Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Curation tool
Page feed
Caution Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog edit

Notability of places

A quite new user has been creating here a lot of articles on places in India using a sole source, a census report. I moved four to draft space, another reviewer User:Winged Blades of Godric moved them back saying that they were sufficiently sourced. After a discussion with him about whether the source showed they met the requirement WP:GEOFEAT of being legally recognized he was of the opinion that they were but as the notability criteria exclude census tracts or similar as being non notable if the only source is a census document how can we know if the criteria are met? Another user who has created almost identical articles using only census documents for tiny villages that are part of larger municipalities such as Grivac, Knić removed my notability maintenance tag. My question is with these single census sources should do these articles meet GEOLAND ? Dom from Paris (talk)

NPR Coordinators

Hi everyone. I want to open up a bit of a discussion about NPR coordinators, the tasks that need doing, and the need for additional coordinators.

Coordinators generally are meant to perform the tasks outlined at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#New_Page_Review_Coordinators.

We are meant to hold elections for patroller each year, and the last election was held in March 2017, so we are overdue for one. During the last election, Kudpung wished to retire as the driving force behind NPP. Users ran for election either by nominating themselves or by accepting nominations from others. Two editors were chosen in the last election, but due to other commitments, didn't really ever take over the coordination activities of the project.

TonyBallioni stepped up to do quite a few of the coordination activities after that, and sent out most of the newsletters in 2017. Toward the latter part of last year, I also started helping out with some of the coordination activities and Tony successfully ran for RfA and has become pretty busy with other admin activities recently, and with other stuff in his life. This year, Kudpung has stepped back in to help out as there were quite a few coordinator activities that were not being completed.

I'm not really happy with the current status quo, and I am aware that Kudpung is not too keen on being a coordinator of NPP anymore. He cares deeply about the project though, so I understand why he keeps coming back to help pick up the slack. At the moment it isn't really very clear who the coordinators are, or who they are meant to be, though I'm not sure that matters so long as the main tasks get done.

I am happy to continue helping out personally in an organisational capacity, even if it is only as an 'unofficial' coordinator, but I am not an admin, and some coordinator tasks do require adminship.

I am a bit reluctant to hold an 'election' again, due to the failure of the previous one to pull forth anyone ready to organise the project (in the months following the last election, the NPR backlog spiralled out of control up to ~25,000). However, I do think we need more people to step up in this role. I wonder if we should allow nominations of others like we did last time, or just have self nominations.

Is there anyone else actually keen to help out with organising and working toward those coordinator activities? Are there any others who are already doing some of the coordinator activities in the background and I just haven't noticed? Let me know what you guys think moving forward, should we hold an election or just let things continue along as they have been? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere has done great work in expanding the number of reviewers. they are currently the de-facto coordinator for most of the tasks. I see no reason to run elections, and much prefer that those people who actually do the work are endorsed by consensus. If you do it, and nobody challenges you, you should keep doing it as long as you're still interested. People who are interested in coordinating could have just started doing most of it. We do deed a coordinator with admin user rights for is evaluating candidates at WP:PERM. If Kudpung wants to continue doing that, fine, or our old friend TonyBallioni might want to help or maybe Jbhunley who I hope is going to RfA wants to help with that if he passes. Another important aspect of the coordinator role is assuming responsibility for software development. Our relationship with the devs at the WMF is not great, and we need someone with both the requisite software development and social skills to help prioritize what gets built for us. Vexations (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I stopped editing, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere, before starting as a Coordinator. By the time I got back others had things well in hand and had probably done things better than I could have. If, and it's a pretty big if, I pass my RfA I will be more than happy to dig in at PERM or wherever else is needed and regardless I'll be doing normal NPP stuff. Recently my Wikipedia time has been spent elsewhere since things have looked well in hand here and I figured parachuting into a well managed environment after completely dropping the ball would be well, kind of being a jerk.
I would definitly support Insertcleverphrasehere as project coordinator. Jbh Talk 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The election served a purpose in bringing more attention to the behind-the-scenes needs of NPP and taking some of the weight off of Kudpung's shoulders (eventually). But as you say, it didn't actually work. Elections and appointed roles don't work very well on this project in general, I think, with very few notable exceptions.
You and Tony have been the de facto coordinators and I think you should feel free to call yourself that, if you want. But perhaps a more sustainable way forward would be to make these coordination tasks a collective responsibility. Things like putting together newsletters and organising backlog drives can and should be done by any reviewer who feels inclined. We should add a section to the reviewer guidelines to that effect.
As for the "oversight"-type jobs that need admin permissions, I do them sporadically and I think they are too work much to put on one or two people individually. Ideally we should have a decent size pool of "patroller-admins" to exercise quality control. Maybe we could draft some guidelines on what that job entails, and then post on WP:AN saying we need extra hands. And of course we should also be on the look out for experienced patrollers who could request the tools (hint hint). – Joe (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I think people stepping up organically to help out may work better than electing coordinators. Electing people by a formal process seems unnecessarily rigid, and would be more useful if we had too many people trying to steer the ship, but we seem to be in the opposite boat. Let people pick up tasks as their interest dictates. Interests wax and wane and someone may put a lot of effort into NPP and then get bored for a while. Natureium (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it unfair to ask any one person (or maybe two or three people) to do the Coordinator's job. The fact that Kudpung did it all for so long in that regard is absolutely amazing and the project is a better place for it, but doesn't seem like a sustainable replicable model. I do think that having some sort of spokesperson to WMF who can legitimately say that they are speaking for NPP would be a reason to have some sort of election. I do think having some person who can be seen as a friendly nudge to NPP reviewers when they go wrong and guide discussions on things like the idea of revoking the permission from those who aren't using it so we can get a sense of how many real reviewers we have is also useful and where having an elected coordinator is also helpful. As to the other stuff Insertcleverphrasehere has shown that you can be an effective coordinator without a formal office. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've stepped back from a lot of the backend stuff of NPP largely because my real life has gotten significantly busier over the last 6 months or so (you'll notice my edit count for this month is the lowest in years, and most of that is script assisted.) Like Joe Roe, who does an excellent job helping out on the tools end, I still have this page watchlisted, and help out at PERM, but unfortunately if there was an election, I would not be standing again and at most would take on an emeritus role like Kudpung has.
    My largest focus on Wikipedia when it comes to devoting time is still with paid editing. There is a large overlap with NPP there, but there is also a flood of sockfarms at WP:COIN and WP:SPI that need dealing with, and since my RfA I've been able to deal with them more effectively there and using other methods rather than just looking directly in the new pages feed. I have no opinion either way as to if we should have a formal coordinator election: if people want one, I'd be happy to do the "closing" of it since I won't be running, but otherwise, doing it informally could also work. It is all up to us as a project. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Insert, TB, and UNK have done an awesome job helping this project. If you want more help then nom me for admin some time in the next 6 months. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to mention Usernamekiran above, but he has also been very helpful, especially when it comes to inviting more users to the project. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Didn't he send out a few of the Newsleters? Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Helped in drafting some of them if I remember correctly. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words fellas. Well, I didnt exactly drafted, but I did give few suggestions which were accepted. I once even (unsuccessfully) suggested a change in {{New Page Reviewer granted}}; a long time after that Joe Roe made a similar change. But I havent done much except that. I keep on encouraging the reviewers time to time (here or individually), and often try to recruit new reviewers and keep insisting that we should get more editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how many co-ordinators we can officially have; but I think "two" is the number. Because of some odd turns of events after last election; Kudpung, and Tony took the charge, and later ICPH joined them. I took a look at the tasks expected to be performed by the co-ordinators, and to my surprise I already a lot of these things. Like watching new reviewers for a while, monitoring not just NPPR perm, but the entire perm (on few occasions I even annoyed Kudpung and Beeblebrox lol). I am willing to increase my activity on that task list. I dont mind if I am an official co-ordinator or not. Even though Tony and Kudpung want to retire, I hope they will provide their guidance/suggestions if contacted. I mean, the latter has been doing this job for more that 7 years; he has every right to take break and he definitely has more experience and knowledge than anybody else. I dont know if I should run the election or not, but I dont mind running either. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is there any specific number of official coordinators? There are no rules for this. We should have as many people helping with the coordination of NPP tasks as are necessary and are willing to take on the work. Unless there are problems with people attempting to do coordination work that they aren't qualified for/are messing up, there's no reason to have rigid roles. Natureium (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, generally speaking, wherever there management/organisation/bureaucracy, more heads means more (unnecessary) discussions, different opinions, and so on. If there are fewer people, even if the strategy/plan are "not so good", they are quick; and they can be improvised with time/new situations. A quick "not so good strategy" is better than nothing. I think a similar issue was discussed in film captain america civil war, between black panther and his father. Maybe the guys here thought the same. And loosely speaking, we had a few guys doing as co-ordinatir tasks like Kudpung, Tony, Joe, ICPH, Primefac among few others (Primefac is like liaison between us and AfC, and tech stuff). As long as particular editors handle particular tasks from that list, i dont think we even need formal co-ordinators. These are my personal opinions though. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Outside of urgent situations, I don't think quick decisions are better than good decisions. There is WP:NODEADLINE and few urgent situations within NPP. If there are, people can still act quickly without formal decisions as long as people have earned trust. Natureium (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Key tasks (volunteers welcome)

