Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

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

NPP Backlog edit


Random overnight thought

Should we add NOINDEX to articles tagged with {{undisclosed paid}}? I don't know whether it will accomplish anything, but hey. MER-C 20:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Such a proposal would probably encounter significant opposition. I do think it would remove much of the incentive for creating promotional content. The whole purpose of creating such articles is to increase the visibility of the subject and benefit from the cachet that a Wikipedia article provides. If we take that away, the number of promotional articles submitted is likely to drop significantly. The professional spammers would notice this immediately, and even the editors who were not aware of our COI policies and guidelines will find out soon enough. It's something that comes up frequently; I've encountered editors who think their article isn't published until it shows up on in Google search results. We would need to develop processes around substantiating the claim of undeclared paid editing. While the signs of UPE should be obvious to anyone who has been working in NPP for a while, hard evidence that a new editor was paid is very difficult to obtain. We would need to make it mandatory for any user who is suspected of being a UPE on the basis of behavioural evidence to respond to a request for disclosure of conflict of interest. Mduvekot (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It will only work if the UPE tag can be put on articles created by obvious UPE SPAs. It's not even possible to get a CU on those unless they do something amazingly stupid like using similar edit descriptions on multiple accounts. Rentier (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
If you mean NOINDEX until reviewed, I do not see any problems with the suggestion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent suggestion, MER-C, and further enhanced by Mduvekot. OTOH, it's unfortunately still not obvious to everyone who has been working in NPP for a while despite all the coaxing, cajoling,mentoring, and our tutorials (which some people have complained are over-detailed). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. I'm surprised we're not already doing it.- MrX 🖋 22:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There's a hearty tiff going on at the moment at Template_talk:COI#Related tags, about this tag among others. A complaint appears to be that editors tend not to follow up with the required talk page actions (here, placing {{Connected contributor (paid)}} and providing some elucidating link). That may need some sorting out before this idea can acquire traction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- most articles that I come across (with the template) were the products of now banned editors. There should not be any controversy about those ones at least. Is there an HTML code that could be added? Or some other process? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT but with a dumb question in the sidebar - is NOINDEX something we'd add manually or is it automatically added with the template? Atsme📞📧 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    It would be added to the template, to make it automatic. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. When an article has been compromised by undisclosed paid editing and cannot be moved to draft or deleted, it should not be indexed until the issue has been resolved. Mduvekot (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that when I said "I don't know whether it will accomplish anything", I was referring to what would happen technically. Per Template:NOINDEX: "This template has no effect in the main (article) namespace unless the article is less than 30 days old." MER-C 20:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    I think the template /doc is out-of-date, WP:NOINDEX says anything <90 days will be noindexed if it's placed. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    Updated per phab:T166852. Nihlus 05:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. It won't be a silver bullet, especially given the technical limitations mentioned above, but it certainly won't hurt. – Joe (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and I think we have enough support here that we can add it without a more formal discussion unless it gets reverted. Being bold and whatnot. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I also support for the bold move. @Tony: Do you think we should hand the job of adding noindex code in the template to Primefac? That way, in case it gets reverted or somebody objects, we can throw him under the bus. Emblem-cool.svgusernamekiran(talk) 04:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's fine, I'm smaller than the undercarriage of a bus so I don't mind. Primefac (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    that is some huge bus! —usernamekiran(talk) 04:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    Are you calling me fat? Primefac (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    You dont understand me anymore. You've changed! Cry.pngusernamekiran(talk) 18:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: of course, Wikipedia isn't the place to make a lot of money – 333-blue, 07:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: of course. —PaleoNeonate – 18:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but I feel this discussion might be better suited for the Village Pump or Template talk:Undisclosed paid. AdA&D @ 18:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Yes. Might be worth chucking a notice about this conversation over at WP:COIN and at Template talk:Undisclosed paid if somebody has not already. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: I second (or third) that this could be discussed elsewhere, but at the same time I support the bold move. Discussion for elsewhere could be slanted towards "is this enough?" = paul2520 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Most UPEs' motives are for promotion and WP:SEO. Any tool at our disposal to defeat those objectives are welcome. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Minded to oppose unless there is a process or something that decides what kind of articles have to be tagged with {{Undisclosed paid}} - "I think this may have been written in exchange for money" seems much too thin a rationale to remove an article from Google, especially given that {{Hoax}} and {{Medref}} which cover much more severe issues don't NOINDEX their articles. I am also wary that there is no pointer to this discussion on the village pump and that the pertinent discussion on Template talk:COI is not resolved yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
It think it's important to distinguish between "I think this may have been written in exchange for money" and "a major contributor who has been asked to clarify a apparent COI has not yet provided a response". There is process; If you tag an article, you also seek clarification from the contributor with the apparent COI. Indexing will have to wait until the issue concerning the COI has been resolved. It should be noted that failure to respond to undisclosed paid editing concerns typically results in an indefinite block. Mduvekot (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
And yet I see a discussion on the COI template talk page about how the clarification request often doesn't happen. So I am wary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Week 4 and End of Backlog Drive results!

