Note that many comments here are from users who have not read the thread from the beginning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion expressed by @Chris.sherlock and Fences and windows: that this looks like yet another moment where Kudpung repeats the long pattern of behavior and opinions where the Article review process should be a space for applying a strenuous and over-zealous standard for the community that is neither productive nor welcoming to experienced contributors (including community trusted users like admins) or newcomers. Patrolling (or any other quality control process on the wiki) is not meant to capture the marginal, but only the most egregiously bad -- the marginal ought to be given space to breath, improve, and grow especially when its topics we aren't use to covering, topics with limited or specialist visibility, otherwise we are failing miserably at creating an inclusive encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Sadads (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The whole "anyone can edit" idea is a foolish platitude and not something that's actually real. We are already overwhelmed with "marginal" entries and don't need more. We stop editors all the time and ought to do more to be exclusive. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well tough. That’s been our core tenet since we started. If you don’t like it, get it changed. Best of luck with that. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agreed with you Sadads. I'm surprised at you of all people resorting to such conjecture - but that seems to be developing into the general line here. At least Chris troutman (with whom I don't always see eye to eye) seems to be one of the few who is absolutely in touch with reality here (either that, or like me he has a long, latent memory that can sometimes be jogged by certain stimuli) - perhaps now that some people can't avoid drama, we should be inviting The Blade of the Northern Lights, Scottywong, and Fuhghettaboutit to add their opinions on NPP. There is no conjecture surrounding Missvain's edits, however, Alex. Facts are facts, and I think I'm being rather generous and Assuming a lot of Good Faith under the circumstances - please have the courtesy to read the thread from the beginning before jumping to conclusions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung what is completely concerning is that you did not follow the spirit of WP:PROD. Firstly, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. You need to, IMO, stop referring to WP:GNG when it is clear you did not follow WP:BEFORE. rather than use a shortcut, which is often frustrating, let me explain. Before you propose an article be deleted, you (not anyone else) should be checking whether the article is actually problematic in terms of notability.

It is absolutely clear that you did not do this basic check before tagging Atomic Liquors because after you tagged it, you got upset on the talk page and showed that you actually quite easily found a source that established notability. In fact, the guidelines are quite clear that before you nominate a page for deletion (speedy or otherwise) you should be checking if it is in fact something that should be deleted. IMHO, doing otherwise is an editor imposing their own personal opinion whether something is worthwhile or not. In fact, in numerous guidelines and policies we state that we should try to see if an article can be improved. You obviously have the ability to do so, because you were able to find the source that literally contradicted your own assertion that the article was notable or not. In fact, you then harangued the editor by telling them that checking notability was not your job, and furthermore on a number of talk pages you rather defensively tried to accuse the editor of not doing a good enough job. You did not, in any of these actions, show you assumed good faith. In fact, you told them you believed they were taking advantage of the tools, and that “ One of the reasons your other articles probably get through NPP without being tagged or slated for deletion is that they look perfect and are not more closely examined examined by less experienced patrollers”. That is completely out of line.

You then tried to change the policy for granting tool privileges on this page, stating somewhat vaguely that you had found malfeasance by an admin - a very serious charge and one quite easily chased back to Missvain. Instead, what we actually see is that you haven’t been following the principles of our deletion policy, you have not shown good faith, and you haven’t even followed basic guidelines before tagging articles. Of anything, I feel that your actions probably need to be reviewed because you genuinely discouraged a great editor of good standing who does quality work on articles to the point where they felt like they might quit the project. What really gets up my nose is that you use shortcuts in an attempt to lecture them about what is and isn’t acceptable on Wikipedia, but you show you don’t fully grasp our guidelines yourself. This pisses me off personally because it has happened to me in the past and it actually stopped me from editing for years. More ironically, you sent me a message implying understanding guidelines and policies is “wikilawyering”. I can assure you that this is not the case. Please take the time to reread the relevant policies and guidelines before continuing to tag articles for speedy deletion. Certainly it would be best for you to refrain from accusing editors in good standing of deliberately disrupting Wikipedia and deliberately violating policies and guidelines, at least until you can show you understand them yourself! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, It is possible that he did do a WP:BEFORE search, but only found the other source in a second subsequent round of searching. I honestly think this is a case of Kudpung seeing some marginal articles from an autopatrolled user and expecting a higher standard from them. This is not necessarily unwarranted, we DO want our autopatrolled users to only be creating polished articles with bombproof sourcing. After all, we are trusting them to create new articles with ZERO oversight whatsoever. But I tend to agree that Kudpung was overreacting with his actions with regards to these articles. I personally don't really use PROD at all (except BLPPROD), because you can always argue that it will be controversial to someone (at the very least, the author). But you can use this rationale the opposite way as well, that the 'controversy' only enters into it when the PROD is declined by somebody. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere on Kudpung’s talk page, when asked to first check for notability he responded: “no, that's not my job and please don't tell me what to do”. That is a very worrying response. Even more concerning is that he wrote “One of the reasons your other articles probably get through NPP without being tagged or slated for deletion is that they look perfect and are not more closely examined examined by less experienced patrollers.” That is clearly implying Missvain is takimg advantage of the system deliberately.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “zero oversight”. That has never been the role of any editor, new patrol or otherwise. Page patrollers should be checking the content, verifying if a page is notable or not and applying CSD criteria if applying the PROD template. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chris.sherlock: Wrong again. One does not have to make a BEFORE search ahead of tagging, only ahead of xfD. Please read BEFORE ahead of telling other editors what to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If an article has no hope of being deleted via AFD, it should not be speedily deleted. I am curious, if you haven’t actually done any checks that something is notable, how are you determing if it is or isn’t notable? Gut feel? Just don’t like it? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, Autopatrolled articles are not added to the queue, meaning that unless someone searches though new articles that are already marked as reviewed, something that is only uncommonly done, then there is zero oversight on autopatrolled articles. This is by design, so as not to waste reviewer effort on the articles of highly competent editors. I'm not defending Kudpung's actions with regards to PROD; I think it was a poor option. BUT, he is right that we should expect the articles of autopatrolled editors/admins to be of a higher standard. Articles by these users should not be 'barely above borderline', their articles should be obviously and clearly notable as demonstrated by sources in the article, and also free of needing significant cleanup. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. It’s the term “oversight”, which I took you to mean over the editor, but you are referring to articles. Yeah, that’s fair. I don’t think anyone is disputing this. Given there were relevant secondary sources, I don’t think there was a major issue. We can all improve articles, I think saying or implyimg that Missvain’s work is of low quality is a real problem though. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, Fair enough. Kudpung can be a bit curmudgeonly, and perhaps needs reminding of this from time to time. In any case I don't think that this needs any further action on either editor. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As a sometime curmudgeon myself, that’s not really the issue. We really need to know that Kudpung understands our project policies and guidelines before tagging articles. His responses on his talk page show quite clearly he does not, and doesn’t feel he needs to. If he is willing to show that he first needs to check for notability, then I think we would all be reassured. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, I can't fault that rationale. Each of the articles I checked would have ended up at 'mark as reviewed' not as PROD if I took them through the flowchart (at the very least by giving the benefit of the doubt to a few sources). But just as Missvain should not be hounded for making a few borderline articles, I don't think we should do the same to Kudpung. He does good work and is one of the few people who provides oversight to the oversight by reviewing the reviewers and checking autopatrolled users etc. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere it was never my intention to hound Kudpung. I agree he does good work, I apologise if I ever implied otherwise. I acknowledge it is often thankless and difficult work doing article review. My concerns are that he assume good faith and consider tagging pages for notability before immediately PRODing (especially when the editor made an attempt to provide valid secondary sources!) IMHO, it would be less abrasive to take an article to AFD when a. the editor is a known good contributor with a good reputation, and b. there has been obvious effort put into the initial article. What I think page patrollers often fail to understand is that content producers often take a lot of time and effort in creating good or great articles. It is much easier to tag an article and have it deleted than it is to produce content. Nobody is going to get it right all the time. Saying that a good editor is flying under the radar and coasting on previous good work is a slap in the face, and horrid for the person writing the article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, then start an RFC, but the self-appointed New Page Patrol doesn't get to decide that on their own. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have bought into this website's marketing gimmick, which is only honored in the breach; not exactly CLUEFUL. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a gimmick. It’s part of the project’s ethos. Either try to get it changed (best of luck with that!) or accept it. Don’t be disruptive in doing so, and please don’t make personal attacks. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This is seriously concerning. You literally have an example here of a great editor in fantastic standing who contributes substantial quality work being targeted by people who monitor pages and who are judging them on high for not having high enough quality of work. We aren’t talking about the average fly-by-night newbie (who, incidentally, cannot even create new articles). This entire project is based on volunteers and we don’t even allow paid editing. This means people do this entirely for free and we only care that they follow our policies and guidelines. That “Anyone can edit” Wikipedia is absolutely a core tenet of Wikipedia and our community is constantly trying to lower barriers to entry whilst at the same time striving to ensure our quality remaims high. I am truly concerned about the elitist sentiments your comment implies. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect Kudpung doesn't adhere to your tribalism that regulars don't have to play by the rules. Your "great editor in fantastic standing who contributes substantial quality work" needs to actually do quality work, rather than receive your free pass. You may recall, we still enforce expectations on even the most-accomplished editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Every editor can always do better. The editor in question, Missvain, does do substantial, high quality work. That is not in dispute. Page patrollers also do not get a feee pass, they should be following guidelines and policies. I’m sorry you appear to think otherwise. I fail to see how that ArbCom case is relevant, incidentally. Could you explain how it relates to Missvain’s contributions? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Chris.sherlock, every editor. I thank you for listing all your other accounts on my talk page. It certainly inspired my immediate curiosity and I ended up spending 2 hours on it and , for me anyway, explains why you are here and Wikilawyering - and that's another issue entirely. I have attempted here to resolve one issue without opening one huge can of worms which those with proper memories here have been discrete enough not embarass anyone with. You may wish to reconsider before citing admin behaviour, ethics, and paid editing so let's not risk opening another, because AGF is not a suicide pact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I’m not sure what you mean by a “Suicide pact”. I have had mental health issues in the past (unfortunately quite openly) where I felt like committing suicide. I am much better now, so I have no intention of committing suicide or attempting to do so. I am curious you would bring this up. Can you clarify? Also, I’m not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

How does that in any way relate to myself? It rather seems to me I have been threatened by Kudpung. As far as I’m aware, no one is questioning my ethics. I’ve never engaged in paid editing and I’m not an admin. Can I assume that Kudpung is about to dig into my past or try to expose something he feels I have done wrong? I would like some clarification as to what he is referring to, right now it seems vaguely threatening. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• (On a slightly less fulminant note, I noticed that Rentier's currently not maintained NPP browser gives the option of showing autopatrolled articles, while the New Page Feed does not. If one were inclined to do spot checks, this would be a useful functionality. Probably unrealistic to expect it to be implemented, though; and in any case, not requiring spot checks is kind of the point of the flag... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC) )

Elmidae, Yeah I don't think we are going to get that added anytime soon. Nice to know that the NPP browser does it though (when it is working anyway). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---

It seems the consensus is that there is no need to unbundle these privileges. Can we close out this discussion now? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused. It seems this has been reopened two days after the conversation was closed. I don’t believe any admins misused their tools, certainly there is no evidence given to show this had occurred. So I think the general consensus is that we shouldn’t unbundle the tools. Given this, let’s just bring this to a close? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A strange thing happened

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T242324

Yesterday when New Page Patrolling I reviewed Richard Rudzitis and moved on to the next article in the feed. I then thought that I should really have sent the creator of Richard Rudzentis a message. So I went back and sent the message via the page creation tool, and the message ended up on my talk page rather than that of the intended recipient! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The interface was recently changed to support sending message to "reviewer" in addition to the "author." Now, I am not sure why, but sending to "reviewer" is the default selection; so if you go to any article now, review it, write message and click send, it'd end up on your talkpage – that's what you did. To actually send the message to the "author", you've to (additionally) select the author name from the drop-down menu that's just above the textfield. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, as I implied above, the order is really not ideal. I now understand @Insertcleverphrasehere already raised this issue in phab:T233729#5755406; but there was no follow up. I have created phab:T242324 to fix the order. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I had actually noticed this last week and thought it was a bug or something. Lapablo (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What is going on here at Patrick Kogler

Check out this series of page moves re Patrick Kogler in quick succession from Draft space, to Wikipedia space, to User space, and finally to Main space [1].