It seems like most people are happy with forgoing any election in favour of a more organic approach. For this to be successful, I think it will be advantageous to identify the key NPR management activities and ask for volunteers to watch over some of these key aspects. Below is the list of key activities from the coordinator task list, and I have added some notes, highlighting where additional help would be desirable. Please put your name down to help in any capacity you feel comfortable, and if this method is successful, I can periodically ask for volunteers for coordinator tasks in this way to help spread the management workload. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Of the primary 'coordinator' tasks (management of NPR):

  1. Watch over all the pages connected with New Page Patrolling and reviewing (see page-top nav bar)
    I think that together this one is largely handled. These pages are watchlisted by a large number of experienced patrollers, and questions are answered quickly. However, if you haven't already, consider running through the nav bar and watchlist all the various talk pages. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    yes, i have been doing this since a long time. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Monitor the page at Page Curation, to provide help with reporting bugs to Phab. Liaise with devs and/or WMF staff.
    I don't have a lot of experience reporting bugs to Phab, but there are some others that clearly watchlist this page that do. Liaising with WMF staff is something that Kudpung has generally done a lot of, and it is important that one or more of us take over this task. It is important that NPR keeps in contact with the WMF and lets them know how we are doing and where we might use their help from time to time, so I'll be working on building a relationship with them moving forward. Anyone who is already in contact with some of the people over at the WMF, please comment and put your name down here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    I have been watching that page too, but never repoerted a bug yet lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Monitor the page at Page Curation/Suggested improvements
    Unfortunately this page is largely ineffectual at driving improvements to the PC toolset, and generally only sees action where there is a bug with the software (and even then, rarely). We need to go through this page and collect a list of key points where there is general consensus for change/improvement, create a summary list and then discuss it. This should be moving toward creating a listing for the annual wishlist (due Nov 2018). I'd be happy if someone else is keen to spearhead this one, so please volunteer by putting your name down here if you are interested. Otherwise I'll put together a list in the coming months. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    I monitor that too, and have commented like for two or three times. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Monitor (but do not clerk) the page at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer to ensure that the newly created reviewers have been notified, and that the Newsletter mailing list is maintained (sometimes the automated script is not used to add new names, sometimes blocked users need to be removed).
    I'm keeping an eye on this at the moment, and I think there are quite a few others as well. Generally only admins should comment at PERM, and only where necessary. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    I keep an eye at entire perm, since long before i became NPR. Unlike most of the editors, I find perm funny for some reason. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Answer questions at any of the talk pages.
    See #1. Anyone can help with this one, and I encourage informed patrollers to watchlist the talk pages in the top Nav Bar. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    i do it, and a lot of experienced users do it too. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Provide help to new patrollers, monitor and coordinate the NPP School (currently inactive), or co-opt additional users to serve this task
    I think we need to do more work here. The school has been largely inactive for quite a while, and perhaps needs some additional leadership. Ideally the school should be advertised to editors that are pretty new, but have some promising attributes and might make good patrollers with a bit of training. A more developed syllabus, combined with some directed advertisement (invites to join the school), would be advantageous. Now that NPR can be given out with a probationary time period, I am envisioning a system where new-ish editors interested in NPR might apply to join the school and we could give them NPR user-right temporarily for the purpose of NPR training in the school (to be used at the direction of their trainer on specific pages only). Creation of a more directed syllabus might be advantageous here, to help trainers with a pool of example 'practice' articles ready to be used for grading. Anyone interested in becoming headmaster for the school, put your name down here and I'll help with getting the word out. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    I monitor new reviewers. There are a few more who do that. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Organise backlog drives where necessary, including monitoring of review quality and issuing awards.
    I'll continue working in this area, though I could use some help in the area of 'reviewing the reviewers'. It is important that we make sure to identify any substandard reviewing, but also that we avoid accusations or shaming. Politely ask reviewers about questionable calls, or you can always drop me an email if you want to confidentially bring attention to something that looks like misconduct. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    taken care of by ICPH, but I can definitely help with this except issuing awards. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  8. Sending out barnstars and other appreciation to active reviewers.
    I've been doing a bit of this, and it is an important motivational tool to keep reviewers going. This needs to be combined with 'reviewing the reviewers' to ensure that we aren't just sending out awards to editors for quantity, but rather awarding them for quality reviewing. Anyone interested in helping out here, put your name down here (experienced patrollers only). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    already taken care of by ICPH. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  9. Warn patrollers that they are getting things wrong.
    This step comes after 7-8, but should come from someone experienced. Be careful with 'warnings', and they should be phrased as queries unless blatantly obvious. Be polite, even if someone missed something obvious like a clear copyvio. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  10. Report issues to ANI and/or report them directly to admins.
    Next step after #9, only after discussion with the editor in question has failed to respond to directed queries. Bringing the issue up here is also an option (nobody likes a trip to ANI). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  11. Act as editorial board for a quarterly (or any other period) newsletter or co-opt additional users to serve this task.
    Some editors above have suggested that we should do this collaboratively, with anyone who wants to chipping in, but this isn't necessarily the best idea. I don't want to see edit warring on the newsletter draft (currently located here). Feel free to correct typos or formatting errors, but substantial additions/removals/changes should instead be suggested at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Newsletter_suggestions. I'll act as editor for now, along with other emeritus coordinators, and I am open to others becoming editors for the newsletter in the future. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  12. Maintain stats and/or coordinate with those who know how to quarry for them. ICPH's quarry profile has a number of useful NPR stats queries.
    I've got this one handled for now, but if anyone has any suggestions for additional stats that we should be keeping an eye on, please let me know. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
  13. Keep an eye on the development of ORES.
    Someone or multiple people with strong technical expertise should take this one on. Any takers? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    no can do. (I can not do this one.) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  14. Exchange feedback with other language Wikipedias.
    I wonder if we could put together a list of project pages on other wikis for similar NPP projects...? Anyone interested in this task, please put your name down here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  15. Attend meetups and Wikimania whenever possible, to discuss the project.
    Kudpung did a lot of this sort of work. I'm not sure about whether I will be able to attend Wikimainia 2019 or not (Stockholm, Sweden, sometime in mid 2019). I will be in Europe, so I might be able to. Any NPRs intending to attend, please let us know. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    i cant be sure either. After an year, I will be Au. Lets how things roll out. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  16. Be prepared to conduct and participate on Skype conferences on the topic.
    Anybody wants to have a face to face or voice chat, just drop me a message or an email. Anyone else keen on having a regular-ish meetup/chat, put your name down here and we might organise something on Skype or Discord. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
    I am not exactly photogrnic, but meh. I am ready to do this too. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this excellent review of the Coordinator tasks which I listed a long while ago. I'll just make some comments and try to keep it as brief as possible:
1. I'm not sure that the active reviewers, at least the ones who regularly post here, have ever explored all the pages in the nav bar associated with NPP/NPR. They need tomake themselves familiar with it all.
2. Liaising with the WMF is essential but very strenuous. Although NPP is our only firewall against unwanted content, I consider it to be absolute top priority. The current WMF 'management' does not.
3. See #2 above. The list at Page Curation/Suggested improvements should be regarded as a whole and not as individual items. It's been nearly 3 years since we have been appealing for these fixes. In order to ignore our requests, the WMF have at times told us that it's an issue for the 'Wish list' and that it's not. The wishlist is strictly for convenience gadgets - it needs to be made very clear to the WMF that NPR is an indispensable core function and not for their yearly letter to Santa.
6. I created this. It has never been used. There are several Wikipedia schools based on the same model. None of them perform particularly well. It should probably be assumed that editors applying for he reviewer user group should be sufficiently clued up already. Like adminship, it's not really something that can be learned on the job. The knowledge comes with previous in-depth editing experience. The entry thresholds are low, but mainly to keep out new and totally inexperienced users. It's not an automatic pass mark for the tools.
11. Good points. There were some issues with the recent NL being edited by persons who don't even patrol new pages.
15. The WMF takes it for granted that people interested in specific areas will make the trip to Wikimania. Because they enjoy the privilege of business travel, the WMF staff do not appreciate that the world is a big place and that not all volunteers can afford the cost (or the time) of attending. Besides which, Wikimania is too big and too general, and everyone is too busy listening to the WMF congratulating themselves on their work, to discuss these issues. I have been making suggestions for a dedicated meeting somewhere for the Wikipedians of all language projects who are actively concerned with the quality control / COI / paid editing of new pages. I will continue to ply for this and for sponsorship for the attendees. I believe James is working on this too.
16. I prefer to keep things as open as possible, while Skype, Hangouts, or Wire are fine if people link up for a multi-way video chat.