The fourth and final week of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details). The backlog of unreviewed articles is now at 3625.

Results of week 4:

  • 155 reviewers participated in week 4, continuing a general trend of reducing participation over the drive; dropping from 190 in week one, to 176 in week 2, and 169 in week 3.
  • 5462 reviews were completed (including redirects and articles).
  • The backlog of articles has reduced by another 525 articles. (much less than previous weeks)
  • The total number of unreviewed redirects has remained steady at around 5.8k.
  • More progress has been made at the back of the backlog, where the oldest articles are now from the 26th July 2017, at the beginning of the week the oldest articles were from the 10th July.
  • The most reviews this week were completed by Dschslava at 805 (mainly redirects).(the totals for all participants this week can be viewed HERE)

In short, a bit of tiredness perhaps in the final week of the drive, but still a successful week in reducing the backlog in both duration as well as in total number. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP backlog, showing change in the backlog from 10th-28th Jan. Green areas are where the backlog reduced, red areas are where it grew. Because I didn't start collecting data until the 10th Jan, this chart only represents the change in the latter 2/3rds of the backlog drive.

Total Backlog Drive results:

  • 304 reviewers participated in the drive, with 97 users reviewing 25 pages or more (minimum award criteria). Awards will be given out in the coming days.
  • An astounding 24277 reviews were completed (including redirects and articles)
  • The backlog of unreviewed articles reduced by 5950, with a further reduction in the number of unreviewed redirects by ~1700.
  • We have shaved almost 4 months off of the back of the backlog!
  • 6 Users completed over 1000 reviews in the month, with the two highest review counts being from Dschslava at 2579 (top reviewer), and Babymissfortune at 2329 (runner up).(the totals for all participants over all 4 weeks of the drive can be viewed HERE)
  • It is somewhat beyond my abilities to separate redirect and article reviews in my statistic gathering queries, so I apologist that I cannot single out the user who reviewed the top number of articles, though I suspect it is one of the top 6: Dschslava, Babymissfortune, JTtheOG, Boleyn, Seacactus 13, or Cwmhiraeth. If you could each self-report the rough percentages/ratios of articles/redirects, I can crown a 'Top Article Reviewer'. Thanks! (update: it is JTtheOG)

Well done! We have made fantastic progress during the backlog drive, reducing the backlog to less than half of what it was at the end of December, and we are now well on track to review the remaining articles before the end of ACTRIAL (14th March). We are nearly there! Big thanks to everyone who participated, and awards will be sent out in the next week. Cheers and keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done, everyone, especially Insertcleverphrasehere. The momentum's slowed, as expected, but if we can keep it up we'll still be hacking away at the backlog every week. I don't really review redirects, I perhaps did 100 at most. It was good that the updates mentioned the backlog of redirects, it encouraged me to do a few, and to do about 300 user pages too - the amount of self-promotion there is crazy! Good to see so many people getting involved in this drive. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
+1 Atsme📞📧 15:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok... finally finished the .gif, took me a couple hours but well worth it! I'll make another one when the backlog drive hits zero. Enjoy! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Nice work! You can see the flagging in the end Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: Having reviewed and/or chatted with a number of the top reviewers during the drive, I believe the 'Top Article Reviewer' was JTtheOG, having reviewed roughly 1800 articles. Congrats. I will be slowly doling out the awards over the next week or so, as I am also checking for review quality by re-reviewing a small sample from each reviewer prior to handing out the Barnstars for all those who reviewed 100 or more articles. So if you haven't heard anything yet, I just haven't got down the list that far yet. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I have finally completed giving out the awards. Congrats again to everyone that participated. Note that the backlog has basically been static since the end of the backlog drive, so if we intend to meet our goal of reducing the backlog by March 14th, we are going to need to pick up the pace a bit (we need a reduction of about 100 articles per day). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
In fourth week, 155 reviewers did the reviewing. So i think, now we have come to the "50 reviewers doing most of the work" phase. But still, even if we review just seven articles per day, we are talking about 350 articles per day. We should try to do 10. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving to Draft