The editor in question has moved pages before without any issues.

The article was moved to Draft space by Lapablo a few days ago with concerns of promotional/advertising issues (and thus probably UPE issues).

My question is whether this is some kind of new technique to by-pass AFC, OR, just an editor making a series of coincidental mistakes? Britishfinance (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance The move by the editor just adds more suspicion to my earlier reason for moving it to draft, i'm not sure if its a mistake trying to move the page to mainspace or just trying to maneuver the review system. Could you try talking to the editor on his/her talkpage? Lapablo (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Lapablo, I am sure that the editor will say it was a mistake (which it might just be), however, I wanted to run this by the more technology-minded/AFC-experienced editors on this forum just in case there was a "technique" being used that we may not be aware of (i.e. Trust, but verify)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This is unquestionably not a mistake. The article is almost certainly UPE based on the presence of other powerful red flags and I've blocked the author for creating it. I've seen this before, but not like this (examples: Draft:Curt Mercadante, Draft:Abdulla Tawfeeq Almoayed, Draft:Conformis). They are trying to bypass being listed at NPP and/or my suspicious article list. But the WMF's poor software engineering bites us again: the logging table does not store the target title as structured information. MER-C 09:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that MER-C, I thought that the sequence of moves was too deliberate and fast to be a mistake. Should (can) we get an edit filter to trap this? Should we also alert others (e.g. AFC) to this trick? Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Further thought MER-C. When we find a certified (and skilled) UPE operator per this case, should we not run a checkuser on all related accounts that have edited their articles, and even check any patrollers who have "curated" their articles (for signs of patrollers who are UPEs)? Ultimately, we don't have great technology in combatting these editors (per our previous discussions), and they seem very familiar with our system and how to re-create themselves. However, when we do find a strong case, should we not use it fully (e.g. some these guys probably all work in the same building, and thus share an IP)? Ultimately, NPP is where these types of editors are discovered (and NPP is clearly a problem for them). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, Patrollers cannot curate their own articles. The button is grayed out. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, my concern is that these UPEs are working in groups and hence when we find one that is definitely a UPE (per above), we should look for the rest while the checkuser data is still fresh? For, example, these are two recent AfDs for a connected subject made by different UPE editors, but who are undoubtedly connected (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Conrad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Conrad Properties). It would make sense for such groups to get an account into the NPP system to curate the network's articles? Britishfinance (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, Drop them on WP:COIN? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have listed the drafts or articles on Kogler, Conformis, Almoayed, and Mercandente for deletion as G11. I have also blocked Potenca Potenco301 as an advertising only account. Any subsequent entries from socks of his will qualify for speedy deletion as G5. The account is too old for checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, and ICPH; doing NPP brings one directly in contact with quite a few of these cases. NPP can be pretty labour intensive on several fronts, so pursuing them through other boards can increase the labour materially. Britishfinance (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions Needed (Copyright)

I came across this new article while on patrol: Darryl Castelino. Would the text copied from his military award constitute a copyright violation? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The source site's Copyright policy says: "Material featured on this Website may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged." Has anyone sent "a mail" to them? I'd say the source may or not be "prominent" by only being listed in References. Seems like verbatim copying (non-derogatory) is probably acceptable here, but I'm no expert. Whether the award is notable enough for an article is another question I'd ask. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be an attribution license, which WP is normally fine with. If mailing the source is a prerequisite, it needs to be established that that has happened. In such a case one might consider removing the text until the editor who wants to add it confirms that permission has been received. - However, apart from the licensing technicalities, I'm pretty sure this monster quote shouldn't be in the article at all. There's no justification for dropping in the whole thing. Summarize and link. We aren't a government award records mirror... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with Elmidae. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is problematic because it is adding an additional set of criteria, namely "reproduced accurately", "not to be used in a derogatory manner" and "source must be prominently acknowledged." None of these are compatible with the Wikipedia site license which allows the content to be remorselessly edited, used for any purpose and does not typically have a prominent acknowledgment. The words "prominent" and "derogatory" are subjective and it isn't clear how this would be assessed. I would ask the experts at WP:CQ. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems simple to me: A license requiring "not used derogatory" is not a free license. But a brief quote can be included under fair use. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To be safe I will forward the discussion to WP:CQ as suggested by QuiteUnusual above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)

Nobody at that board has responded after four days; they all seem busy with more pressing matters. I may simply remove that text from the article in question and paraphrase something shorter and sweeter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Another COI NPP

Nocturnal306 was a temporary New Page Patroller who has now been globally locked due to sockpuppeting and COI. Their reviews will need checking. *sigh*. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: NearlyFreeSpeech should be OK, since it was looked at for DYK nomination. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: Onel5969 retired

We've lost Onel5969. I won't go into details but as one of the most active participants on NPP, his contributions will be missed. We will all need to pitch in to pull up the slack. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've emailed with him since the retirement, thanked him for his contribution, and wished him the best (and hold out hope he might return to us one day). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, damn. Onel was hyper-prolific - that will be a lot of slack to pull up. I'll do what I can. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, this is very disturbing, and it makes we wonder: are we doing everything we can to help editors who face the kind of abuse that drives such prolific and highly valued contributors to into retirement? How can we be better? Vexations (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, Unfortunately, I don't think anything can be done. The more you edit, the more likely you are going to end up bogged down in some drama quagmire somewhere. I've currently got my foot stuck in one myself. Onel kept a pretty low profile, but it happens and I can't blame him for wanting less drama in his life. My main point here was just that we will need more activity from the rest of the reviewers if we are going to avoid a spike in the backlog. This sort of thing was bound to happen eventually, It's happened before and we will weather the storm. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I've stepped back from reviewing for reasons that shouldn't concern anyone, but if I can help, and folks think I'm any good at reviewing, I'd consider returning. I'm really sorry this happened. We should take care of each other. Vexations (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW what I believe drove Onel off was Wikipedia activity unrelated to NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A heavy loss to NPP. Onel5969 will be missed forever. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Onel5968 was one of the circa 25 editors (most of whom are admins) who are essential to the functioning of WP, and who do large parts of the work on key Boards (we all kindof know this list and worry about it). Sad that he felt driven off by something they worked so hard on. I can't find the exact AfD but I remember seeing one pre-Christmas where he stated batch AfD nominations of his own GEO articles were in response to an AfD he created from NPPing. Britishfinance (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The queue will start to expand quite heavily over the next few months, before it starts to settle back down again. We need to do a good bit extra. Sad to see Onel, another excellent editor, hounded out. It seems to be the norm now. I think perhaps nobody explained the notability criterion around locations, villages, settlements and so on, early enough and when you create a bunch of articles and find they are not within it and effectively non-notable, it is very very hard to take it. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

At this AfD, Onel5968 made the case that his articles did meet GEO (they were USGS and not GNIS sourced); was he definitely wrong here, or, was it a local consensus that felt he was wrong – E.g. should this have been decided per a broader RfC. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

An earlier bulk AfD was Road Junction Windmill, Arizona. The trigger seems to have been Desert Vista Estates III, Arizona per the retirement statement Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's all she wrote folks. I took a few days off to donate a kidney on December 30, and when I came back the concerted, orchestrated wikihounding by several editors was not only back, but ramped up. Don't need that type of aggravation. Good luck to you all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Onel was doing excellent incredible work at NPR. Unfortunately his time with Wikipedia has come to the end. This will leave huge gap and tasks to fulfill for all of us. He is a veteran with over 400, 000 edits and I was glad that he pinged me once by saying that he unreviewed one of the articles that I curated. Onel was a sensational and dedicated Wikipedian who is going to be missed by everyone here. Start of the year we have lost the services of a veteran Wikipedian. Abishe (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A devastating loss. I was always glad to see Onel's sig around. Our fears of losing one of our most prolific editors are realized. NPP is going to need to attract additional reviewers. Also further evidence to me that we are not doing enough to value contributions and keep experienced editors around. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Awe man I hate to hear about Onel5968 he was such an amazing editor and huge value to NPP although I can understand and respect his reasoning. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel like somebody should be reaching out/emailing Onel5969 here? They are a massive loss to NPP (potentially the end of the viability of NPP), and a very nice and valuable editor to WP. Isn't there more we could/should do here? Britishfinance (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note for anyone hoping to help pick up the slack in Onel5969's absence, Onel was particularly diligent in patrolling the back end of the NPP queue. More hands are needed on that side of the queue, not the least because having more NPP eyes on edit-warred redirect recreations significantly reduces reviewer burnout. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible UPE

I just noticed several recent articles created by LeungChow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Three have been speedied. Four more are in mainspace. But I find the editing pattern unusual. Several new bios by a new user in a short time frame, some with excessive citations, on a variety of people who all seem marginally notable. Maybe UPE. Is this a matter to bring up at WP:COIN? MB 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Not this editor's first time. After a few days mechanical edits gets straight into the UPE-quarantine pool with Draft:Jeff Gum and Draft:Danielle Galligan etc. (paid for BLPs that their sock farm has been struggling to get published). Following trail of this account also links to several other "new" accounts working on these articles. I would guess a checkuser by NinjaRobotPirate and MER-C would reveal a broader network. I get the feeling that the circa 3 month gaps these "new accounts" are using are designed to get around the checkuser data, however, that doesn't solve their essential problem of having to reveal themselves by to continually trying to get their client's obscure BLPs published that WP editors have no interest in (as they are non-notable). Britishfinance (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

LeungChow is on proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the (deleted) contributions:

• Draft:Lensa - created by Mesi W (talk · contribs).
• Rock Island Auction Company was from the UPE quarantine pool. I've just blocked 223Man (talk · contribs) and Newwikiuser9999 (talk · contribs).
• Kevin Eze was a Pptt226 (talk · contribs) creation.
• Joe Doucet - created by Design-move (talk · contribs), obviously spam.
• APT212, Avanan, Draft:Andrea Varani (Photographer) were original.
• Draft:Raziel Chamel was original. Curiously was tagged A7 by Meeyana.
• Jeff Sullivan (musician) was inexplicably round-trip moved into mainspace.
• Draft:Jeff Gum tagged as spam because I blocked WilmA.OliveR (talk · contribs) for UPE. I've just blocked ResurgentPro (talk · contribs).