Coordinators: I originally suggested two because it was based for no other reason other than on my own workload managing NPP/NPR. If sufficient qualities/skills can be found in the right people, there is no reason why coords per se would be needed. Recognising those skills and delegating the various tasks to the right people is however, essential and they need to build a reliable core team. This is especially important when crafting RfC proposals and/or when dealing with the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Applied Sciences Campus Vienna

have reviewed the above article, however its not showing up on Google? (stats indicate 2 redirects[1])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • neglected to mention List of universities in Austria does come up when I Google the aforementioned article(and the list contains a link to University of Applied Sciences Campus Vienna )?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

1st August Backlog Update -- relying far too much on a few individuals.

NPP backlog, number of unreviewed articles by creation date.

Hey guys and gals, the backlog has been steadily raising over the last month, and just reached 1500 (up from 500 four weeks ago). The good news is that the oldest articles (aside from some strays) are from just over 2 weeks ago. The bad news is that this has also been steadily extending over the last few weeks.

Looking at the reviewer reports (Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers), it is clear that the backlog has only been remotely stable because of very high reviewing by one particular editor: Onel5969. This is very worrying. It isn't reasonable for us to expect such effort from one of our reviewers, and I fear that the moment he decides to take a break that the backlog will begin to spike. The more that we rely on a few high performing individuals, the more unstable and fragile the project becomes as a result (recall that the original spike in 2016 that resulted in the massive backlog occured immediately after one very high performing patroller left the project).

If everyone could please put some extra effort into reviewing articles regularly, that would be appreciated. I like this script quite a bit, as it puts the new page feed on the left side of my page at all times, giving me the incentive to do a few reviews here and there whenever I am online (It is important to use the settings npp_enabled = true;, and I also use npp_num_pages = 20;, See my common.js for how to format it). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed the steep climb. Would it be possible to compare your graphic with the number of new pages created? Is there a drop in reviews or are more pages being created? I have come across a lot that have been created after the editor has only done the minimum number of edits in draft space or sandbox and then moved them over once they became autoconfirmed. This seems to defeat the whole idea of ACTRIAL. Are the new users getting wise to this? Also there are more and more redirects in the feed. I know they are supposed to be cheap but not for us they ain't. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis:, The charts I have been using to track page creation (located here) seem to have been shut off last month (no more data collection). Nettrom might have some idea where this data can be gathered elsewhere, I might have to run some queries for it. As for redirects, 1500 is the non-redirect number, but I realise that there is a workload here as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for pinging me about this! I wanted to respond so this doesn't get lost. I am unsure what has happened with this data, but I'll look further into it on Monday. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy Question

Hello, I just became a New Pages Reviewer. Is there a policy on reviewing an article for which I have already made some contributions as a standard editor? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we all make changes to worthwhile articles to get them over the hurdle. Whether it's disambiguation, adding categories & projects, or general copyediting. If we're talking about Kadumkappi, even after your fixes, it's confused about whether it's about the album Kadumkappi or the single Parayathe Parayunna. It looks like an WP:A9 to me. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Cabayi -- Actually my question was meant to be general, but it is interesting that you checked out Kadumkappi, for which I addressed the formatting while finding it to be confusing at the root. I will keep an eye on that page to see if the creator can add anything that clears things up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
doomsdayer520, As a general principle then... Yes you can. But, for an author who is more engaged with wikipedia than this one, it might be more useful to point out the shortcomings to the article's author so that they can fix it, learn from the experience, and create a better article next time round. It all depends on your gut feeling about the author's future intentions on Wikipedia and maximising the return for your effort. Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, be cognisant of paid editing, and COI editing, and try to avoid letting them buy-one-get-one-free. For other stuff: a mix of tagging, fixing stuff yourself, and informing the author how to fix it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

What pages should be patrolled?

I'm not a new page reviewer, so this is mostly just out of curiosity, as well as the fact that I might apply for the permission sometime in the future. Should only mainspace articles be patrolled? Or should mainspace redirects be patrolled as well? And should anything besides the mainspace (talk pages, user pages, etc.) be patrolled? The reason I'm asking is because quite a few of the redirects I've created have been patrolled, but the vast majority haven't, while almost all of the mainspace articles I've created, have been. Also, a few of the user pages I've created have been patrolled as well. So I'm just genuinely curious what pages should be marked as patrolled, and it would also be helpful to know if I ever do become a new page reviewer.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SkyGazer 512, The core goal of NPR is to patrol or review all new mainspace articles and all new mainspace redirects. Not sure why some of your redirects might not have been reviewed, but if they are more recent than July 15th (the back of the backlog), they might not have been reviewed yet. Articles tend to get reviewed from the front and back of the queue (easy-to-review articles tend to get a quick review), but redirects often are unreviewed until they hit the back of the backlog. Reviewing talk pages is unnecessary, but some users do like to review user pages (looking for things like WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc.), but this isn't part of NPR's primary function. I hope that answers your questions, and if you decide to join us in the future you would be most welcome. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation - that is definitely helpful.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Prolific creator of Am Football stubs

User:Bigredlance has created literally hundreds of stubs about football coches that do not meet either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG such as Sandy Gilliam. I came across these articles when I reviewed Robert Appleby (American football) a better sourced article but one that I feel fails notability requirements. Is anyone with a bit more experience in NGRIDIRON able to advise?--Dom from Paris (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject College football? Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the nod, User talk:Domdeparis. According to the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, college head coaches (even those that coached at small schools) qualify under WP:GNG. Take a look at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. There is a lot of good information there, especially regarding coaches. Let me know if there is anything I can do to improve my odds of not having a deletion. Thanks!! Bigredlance (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of these articles, if not all of them, are going to be pass notability requirements once we do the research. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that articles that do not meet NGRIDIRON notability guidelines but are considered by the college football project as notable need the minimum number of in-depth sources to show they meet GNG. I am surprised that the project members do not ask to change the notability criteria to fit in with their own criteria because if there is consensus and each Afd is kept because of the systematical participation of these members it seems a bit of a waste of reviewer's time. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Having run into a similar issue in one of the first hundred patoges I reviewed I would be happy to help Domdeparis on crafting some language to modify the Gridiron portion of WP:NSPORT to reflect some sort of standard on coaches. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Some more detective work

  • New article Traction Fintech was created at 07:17 on 23 July 2018‎ by new editor Doenrtecz as his first edit.
  • New article Sophie Gerber was created at 09:31 on 23 July 2018‎ by new editor Penadiuz Senfera as his first edit. Sophie Gerber just happens to be the co-founder of Traction Fintech, what a coincidence!