Ok, so John_Thompson_(businessman) is clearly not ready for mainspace, so other than his former job position there's no info. Is it better to speedy delete or send to draft? The creator was CU blocked so it seems draft is a wasted effort. Atsme📞📧 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

...Aaaaand it's gone.Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Magical. :) For some reason, my speedy requests end up with tag being removed, not the article. Is there a way I can check how many speedy deletes I've requested vs how many were actually speedy deleted? Atsme📞📧 12:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Atsme, by seeing how many blue links there still are in your CSD log. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Atsme I believe that CSD noms made with Page Curation do not show up in the Twinkle CSD log, and I know Twinkle allows you to choose to not notify the page author. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
'Nother question - is there a way to add an endif or other command to the curation tool so that notices are not automatically posted to a CU blocked user/sockpuppet? Atsme📞📧 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope,not that I know of. Anyway, I don't think it's an issue that needs the attention of the 'overworked' devs ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung Requested updates to the page curation tools are a f***ing joke at this point. Honestly the silence is so deafening with regards to our requests at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements that we would probably be more successful just getting some talented wikipedian to rewrite the page curation tools as a script. Why the devs wrote it as a back-end program in the first place is beyond me. What a waste of everyone's time. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The silence is defening because I'm no longer pushing the rickety waggon along the windy cobbled street of the list I created at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements. As you know already, experience has shown that the more we complain, the more they deliberately put these things on a back burner. The development teams at the WMF only develop software they want to develop, and often it's not even what the community asked for. Remember also that they are first and foremost software engineers, they are neither businesspersons, nor do they have the required managerial skills for knowing what the stakeholders need or how to set priorities. I have spent many years on the NPP/NPR project, now it's up to someone else to take the initiative - I got the Page Curation system developed (although I was in no way responsible for its actual coding), then the NPR user group, and then ACTRIAL, and and now , finally, after m ore than a year and a half, the backlog is down from its ridiculous heights to something slightly more managable. I firmly believe however, that such a large and critically important software solution is the responsibility of the WMF to develop and maintain - there was never any talk when Wikipedia was created that the editors should also write the software, especially when people are being paid salaries for doing it. Now I'm off doing something else to protect the encyclopedia - as they say: a change is as good as a rest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently complained about this (User_talk:DannyH_(WMF)#Page_Curation_updates_long_overdue.), with little success. It seems that DannyH (WMF) (who leads the community tech team) expects us to ask via the wishlist if we want fixes to the software they developed, and they have no intention of keeping it up to date otherwise. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
They won't even fix bugs. Fixing bugs is not creating new tools or adding features to existing tools and should not be subject to voting. Mduvekot (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

visible index

I recently removed this special:diff/824500331 after reviewing the page. A page gets automatically gets indexed after the 90 periods. But does it include that "visible" stuff? It can been seen in this revision at the bottom. We are supposed to remove it, right? (just a heads-up: she looks attractive in the thumbnail, but sort of scary in full sized image; approach with caution.) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The INDEX magic word and template should really be removed from all articles (and really it shouldn't be used at all, in my opinion), since they're ignored in article space. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Backlog as of 12th February, another visual snapshot.

NPP backlog, number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 30 and 90 days old, green is less than 30 days old.

Our goal of reducing the backlog by March 14th is, as of today, only one month away. As you can see, we have had a bit of a pileup at the front of the backlog over the last few weeks. During that period, the backlog has remained relatively flat, so we are actually making good progress toward our March 14th goal, even if it might not look like it from the raw number of articles in the backlog. There has been a lot of reduction at the back, and if we are going to have a backlog, a front heavy one is the best we can hope for. Thanks to those who have been working at the back, keep up the good work!

For a recap: articles older than 90 days are indexed by Google even if they have not been reviewed. Therefore, the red articles above are currently indexed and should be our immediate priority. By March 14th (the end of the initial phase of ACTRIAL) most of those articles marked in orange will also be in the indexed red zone, so they will have to go by March 14th as well. The green articles can be largely ignored for now, although a reduction there would certainly help us avoid hitting a cliff once that wall works its way back to the 90 index point at the end of April.

I hope this helps illustrate (literally) the challenge we face. It is important that we meet these goals, because once ACTRIAL's initial phase ends on the 14th of March, we will have at least one month of time where non-autoconfirmed editors will be able to create new articles (previously created 300 or so extra articles per day). Now that I have finished reviewing the backlog drive, I am heading back to the coal face as well. Cheers and happy reviewing! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Flowchart, marking pages as reviewed when deletion tagging.