This is an obvious spammer. Indeffed. MER-C 09:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I saw that LeungChow voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yusof Mutahar (2nd nomination). I found two more spammers there: Davion Robinson (talk · contribs) and Catorce2016 (talk · contribs). The latter was of the "try to infiltrate NPP" type. At least they weren't too good at it. MER-C 09:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MER-C, nice job! Your technique of using the UPE-quarantine pool of clearly non-notable BLPs as the "honey trap" is very effective; it makes the risk-reward of UPEs accepting these non-notable commissions much higher (and can damage their more notable BLPs)? thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely, we should not have editors with less than say 1 year plus 5,000 edits !voting at AfD? Britishfinance (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: I did notice this image at Commons that is used in Draft:Jeff Gum ResurgentPro uploaded back in February claiming ownership but after looking at Draft talk:Jeff Gum apparently an identical image was deleted because it was an exact copy of this image. I don't edit at Commons regularly so I have no clue what to do there when I suspect a copyright issue. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I figured out how to nominate something for deletion over there. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Found some more spammers on CUJO AI - Azaxgraves (talk · contribs), Jenyire2 (talk · contribs) and 481LickMocki (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azaxgraves. MER-C 10:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, another "honey-pot" BLP re-moved just now into the NPP queue by a new editor Draft:Lara Martin Gillaranz to Lara Martin Gilarranz. Their first article Draft:Hendrik Holnäck also looks a UPE, plus they are leaving all sorts of trails in COMMONS with the images of their client's for their BLPs. Britishfinance (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 16:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No one really answered my original question. This is a discussion place for the NPP process, not really a noticeboard. Where is the right place to mention something like this. I frequently report at COIN when I find a case of COI editing, such as an employee writing about their workplace and ignoring COI warnings. Suspected UPE on multiple articles is similar and may still be a matter for COIN. But in this case, instead of referring me to COIN, it was investigated right here. Does it matter? MB 23:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:COIN is probably the best place to investigate issues related UPE and COI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Saudi sourcing problems alert

I ask new-page patrollers to please be wary on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects.

The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed.

The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country (Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.

The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists.

How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to Reliable Sources Noticeboard) HLHJ (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Copyvio is there a chicken/egg tool?

Hello everyone, I am reviewing Stile antico. Earwig's Copyvio detector identified two sources of potential copyright violation. One of them states that it is quoting from Wikipedia so no worries there. However, the other source is an Amazon review from October 2017: two substantial paragraphs. Is there an easier way to figure out if the Amazon review predates the Wikipedia content other than going through Diffs in the article history? Also, this article appears to have had significant material merged recently. Thanks for any help. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, I'm not aware of any tool that could help, but in this case it should be pretty straightforward to figure it out, just go to the last article revision before the date that the review was posted. I find that the difficult (sometimes impossible) case to figure out is when the non-Wikipedia website doesn't have a clear publish or edit date. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, I know of no such tool. Though, it's only a few diffs. One diff each from the source and destination of the merge around the timestamp of the Amazon post to see if it was already in the article when it was posted to Amazon for each such comment that applies.

The first review on Amazon says "(Wikipedia)" in the end.Is that the one? (Sorry, am on mobile, navigating and reading is a pain). Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I missed the "(Wikipedia)" at the end! Thanks for catching it! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wayback machine is also useful for figuring out when a website published a given text. HLHJ (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

HLHJ, Yup... Wayback machine is the best for this. As far as I know no one has made an automated tool (though I can see the possibilities...). If a tool like earwig was used to identify pages with copying, and then another tool used diff dates for the page compared against old revisions of the page on the wayback machine. Would make a pretty powerful tool. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We'd need to ask Wayback, it might be quite the load on their servers, though I imagine they'd support it. HLHJ (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about possible new restaurant SNG

For anyone not watching WT:NCORP or WP:RSN (although really we should all at least be watching the former), there's an ongoing discussion about whether Michelin stars establish notability for restaurants and whether we should adopt that standard as a formal SNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

copyvio tool

is the tool down, I cant get it(copyvio Earwig detector)?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, It's been running out of the number of searches it is allowed to do every 24 hours. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

While this means that you can't use the tool automatically in the toolbar, you can still use the tool at this link as long as you uncheck the search engine option _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible error in NPP system?

So today, I created the article Apple Watch Series 4 from a redirect. However, I am seeing the curation toolbar for this article. Is this an error? Taewangkorea (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite possibly an error. It happened to me months ago when I expanded Actinium-225 to an article from a redirect; I didn't pay much attention to it then, but I would think we shouldn't be able to autopatrol our redirect expansions. ComplexRational (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational, it probably doesn’t detect it because you didn’t create the article at the title... this is a loophole we should remain vigilant for. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm it doesn't detect because the page creator is whoever made the redirect. When we asked about changing the date from articles that were formally redirects we were told it was not really feasible. I don't know about changing the creator's name but will add it to the list of Page Curation improvements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Already part of phab:T157048 DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling that. I knew it was around but since we're kind of in neutral until we can get WMF development again.... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Patrolling Page Boardwalk Pictures

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the correct avenue to having a page patrolled, but I would like to ask that the page Boardwalk Pictures (which I created) be patrolled. It has already been assessed by WikiProject members, but oddly enough it has not yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. I know you're probably up to your necks already but I didn't want this one to fall through the cracks.MyNameIsMars (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

MyNameIsMars, Why the rush? Nothing to do with getting paid I hope? Vexations (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@MyNameIsMars: We will get to the page no worries however we are a bit backlogged at the moment which may take us a while to review pages. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector is down

Hi All, Just to inform you guys that Earwing's Coyvio Detector has not been working a a few days now. I have raised phabricator:T243736]. Also see - Copyvio Detector not working @The Earwig' talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

CASSIOPEIA, Is there an alternative for now to use in checking copyvio? Lapablo (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, Google is still around--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lapablo Earwing is up and running, but the tech team is till working on some white list IP restriction issues. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tag for WP:NSEASONS violations?

Do we have a tag for articles that violate WP:NSEASONS? Example 2020 Charlotte Independence season. There is little chance we can actually stop this stats spam given the propensity for football editors to scream Keep at AfD, but we can at least tag it for cleanup, but we don't seem to have a tag for this common issue that I come across all the time. Is there one that we do have that applies or could someone make one? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I guess the 'sports notability' tag applies. Additionally, converting to a redirect to the team article is the proposed solution by WP:NSEASONS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol and global rollback

Hi. So I just came across Qianjiang Century City and realized that all global rollbackers have autopatrol. For GRs that do not have local autopatrol, would it make sense for a bot to automatically unpatrol the pages so that they go through the feed like normal (not saying there is anything wrong with that page or that users creations, but in general)? --DannyS712 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, how frequent are such cases? ∯WBG^converse 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: No idea - any time a GR without local autopatrol creates an article DannyS712 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth a shot. But I'd put my money on them being able to acquire autopatrolled locally with little problem if they really came to need it. I once came across a UPE article whose creator was previously glocked for socking and yet after their apparent repentance on other projects, they had gotten NPR here without so much as an on-wiki record of their request.Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There are some administrators I would not trust to create an article here, but I would trust pretty much every global rollbacker. They typically know what they are doing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree they know what they're doing when it comes to their areas of expertise. But the skills required of someone to rollback and the skills required to create new notable content are not exactly the same. I'm not quite following the logic of them having automatic autopatrol. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To get a global rollback, one needs to demonstrate clue on several Wikimedia projects. I just do not see how say a Hungarian speaking global rollbacker who is not proficient in English will come here and start an article. Samy way I will not start an article in the Hungarian Wikipedia. We can look at the list of regular editors of the English Wikipedia who have global rollback (I assume this should be easily available) but my guess they are all autopatrolled.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at global group management all global rollbackers do in fact have autopatrolled rights even if they don't hold them locally on English Wikipedia. There are currently 87 editors with this right. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but how many of those who do not actually create articles on English Wikipedia?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

...so now I'm a global rollbacker, but have not been granted autopatrol locally. I'm not comfortable with this, and plan to unreview articles I create to leave in the queue as normal DannyS712 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Jim Walsh (Washington politician) and Mike Chapman (politician)? Short but notable stubs about Washington state politicians. Thanks, -- DannyS712 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, is there something specific you want us to look for? They both clearly meet NPOLITICIAN. Chapman currently doesn't have any non-primary sources but I'm not sure that's really an issue worth tagging given the current content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: No, I just wanted to note that, until I create enough articles to warrant applying for autopatrol, I'm planning to unpatrol articles I create (unless the community explicitly wants me not to). I know that users that create a lot of basic stubs aren't exactly what autopatrol was designed for, so I'll work on some bigger articles too DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. A better notice that diverts users creating problematic articles could go a long way toward easing the burden on NPP, so this may be of considerable interest. Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I moved your notice from WT:New pages patrol to here as this ensures the largest number of NPP reviewers will see it. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Sdkb (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Add links to undelete search?

Would it be useful to add links to each entry in the New Pages feed to Special:Undelete search? They would function something like the archive search links I add to my suspicious page lists. The rationale is to make the detection of non-exact title reposts easier, which is particularly relevant for dealing with UPE. (This will, of course, be useful for admins only.)

This requires either an interface administrator to find the appropriate system message to edit, or a straight forward (hopefully!) patch to the software. MER-C 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Turns out the place where I want to insert the link (next to the page history) is not customizable... MER-C 11:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect autopatrolled

Hi there. Can anyone give me a link for the redirect autopatrolled page, or maybe add a link to an NPP page if it isn't already there? I can't find it, regards Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Willbb234, are you asking for the permissions request page? That's Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. General information about the permission can be found at WP:Autopatrol. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Willbb234, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist - Is this what you're looking for? Ym2X (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ym2X that's the one thank you. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been answered but am not seeing a natural fit for this on existing pages. Maybe create a new resource page that could offer a variety of resources for patrollers? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 yes, of course. Being a significant part of the project, I think it should have its own place at NPP. I'm happy to give a helping hand writing stuff, I'm just not too good at the technical construction of pages like this. If others are happy to help then I can discuss. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Willbb234, I have made a new resources page which includes this link and hopefully a whole bunch of other useful ones. Still a little work to go (notice the empty deletion section). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: that looks great. I'll get round to adding links where I can and to the Deletion section later. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice: NPP source guide discussion about Ghanaian sources is underway

The new pages patrol is hosting its first discussion of sources from regions affected by systemic bias, starting with Ghana, and editors watching this page are invited to participate. This discussion is being hosted in order to better equip new page reviewers to be able to assess articles about subjects in these regions, and is intended to build editor’s basic familiarity with sources. You can find a past discussion of this proposal here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Change a "proposed" deletion to a regular AfD?

Hello, I reviewed Scary Mask and intended to refer it to AfD because the article as written does not satisfy WP:NSONG. However, I had sticky fingers and when I tried to move my content from the PROD box to the regular AfD box I accidentally submitted it to as a PROD. How can I change this to a regular AfD? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the creator agreed and redirected back to the band's discography. But for future reference, in case I err, is it simple enough to change a PROD to a regular AfD? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, Just remove your PROD tag and go through the steps to list it at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ferbuary? - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  SrchoCta, what's the problem? Ping DannyS712 for help with the fix. Thanks best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: the section header is Ferbuary DannyS712 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, yes I know. Can you run your bot to fix to spelling the month the way it's really spelled and not the way my sleep deprived brain spelled it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: ...fix is running now DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: Should be done DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More eyes

needed at Gold Derby Award for Best Drama Series please. I moved it to draft space and left a note for the author, but it was simply moved back. I don't want to get into a move war. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Will keep eye out looks like someone else has moved it back to draftspace. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Also: TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, TCEC Season 4 - duplicates of drafts so I cannot draftify them, CSD declined as not a valid critereon DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, per WP:NSEASONS (which sort of applies here) they should probably be redirected to the parent article if sourcing to expand prose doesn't exist. If you find sourcing in a search, dump it on the talk page and leave them be I suppose? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The draft for Gold Derby Award for Best Drama Series was moved back to mainspace again then moved back to draftspace. After the mainspace redirect was deleted again I requested for the page to be salted until the draft can make it out of draftspace and my request was accepted. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Single source articles that meet SNGs?