These two editors have certain characteristics in common and I think we can assume they are the same person. Because they appear to have been using their two accounts to mislead (neither article wikilinks to the other) it seems to me they are not only paid editors but socking as well. I am thinking of nominating both articles for AfD unless anyone has any better ideas. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Both articles focus heavily on the regulatory framework in which they operate rather than their declared subject. I'd be inclined to file an SPI on the basis that the two articles are so intertwined that the two users are overlapping and creating an illusion of support (WP:ILLEGIT). It's a close call though. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
They've both been blocked indef. Natureium (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Early Redirects

Check out the revision history of this new article that I have reviewed: Toast to our Differences. I only started as a new pages patroller a few days ago and have already seen this situation multiple times. The article is for a music album and fans of the band starting talking about it before it was released. The user ss112, apparently to prevent the creation of a useless "future album" article, pre-emptively created a redirect to the band's page. Now a different user has bypassed the redirect and created a true album article. The problem though is that that the system thinks that ss112 created the article, and this person received the automatic messages generated by the Page Curation tool. Those messages should actually go to the second person in the history, ZeroBlaster, which I did manually while apologizing to the first person for the mysterious script-generated communications. Thanks. (Also note that this article needs a move/redirect for proper capitalization in the title, which I will handle separately.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion best thing to do is simply restore the redirect as I just did that way it is the second editor gets the alert. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I follow you... It seems that your action addresses the notability question for that particular album, but I was just using that as an example for something that also happens if a new post-redirect article has no problems. In short, automatic Page Curation messages go to whoever the system thinks created the article, which does not quite represent reality in such cases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to NPP doomsdayer520. This kind of situation is indeed common. The first thing you should know is that in this situation reverting the redirect by rollback (or associated scripts) is going to generate an alert for the person whose work is being reverted but not necessarily the article's creator. I believe the only time an article's creator is given a talk page notice through the curation tool is if it's marked for deletion or you insert comments while marking as reviewed (or use wikilove). Given this I will frequently leave my own message on a user's talkpage if they're trying to persistently create from redirect an article that isn't justified. Also since it seems like you might be reviewing from the "oldest" end of the queue you might be interested in a workflow I've developed for this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The creator of the redirect is the creator of the article in one sense, and should be notified e.g. when it is nominated for deletion (as should the person who removed the redirect). So I'm not sure you can call this a bug. Ultimately there's a limit to how complex our automated tools can be. Sometimes you have to do it manually. – Joe (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for beauty pageant contestants

As it says on the tin - does anyone know whether these are codified somewhere? Concrete case is Khyati Sharma, which was prodded [2] (unsuccessfully) along these lines. Does being a BC winner constitute notability, even if it's for some strange offshoot like "Miss Eco India"? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


I wanted to draftify Sidhu Moose Wala but was unable to do so because a draft already existed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This definitely needs plenty of work (basically a complete rewrite to get rid of the promotional language, and sources that actually demonstrate notability). Charitably in draftspace, but yeah, the original declined draft is in the way. Not sure what is to be done in this case - can an admin delete the original draft? If that's not a possibility, I'd AfD it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The earlier draft, which has been declined twice, has been worked on by 3 SPA editors. They, and the editor who created the article directly into mainspace, all became active around the same time (Jan/Feb 2018). There might be a bit of socking going on. Both the draft and the article are terrible. I think if there is an existing draft, and the draft is older, than consideration must be given to the draft, especially if the two articles are similar. However, in this instance, that isn't the case. But the article in mainspace might be considered to be speedied, as per G11, since it is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. Onel5969 TT me 10:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
What's your rationale for draftification? Natureium (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Possibly notable but not apparent from these sources, and stylistic fail but possibly repairable - hence might yield an article if done over - would be mine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, Elmidae, Onel5969, and Natureium: this is an odd situation (draft target being occupied). Maybe move the article to subpage of draft, with a note on actual draft? Or maybe a seperate draft with some suffix like singer. I havent seen the draft yet, but i also think the article is not ready for mainspace yet. — usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I've come across this situation a few times. This usually happens when there is a draft that was declined by AfC, and they create a copy in mainspace anyway. If they haven't made the necessary changes and issues are great enough, you can use CSD, if not, you can have them history-merged as a copy-paste move. I don't remember what I've done in each of these cases in the past, but nothing needs to be moved to draft. NPP still functioned before draftification. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Draftyfying is rather a useful option where the article is poorly referenced and unsatisfactory but you are not sure what to do for the best. There are several references to The Times of India so he might be notable, but on the other hand, the opening paragraph is adequate so that a G11 speedy might be turned down. AfD is a possibility, but I don't usually nominate songs, albums or bands there because I know nothing on these subjects. I could tag the article but I did not like to leave it in mainspace. Hence the dilemma. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think moving it to Draft:Sidhu Moose Wala (artist) would be appropriate then? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I moved the original draft to Draft:Sidhu Moose Wala (January 2018) without leaving a redirect and then I was able to draftify the article in the usual way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a good solution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Older Articles Redirected & Restored

Recently came across a situation where I had a different view of NPP procedures than another reviewer and thought it best to seek other thoughts in case I've been interpreting procedures incorrectly. When I see an article restored from a redirect I've done a notability assessment and if it seems to lack notability will often restore the redirect. 1l2l3k argues that for articles which had been longstanding and then redirected and restored that restored version should be marked as reviewed as the redirect was a soft delete. This played out at Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! discography if you want to see a longer discussion or concrete example but I've encountered in other places and thus was seeking a more general sense from others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Thought I had been making a decent effort. But this last "unreviewed" by someone who I consider a valuable experienced editor makes me understand I should expend my efforts in a different direction. Had helped get it down to 500, now up to 1700. Good luck to you all. Onel5969 TT me 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: it's probably not a dramatic issue. In any case, thanks for your work, —PaleoNeonate – 01:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Onel5969: Thank you very much for your efforts over the last months. I can honestly say that we could not have done it without you. There is certainly a need for the rest of us to pick up quite a lot of slack at the moment, as the backlog is was raising even with your prodigious efforts, and will raise much more now unless we all pitch in a bit. Come on everyone, back to the coal face! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope you'll reconsider, but I really can't blame you if you want to do something else. You've done a lot of good work here, and people are quick to find fault. Natureium (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll join the chorus hoping you reconsider but understand your decision. I hope our editing paths will cross again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
You will be sorely missed and the numbers of unreviewed articles is likely to go shooting back up. We all get rebuffed on occasion, so please reconsider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Did you check that it was not accidental? I accidentally unreview a couple of articles per month. I did have my reviews unreviewed in a situation which I could only explain as an accidental click.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It was a double-check cum comments from Kudpung. However, at the volume that onel5969 is processing, the odd doubtful call is not really surprising nor, thinketh me, a big issue; the rest of us are generating those even at a fraction of that throughput. I hope they reconsider. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It was not accidental, but anyone who takes the hump for having one out of nearly forty thousand reviews criticised, certainly needs to take a break. I've even had reviews of mine be unreviewed (albeit mainly by trolls or totally inept reviewers). There is a general consensus, and certainly upheld by DGG, that patrolling at a cadence of 4 per minute cannot cover the tasks covered at WP:NPP - it even takes the COPYVIO tool up to 20 seconds to do its report. In the aftermath of the backlog drive, the quality control of reviewing continues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I've had articles I reviewed unreviewed, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. I've learned not to get upset about a single mistake on my part or on anybody else's, or a single criticism, fair or unfair. No matter how slowly and carefully I might work, if I do anything other than the utterly obvious I am going to misunderstand the community consensus once in a while, and I am going to make some of the many possible kinds of error. . If we tried to work perfectly we would get nothing accomplished.
Please come back, but do other things also. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it wasn't a single reversion by this editor, who once again I will reiterate I have a great respect for all the work they do for the project. Rather this last reversion was one of several over the last few months. They have an issue with my oversight of New Articles, and I respect that. But this is not me taking a break. I promised myself over a year and a half ago to avoid negativity, and once a WP activity has more negativity for me than I feel is warranted (for there will always be some negativity), than I will no longer participate in that activity. This does not mean that I won't occasionally curate/patrol an article, but in the future it will only be in the course of my other activities... never as the focus, which it has been over the last few months. Cheers to you all. I really believe this is one of the most vital projects in WP. Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Onel5969:, I think you do not AGF when you assume I have a particular issue with your reviewing. I revert a review when IMO it is off the mark and I don't even bother to look who the reviewer was. With nearly 40,000 reviews and the speed you make them therefore, it is hardly surprising that you have been reverted a couple of times. That said, a random 100 of your patrols which I controlled last night revealed nothing untoward - but the sample size is rather small. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad you posted this because it turns out I had been guilty of some bad faith about your thinking regarding Onel's quality based on some comments I had seen like this. Despite the pride I take in my attempt to honor AGF it's a good reminder of its importance. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I also did a bit of random re-reviewing of Onel5969, among others, and also found pretty much nothing but good reviewing. I think the only thing I found was a missing no categories tag? Given the volume of reviewing from him, that's some stellar work. I'm happy to see Onel take a break though. I don't want him to burn out completely, and I don't like seeing the rest of us reviewers get too complacent with him doing all the work keeping the tide back. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Russian "cities"