Note: I just updated the NPP flowchart to connect all deletion nominations to 'mark article as reviewed', per this discussion a while back, and common usage. Note that you should keep track of nominated articles via PROD/CSD logs if possible to check that the CSD templates are not removed by the authors and decide if escalating a removed PROD is necessary. If you are using Twinkle for deletion tagging, you can activate the logs by creating userpages at Username/CSD log, and Username/PROD log. If you use the Page Curation tools for deletion tagging, you can use your deletion tag log. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

How can you prevent an editor from just recreating an article after a version has been deleted? I recently came across an article (Zuzana Vačková I think) where several previous articles, each written under a slightly different title, had been successively created, and each deleted in turn. Another problem I have come across is articles turned down at AfC, which are soon afterwards published despite this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep deleting and salting the offending articles. Serve Grindcomber with a warning for creation of inappropriate pages. The next time they do it, ask an admin for action (don't waste time at ANI). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:Salt is useful when tagging an article that has been repeatedly recreated. Nothing to about people that recreate at different titles except get an admin to block them and keep deleting the offending articles by checking the user's contribution history. Nothing actually stops a user from just creating an article that was turned down at AfC, and can in some cases be desirable (if the reviewing AfC editors were being overly strict). Basically just treat these articles like any other and judge each article on its own merits. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Did you see the cunning edit made by this user at 18:58 on 21 August 2017‎? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, salting is good; but it doesnt always work. I came across an actor who kept on creating article about himself. After the name was salted, he created it as "<name> (actor)", then "dancer", and recently he became a wrestler too. Sometimes, its just better not to salt an article so that it can be monitored easily. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

review requested

Could someone please review Kandankarykkavu Devi Temple? I could have done it, but I dont know how to communicate with the author. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

done by Serial Number 54129. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingotek

Lingotek is not a new article but for some unknown reason I had it on my watchlist. It underwent a large expansion yesterday and I thought it very promotional so I checked it for copyvios and found it was riddled with them. I have only ever nominated an article for speedy deletion with the page curation tool, which I could not use in this case. I wanted to nominate it for G11 and G12, but could not discover how to combine them, so in the end just went for G12. How do you nominate an article for speedy deletion for more than one reason? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You can use either twinkle or {{Db-multiple|G11|G12}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to adjust the template but I see you have taken the matter into your own hands. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
A prime example of what I was on about here. This totally new 30K page, overwriting a previous article, was created by an IP [1] in violation of multiple policies but it wouldn't have come up for review as a new page: Noyster (talk), 12:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The call to {{db-multiple}} should be {{db-multiple|G11|G12|url= |url2= |url3= }} with the URLs of the copied webpages specified. Cabayi (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

few articles with questionable notability

Hi.
Makhamakhi has created many articles, a lot of them have questionable notability. But this is my opinion. A second look is requested. Thanks, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's a lot of Indian cinema... rather mixed bag, some of that stuff seems well notable, some rather doubtful. As of yesterday, there won't be any more coming from that source at any rate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Backlog Raising to over 3700 again

The backlog has been raising recently, possibly due to a recent influx of additional articles per day (on the article creation stats charts, it seems like we have had a bit of an increase in article creation rate in February compared to January). It also seems like there have been more articles being created from redirects in recent days, though that might just be a lack of people reviewing the back of the backlog of late. :(

In any case, please consider reviewing a few extra articles per day. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The number of unreviewed redirects is also up over 8,600 as well (up from 5,800 on Jan 29th). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I've never reviewed redirects; and my review rate has gone down since like 3-4 months. After 2-3 days from now, I'll try to maintain an average of 10-15 pages per day. I think in the next newsletter instead of a vague "few articles per day", we should add some definitive number. Not a big one, but a small one like 10 pages per day. With emphasis on calculation, like "we have 200 reviewers, if we did only 10 pages per day, that would be 2000 pages per day." I mean, if we make it vague, most of editors wouldn't review. Same would go with some big/unrealistic number. But a small number might make them review pages. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The backlog goes up and down, but the overall trend of the last 6 months is going down with periods where it rises a few hundred and platueaus before decreasing. I’m not particularly worried at this point. I also don’t really track the redirect backlog at all. I appreciate the work people do there, and if they enjoy it, great, but the main focus of NPP has always been mainspace articles. We’re doing pretty well on that count currently, so I’m less concerned with upticks on redurects or small increases in the backlog. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers&oldid=826694016"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers
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