I've been noticing quite a few new articles with only a single reference showing up in the new pages feed, often meeting one SNG or another, and have even noticed a few that were created by autopatrolled users/admins. I usually tag these for 'more references', or in some cases add refs myself (if I remotely care about the topic and they are easily accessible; I'm not going to bend over backwards for the 4000th footballer article to be created this week). What is everyone else's approach to these sorts of articles? (Articles that have only a single reference but meet an Subject Notability Guideline)? If this is unnacceptable, as I believe it is (at the top level of policy it is contrary to WP:5P2, which requires "sources", plural) what should we do about admins and autopatrolled users who create articles like this? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that it depends heavily on the nature of the article's subject. 1-source article about a village that thus meets WP:NGEO or a historical subject that is likely to have been covered in history books (but not necessarily anything online)? Tag as needing more sources and move on. 1-source article about a song by an obscure band that charted for a week? Search for sources, then follow up with redirecting to the band or AfD as necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to add on to Rosguill's comment. In history there are some well-known (in the field), authoritative biographical sources. For example, the Dictionary of Irish Biography by Cambridge University Press and the Royal Irish Academy. Although more than one source would be preferable, inclusion in one of these canonical reference texts should satisfy notability. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I understood your suggestion to tag as needing more sources and move on. But whether we should mark it as reviewed or tag without marking as reviewed? The9Man | (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, in this case I meant tag, mark reviewed, and move on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Procedures

I had been vaguely aware of new page patrolling in the past, though not of this project. I recently created an article (not my first one) and, after wondering for a few days why it was not turning up in Google searches, I found on Quora (which may not have provided the right information) that WP articles that are not patrolled are not indexed by Google (unless they are 90+ days old). What I find confusing is why there are unpatrolled pages from before 2010 – it makes me wonder how priorities are determined. My article was not tagged for any potential problem, is not an orphan, etc. I suppose I could join the project instead of complaining, but I don't feel fully confident in my understanding of the CSD and would probably be overzealous in their application.

Anyway, feel free to delete this post if it proves unhelpful (which it most likely is). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Toccata quarta, hi there. The information you found on Quora is correct. While a few articles might show very old dates they only entered the queue recently. This is normally because they had been a redirect and then made into an article. Your new article will be reviewed at some point, hopefully soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toccata quarta, adding to Barkeep's comments, it's worth noting that due to the high number of new articles (hundreds) that Wikipedia understandably receives every day, and due to the fact that the reviewers are all volunteers - just like you the article creator - there is a significant backlog. Volunteering for back-room work on Wikipedia is not everyone's cup of tea or aim, and I can tell you personally that after a decade or more doing New Page Patrolling and trying to improve the system, it is or can be pretty depressing and a lot of reviewers don't stick around. To get the full picture, take a look at Special:NewPagesFeed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD problem

Hi there. It's happened a couple of times. I've nominated a page for deletion using the NPP tool and it has placed the nomination notice on the page, notified the user, and added the entry to the AfD log, but hasn't created the AfD page. I've then had to re-write my reasoning through twinkle and re nominate before cleaning up the mess. Any help would be appreciated (Note: I let the process finish before pressing close, so it isn't me preventing it from creating the AfD page). Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This may be yet another instance of T238025, a bug in PageTriage with AfD that I and several other users have experienced. ComplexRational (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend relying on Twinkle more and the NPP tool less. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Which, Rosguill, is precisely not what we are supposed to be doing, but I do understand your frustration - particularly where the WMF boldly and proudly claimed 'mission accomplished' a couple of months ago. Time, perhaps, to put more pressure on the Foundation again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think our next step is to get them to update the NPP code base. The lack of updates meant that that updating it proved harder than it should be and is also part of the reason it was not eligible to be made available to other wikis. And at some point this old code will prove an existential threat to NPP. So I think we need to get ahead of the curve on it even at cost of swallowing bugs like this for even longer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

NPR, Curation, and the New Pages Feed, is a good system. It the only firewall against unwanted new pages, and it's all we have. It's so important and crucial to the very existence of a credible encyclopedia corpus that the system should be kept but the entire code behind it should be rewritten from the ground up. This reinforces the position I have held for 3 years that this goes far, far beyond a simple annual wish list for gadgets. There is absolutely no lack of funds to accord to anything so important, and by doing so they could have their Wikiagnistic project to boot. The bulletins the WMF proudly publishes about their plans for the distant future as a socio-political movement don't take any of these essential processes under the bonnet (hood) into account. But these are only, ::sigh::, my opinions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional languages on Google Translate

Google Translate apparently just added five new languages to its service: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. While I can't say that I've ever come across an article with sources in Kinyarwanda, Turkmen or Uyghur, the addition of Tatar and Odia will likely be of use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

what's the reason

I received this massage on 13 February, unfortunately now at NewPagesFeed the blue review button is not active for me. what's the reason?Saff V. (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., your new page reviewer rights were temporary and expired in January. If you wanted to make it permanent please head on over to WP:PERM/NPR to make a request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rethinking draft space which NPRs might like to see. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

need more energy

• in the last day I did 6 reviews in contrast to my usual 3 reviews/day, unless we all raise the energy level the backlog will never go down, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  We have indeed been struggling to get down below 5k articles in the backlog. There has been some support for a backlog drive. I have mixed feelings about such a drive for two reasons. 1) I think it can prioritize speed over accuracy. That should not be our way. Ever. 2) It can burn-out reviewers so progress gets wiped away after the drive. I don't know about how to address 2 other than not doing it. As for 1, I think if the drive perhaps focused more on # of days with reviews rather than total reviews we could incentive participation over just trying to do as many reviews as possible. Thoughts from others? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, mmm - that's a good thought - I believe the young people call them streaks. Awards not for the number of reviews, but for the number of days you can keep a 3+ (or whatever) number up. Might work? GirthSummit _(blether) 22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

sounds good(for my part Ill make 6/day permanent), hope others will increase/day as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, I'm running on an average of around 2 a day, though I've spent a good amount of time this week refining some queries to identify users that I can invite to join the project. Got a good 150 or so invites out so far, and PERM has seen an influx, so hopefully we will have a few more hands on deck soon. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

very positive--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you double check me on procedure?

I'm experienced at policy but brand new at page patrol. I'm about to reject my first one. Andrew James Hartsfield Someone else tagged it as suspected paid editing which is probably true. The user name has only edited this article and appears to have been created from the article subject's name. Obviously written by a much more experienced editor. Fails notability. None of the references cover him, they are just places that mention him or have a sentence about him. The big flow chart ends up at AFD. So should I AFD this and mark it as patrolled/reviewed? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

First a big welcome North8000. I have only do a quick check for sources but it seems like a reasonable AfD target to me and if that's where you ended up on the flowchart, yes go ahead and nominate it for AfD. After nominating it please do mark it reviewed - AfD will decide one way or another whether it should be included. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did it from the review page. Is the bot going to put my comments/ reasons that I gave into the AFD page or do should I repeat / do that directly? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I generally use Twinkle for XfD nominations as that part of the NPP tool is a bit buggy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.North8000 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Reviewer causing issues

Where is the appropriate place for me to suggest that a certain page reviewer is causing issues (although acting in good faith). See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Somatochlora#Ways_to_improve_Somatochlora_meridionalis where the reviewer added tags to a page that don't make sense (including suggesting that the lead is an issue on a short stub without a lead). When I asked for clarification they seemed unable to understand my concerns and instead brought up some unrelated issues, including a suggestion that I replace a grammatically correct phrase with a grammatically incorrect one. And since then has not responded despite having made other edits. Not sure what I should be doing here but this does not seem appropriate to me. ThanksSomatochlora (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I agree with your concerns and left a relevant comment on your talk page. I think any further discussion can be handled there at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ThanksSomatochlora (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding short descriptions to new articles

Per WP:SHORTDESC, all articles should eventually have a short description template. It would be helpful to add that in the reviewing instructions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions provides instructions on how to add short descriptions. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried doing it. I've received help by experts at it, but I stopped. The problem comes when the short description conflicts with an incorrect description on Wikidata. There are ways of dealing with it, and I was shown them, but it required too much work to handle the necessary corrections on wikidata also. The need for corrections is very common--there are a great many wikidata descriptions saying no more than "a person" or repeating puffery from the article.Certainly, let those who want to cope with this do so--we do need to get the many errors and inadequacies fixed. But we have an even more pressing need to check new pages for promotionalism and notability and nonsense, and anything which slows this down detracts from the main task. We can mention doing it, but as an optional task for those interested. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible attempts to set up a pov fork of North East Delhi riots

DBigXray, one of our Admins,(sorry, experienced editor) was outed this week on an Indian website in part for their editing of this article. He was also threatened and has retired, which is unfortunate but sensible. The group behind this is having a discussion on the same page, now blacklisted, about setting up forks to tell the "truth" about the riots. It would be appreciated if any attempts to set up a nmw page on this subject was brought to either my attention, any of the other editors at User talk:Doug Weller#ECP for Talk:North East Delhi riots? or WP:AN. THey'd probably use the word Delhi in the title. Hopefully this won't happen, but I'm asking just in case I miss it. Thanks. Oh, almost forgot, I don't watch this page oso if anyone replies here please ping me. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And it occurs to me this might not be the best place to put this, so if there's another place better, please let me know. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I'll keep my eye out. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller DBigXray is not an admin. 157.119.186.230 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, what was I thinking. He was a very experienced editor however, with almost 70,000 edits and 9 years here. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Google Indexing changes?

Have there been any recent changes to when articles are released for search engine indexing? I created a new article 107 days ago (November 19, 2019) and though 90 days have passed, Google hasn't picked it up for indexing, and Wikipedia's policies regarding releasing an article for indexing seem, to me, pretty opaque and hard to find. --Canned Soul (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Canned Soul, for unclear reasons, the new page queue doesn't seem to cut off at 90 days anymore. Right now the oldest log day that has a significant amount of articles to be reviewed is October 22, 2019. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarity, Rosguill, and for the work you do as a reviewer---the experience creating articles has made me realize the vital job of reviewers! I intend to join the group soon!

Limit

Is there any limit per day when it comes to patrolling new pages per editor? 157.119.186.230 (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No. However, we look for depth and quality reviewing so there is a limit on how many one can physically do in a day as a reviewer can't simply continually rubber stamp articles. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a rate limit on approving articles, but it's absurdly high (as far as I can tell, you'd need to be near/exceeding 1 approval per second). The only time it ever becomes an issue is when patrolling redirects which often need little to no investigation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Or when you do a bunch of reviews, queue up copyvio checks, and then check back on the copyvio reports and tick them off. I've run into the rate limit before when doing that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Applause Entertainment Private Limited

There is a request to have the article title Applause Entertainment unprotected so the article Applause Entertainment Private Limited can be moved there however after looking at the article I felt the article wouldn't have passed WP:NPR and it seems to have skipped WP:NPR according to the logs. I placed the article Applause Entertainment Private Limited back into the NPR queue for a second opinion. Just wanted to give a heads up on what I did. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a perfect example of a "mildly promotional but *perhaps* notable" topic discussed above. Brief mentions in Hollywood Reporter and Variety raise WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED concerns for me. I note that Applause Entertainment is part of Aditya Birla Group, so if not notable enough for a stand alone article, perhaps this content could be merged under "Telecom services" (perhaps rename to "Telecom and media"?)? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol arb clerks

What do reviewers think about Arbcom clerks being granted auto patrolled so that case pages don’t need to be patrolled? Helpful? Not helpful? Thanks. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I know it's possible to patrol non-mainspace pages, but I have yet to come across anything suggesting that such pages need patrolling. They don't get added to the queue, and my impression was that our ability to patrol them is just a code architecture quirk, not an intentional feature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 on that. Even if they did, I would think it could be done by whitelist/bot along the lines of redirect autopatrol (as ArbCom clerking a whole other skill set than writing articles, so should be handled as such) if they aren't already sysops (in which case any sort of patrol is unnecessary). ComplexRational (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think user space/wikipedia space patrolling is largely obsolete but this opinion does not seem to be held widely among the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would think that when it comes to what should be patrolled and who should be auto patrolled, the opinion of patrollers would matter most. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources highlighter

Reviewers may want to have a look at a recent Headbomb/SD0001 production: a script to automatically highlight various levels of unreliable sources. Very useful for getting a single glance impression of the quality of a reference section. It doesn't find all fluff, but it finds notorious fluff, which is already a big timesaver :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, Very useful indeed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

We are just becoming a sports statistics website

I'm honestly just fed up with stuff like this: 2020 Fed Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B (Tallinn). Honestly. How the hell are we supposed to keep up with the flood of undersourced blatant fails of WP:NOTSTATS? I have no idea why people keep flooding the wiki with this useless garbage. There are plenty of sports statistics pages that people can go to for this sort of info, why should we be a web host for it? It's such a huge sink on editor and reviewer time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it is better or worse that the guy creating these is autopatrolled. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had similar frustration with User:Lugnuts. Thousands of poorly sourced BLPs simply containing sports statistics, and the user is autopatrolled... Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Willbb234, Lugnuts recently took me to ANI recently over tagging some of his articles recently... Did you know about that or is this just one of those coincidences? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere complete coincidence! Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely, if any group of editors has the sway/authority to request removal of autopatrolled user rights then it's NPP? As much as auto-patrol reduces NPP workload, it shouldn't be used to escape scrutiny. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Polyamorph, The main issue is that policy and guidelines don't actually strongly discourage this sort of behaviour. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• i completely agree. Its not just these type of articles, but there are some other types too. What we need to do is to make the SNGs a little more strict than they currently are. At the top of my head, WP:TVSERIES is way too broad. It allows an article to any TV serial that has been released/went on air. As a result, there has been been spamming of promotional articles from Indian television. Sorry, I went off topic. But I think we (all the wikipedia editors) should update each SNG one-by-one. When they were originally created/drafted, enwiki did not have a problem with SPAs, and UPE among others to extent of current days. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• The en.Wiki is becoming a sports statistics/sports biography website, a B2B yellow pages, a Bollywood database, and the South Asia Wikipedia in English. 'Nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's been a sports statistics website for over a decade. Just look at all the crappy cricketer biographies of guys who played one game, whose full names we don't know, and whose articles that just consist of a match scorecard bloated into a grotesque imitation of prose and disguised as a biography. Reyk _YO! 15:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• My perspective on this issue at this point is that at least for sports, fighting this trend is wasted effort due to the significant amount of good faith sports editors who believe that notability guidelines shouldn't apply to them (or else have a ridiculously lenient understanding of GNG). If Wikipedia is a garden, and the editors working in the sports section insist over and over that they like the weeds, then I have better things to do than argue with them at AfD. My attitude is less laissez-faire when it comes to the business spam, which is actually harmful to the encyclopedia, and is not being added in good faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, I agree. I pisses me off a bit but we need to pick our battles. Honestly these articles aren't really doing much damage though. They just get forgotten and ignored. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW I was recently "informed" atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lao Division 1 that there is an additional "General Notability Guideline" which is a sub page at project football which further expands the exceptions for sports beyond what the sports SNG grants. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

FOOTYN being a guideline is a common misconception. All we can do is hope to educate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it is getting out of hand, something which has been going on for a long time. Unfortunantely, essays like FOOTYN are commonly used as a reason for keeping an article, when it isn't even a guideline. But WP:NFOOTY - which is a guideline - seems to set the bar for football players way too low. And when someone challanges the notability of a player based on a lack of independent RS with SIGCOV, NFOOTY is raised, even though (according to the SNG itself): "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Such guidelines only show whether a player is likely to meet GNG, not exempt him/her of the guideline. However, this seems to have been forgotten as editors counter claims that a player doesn't meet GNG despite meeting NFOOTY with the argument that NFOOTY is sufficient. We can't do much about the problem, except for praying the Serenity Prayer and focussing our attention elsewhere. --MrClog (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  The proposal for raising the floor of NFOOTY got some support when we had the big discussion last summer. If the broader wikipedia community thinks it's a problem it can change. If the community doesn't, well then it's not a problem so.... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I took a look at which websites get referenced the most in new pages. www.sports-reference.com is the third-most cited source. To base articles entirely on sports-reference, as we do on Victoria Umunna for example, is a copyright violation. It should be possible to G12 such articles. Vexations (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, hmmmm... i'm not sure that would fly.. perhaps we should ask about that on the copyright noticeboard? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, well, one thing to consider is that you have to deal with a user who appears, ahem... combative. I found over 3000 articles that only cite sports-reference.com, and they're almost all by the same author. I'm not sure that I'm willing to challenge them on copyvios. I'm pretty sure that databases are copyrighted. I you copy all the fields from a record, and then re-create that record, that's not "transformative use". So, no, it shouldn't happen. Vexations (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, then again; some statistics aren't copyrightable. There are only so many ways of displaying the same information in a table. Lugnuts I assume? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, Per https://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html: "You are free to use this data anywhere, we would just ask that you include the citation at the bottom of the table as a courtesy to us for providing this service". I don't see a CC-BY license anywhere, and I do see "Copyright © 2000-2020 Sports Reference LLC. All rights reserved." so find that confusing, but I suppose a case can be made that we're free to re-publish their data. To me, it just seems pointless. Write a bot to import it to Wikidata and be done with it. Manually copying it to wikipedia in a format that is not machine-readable just seems like an incredible waste of time and effort. Vexations (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Saying that Joe Bloggs (born on X) competed in Y sports at Z Olympics isn't a copyright issue. It's verifying the facts of the subject. If you want to help with copyright issues relating directly to Sports Reference, then check this out. This article is an example of the work that is a copyright issue (check the most recent edit history against the SR page). Here is another example, complete with revdel on text taken wholesale from SR. This would be from the "Biography" section on a SR article. If you want to put all my 70,000+ articles and 1million+ edits through WP:CCI, I'm not stopping you, but you will find nothing amiss. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mildly promotional but notable topics, a solution?

Mildly promotional but notable topics are the current bane of NPP, and have been for a long time. We currently lack good tools to deal with them. I've thought for a while that suggesting a policy change to the COI guideline that supports stubifying new promo articles on notable topics would be a good idea.

Please see User:Insertcleverphrasehere/COISTUBIFY, where I have a bunch more explanation of why I think this is needed and a draft of the proposed section to be added to the COI guideline. Can I please ask that people provide feedback if they have any, good or bad!​​​​ Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Couple of comments:

• 'Demolishing' an article implies that one could be too lazy to do anything thorough about the problem and it can only be seen as aggressive from the creator's POV. We have enough trouble with editor conflict already and to 'encourage' reviewers to potentially increase conflict could be seen as a bad idea.
• We already have a trouble with stubs. They are created in their tens of thousands. We are looking for depth in content and this should be achieved through nurturing problematic articles into fleshed-out, neutral articles. Yes, it can be very hard to neutralise these articles, as you say, but simply reducing an article to stub status doesn't help the coverage that Wikipedia needs. And besides, stubs just cause frustration for editors who have more to watch; either delete it or keep it fleshed-out.

I think that this is a really great idea, but there could be some problems. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Willbb234, unfortunately "delete it" isn't always an option (AfD can be fickle when the topic itself is notable), and we certainly cannot expect a new page patroller to flesh out a new article themselves. The effort required in dealing with COI articles that are full of mildly promotional content, or content that doesn't mach the sources provided, or content that is filled with dozens of innapropriate links; These are the articles that waste a reviewers time and are bogging down NPP. They aren't quality submissions. The idea behind this proposal is that we are better off dropping back to a well sourced stub that can be expanded organically from there.

I'll try to expand the background section to explain this a bit better. I'll remove the word 'demolished' from the background section, but this isn't going to be part of the proposed changes anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO stubifying would be tougher / more complicated than it sounds.Maybe a real example of a mildly-promotional but notable one would be good for the discussion. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

North8000, well, digging through the new pages feed the first example I found was: Perfect_Day_(company). Tryptofish (among others) spent an inordinate amount of time cleaning up this paid editor's draft at AfC. It ended up as a Histmerge of two different pages created by two COI editors, and AfC was bypassed after the draft was declined by recreation in main space. All of this could have been avoided by stubifying it and informing the COI edtors to edit elsewhere when they tried to re-insert promo and poorly sourced material. Even after all of the above, it still reads like an article clearly written by someone with a conflict of interest. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a problem. I asked for an example to see if my "stubifying would be tougher / more complicated than it sounds" is founded. For example, I assume that the October 11th 2019 version is at it's "pre-effort" state. To me that looks like a big tough job to stubify. Selecting large amounts of material to delete which would also mean deleting a large amount of references. North8000 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I guess it comes down to this: Is New Page Patrol reasonably expected to check every reference for a new promotional article written by a COI editor? Even when it is clear from a cursory glance that some/many of them are junk and/or misused? Are we required to re-write every notable semi-promotional article? I would argue that no, we are not (The Draftify guide supports us, but it also derails us if they are smart enough to re-create it or move it). It isn't practical, and it contributes to editor burnout. As it is we are too shorthanded to be dealing with this stuff properly. I would guess that half of cases like this get some minor fixups and the most egregious 'bad sources' removed, then end up rubber stamped by somebody.

Perhaps I need a better way of framing the argument, but I think we should get the community's approval to stubify promo COI articles on sight. We don't delete them, because they are notable (Per WP:G11, this is preferred to deletion), but we remove the COI editor's contributions and replace them with the bare minimum required to meet A1 and GNG requirements. We need to find a way to process articles like this quickly, even if we have to throw some babies out with the bathwater. Otherwise the paid editors get to buy one, get one free and drain all of our already limited resources.

I guess the issue this causes is edit warring over the COI editor trying to restore their version. Posting at WP:COIN might help here, but I suspect that without something in place that actually stops the COI/PAID editor from editing the article, they'll keep going at it.

This was my first idea... maybe it isn't enough. I dunno. Suggestions? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. One idea would be to use your idea but a quick procudure to stubify it. Vs. the laborious process of selectively removing material. Like make it one sentence and choose the 1 or 2 best references to keep. Alternatively, maybe it should just get tagged and marked as reviewed. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

North8000, Hmmm... maybe I wasn't more clear... That's exactly what I'm after. A community consensus to support instant stubification of mildly-mostly promotional COI articles, or COI articles that are problematic in other ways (link spam or just really poor writing). If you look at the 'procedure' that I linked above, it is literally to write a sentence, add two sources that meet GNG, add a reflist, and delete everything else (It previously said two or more sentences, but I think you are right, even one sentence is OK). I think we need to draft a proposal and refine a procedure. I think we need to discuss what appropriate rules regarding what the COI editor/author is allowed to do after the article is stubified:

• Are they allowed to revert it? (if so the entire thing is kinda toothless)
• Are we proposing that they not be able to edit the article at all? (a significant change from existing policy)
• Or do we just rely on listing articles at COIN and getting backup from other editors to retain the stubified version? (e.g. rely on WP:3RR as backup)
• In this case can we trust other editors to give us backup? (I think we probably can, but you will run into situations where some editors think that bad COI content is still better than a one line stub).
• If the author is allowed to edit the article, is the author allowed to slowly insert stuff back in line for line? (this can be fought by reverting individual problematic edits, but might end up in just as much or more work for reviewers, ultimately).

I don't have firm answers for all these questions. What do you think? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately the community either is or isn't willing to delete promotional material even at the risk of deleting material which is otherwise notable. If it is willing to do that, then AfD provides a nice forum. If it isn't creating alternative pathways that go against that community consensus aren't going to end well for those of us (and this includes me) that think being firm against SPAM is more helpful in the long run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, AfD is not cleanup is the issue. People take that seriously. AfD is (in my opinion as well) a place to assess the suitability of the topic (usually the notability). In this case I'm specifically discussing COI articles on notable topics. In any case, this proposal is meant to be a way to REDUCE the amount of editor time wasted on these articles. AfD is not a solution that helps us do that; nominating articles there actually ends up creating MORE editor time wastage on COI articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, fair enough but I stand by my larger point - there needs to be community consensus that this is a topic worth handling differently than we do now and some way to determine that this remedy is the correct thing to do for a given article. I'm not convinced of the former and threw out AfD as a place for the latter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I guess my purpose in bringing this here is to get feedback on what we can propose to the larger community. What would likely be accepted and what would not, in addition to what might actually work. An RfC will certainly be involved at some point if we decide to propose something. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the new page review experience to have an overall perspective. So I'm just using the example that you gave. I looked at the Oct 11th 2019 version of it. It has a lot of information and references in it. IMO the wording itself looks neutral, IMO the mildly promotional aspect comes choosing which areas to cover an in what depth to cover them. Being a declared COI, the editor was pretty cautious and open to input. Point being, I don't think that for that example a larger simple nuking of the material would get much support / get supported. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am skeptical that this will be accepted. I think you will have those who are supportive in principle but find enough to quibble about in practice (e.g. there has never been a community endorsed stubify before) and you will have those who are opposed in principle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, yeah... that's my thought too... well back to the drawing board. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Insertcleverphrasehere, I'm not against this idea in principle. If a clear COI could be established, then the user wouldn't be allowed to revert a stubification per our usual COI guidelines - they'd need to make edit requests to get anything changed/added to the page. The problem would be establishing a COI - all the author would need to say would be 'I don't have a COI, I am just a fan/user/someone looking to write my first article, and this subject looked interesting', and per AGF we have to believe them, or we'd have to go through the hassle of a COIN thread to get a consensus that nobody believes them.

An alternative idea popped into my head while I was thinking about this - I haven't thought this through thoroughly, so feel free to pull it apart, but I'm imagining an extra button we could give NPP reviewers to use at the end of their review. COI editors obviously want their page to be indexed by Google so it can easily be found by potential customers. If we see an article that is about a notable subject, but which is written in such a way as to be unacceptable, could we tag it in the normal way, and then get it off the NPP queue by marking it as reviewed and not to be indexed. This ought to be accompanied by a banner saying that the article won't be indexed until it is de-promotionalised, with a button in the tag that would add it back into the NPP queue for re-review after that work had been done. If the original author wants to get it indexed, they'd have to keep working at it, following the advice they've been given to improve the sourcing/remove the puffery/whatever, or alternatively other uninvolved editors might come along and do the work for them.

Just thinking out loud really - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a side note, that would require an additional flag and status for articles, and new review process. Sort of a replication of the whole new article review and flagging process, but on a smaller scale. For "reviewed but not indexed" articles. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Girth, I wonder if we could somehow add an instruction to the Template:Advert (or create a special tag for NPP only) so that it noindexes an article whenever the template is added. If it would work, we could probably create a few more templates with a noindex instruction for articles that are unsourced, or COI articles, and the like. When the tag is removed, the noindex is removed as well. Maybe RexxS would know if it's possible to incorporate it. There was such a lengthy debate over moving articles to draft space that something like or better than this may prove helpful. Just a thought. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Might be overkill considering there are 24000 articles with the advert tag with quite a few wrongly applied or even added by vandals. It would need to be double checked in every case by an experienced editor, and the proposal itself would need an RFC. As things stand ive noticed a NPP patroller is moving a lot of these sort of articles to draft space based on the suspiscion of UPE through the editing history rather than any solid proof, is that ok? imv, Atlantic306 (talk)

• Exactly, and that is why I included (or create a special tag for NPP only) meaning only reviewers that have been cleared for additional user rights. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: You might take a look at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, in particular the template {{noindex}} – which can, of course. be embedded inside other templates. Your 'special tag' could incorporate that, thus removing the article from most search engine results until the tag was legitimately removed. You may need some wider consensus (like Village Pump) to give teeth to sanctions against those removing the tag without fixing the promotion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I think the idea of broadening our no index could be a reasonable compromise. I would agree with Rexx that we'd need consensus to make it happen but I think this is a promising idea. Best, 03:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Barkeep. Another thought hit me after reading the link provided by RexxS - it tells us that articles >90 days are automatically indexed; therefore, neither NOINDEX__ nor the template work on them. Articles <90 days are not indexed, unless they have been patrolled and do not have the {{NOINDEX}} template on them (or a template that transcludes the {{NOINDEX}} template, such as the speedy deletion template). The latter indicates potential, as does the ability to modify the code so that it fits our purpose (see this link). The template works but not the words alone. Patrolling can be done automatically by the software (which is something we should probably investigate further to avoid garbage making it into mainspace) or by editors with autopatrol or new page reviewer user rights. A special template that contains the no index code would be a useful tool to add to our page curation tools, making it available only to those granted new page reviewer rights. As for giving the process teeth via sanctions for unwarranted removal, perhaps that would fall under GS, which is something that could be decided at ARCA. I'm not sure which is the best & most expedient way to approach applying GS once we (NPP) have determined among ourselves the best tool for the job but I am of the mind that it would serve a beneficial purpose for the project, and once implemented is something we should make well-known as it will send a message to COI editors and their clients that WP is not indexing promotional articles and unless changes are made, the article will not be getting the exposure they thought it would get. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar

The sidebar when I was looking through pages has disappeared, how do I get it back? Govvy (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, do you mean the curation toolbar? When it's gone, an option appears under Tools in the left side bar to reinstate it (in the list that begins with "What links here"). Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Usedtobecool, that worked, got it back, much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: New page review thing disappeared again, little confused now as it's not where you said to get it back this time. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: You had been granted new page reviewer priviliges temporarily (until 00:00, 27 March 2020 to be specific). So your NPR privileges have expired. You can request permanent NPR privileges via WP:PERM/NPR. --MrClog (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

O, thought you guys needed help, don't know why you temp'ed it. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: The reason you got it temporarily is so that the admin that assigned you the role could evaluate your decisions after two weeks and then decide whether to give you the role permanently. Standard procedure. --MrClog (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, don't know why I didn't notice that! Govvy (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect class

I’ve just learned there is such a thing as a redirect class rating at AfC. If a new article has already been rated as redirect class should I go ahead and review it? Is there any point? Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects also require reviewing; some NPP folks specially focus on that. The possibilities for creating bogus, misleading, or plain superfluous redirects are vast, so do give them your attention :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, just realized you mean redirects coming through AfC? I'd say they will presumably be good but they still need ticking to make them search engine detectable, and honestly it probably takes more time to check rating & pass than to just check content & review. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I always look on the talk page to see if there are any useful comments there, and if project tags need to be added. That’s where I came across the Redirect class template. What concerned me was adding tags to an article and engaging with the creator, if the article was about to vanish in a redirect anyway. If that’s not an issue I’ll happily continue. Thanks for your guidance. Mccapra (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Times of India reliability

A recent RfC on the reliability of the Times of India had an outcome of between no consensus and generally unreliable (RSP entry). It is a source that is used quite a bit for Indian subjects, particularly for films and actors. I'm generally not in favor of hunting down and purging old articles about non-controversial subjects when notability or source-reliability standards change, but new page reviewers should be aware going forward that we can be stricter about articles supported by trivial coverage in the ToI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, that's going to be a carnival... there's plenty of BLPs where the only non-trivial coverage is from a ToI fluff piece. Hey-ho... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I definitely would not consider TOI as a primary source for encylopaedic content, especially on controversial topics or for BLPs (and even more so in recent years). Sahrudayan (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae This is part of why I strongly dislike the use of TOI for BLPs. They don't differentiate between their paid for content and don't readily identify their editors...Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability process question / issue

I started here a few weeks ago after you recruited my on my talk page and have done a little over a hundred. These are a lot of work to do well, you folks that are near-keeping up with the firehose of new articles definitely deserve some type of award! And the knowledge needed to do it well is even greater than the rquirements that you put out. Beyond a super-fluent knowledge of wp:not and wp:notability you really need to also be very fluent on all of the SNG's just to get started. And despite y'all reviewing it looks like about 600 articles per day the chart says that we're falling behind.

I keep running across something that is very time consuming and have been thinking that "why should the NPP folks need to be doing that?" The typical might be an example of an artist/song/movie/person/business in another country where where is zero indication of establishing notability in the article. Nothing specific relating to a a SNG, and no suitable wp:gng coverage in the sources. So for a couple that I sent to AFD, the folks there starting doing research on coverage including translating from other languages and determined / decided that suitable coverage exists. So now I'm thinking I shouldn't have sent those there and that NPP has the responsibility to do the research to establish that suitable coverage does not exist? Either way (NPP or AFD folks) it seems that if there is nothing notability related in the article/sourcing, the work burden is on the NPP/AFD folks to do the research to establish that suitable coverage does not exist. Why can't it be the editor's responsibility to put the sources etc. in to establish notability rather than on an overloaded NPP/AFD person to do the research to basically "prove a negative" for a topic when they don't? Couldn't the process be to drop those and let them be recreated when sources are found? This seems to be more of a "standard practice" question at npp/afd rather than a policy question. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

North8000, the idea of NPP is to act as gatekeepers of sorts on notability questions. So if something doesn't look notable we do have some level of WP:BEFORE responsibilities. The flow chart is helpful in figuring out all the steps. And you can access the flowchart via superlinks which I think of a a must have for reviewers. Does that help North? Otherwise keep the questions coming. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Thanks. The flow chart is great and I know/understand it. My post was in essence suggesting that maybe the "find sources" burden should be shifted to the creator of the article.North8000 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

North8000, obviously that is the ideal but I think the community has repeatedly shown in multiple forums and ways that there is no consensus for making that ideal a requirement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Thanks. I was thinking that it could be done as just a change in process at NPP/AFD rather than a policy change. But if it has already been discussed and rejected as a process issue then I'd guess not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio tools broken

I've recently found the copyvio tools to be unreliable and broken... Today I keep getting 502 Bad gateway from Earwig-derived tools. I also can't open Earwig's tool directly, so there seems to be an issue with it in general. What's going on? Anyone have a clue? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T245426

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Sorry I haven't been around much lately but there have been some issues with the tool. That link to Phabricator takes you to a similar issue with mentions to other issues with the tool that I know of. Curb Safe Charmer left a comment on 2/26/2020 getting the same error you did. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

today I reviewed just 1 article 3 articles, then it (copyvio tool) would not work...?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If the NPP tool copyvio detector isn't working, try going to the actual website [2], and try searching with "Use search engine" disabled. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

yesterday I got 6 out of 6 reviews, however today I got 4 out of 6, even following the indications you placed above, Ill just try later again, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot get the Earwig page to load this morning. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

505 gateway

getting the above response again only did 2 reviews today--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I've been getting that a lot lately which is why I've been spending most of my time over in the edit request area helping out with the COVID stuff lately. Each time I go to try to review a page I can't get the copyvio tool to work. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

again 505 gateway

wondering if there is alternate copyvio detector or method to check article (reviewed only 2 redirect) …..was able to get the detector to run after 1/2 hour trying( now 4 reviews out of usual 6)?

There is the more traditional method of googling selected phrases (which is what Earwig does at its start anyway). There can also be the duplication detector (WMF maintained) for articles which have already triggered something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You can also look up anti-plagiarism tools online. Unfortunately, you need to find one that lets you skip domains so that it doesn't flag it as a 100% copy of Wikipedia. Here's one that seems to be working ok for me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, nice find. I added a plagiarism section to the resources page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tools seem to be up and running smoothly again as of a few minutes ago. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Glitch in message from the page curation tool?

I sent the creator of a page a message which included a Google Scholar search result. It displayed correctly on the article talk-page, but as a large red error message on his talk. That seems to be because {{Bq}} can't handle an equals sign. Could we perhaps either fix the template, or switch to a simpler message that doesn't use it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, the list of templates that the toolbar uses (that I'm aware of at least) can be found here (I'm not sure which one you used). I would certainly welcome adjusting the templates for the reasons you've suggested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed here — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks JJMC89. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for response and fix, JJMC89 and Barkeep49 – if only all our problems could be so quickly and neatly resolved! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Advice requested

I'm pretty new at this (~130 reviews) but an experienced editor. I keep running into a similar situation (maybe 10 times) where a topic pretty clearly doesn't pass Wp:GNG nor any SNG. Then when I AFD it, someone says that there is some accepted practice for keeping which is not in any of the guidelines. A recent example of this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedchha railway station.

My ONLY concern is trying to do the job properly. I'm starting to read these as a hint that maybe I shouldn't have taken it to AFD. Any advice on this? Are there really a lot of unwritten standard practices in play that exempt some topics / articles from GNG/SNG's? If so, is there a faster way to learn the unwritten rules than just trying to glean the legit ones from all of the "keep" arguments at AFD? Or is it common for the reviewer to just follow guidelines and policies when AFD'ing, and then let the community at AFD decide to apply the unwritten exceptions. Or should I just stick to topics where I know that there are no unwritten rules and leave the others for more experienced rviewers. ? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey North8000! There is an overview of common AfD outcomes at WP:AFDCO. For this particular AfD, it seems that "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD" applies. MrClog (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MrClog! I've glimpsed that before; after your post I gave it a thorough read. So what I think I've learned is that it is normal/proper to also be influenced by precedent, as documented there.North8000 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ignore

I feel somewhat silly asking this, as I suspect there is something right in front of me that I am missing... but I cannot see the page curation tool. I have confirmed I have the new page review right, when I look at the new pages feed I see a "review" button... but after hitting that review button...nothing. In the left toolbar (under tools) "curate this article" does not appear. Suggestions....? Thank you, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And, yes, there it was in front of me; problem solved. Please ignore the above. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 drug repurposing research

I don't recall reviewing any prior article that has been 'deleted priorly'...except this one. Due to the current pandemic and the need for information, after having looked at the article, I have reviewed it, should anyone be in disagreement, can give a good reason why repurposed medication should not have its own article, and can speak to the specific points raised (each individual medications pros and cons then please un-review, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa: the deletion happened by overwriting when the page was moved from COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research to its current title. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

did not see that, live and learn thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Consider installing User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js. It adds a "prev dels"/"prev AfDs" links next to the article title when it has been previously deleted/nominated for deletion. --MrClog (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

yes it would help, thanks[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Song and album notability - what...

I'm getting the impression that I'm stuck with a fundamentally wrong understanding of the notability requirements for songs (WP:NSONG) and albums (WP:NALBUM). Since in frequency as newly created articles these are second only to Indian entrepreneurs, I'm requesting some feedback here.

By my understanding, none of the criteria given at these notability guidelines constitutes a pass - they merely are indicators that it might be worth someone's while to go looking for the multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. If those can be shown, then notability is demonstrated. If you can't find them, then sufficient notability is lacking (and we are looking at a redirect in most cases). Right or wrong?

This is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song)‎‎), where people are again busy claiming that "it passes WP:NSONG #X" and that this shows notability. Not a rare occurrence, but this time it's not just coming from those knwon to be constitutionally unable to vote anything but "Keep" but also from some who I suspect should have some understanding of what the guidelines mean. So some input on interpretation would be good. I don't enjoy the battles over song notability at the best of times, and could do without charging in with faulty preconceptions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, my usual approach is to consider charting criteria in those SNGs to be enough to pass an NPP review, with the sole exception of when you have a perfect storm of other signals that this may not be notable (e.g. no sources except the charting, charting is on a genre-chart as opposed to the national top chart and the song was released in the 21st century but no coverage is available online) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See who reviewed page

Hi, is there any way to see who reviewed a page? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can view the log of the page (accessible via history); make sure that both patrol log and page curation log are turned on, and the editor who did either one will be shown. ComplexRational (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational, when I tried to look at the logs for the page, I clicked patrol logs and then show but nothing showed up! Any suggestions? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Most likely, in that case, the page creator was autopatrolled, so there would be no separate logged action for the review, as it was not done in the usual sense and instead just passed through when the page was created. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational, the creator was F5pillar, and he definitely isn't autopatrolled. The page is Alfa Sa'adu if you're interested. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It turns out that this page was moved from Sa'ad Galadiman Patigi, but log entries aren't moved along with it, so the patrol is instead in that page's log. So in cases when the creator isn't autopatrolled (I apologize if I jumped to conclusions), we have to check the logs for moves or anything else that "breaks" the continuity. That said, the log entry is here. ComplexRational (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your quick reply. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sensitivity to top level tags

I know that the instructions already talk about being careful with top level tags. I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP and thought I might make an observation on a communication dichotomy. Let's say that an article passes NPP, but like an average newer article has no serious problems but is still weak / needing work in numerous areas. To the NPP, clicking on a tag in curation might be seen as saying "here's some advice on what to work on". To an editor, a top level tag is usually seen a scarlet letter that says "there is something seriously wrong with your article." There are obviously solutions (such as just leaving reviewer notes) but I just thought it might be helpful to note this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good observation. A reason to perhaps use communication and/or project rating to give guidance about how to improve as we want to encourage editors who are creating articles that pass our basic criteria even if they're not yet perfect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I tend to do both... send a tag and also message the editor. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

More accepted exceptions to wp:notability?

Again, I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP. Thanks for the guidance above that WP:AFDCO is a good guide to where common practice overrides the notability guidlines.

Recently I AFD'd Arpine which is a given name / first name (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpine). It pretty clearly didn't pass WP:GNG, and there is no applicable SNG. There is also no mention of first/given names at WP:AFDCO. (Also, it seems borderline on wp:not a dictionary). The result at AFD was that it's considered common practice for articles on first names/given names to bypass wp:notability requirements. I was wondering if there is a second list beyond WP:AFDCO where it's common practice to bypass wp:notability requirements? I know Wikipedia well enough that fuzzy situations are the norm; I'm more concerned that I'm doing the job properly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

North8000, in my head I've always been inclined to treat given-name SIAs as a type of disambiguation page and thus haven't rigorously applied notability guidelines to them. Off the top of my head, the only other types of articles that come to mind as not really being subject to notability are discographies and other similar articles that could be considered to be direct supplements of an article about a notable topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Name lists are a type of set index article. Although some name lists include information about the name's origin or usage, basic lists are still valuable as a navigational aid, and they don't need to be evaluated against the general notability guideline. See WP:Name pages for more information. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Prepend?

What's with the page curation tool using the following language?

"To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with @SmokeyJoe:. And, don't forget to sign your reply with "

I would use the word "start" instead of "prepend". I have never seen the word "prepend" before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the reason we "prepend" and "append" our pings and signatures to messages, instead of starting and ending with them (respectively) is to imply that the actual messages we intend to convey are separate from and complete without either. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Article reviewed?

Has the following article been patrolled/reviewed and indexed?

• Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow

The article was created on January 27. I searched the New pages feed (Special:NewPagesFeed) with the filter set to that date, state reviewed/unreviewed, type all others and name space Article, and it’s not there. Why? I also checked the reviewed and patrolled logs on the history of that article. Nothing. But those logs seem to be empty for all articles. Why?

This shouldn’t be so hard. What am I missing?

—В²C ☎ 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Look here: [4] Reviewed by DarkGlow on 11 April. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Doh! Not sure how I missed that. Okay, so does that mean it’s indexed to Google now? When does that happen? Still not clear why it doesn’t show on the new pages feed. —В²C ☎ 20:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's indexable now, so the next time a search engine bot crawls by, it will be added to the possible search results. When that happens depends on the specific search engine. As for how long reviewed articles stay in the queue, no idea; I've never had occasion to use the "reviewed" filter - kind of surprised there even is a lingering queue of already reviewed material, I thought it left the queue immediately once reviewed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It should have been indexed by Google already. I do not understand why it hasn't been. But from a NPP perspective it's been OK'ed to be indexed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Still not indexed. —В²C ☎ 21:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If it was reviewed on April 11, it may simply take some more time before the page gets indexed. --MrClog (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, it shows up on DuckDuckGo and Bing. It's not unusual for it to take several days for a given search engine to pick up on indexing an article. I'd only get concerned if this problem persists for several weeks past the April 11 review date, although even then, given that another search engine has picked up on it, any issue that exists may be on Google's end, not ours. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not seeing it on duckduckgo, nor on bing. The talk page is found, but not the main article. —В²C ☎ 22:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, shows up for me. It's also showing up for me on Yandex. Search results often vary by region. At any rate, the general advice still applies: this should only be concerning if several weeks have passed since the review date, and there's likely nothing that we can do on our end even if there is a problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Without the site specifier. Okay.

• google no
• duckduckgo Y
• bing no

—-В²C ☎ 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

okay, showing up in google and bing results now. —-В²C ☎ 07:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk/Article Discussion

In a discussion (intentionally not linked) about a particular NPP, the idea of where and how to best communicate feedback has arisen. Through the curation toolbar, on an unnreviewed article, we currently have two options. Option 1 is to leave a message for the page's creator on their user talk page while placing a tag. Option 2 is to leave a message for the page's creator on their user talk and leave a message on the article's talk page. Francis Schonken in that discussion raised the reasonable point that creating multiple discussions on the same topic is normally a bad practice. Given that we're not likely to be able to change the programming of the curation toolbar anytime soon, are there any thoughts about how we can best communicate? Especially in cases where there might be content related comments (e.g. suggestions about sourcing)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion here. NPP is, afaics, mostly oriented towards relatively new editors. Experienced editors, who also get NPP feedback, appear to be less the target audience for the entire NPP setup. I agree with that. Nonetheless the way NPP issues are communicated to editors with more of a track record may be experienced as somewhat condescending sometimes. Said somewhat sharpish in a recent discussion, also intentionally not linked, by someone else: "... people who know what they are doing are disrupted by busybody-patrollers who don't have a clue". For non-newbie editors, at least, content-related discussions should be directed to article talk pages, that is the talk page of the patrolled article, and nowhere else. This is about keeping mutual understanding between NPPs and experienced editors in a more optimal state than it is today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly more helpful for further article development to have such material on the article talk page, where other editors can see it, comment, and help with fixing the issue, if so inclined. On the other hand, a personal message to the creator is a more reliable heads-up that there is something to fix, to the one person most interested in doing so. Thus, I believe a double-barreled approach might be best: detail issues on article talk, drop a message to creator to check out said talk page and discuss there. Current functionality is well suited to doing just that.

I hasten to add that I have not followed this sage analysis myself so far :p - I tend to tag & comment on article talk, relying on the creator to notice that something is going on with their new article via watchlist. But that's probably not smart, and sending additional notification by tool would clearly be helpful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

When reviewing an article that has been (re)created from a redirect the notice often goes to the editor who created the redirect, not the editor who wrote the article. Such notifications are sometimes ill-received. Discussions about how to improve an article should be on the talk page, and new creators/major contributors should be notified of that discussion. We should not clutter user talk pages with discussions that should be taking place on the article talk page. Vexations (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've done it with a brief note on their talk page (usually with a little extra friendly/positive comment included) and then the main comment at the article talk page. I'm also slower to use tags per the reasons in my post above.North8000 (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Advice on deletions

Advice appreciated here please: a couple of times while reviewing I’ve found a page that I want to send straight to AfD. If I use the curation toolbar it’s easy but doesn’t seem to add deletion discussions. If I use twinkle it’s easy to add the deletion discussions but I presume there’s then no traceable link between the review process and the AfD. What is best to do? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The curation tool method should work but hasn't for some goodly time. At the moment it's Twinkle or clean up after the semi-broken curation tool results; I think everyone uses Twinkle as a result. AFAIK it's not a big issue that there is no logged connection between review and AfD'ing, since any editor can do the latter, regardless of NPP rights. But one hopes the tool will make it back out of limbo at some point... Do keep in mind that an AfD'd article should be marked as reviewed to get it out of the queue; it's easy to forget about that because Twinkle just takes you to the deletion discussion, while the bar tool would mark the article as reviewed at the same time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Great thanks very much. I’ll stick to using twinkle then. Much obliged. Mccapra (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, the last bit is incorrect. Twinkle will automatically mark the page as patrolled when sending to AfD. While "patrol" is technically a different action than pagetriage reviewing (and it populates the patrol log rather than the page curation log), the effect is the same - gets the article out of the NPP queue. SD0001 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

SD0001, just tested it out with Danny Winn, via Twinkle. You are right that the article is removed from the queue, but if the intention is to actually mark it as reviewed/patrolled, that isn't happening. It still shows as unreviewed. Not sure if this is what is intended, or even a sensible state of things. What happens if it's kept at AfD now? Since it's not in the queue any longer, it may then just stay unreviewed and un-searchable... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, if my memory serves, we decided not to mark AfD candidates as reviewed for 2 reasons: (1) the article gets indexed after it is marked as patrolled, and (2) by showing it's at AfD, other patrollers may be motivated to participate in the AfD where, oft times, there simply isn't enough participation, and bad articles linger for far too long creating a time sink. There is a similar discussion above wherein I suggested a potential change to the template. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The consensus I always have known is to mark things at AfD as reviewed because one way or another the community will have weighed in on whether it should be included in the encyclopedia and further eyes on it won't accomplish much. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

So, just to set me straight - are "reviewed" and "patrolled" treated as two separate states that both apply indexing, but leave the other one unchanged? I.e., Twinkle-AfD'ing indexes and patrols, but does not review, BUT removes from the review queue? I think there may be some crossed wires here :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This would explain why there are separate "patrol" and "page curation logs". I'm not sure that there's actually a difference as far as how the article is treated afterward by indexing, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If so, then I'd suggest that Twinkle be made to mark the article as reviewed as well as patrolled, just for housekeeping. Seems unnecessarily confusing otherwise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: who might have wisdom to share on the Twinkle front. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, No no, reviewing and patrolling will automatically switch the other state. You can verify this by going to an article, hiding the curation toolbar, clicking the patrol button that now shows up on the bottom, then reload the page and open up the curation toolbar again - you'll see that the page shows up as reviewed. In case of Danny Winn, as I said below, what happened was that page was not patrollable, and I did see that page in the NPP queue. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

​Okay so I'm a bit out of my element here 'cause NPP ain't my bag, but there are several issues here. To start, "Patrol" is different from "Page curation": the former is part of mediawiki core, the latter is part of the PageTriage extension. I don't know exactly how the various tools work, but AFAICT:

• Page curation (tool or API): Appears in patrol log and page curation log, and is marked as patrolled/reviewed at Special:NewPages/Special:NewPagesFeed (respectively)
  • That being said, undoing page curation doesn't show up in the patrol log, nor does re-curating a page
• Patrol (link or via Twinkle): appears in patrol log only, NOT page curation log, but is marked on both special pages

The different behavior makes sense to me: patrol is the OG, is its own thing, and is part of the main software. Page curation is an extension, a special add-on that builds a new system on top of what already existed, so it tries to play nice and hooks into patrol as best it can. The patrol function has no real knowledge of page curation's existence I don't think. This means that a patrolled page can subsequently be curated, but a curated page is, by default, already patrolled.

As far as Twinkle is concerned:

• Patrol: Twinkle can and does patrol pages
  • There are default behaviors, boxes that can be unchecked, and user preferences to change those defaults. These defaults can be changed fairly easily (see below discussion)
    • tag: On by default
    • xfd: On by default
    • csd: Off by default per request here (minimal discussion of xfd?) (452 and 453)
    • prod: Twinkle doesn't patrol prod nominations.
      • It could probably be made to do, as with the above preferences.
  • HOWEVER: Twinkle currently can only mark a page as patrolled if it finds the mark-as-patrolled link on the page, as that has the rcid needed to patrol the page. This is bad.
    • This means that if you nominate the page from, say, the history page, it won't patrol the page (dunno how you did it Elmidae but that could explain why your page wasn't patrolled).
      • I can probably change this by using the revision ID. Should be done anyway.
• Curation: Twinkle does not do Page curation.
  • Not every wiki supports this.
  • I could probably add this using the API once I play around with it a bit.
• Logging: There is a request for Twinkle to take over logging CSD/PROD (and soon XfD, I suppose) actions made from page curation.
  • MusikAnimal has said he would work on that.

I think that roughly answers/addresses most of the above? If folks want a change to how CSD/XfD/PROD/tag handles patrolling, holla back. I can probably handle the Twinkle side of things in between SAHP and existential dread, but I think my main question for y'all would be, if Twinkle eventually supported both patrolling and curation, how should Twinkle handle a page? If I didn't confuse myself, the options are 1) patrol (patrol log, no curation log); 2) curate (patrol log and curation log); or 3) patrol then curation (patrol log and curation log). It's not clear to me that 2 and 3 are notably different, except that in case 3 the patrol log entry will have the PageTriage tag whereas in case 2 it won't.

On a more personal note, this whole area is fakakta and I have no idea how any of you make heads or tails of any of it! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, thanks for the detailed reply, this is quite helpful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't all that straightforward, Amorymeltzer. In fact, there appears to be a bug in mediawiki core because of which the [Mark page as patrolled] doesn't show up on all pages. As Elmidae discovered, Danny Winn was one such page. Even before Rosguill marked that page as reviewed, there was no mark-as-patrolled button on the page. Hence, obviously TW couldn't patrol it. But the page was still unreviewed and was showing up as such on the NewPagesFeed.

A live example is Carmel Secondary School, which is presently unreviewed. Hide the curation toolbar and still no mark-as-patrolled button shows up at the bottom. Trying to use the API to mark it as patrolled results in the error: patroldisabled: Recent changes patrol disabled. Looking directly into the database, the page does exist in the recentchanges table with rc_type = 1 (new page) and rc_patrolled = 0 (unpatrolled), which suggests it should be patrollable. EDIT: trying to patrol it using the API with revid gave that error, but using rcid instead (taken from the db query result) succeeded.

It's worth noting that the recentchanges table does not update the page title if a page is moved. As a result, no pages that were previously moved (such as the ones created by moving from draft space) will have the patrol link. But both the pages mentioned above have no previous moves. But both were previously deleted, and I initially thought this was relevant. But bah, List of 1980 box office number-one films in the United States is an example of a page that has been previously deleted but the patrol link still shows up.

Regarding what we can do, I agree the best thing would be to have TW mark as pagetriage-reviewed directly, rather than tinkering with the patrol business. The stuff about patrol is better discussed on phab. SD0001 (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If my reading of the code is correct, pages can only be patrolled while the creation is in RecentChanges (30 days). That would explain the Danny Winn case. The Carmel Secondary School case is complicated by a history merge, which might cause issues with the patrol link. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's definitely it. Makes things simpler actually, thanks you two. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amory (talk • contribs)

So unsurprisingly the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper... staying at the level of the guy on the surface with a loaded Twinkle, it appears to me that both curating & patrolling upon XfD would be a useful step. This does leave open possible issues with curation being applied by any user, regardless of whether they have the NPP right or not; may be exploitable in some way? However as noted, the point of curation is that the article gets scrutinized in some detail, and that should then happen at XfD. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

By means of belated update, I've proposed some changes to Twinkle, basically converting everything (CSD/XfD/PROD/tag) to use the triage action instead of the patrol action, with CSD and PROD off by default and discouraged from use. Should cover all the bases here? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Will it then still be possible to keep a CSD/PROD log from PageTriage (since that is the only surefire way for non-sysops to record their deletion taggings)? As far as I know, those are directly linked to the Twinkle modules, and I'm not aware of anything similar in the triage. If not, I'd recommend ensuring this functionality is not lost before deprecating the Twinkle modules. ComplexRational (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not really understanding your question. Are you asking if this will affect Twinkle's logging of CSD/PROD nominations? No, not all, no change there. Are you asking if this will affect something else logging CSD/PROD nominations made from the PageTriage extension? This isn't being done AFAIK (as above, MA was going to work on it) but there should be no affect on that ability. No modules are being deprecated, just that page.patrol() will be page.triage(). There should be no visible changes except that pages will be curated/triaged/reviewed/whatever-verb-of-choiced instead of patrolled, thus removed from NewPagesFeed and NewPages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding. Because you mentioned with CSD and PROD off by default and discouraged from use (which I assumed was a recommendation to reviewers after this proposed fix, not a complete deprecation but rather using a revamped CSD/PROD functionality in triage), I was wondering if there would be an alternative means (if necessary) to continue logging. If it's merely a code change, and it is not recommended that we do not use Twinkle, there's no cause for concern. ComplexRational (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, sorry. What I meant was, within Twinkle, the invisible patrolling/triaging being done in CSD and PROD will be off by default. Basically, Twinkle does not mark speedy or proded pages patrolled/triaged by default; it does for XfD. No changes to anything that isn't Twinkle. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm came back to this discussion after a few weeks and realised I’m not on the right mix of meds to grasp most of this. I had no intention of opening up such a wormhole but it’s been....ummm.. an education. Mccapra (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The changes to Twinkle have now been implemented. Let me know if something broke! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Works! :) (with AfD, that is - checked and de-listed) No breakage encountered yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

This unreviewed page by @Noswall59: is a list of lists, and none of the lists on this page have been reviewed either. I'd review them, but I'm really not very sure what to make of these pages. It seems like information that's more appropriate for Wikidata than Wikipedia. What do more experienced patrollers suggest doing with these lists? Mcampany (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like we do keep similar lists for the national academies of other countries. Honestly, it strikes me as unencyclopedic to include such long membership rolls, but I think I take a dimmer view of list articles than most. Given the massive amount of work that would be necessary to untangle over a decade of implicit consensus for the creation of such lists, I'm inclined to turn a blind eye here and just mark the articles as approved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll approve them. Thanks for your help! Mcampany (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked the same question in the talk page of WikiProject Lists (no answer yet - it doesn’t seem very active). My concern was they all have a single primary source. I don’t doubt their real world notability but I couldn’t see how copying tables of primary data onto the wiki would meet our policies. I see the same issue with some sport articles too. The website for the national league of XXX sport lists the year’s winners, and someone copies the data from that primary source onto Wikipedia to create an article. Mccapra (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)