Nikolai_Kurbatov (talk · contribs) has created a lot of articles that claim to be about Russian cities. I'm not convinced that some, such as 53rd km, actually are cities. More likely they are just railway crossings. Should we AFD the whole lot, or PROD them, or what? There have been several comments on his talk page, he replied to the most recent with I don't know, sorry. And i can't find answer in Internet... (regarding 147 km). power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw these too and attempted to prod 4th Uchastok since it claimed 0 people. PROD was removed by Necrothesp who I'm pinging as they might have expertise useful for us. I was reluctant to really dive into the Russian sources but I agree that having looked at quite a few I share skepticism that all of them should have articles given WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at some of them too, and couldn't quite figure out what was going on with them. It doesn't appear to be a hoax; 147 km appears on a map for example, so it might meet WP:GEOLAND. If the name indicates a distance from/to another place, it looks like that might be the distance to Khabarovsk. Vexations (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The corresponding Russian article for 4th Uchastock, for example, is much more substantial. It's a pity the creating editor appears to have been more bothered about quantity of articles than quality. PamD 10:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess what they are doing is to use the results of the 2010 population census they have (which is clearly a reliable source) to create these stubs alphabetically (now working with Aba). (Note that these localities are not cities, we have already articles about all Russian cities, but in the last samples I have seen they call them villages. This is not what I would call a quality content creation, OTOH they are probably all notable, and the stubs are sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Annual event

I'm apparently not able to un-patrol my own creations, so I present Annual event, as I have failed to find a suitable redirect target in mainspace. There must be coverage of the concept beyond what a Wiktionary definition will entail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

...honestly, if I encountered that thing in the wild I'd be tempted to CSD it off the bat. What's the point of mainspacing a reference-less stub about an extremely generic term? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have nominated as not meeting WP:NOTADICTIONARY if csd had been refused. If you don't have souces it seems a bit odd to create an article. If I were you I would blank it and ask for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The text would be useful at Category:Annual events which currently has none. Un-patrolling may be unavailable, but {{db-g7}} is. Cabayi (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I respect power~enwiki as much as anyone but he asked for it to be unpatrolled, I believe, so that it could go through the normal patrol process. As such if someone thinks it should be speedy deleted (I don't think so as only criteria which came close for me was A7 organized event and that seems like a stretch), PROD'ed, or AfD, it's probably best to do so. In my looking for sources the best I could find was a NYT food article about this topic which doesn't strike me as particularly useful [3] Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I created the page as a stub because I felt there's more than enough content to justify something beyond a dictdef, but am still expecting there's a redirect target I'm missing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I really don't understand why you created an unsourced stub article that you think should be a redirect for a page that you can't quite find yet. Wouldn't it have been better to wait until you found the target page before creating the article? I don't really understand what you are asking us to do...are you asking us to try and find the mystery target ? Are you asking us to find sources for this page? Or are you asking us to nominate it for deletion? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Elmidae. It's belongs in Wiktionary. Atsme📞📧 03:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Elmidae, screwed-up the ping. Atsme📞📧 03:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Patrol log

Hello again. I noticed that I often can't see the patrol log of articles. Here is an example: public logs for Draft:Meltdown (Clearfield and Tilcsik book) (logs: [4]), that was recently moved to mainspace Meltdown (Clearfield and Tilcsik book) (logs: [5]). Its author is also not autopatroled: BookProjector2018 Special:UserRights/BookProjector2018. So I am wondering: was this ever patrolled, or did it pass through a vulnerability? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: I'm also asking because the "mark this page as patrolled" link doesn't show for that article. —PaleoNeonate – 19:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on the logs the page wasn't patrolled at either title. The article hasn't been reviewed and is not indexed. I'm not sure what caused the patrol link to not show up. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
If it still shows in the NPP, that's less concerning. Hmm does that mean that it'll however remain there because noone can tag it? (I didn't check if it's in still in the new unpatrolled pages log as I'm leaving, will be back in 5 or so hours). Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 20:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It appeared in Special:NewPagesFeed and the curation tool showed up. I marked it as reviewed. Vexations (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Super. Hmm it's possible that the older tools are not being maintained and are now buggy... NPF and curation don't work for me (but NewPages does and the "mark this page reviewed" bottom link is what I can use when present). Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 03:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @PaleoNeonate: to clarify; the page curation tools don't come up for you on some unreviewed pages? If not could you describe the issue in more detail? Is there any indication of what is causing this issue? What browser are you using? Does the issue persist when logged in with a different browser? Another thing to check: next time you see the issue, blank your common.js page, then check if the issue persists. If that fixes it, re-enable scripts one at a time until the issue comes back and you might find where there is a conflict. Not sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems that you are familiar with fiddling with scripts... What do you have enabled/disabled that is different to the default that might be causing the issue? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I use a custom browser without javascript (but with very good html/css support). When I did use JS with Wikipedia in the past, some things worked and others not, likely because there was a number of User-agent specific code; following links with anchors would almost never align at the proper page position, pages took much more time to load making patrolling changes tedious, etc. So currently without JS, some relatively new tools don't work at all like Special:NewPagesFeed. However, Special:NewPages works fine. When a page is not yet patrolled, I also usually see a "mark this page as patrolled" link at its bottom right corner, which works to mark a page patrolled when clicked. However, that is the link which was not present for the aforementioned article even if it still was unpatrolled. I have noticed this issue before at times, so I wondered if the page was really unpatrolled (I couldn't see a patrol log entry). It was confirmed above that it was indeed unpatrolled. So at least it's not the type of bug which causes pages to escape patrolling (at least those using NewPagesFeed appear to see it as such). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. That's fair enough and to each their own, but it sounds like this isn't a bug with page curation. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, for well over 20 years JS is as essential to a web pages as html and CSS. Without it, only the simplest static sites will work. To do any kind of maintenance work on Wikipedia, a browser must have the full compliment of what are today's standard features. Web developers assume everyone uses reasonably up to date browsers on both desktop and mobile devices. MediaWiki uses a modern web environment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not completely true: JS was only used for useless gadgets until about 10 years ago and even then for any extended functionality plugins were required (something that only changed recently with HTML5). That said, as someone who knows about DOM and its issues and how sites can gracefully degrade, once WP can no longer work it'll unfortunately join a list and I'll retire. —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

NPP Infrastructure

  • If the NPR system had an effective infrastructure of coordination, these bugs would be reported in the right place and followed up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
If we combined all the NPP-related talk pages into one, it would be much easier for coordination. There are a lot of pages in general, which makes it easy for people to miss things. For example, why do we have Wikipedia:Page Curation and Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help when neither are overly long? Natureium (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say feel free to combine those pages if you want. I agree that there isn't much reason to have two separate pages on Page Curation. Their talk pages are already merged. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I was feeling bold and given ICPH's nod I went ahead and did the merge. In the end I could find no content at Wikipedia:Page Curation that wasn't already on Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help so I didn't end up merging any actual content; I hope others check to make sure I did not miss something worth merging. I then changed the shortcuts that went to Curation to Curation/Help, updated the navigation tabs, and put a superseded template on Curation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That a good point. It does appear that everything at Page Curation was already covered on the other page. I renamed the nav bar heading "Page Curation Tools", as this fits wht the function of the page a bit better than the previous header. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49! Natureium (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As a quick overview, the pages we have linked at the top are:

Page Purpose
Tutorial Thorough overview of reviewing pages
Discussion Main noticeboard?
School Mentoring? Is this active?
Curation tool Information about the tool itself
Page feed Special page. The actual New Page Feed.
R&D ?
Suggestions Suggestions for future improvements that people may or may not look at
Coordination The coordination of the newsletter?
Reviewers Standard wikipedia user rights page

There are also some pages that are not linked in the header:

Page Purpose
Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol Talk page for the tutorial
Wikipedia talk:Page Curation Talk page for the curation tool
Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC This has an AfC header
Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Suggested improvements Apparently a talk page of a talk page
Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination Coordination of coordination

Anyone is welcome to help fill out the mysteries in this table. Maybe from here we can figure out a logical way to combine some of these pages, because I'm pretty certain we don't need this many. Natureium (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't of interest to anyone else, I'm going to be combining pages. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
While some of your descriptors, especially of the pages not in the header, made me chuckle (coordination of coordination) I'm not as convinced they're all as superfluous as you do. To me the R&D page is the one that seems like it should be removed from the header bar as inactive and supplanted by the current work done here and on its talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. One of the problems I see with having so many discussion pages is that questions get duplicated because there are multiple places that are appropriate for the same question, so if someone has a suggestion to remedy this, please give a shout. Natureium (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the talk page for the tutorial can be deprecated. The School has pretty much never been active and can probably be officially inactivated and deprecated and removed from the top bar. The coordination page is a page of useful stuff for coordination, and its talk page is indeed the talk page for coordination. The R&D page is a very useful page that helps show a lot of past stats and whatnot, but it does need to be updated to include recent developments regarding WP:ACTRIAL, the research done after ACTRIAL, and the developments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018. Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC has been used extensively to discuss the possibility of merging NPP and AfC or merging some aspects of the tools, which has culminated in some of the recent work over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Could the school serve a useful purpose? Especially with time limited PERMS seems like it could be a positive to the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Barkeep49: I certainly have considered it. We could remake the school as a place where users that meet the basic requirements of NPR could apply for probationary NPR, then be mentored by an experienced Reviewer. Whether they pass would be dependent on the opinion of the mentor at the end of the probationary period. This would require a rewrite of the NPR School page, and a reworking of its purpose, but advertised properly, it could be very successful in developing new users, and could be used as an alternative to turning down NPR applicants at PERM (e.g. "Have concerns about experience level, please apply to the NPR school instead"). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No changes need to be made to anything. DeltaQuad is aware of this and knows how to use the new time limited rights feature. The auto user talk page message has already been updated. I would not recommend according the right to anyone before they have gradiated. It's a point DQ can make when processing PERM reequests. They will make declines with something like "Not done for now. Please enroll at the NPP School and learn all about it first" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Kudpung but I must not have phrased my question clearly. This wasn't about whether you and DeltaQuad are screening appropriately (of which I would hope there's no doubt). The question is if there was a more active NPP School is that something which would help you or which you would direct people towards enrolling in? If the answer's no it's not worth time to think about it. If the answer were yes or maybe it might be worth seeing what's possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I am no loger involved with, or concerned with any matters concerning NPP/NPR or PERM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Keep in mind i'm jumping in on this discussion, and have not much clue about what is being talked about. I don't know if there is a particular scope I'd want to see an NPP school about except for use of the patroling interfaces. Then a separate guide about how to handle new pages, so people can point to established practice. The rest of the need for the school I feel would kind of be moot, because I screen applicants for bad approvals and good approvals, and that can always be taken up individually. I hope that answers your question. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Amanda tends to like to see AfC experience in absence of other patrolling experience, which I kind of agree with. I remember that I actually first sharpened my teeth at AfC before getting involved in new page patrolling, and I think it provides a good environment for practicing and learning the notability guidelines and what constitutes a good page, prior to jumping at NPP. However, AfC doesn't appeal to everyone, and the requirements to do AfC reviewing are not much different than the NPR userright these days, so perhaps it might be useful to still have some sort of mentor-ship program as an alternative to AfC when users are turned down for the NPR user right. Amanda, would you consider commenting on 'failed' NPR applicants suggesting that they find a mentor at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/School? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Mentoring is usually done in the process of doing something, so I'm not sure how mentoring someone without the perm would be effective. Natureium (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Not pinging her but Amanda's feedback was definitely helpful. I agree that what I had envisioned was mentoring/schooling of someone with the PERM. As that doesn't seem to be useful to Amanda, it seems like the school might not be the best place to invest energy (as least as I had thought of it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the school is not the place to invest limited resources. If an editor does not have the knowledge, experience and skill to read the NPP procedures, ask about what they are unsure of and then get on to reviewing in a non-problematic way then they can simply come back and ask for the right once they can.
Since the granting criteria are, in my opinion and previous experience, too lax as they are, we should be investing a considerable amount of our more skilled reviewers time in checking the work of other reviewers. Spot checks for the more experiences and more intensive for the less. Specific issues can then be identified and some form of counseling and remediation can be done – that is where a more in depth curriculum would be useful not for 'onboarding'. Jbh Talk 00:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Natureium, people forget that the page curation tools are not the only way to do all of the patrolling processes for articles. Any user without the NPR user rights can feel free to install WP:TWINKLE and then go to Special:NewPagesFeed and start going through and tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. the NPR user right actually only actually gives us one ability: to officially 'review' an article. They also activate the WP:Curation toolbar, and I honestly think it is a shame that the PC tools are hidden behind a userright like that, especially when the twinkle tools have all the same functionality and are available to anyone with autoconfirmed. @Jbhunley: In the old wild west days when I started, there was no restriction, and I just installed Twinkle and then started slow. I would often tag or nominate articles but not mark them as patrolled, for fear that I'd missed something. Users can't really do that anymore, because we are walling them off from the curation toolbar and telling them that they can't be trusted with the tools unless they are already experienced with article review. Where are they supposed to get this experience? I'm not so much in favour of investing time in the 'school', but rather investing time in editors that are keen to get involved but don't know where to start. At present inexperienced reviewers who want to get involved often just get turned down at PERM with no advice on where to go to get the experience needed to attain the user-right. We should be encouraging these users to seek a mentor to watch over them, install twinkle and start having a crack at the New Pages Feed. If they keep a list of all articles they have 'patrolled', then their mentor can simply come along and re-review them all to see if there was anything improper, and if they missed anything. This gives them feedback to improve, and allows them to help out while gaining the experience necessary to become a solid reviewer. We also would avoid any issues of improper reviewing by newbies that isn't checked over again later by a second set of eyes. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I well remember the times of Before :) As you said there is Twinkle (I think it was a huge mistake to split functionality between two software packages but … ) and the logs it keeps and AfD to get a handle on whether something can be improved or not. There is also nothing to stop them from doing everything in the NPP flow except the final acceptance. If fact, given my preference, each applicant for the NPP right should review 20 articles and make a list for the grantor to review before they get the right. A mentor, as you suggest, could critique such a list if they do not qualify for the right immediately. However, none of that really requires development of material much beyond what we have. NPP instruction is more of a practicum and the review, critique cycle is where the learning and improvement is done. I guess I kind of assume that an editor who does not yet have the background to understand and apply the written instructions we have is generally so far down the learning curve the marginal cost of training them is too high considering our limited resources. See User:Jbhunley/Essays/Identifying nonsense at NPP for a worked example.
As analogy NPP training should be the equivalent of Uni ie there is a baseline of knowledge (secondary school) that one is simply expected to have before walking in the door. Jbh Talk 02:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (and have not read the past two comments) @Insertcleverphrasehere: If AfC doesn't appeal to someone, neither will NPR really, unless they are looking for fancy buttons... 9_9. The problem I see with school/mentorships is they need people and time. That's one thing I'm maxed out on as is, and have none to contribute. I mean I can help in tad small ways, but not excessively. As for the standards being pretty much the same, maybe on paper they are, but how I would apply the standards is very different. I'm sure i'll be shot for this view point, but with ACTRIAL done, we get more expirienced editors who are more frusturated and leave easier than people at AfC. I'm not saying that AfC people don't matter, they are just less easily upset. NPR also gets less eyes easily, and is a little harder to track. So I mean if you can find the people for a school, i'd consider putting it in my responses, but i'm against putting it in right now as the same reason for CVUA. It's understaffed.
Re JBH's comment, I agree that the standards should be higher. I would want to remove guidelines for requirements and just add admin discretion. Also I'd want to codify the need for AFC/CSD/XFD. But idk how popular that opinion is. I also agree random reviews should be a thing, but I don't know about the logistical hoops on that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I very much like the idea of presenting a log of 20 NPP type patrols as part of the request. It does seem like mentorship could be valuable here (I know I would have been eager for some mentoring when starting and still appreciate the chance to learn now). I also know that if I were applying today Amanda wouldn't approve me. As to the review maybe two editors (or more ideally three so it's slightly less awkward) could peer review some sample of each others patrolling? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: with regards to the appeal of AfC and NPR; while they might require similar knowledge and skills, they are very different in terms of the reviewer experience. I've done a lot of both, but especially these days AfC is clogged with promotional garbage from COI editors. I have little interest investing my time in a sewage pit like that, especially for an optional process that really doesn't have much impact on the encyclopedia. COI articles in AfC draft space don't matter, so why should I waste my time reviewing them? NPR however is an essential firewall for Wikipedia, and COI articles submitted onto mainspace must be dealt with. When it comes to well crafted articles that I want to read, there are very few that arrive via AfC; anyone who knows what they are doing and can write an article well either never bothered with AfC, or used it once and never again due to the terrible user experience. In short, well crafted articles almost always get submitted via mainspace directly. I actually like to read these, and like helping to clean up an otherwise decently crafted article. Worthwhile topics show up overwhelmingly more at NPR, especially after ACTRIAL. I know there are many other editors that share my views after having done both processes. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said above, after 7 years of nursing them, I really do not want to have anything more to do with NPP, NPR, and PERM, so do bear with me for a moment. Admins such as DeltaQuad, xaosflux, Beeblebrox, and Alex Shih have PERM well in control and together with the clerking bot created and helper scripts by MusicAnimal, PERM is now working well to sort the wheat from the chaff - any admin who has ever worked at PERM is fully aware that even when assuming good faith, some applications are clearly hat collecting. Back in 2010 we realised that the standard of patrolling new pages was dismal and there was no way of controlling it, especially due to the fact that the process was open to everyone and his dog, particularly new and inexperienced users for whom all maintenance areas are a magnet.
Addressing this in several steps, we had the page curation system developed, then a user group created, and then turned NPR into this vibrant project community which it had never been before; being a member of a recognised group gives one a sense of responsibilty and recognition for the work. ACTRIAL was finally achieved and rolled out permanently for the specific purposes of reducing the load of junk on qualified reviewers, and with the intention of reducing a huge backlog to manageable proportions (which is unfortunately not panning out so well).
Through ignorance of the WP:NPP tutorial, tagging for maintenance and deletion by inexperienced users through Twinkle still exposes articles to incorrect tagging and the creators to being bitten. A retrogressive deprecation of any of those three important steps would be, IMHO, a disaster. We have demonstrated through a recent research that the vast majority of a registered reviewers are largely inactive or have never even used the right they were granted. This high number of 650 reviewers gives a totally false impression of the available resources. ICPH is correct in his comparison of the difference between NPR and AfC, the latter being an optional gesture for some users and Wizard users.
As far as I can see, the majority of drafts will never make it to mainspace and should be able to be processed, and deleted if necessary, reasonably quickly even if more articles from the new pages feed are moved to draft. Undeclared paid editing is on the increase and taking more subtle and sinister forms, the reduced number of articles in the feed should enable UPE to be more easily identified, and to allow more thorough reviews for all new articles. Adminship is not granted without sufficient demonstration of prior knowledge of notability and deletion, and nor should NPR which also needs an excellent knowledge of these policies and guidelines - we regularly see for example, many AFD being logged by users who are not versed with these prerequisites. The entire purpose of these discussions is therefore twofold: to reduce workload and at the same time increase efficiency. But it won't be done by finding reasons under any pretext to send out newsletters all the time, people will just ignore them and/or strike their names from the mailing list as they have been doing. Check out the history of the mailing list - anyone who has struck themselves is obviously not interested and can be struck from the group.
Only by addressing these issues organically and intelligently can Wikipedia continue to offer the world a reliable and trusted knowledge base.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


The following stubs don't appear to meet WP:N, but I'm not sure if they qualify as CSD or if they possibly have some historical significance? I realize how difficult it is to get living architects included but would death make a difference? Would appreciate your input: Halldóra Briem, Rögnvaldur Ólafsson, Alfred Råvad, and Einar Sveinsson ?? Atsme📞📧 03:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think three of these four do meet WP:GNG. Einar Sveinsson makes a good case and is well referenced. Rögnvaldur Ólafsson and Halldóra Briem make reasonable claims for importance (first Icelandic architect, first Icelandic woman architect) and are sourced to the page of the Icelandic Architectural Association, which would seem authoritative. - Alfred Råvad seems weakly sourced and if a search doesn't turn up anything, I'd AfD it (does not satisfy any CSD criteria, I'd say). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
First [gender] [nationality] [profession] biographies have a credible claim of significance that would preclude a CSD. However most such articles have a bit more context than a bare statement of that fact. Einar Sveinsson has already been tagged CSD once - a second CSD isn't an option (unless you find it's a copyright violation). Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? "Joe Bloggs a British house painter" is enough to avoid A7? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis, that's not what I wrote. "Joe Bloggs was the first British house painter" would be enough to avoid A7. Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry my bad I thought you meant "first" as in "first off" or "firstly" and didn't follow up with "second" sorry. And of course I agree with you. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The articles meet notability. They just need to someone to add the large number of available RS to them. As for Alfred Råvad (mentioned above), his Danish Wikipedia page is fairly substantive and extensively sourced, which should lessen some of the doubts as to his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I added some additional sourcing. Note though that this is not really my jam on Wikipedia and my hope was that topic experts would fill in the gaps. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another draftifying question

I was going to touch base with Barkeep49 directly on an entry we've both dealt with (Leo Garcia / Draft:Leo Garcia (actor)), but as I realize I'm really not sure what to make of the situation, I hope Barkeep won't mind if I ask here for general input--specifically on dealing with NPR-draftified entries if the creator subsequently edits, then moves the entry back to mainspace without waiting for AfC review (as happened here).

Thinking of it from the other side, I would not do this if it were my entry waiting in the AfC, it would definitely feel out of process--but on the other hand, it's true AfC is not strictly obligatory (right? at least for anyone autoconfirmed, which this creator was even when they started the entry), and I sort of do worry we cross into unilateral deletion-by-AfC if we repeatedly revert these moves (here it was a copy-paste which adds further issues, but just staying on the general case for simplicity's sake). It seems to me maybe after a single draftifying, after that it could be best to let something live or die by the regular mainspace deletion processes?

On the other hand, it does seem a pretty straightforward, ah, work-around, of ACREQ happened here: exactly 10 mainspace edits, one week delay and then the new entry posted. But I don't know how/if that should affect our use of draftifying... Thoughts? Thank you all. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Realizing there's an additional practical wrinkle in this instance, which is that regardless, this wasn't going to be the main search term for that name, so the redirect had to be restored to point to the dab in any case...and at the same time, the draft is not well-sourced enough that I personally would move it into mainspace (others might, but it's borderline at best), so, in this situation it's a bit hard not move back to draft a second time; the only alternative would be to move something into mainspace myself that I didn't think was suitable... Hrm. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As a believer in the collaborative nature of Wikipedia I of course do not mind someone seeking more thoughts on this topic. I am incredibly sympathetic to the long AfC wait currently going on. I feel bad for those people and when asked give advice on how to strengthen sourcing to make it more likely a review will be favorable. However, the long wait doesn't mean I'm looking for workarounds. Given the profile of the editor and that their first attempt was a Copyvio I thought it appropriate in June that this go through AfC followed by NPP. Given that we have no disclosed COI AfC is not strictly required but again given the user profile I do not think I'm assuming bad faith when I say there's a good chance there is an undisclosed COI hence why I've been a little bold on pushing it back into draft space. I welcome the thoughts of others on this and other similar cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I see this as a perfect application and an ideal result of draftification. The original version was a copyvio and was Revedled and converted to a redirect (it also could have easily been CSDed, but revdel-redirect is another alternative). it was then recreated, but the creator didn't have an understanding on what kinds of sources were appropriate so Barkeep49 draftified it. The author then re-wrote it, including better sources the second time around and it is probably about as well sourced as it ever is going to be. Notability is probably still a bit borderline, but I think it might survive AfD (depending on what the content of this article is). The original version draftified would certainly not have survived AfD. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree entirely about the first draftifying; my question is just about this reversion after the user tried to copy-paste move the improved draft--in effect a second draftifying, on the grounds that Article has not yet been approved in AfC process. Though like I say, I don't have a different suggestion... Innisfree987 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah... I see. I missed that part. Users should generally feel free to opt out of the AfC process, as it is optional, time consuming, and also users should feel free to be WP:BOLD (draftification itself is a matter of WP:BOLD). If the user decides to opt out of AfC, I would generally not recommend re-draftification (as this essentially becomes edit-warring or trying to make AfC mandatory - which it isn't). Instead I'd recommend that the reviewer pursue other means of reviewing the article (tagging/AfD/CSD/etc). Barkeep49 notes above that he has concerns about COI (which if true would necessitate AfC as mandatory), but this has not been brought up with the author and is not the reason stated in his edit summary here. All that being said, the copy-paste move is inappropriate, as the page history really should be maintained for an article like this. I'd recommend to Barkeep49 that we respect the opt-out of Joeysortino and move the draft to mainspace for them, then review it without option to draftify. If his concerns of COI are high, I'd recommend that Barkeep49 follow this up by asking the user if they have an undeclared COI (if they do have one, or fail to reply, then draftifying and running through AfC would be the correct channel). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds reasonable enough to me; I'm really not sure what else you could do, barring, I don't know, moving the draft to mainspace and then AfDing yourself, which sure wouldn't be a friendlier option! (And thanks for your understanding, Barkeep; just wanted to emphasize I intended it as a general question rather than criticism!)
Further thinking: actually, if the user had moved to mainspace correctly, wouldn't the redirect left behind make it rather difficult to re-draftify, anyway? (Except as sysop/page mover?) Maybe the technical limitations more or less mean it'd have to go to AfD (or not as the case may be), and the question really is just--if this specific thing happens, is this the way to handle or does anyone have a different idea? Innisfree987 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
1 edit redirects can be moved over by anyone with autoconfirmed. Note that when Joeysortino made the copy-paste move, they would not have been able to do an overwrite move, as the redirect in question at Leo Garcia had more than 1 edit. They could have moved it to Leo Garcia (actor) though (which is what I recommend we do now, as the user has shown a desire to opt out of AfC). Experienced NPR reviewers should request the Page Mover user-right anyway, as draftification is difficult without it (has to manually request a CSD R2 of the redirect left behind in main space if there is no reasonable target for the page title). I'll put some information about Page-Mover utility to NPR in the next NPR newsletter. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to New Pages Feed ready for testing

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager with the Growth team at WMF. I posted here in May to talk about a project that the team is working on to help reviewers get through backlogs faster by adding data to the New Pages Feed. While the work was originally planned for the Articles for Creation process, many NPP reviewers weighed in, and so there are also going to be benefits for the NPP process.

We have deployed the first couple parts of the project in Test Wiki so that reviewers can try them out before they have any impact on the actual work of reviewing. We want to find out as soon as possible if we're on the right or wrong track. Here is what's different:

  • The New Pages Feed now contains a toggle for "Articles for Creation", which is where all draft pages are listed. This gives AfC reviewers access to the feed so they can use it to prioritize their work.
  • The feed now displays "Predicted class" (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class, Good, Featured) and "Predicted issues" (spam, vandalism, attack, no issues) with every article, regardless of namespace. These are predictions generated by ORES, which is the same system that adds models to the Recent Changes feed.
  • The feed is also filterable by those criteria. This way, reviewers could focus their time on just those articles predicted to be spam, or just those articles predicted to be of high quality.

The idea is that this additional information will help NPP reviewers prioritize their work to focus on those pages which need attention most. Please post any thoughts or reactions on the project's talk page, or let me know if you have difficulty accessing Test Wiki.

Thank you. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about an editor who started editing years ago, has done virtually nothing since 2011 and suddenly produces a 15KB article Brian C. O'Neill with perfect formatting and referencing in a single edit, followed by no further activity? I have seen similar contributions from other editors and I think to myself, "paid editor". I wondered if there is someone orchestrating a system of contacting lapsed editors and paying them to present articles as their own, or perhaps managing to take over lapsed editors' accounts by getting a new password? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"taking over" the account never came to my mind. But what I always thought was/is: such accounts are created as sleepers by content writers/marketing/PR firms. And when they get a client, these accounts are activated. Within past two weeks, while patrolling special:log/newusers, I have come across at least 10-12 accounts who did nothing but adding their name to the userpage, ranging from "Cwmhiraeth", "hi! I am Cwmhiraeth" or some similar variety. No edits at all after that. I have also seen accounts with same pattern from 2-3 years ago. Just one or two edits. And a few articles created by such accounts. I think they do this to avoid CU. I can imagine what they are thinking/doing, but i shouldnt say it out loud cuz of WP:BEANS. Smartse, and Tony have very good experience in that field. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Great job

I know I've been less active here of late than normal, but I was in the new pages feed today for the first time today in a while, and I was thrilled to see that we've gotten the number of pages needing review down to less than a month: I never dreamed we would get to this point when we were making ACPERM a thing, and now we really can say that the backlog of pages on the English Wikipedia needing review before hitting a search engine is non-existent: you all have successfully eliminated the backlog completely and gone far beyond it (the backlog point is 90 days, which is when the page hits Google.)

Just wanted to drop in with a cheery message since I know some people have seen the number rise and are a bit concerned. Really, the day count is much more important that the actual number of pages, and on that metric, we're rocking it. Great job, guys. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA