This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Meeanaya, someone who had NPP and AFC rights, has been blocked for UPE. It appears they have been corruptly reviewing articles - suspicious patrols/AFC accepts include Hafeez Rahman, Kred (platform) and Draft:Jayride (I was suspicious of this user for unquarantining this draft). A review of their patrols is warranted. You may find this listing useful. MER-C 12:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yunshui strikes again! This one's created a slew of spam pages and, as far as I can tell, accepting AFCs created by socks ( Sadaharu Yagi). I haven't checked the patrols yet - see [1]. MER-C 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the NPP permission needs to be tougher with a longer period before qualification so that more time is available to identify socks, and upes, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree mandatory training only helps us with good faith new editors - UPE going to UPE. Now higher qualifications might help us slow down UPE. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had around minimums and around expectations - that is should the expectation really be above that minimum. As a person who has been doing a lot of work since I got the bit at PERM/NPR I have no trouble turning people down for lack of experience but once they pass the minimum I would have a hard time turning them down because they've only been around for 3 months rather than 6. So if they don't have experience I can latch onto to show an notability and deletion they're going to get declined no matter what. But honestly I have been looking for reasons to say yes to a person - we want the help after all - and to normally doing that through a time limited initial grant. Now even with that mindset I end up turning down a lot of people - though I normally try to offer a path to a future yes.
I would welcome feedback from the reviewers here who aren't sysops (and thus can't act directly) about what how free or tight I should be with the PERM, but would also suggest if we think 6 months (or 12 months, which on first pass I would be opposed to) is the right minimum we should plan on changing that through RfC rather than just through admin discretion. But we should do all this while balancing our desire to stop UPE from getting the PERM with our overall desire to have an active review corp. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request... Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted.-- DannyS712 ( talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Checkusers are given discretion to check an account...... in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption. Would you care to expand on your thinking on why this would be a bad thing, or is it just that you think it's not policy-compliant? GirthSummit (blether) 09:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. As a followup to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 32#Ratelimit, I have recently been coming across the ratelimit more as I try to do some more patrolling of redirects (while looking for potential tasks for DannyS712 bot III). Would other reviewers object if I asked for account creator rights in order to avoid the rate limit? I agree to continue patrolling responsibly. Thoughts? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This may be a stupid question, but the green 'Set Filter' button disappers when I try to press it, becoming hidden behind the bottom grey bar on the New Pages Feed. Please help, thanks Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking this AfD might be of interest to NPP editors [2]. Regards --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 07:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
As I am guessing I am not the only editor who frequently comes across Eurovision articles this AfD may be of interest to editors here with experience and opinions on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am reviewing Battle of Firmum and in its current stub/single-sourced form it would, in my opinion, be better to merge the content with Social War (91–88 BC) and leave behind a redirect (Battle of Firmum could be a stand alone article--actually it was a siege I think--but would require access to some good databases/libraries). I've read the tutorial and the flow-chart but I am a little unsure on how to proceed. Do I nominate Battle of Firmum for merge through this process: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers ? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Today I noticed that Masoom Shankar came up in my Watchlist. When I checked the page, the page curation tool was opened, and it showed that the article had been reviewed. However, when I checked the logs, the only person to mark it reviewed was me...6 months ago, as part of an AfD nomination where it was ultimately deleted. If I'm correct that the bug here is that review-status persists after article deletion, then we would appear to have a glaring loophole where an article could be deleted, recreated, and then escape notice. signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Please be very careful with these articles. In the selection I checked two of the three references are fake, and some information is not confirmed by the remaining one source. I will now reach out to the author, but care needs to be exercised.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't done one of these backlog updates in quite a while, but it seems that it is needed at the moment. Currently the backlog stands at 5946 articles. There are also a further 6516 redirects which are unreviewed.
Currently there are just over 200 unreviewed articles in the backlog which have passed the index point (red in the above graph). This is a significant worry, as these articles have been freed to be indexed by Google but have not yet been ticked off by a new page patroller.
We need more reviewers reviewing the backlog at the back; oldest first. These articles are usually more difficult to review, often having been passed over by more inexperienced reviewers. So if you have the skills, please consider setting your New Pages Feed to 'oldest' first.
For others please continue to review what you can, and consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox to your user page!
This user has taken the pledge to review 2 new pages a day. Help us bring the queue to 0!
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 04:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CASSIOPEIA has been doing some great work at NPP School and has now designed some userboxes for graduates. As part of that they also drafted a possible new NPP logo. Thoughts on sticking with our traditional logo (top) or the newly designed logo (bottom)? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and created a draft of the list page and the request page. Both could no doubt be improved - especially the request page. However, since we still have a BOTREQ before this starts happening I figure we have some time. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 how did you decide on the "minimum" closure time? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new template that will display information relevant to these kinds of requests. I have also added in language about 24 hours and at least 3 patrollers in consensus. Additionally I am thinking that we set some sort of autoarchive - if 3 patrollers haven't come along (or a sysop acting in their discretion) that the requests are archived after X time. I threw out 2 weeks as a starting point but would welcome suggestions. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
While patrolling today, I came across articles created through participation of the Wiki Ed course
Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSD/IPE Money and Finance IMF WB (Fall 2019). My impression from sampling several of the articles created through the course is that they largely fail to include any sources that are not affiliated with either the World Bank or the IMF. I'm a bit perturbed by what is essentially a mass production of articles that portray only the World Bank's own perspective on its operations throughout the world. Something is going wrong if an article like
Morocco and the World Bank gets a peer review that says that all of the sources are from reliable sources and there is more than 6 sources used. Most sources are online sources coming from empirical organizations.
I'd appreciate input from other NPP reviewers as to what to do in this situation. signed,
Rosguill
talk 23:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping to give an NPP school pupil a primer on how to evaluate whether a source is reliable or not, and went looking around for relevant essays or guidelines on Wikipedia. However, while I was able to find some very subject-specific pages ( WP:MEDRS of course, plus the essays WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS), I wasn't able to find anything that introduces a reader to the process of evaluating the reliability of a typical secondary source. WP:V and WP:RS touch on it a little, but I don't think that the information there is really a sufficient guide to assessing an unknown source. Does anyone know of any useful essays or guidelines that I've missed? If we really don't have any, one should probably be written signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I have seen an activity a few times now doing NPP, where one "new" editor is trying to get their non-notable/refused draft article published into Mainspace, and another "low edits" editor comes along and moves it for them (bypassing AFC). The most recent example being Bobby-C, which, per the talk page of Libdolittle, was an article that has been re-created numerous times post various AfD/CSDs.
My question is whether the protections that we have over "new accounts" creating WP articles is consistent with the permissions regarding who can move articles from Draft into Main, AND, whether regardless of these rules, we need stronger rules for page moves? I am sure this issue has been debated here before, but I could not find the relevant discussion - sorry. thanks in advance. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I have seen this multiple times. I block the accounts on sight as sockpuppets. In fact, I was browsing [3] today and quarantined five articles, none of which were flagged by my usual means. Regarding some of the ideas here: there is no API for searching deleted titles, and there probably won't be for another 8 years (or however long it takes for the WMF to actually care about it), so there cannot be a bot that flags reposts. The lists of likely spam pages I post on WT:WPSPAM are about as close as it gets. MER-C 14:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
On thing I find is a time sink doing NPP is tidying up the article for basic issues:
All of these things could be solved by having a “New Article Wizard” that runs through a check list/questionnaire with the author before publishing (eg is this bio of a living person). We could also add the controls to the Wizard of not allowing an article to be published whose “reflist” is empty (eg stop the problem of a bare url in the EL as being satisfactory), and automatically fixing bare URLs etc. Has this been discussed before? I feel like we are ver low-tech in this area? Thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Jane Doe (born 1 January, 1950) is an English mathematician..., etc., with example sections, and Category:Living people at the bottom. That is trivial to set up. — MusikAnimal talk 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to thank MusikAnimal for the explanation and suggestions. Not everyone who edits or maintains Wikipedia is an IT expert and his elucidations are critically important to those of us (like me ) who aren't deep code programmers. The idea of providing squashable templates for different kinds of articles is excellent and shows how dumb the rest of us are for not thinking of it ;) In anticipation of ACPERM, I spent many hours rewriting all the pages of the Article Wizard (I am a communication scientist), complete with their functions, but someone who has hardly edited at all for two years went and threw it all out with not so much as a murmur and replaced it all with something which IMO is far too simplistic and defies the object of the purpose which was to encourage new editors to use it and adhere to its advice.
I haven't seen any instances of the Article Wizard being used since ACPERM was rolled out - there used to be a tag on such drafts and they included lot more preloaded elements than the wizard provides now. Perhaps template:AFC submission/draftnew means just that and it's a new feature I missed, but the text needs to be changed ever so slightly. What we need are some quick stats:
So if the wizard is indeed being used, I'd be happy to get the Article Wizard back up to date again - based on what we know now since ACPERM - and create the sample pre-loaded templates (which even for me is easy enough). We could then discuss making the wizard mandatory for all editors per Britishfinance (at least for non autopatrolled users), but I fear that there would be a lot of resistance from the community to such a suggestion. Nevertheless, even since ACPERM, a lot of junk - or at least inappropriate articles - are still being created by autoconfirmed users, and with an NPP backlog that has increased by nearly 50% in just 10 weeks, we cannot continue to rely on the work of our famous '750' reviewers.
I realise that a lot of this is possibly strictly AfC domain, and perhaps Primefac would like to chime in here, but we have to think how we can reduce the flow of useless articles through NPP which nevertheless are not covered by a deletion criterion or rationale, and in doing so, relieve both AfC and NPP of a lot of work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What I was actually looking for rather than the actual number of submissions was
Unconfirmed users are directed to to the Wizard which is exactly what since ACPERM is supposed to happen following what I and others campaigned for in ACTRIAL, so I guess MusikAnimal is reasonably correct with his wager. Many submitted drafts are from users who are already confirmed, but most of these are either not ready for mainspace or are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Few submissions appear to be from IP users.
Thus, arguably, anything that does not first come through the NPR feed is less work for reviewers and helps to keep the 7,000 backlog down, but it does not help AfC. How many submitted drafts actually make it back to the NPR queue? There is of course a clear distinction (or should be) between declined drafts and rejected drafts. Is there somewhere I can find a category of rejected (not declined) drafts? I found one here but it only has one entry in it.
I am specifically working on some ideas that may significantly reduce the backlogs of both NPR and AfC queues but which would not put off genuinely motivated new users from contributing to Wikipedia and which may encourage others not to abandon their drafts. The length of time it takes to get a new article or draft reviewed is perhaps even more bitey than some of the comments and templates that new(ish) users are subjected to. I would be grateful if anyone ( Primefac for example) could help by pointing me to some of the stats I need if they exist already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Templates that take care of all the usual boilerplate are an obvious idea; word processors have had these for decades. But we already have an Article wizard and it doesn't actually help new editors create articles. Instead, it puts most of its effort into deterring or preventing its users from creating articles. I suppose that's because its development was influenced by the AFC/NPP folk who tend have a similar negative philosophy of preventing people from creating articles, rather than helping them.
So, if we create a wizard that makes it easy for new users to create articles which look superficially presentable then the natural consequence will be that you will get a lot more articles and so the flood will rise rather than sink. The trouble is that it will then become more difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff. Patrollers would have to focus more on reading what the articles say and check whether they make logical sense; that their sources stand up and so on. This tends to require subject-matter expertise and perspicacity and that's more challenging. For example, see English clause element which I found when reviewing Rosguill's work. I'm not convinced that this is a sound topic or a topic that we don't do better elsewhere. It may actually be subtle spam; designed to promote the particular grammars which it features. But because the article is superficially presentable and is written in a difficult but plausible style, it got past NPP. See the list of scholarly publishing stings where papers have been accepted when they look superficially ok but no-one takes the trouble to check that they actually make sense.
You get this type of issue when students are asked to create articles – see Wiki Education Foundation. They tend to produce articles that are half-baked and that's, of course, because they are students; they are still learning their subject. I recently helped out with an activity at a London college in which a horde of students were being turned loose to create a WikiBook on the general topic of Interdisciplinarity. This was an absurdly wide brief and, while the students might have got something out of it, their output was unlikely to be useful. Many PhD theses and academic papers have this quality because they are written for effect in the publish or perish setting of academia. More is not necessarily better.
Me, I'm going to be cranking out a stack of articles soon as we approach the 6 million milestone. I know what I'm doing and so have already selected a rich seam to work. But consider what happened last time. One person created a stack of articles about camera lenses such as Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS and they are still there. Another editor did Turkish villages while the winner did Australian shrubs from a large genus. You see the problem; you risk creating lots of Rambots.
Andrew🐉( talk) 16:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
"address common unwanted content such as spam, copyvios and nonsense, and also to encourage good faith new users"which I think was done here.That said I think you'll find many editors here in complete agreement to the criticisms you level at student editors (whose incentives do diverge from those of the same age who are here "naturally") and of the stacks of articles that can be made on specialized topics (one of the few specific unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia I can recall was with an editor about a camera article). But would helping these articles which are going to get made regardless be made better harm the encyclopedia? Or does it mean that the stuff that makes it through our processes are fixed by the people investing the time to make them, and who may not be around for the longrun, rather than an already overworked and overburdened editor base? I suspect that there are ways, including with these templates, that we can nudge these editors uncommitted to Wikipedia beyond whatever they're trying to write about to do a better job and if so that helps the encyclopedia as a whole. This strikes me as exactly the sort of thing we should be wishing for. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
In anticipation of ACPERM, I spent many hours rewriting all the pages of the Article Wizard (I am a communication scientist), complete with their functions, but someone who has hardly edited at all for two years went and threw it all out with not so much as a murmur and replaced it all with something which IMO is far too simplistic and defies the object of the purpose which was to encourage new editors to use it and adhere to its advice.That editor breezed out again almost as quick as they breezed in and what we have is not a Wizard at all - it doesn't provide any help whatsoever. What I have been attempting to describe in this thread is that the Wizard should be something that deters the creators of obviously non encyclopedic material and spammers, while actively helping those who are trying to make a genuine good faith article. It's not rocket science but what we are heading for - possibly because I said I was already working on something - is a lot of talk about picks, shovels, and backhoes - stuff we already know is is wrong with the current system, and stuff like Insertcleverphrasehere's suggestion which is exactly what I have quietly been working on in my idle moments. So, yes, be careful what you wish for; you might get it! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've filed a bug report at Maniphest to address this issue. I suspect that some new redirects have been created that have some weird formatting that is breaking the new pages feed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, apologies for adding another item to the talk page but I would be grateful for some guidance from NPP veterans. I have run across a number of new pages for upcoming events, movies, etc. For example this one: Slovakia at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics. It certainly seems that this article will turn into an appropriate, even valuable, encyclopedia entry in line with WP:EVENTCRIT once the Winter Youth Olympics start and no doubt the page creator is saving time creating this "shell" article to update later. However, at the moment it is basically blank (although maybe not an A3?). I have tagged it for references and categories. What would be the best way to treat this article and similar ones? Thanks. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 10:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill ( talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Arthistorian1977 ( talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | DannyS712 ( talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA ( talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Boleyn ( talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Ymblanter ( talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Cwmhiraeth ( talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Folks, does anybody know how to submit page to draft. It is this: Maria Canals (pianist). Thanks. scope_creep Talk 13:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill and I have been discussing having our first Source Guide discussion sometime in early January. The question is where should we go first. I have collected data on a couple of occasions and found the following countries while doing a search using the NPP Browser:
Country | 11/20 count | 12/9 count |
---|---|---|
China | 38 | 42 |
Ghana | 54 | 50 |
Indonesia | 26 | 27 |
India | 338 | 352 |
Iran | 52 | 61 |
Malaysia | 27 | 31 |
Pakistan | 47 | 47 |
Russia | 70 | 84 |
Turkey | 9 | 12 |
Vietnam | 8 | 10 |
I would suggest we either do Turkey first (despite being the least, Rosguill has already done the prep work for the RfC) or Ghana which has the advantage of being a country with English language sources without an overwhelming number of articles (ala India). Any thoughts from others? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this is a good initiative (and understand the problem, having NPP'ed myself); however, I think that the best outcome would be that this is integrated with the general community. WP:RS/P, is a great tool, but it should have the RSP's for a wider range of countries. In addition, we should have a WP:RS/Journal of Record (per Andrew Davidson), which are considered largely good sources, but not RSPs. Given the "core" of WP's mission is chronicling content from RS, I think this issue, which is a real problem in NPP, is also a wider weakness that now needs fixing. Why not conduct this exercise at the WP:RS-level – E.g. have a workshop that gets agreement on unambiguous RSPs for a wider range of countries (e.g. The Hindu in India, The Irish Times in Ireland etc.). After that, do another workshop for the JoR's? This is not just an NPP problem, but a real weakness of en-Wikipedia, and should be addressed at a community-level? thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The last NPP newsletter of the year is set to go out tomorrow. @ Rosguill, Scottywong, Britishfinance, and Vexations: (and others) the discussion has stalled out a little but I'd like to announce our next step. Do we feel like the countrapproachch (I think it would be Ghana) or the "top sources" approach is the best next step? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team has an important update: The Page Curation Improvements and New Pages Feed project is now complete, after 7+ months of work. We have posted the final update on Meta-Wiki, which provides detailed information on all remaining proposals. Thank you all for assistance throughout the project, and we're so glad we could help improve tools for New Pages Reviewers! -- IFried (WMF) ( talk) 16:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Ilana, reviewing new pages, is the single, most important function in the whole of of the English Wikipedia; naturally you are thrilled at having been able to address our needs, but you have only been doing what we are paying you for. We the volunteers do all the work compiling and controlling this encyclopedia. it was bad enough when the original developers of the Triage software abandoned development on Page Curation, but you will not remember the history, and there are few people left at the WMF who remember (or who want to remember) either. I admit that there has been important work done on it this year, but some of us have spent hundreds of hours over the years evaluating what is needed and trying to get the WMF to understand that if development had been done on a regular basis, there would not have been the recent panic to get an NPR user right established, ACTRIAL done, ORES to work, and something done about the increase in COI, spam and Undeclared Paid Editing (which even the WMF staff have been found guilty of in their spare time).
This year has seen the biggest Community/WMF constitutional crisis ever. Volunteers' trust in the WMF is at its lowest level ever but there should be a happy symbiosis between the owners of the servers and the creators of the content on them. However, the WMF who enjoy their office comforts, perks, and junkets never admit that it is our volunteer work that generates the huge surplus of funds, and hence any claims of 'not enough staff' or 'not enough money' are absolutely risible.
Ilana, I find this WMF statement to be typical of party political campaign BS. The Foundation is preaching to itself and nobody here believes any of it. If you are personally in a genuine managerial position, I appeal to you on behalf of the NPR community, to ensure that the development of NPP remains an on-going work in process and one for which there should exist a permanent departmental team of developers. If you do not in fact hold a position of responsibility (and I concede that you are quite new in the WMF), then please ensure that the people at the top, who are ostensibly neither fully aware nor overly concerned about what goes on the shop floor (and have practically told us so) are made aware of what's going on and that a competent delegation of tasks is carried out as soon as possible. I and others fought long and hard for nearly a decade with no thanks to get ACPERM and NPR where it is today in face of the constant insults online, at Phab, in the corridors by senior WMF staff at Wikimania conferences, and our scheduled slots on the topic neatly replaced at the last minute by WMF people with more promotional, repetitive WMF navel-gazing screed. Please don't let me and all the people on this page down who have worked so hard.
The Signpost has been mentioned; indeed, besides the mentioned piece, among my many routine articles for the magazine in 2018, I wrote some wholly justified criticisms of the WMF and its management, but so have others. This year's major events caused by WMF incompetency, although perhaps not directly New Page Patrol related, resulted in many admins laying down their tools in protest. It therefore marks the beginning of some changes in the way this en.Wiki project is going to be run, and mark my works, the core of hard-working reviewers is getting fed up already, the backlog is rising steeply again, and if they ever go on strike - which they may well do - there will be hell to pay. We are fiercely proud of our voluntary, unthanked and totally uncompensated work which very often goes far beyond a paid staffer's 35 hour week, or telecommuting from the comfort of their living-rooms, and the occasional junket to head office or a contrived conference, but it will be the end of something the WMF is so pompously proud of and refuses to give the tens of thousands of volunteers any credit for. Rant over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019 includes this:
[[File:2019 NPP Backlog.png||800px|A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19]]
The double pipe results in a Bogus file options lint error, an empty option. File declarations should not have double pipes. Please try to avoid this error in the future. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 11:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and published an essay-in-progress about reviewing redirects at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects (shortcut WP:RPATROL). Consider yourselves invited to make changes and suggestions as you see fit, but it's long overdue that we have some sort of a guide to reviewing redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 01:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
When an RfD tag is placed on a redirect, it gets added to the redirect queue, likely because it gets tagged as an article created from a redirect. These pages don't need reviewing as they are already receiving more than enough scrutiny at RfD, but they end up cluttering the back of the new pages queue. I would propose that we have a bot automatically mark these pages as reviewed. Such a bot would be easy to program if it's allowed to mark AfDs and MfDs as reviewed as well: I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario where this causes a problem. Courtesy pinig DannyS712. signed, Rosguill talk 07:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I've drafted the following and figured it could be of some use:
It appears that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject of [[Draft:|Draft:]], and as such you should submit this article to be published through the Articles for Creation process.
Before editing the article further, please first disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.
I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s
neutrality and
verifiability policies, as well as our
notability guidelines. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
source code
|
---|
It appears that you may have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] with the subject of [[Draft:|]], and as such you should submit this article to be published through the [[WP:AfC|Articles for Creation]] process. Before editing the article further, please first '''disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.''' I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]] (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s [[WP:POV|neutrality]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]] policies, as well as our [[WP:N|notability guidelines]]. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~ |
Here's a slight variation for new users who clearly have issues with POV on an article with the potential to be promotional, but that are not clear-cut COI cases:
An article you recently created, [[Draft:|Draft:]], does not conform to Wikipedia’s neutrality policies, and as such you should submit this article to be published through the Articles for Creation process.
Before editing the article further, please first disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.
I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s
neutrality and
verifiability policies, as well as our
notability guidelines. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
code
|
---|
An article you recently created, [[Draft:|]], does not conform to Wikipedia’s [[WP:POV|neutrality policies]], and as such you should submit this article to be published through the [[WP:AfC|Articles for Creation]] process. Before editing the article further, please first '''disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.''' I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]] (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s [[WP:POV|neutrality]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]] policies, as well as our [[WP:N|notability guidelines]]. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~ |
Seems like this happens every few months. Current breakage plays out as creating the log entry [5] but "failing to create" (or find?) "the target" for the actual discussion, which then has to be set up manually. Instance in question was not a 2nd+ AfD, just a normal 1st one. That shit ain't helpful :/ I do try to remember to just use Twinkle instead, but sometimes I don't. Is there some constant, weakly tested tinkering going on with that functionality, or why does it repeatedly break? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Would just like to thank everyone for the huge decrease in the queue recently, as evidenced by the graph at the top if this page. Let the momentum continue. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
2020 FC Seoul season was created without sources, so I moved it to Draft:2020 FC Seoul season. The user copied the page content back, replacing the redirect. What is the best way to handle the situation? b uidh e 05:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the work of many (but especially DannyS712 and Rosguill) the redirect whitelist is off to a great start. As this endeavor becomes more mature adding more specifics to the guidelines seems appropriate. Rosguill added some today reflecting the standard that they've been using. After some discussion on their talk page, it seems like we should have some minimum standards (though the in practice standard will likely be higher the - just as it is for many PERMs). Rosguill has suggested:
Minimum criteria is generally over 100 redirects created with few-to-none deleted outside of housekeeping processes"
does this seem right? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Not an issue after all
|
---|
This was brought up a while back and appears to still be happening. Editors can take an article that was originally a redirect and turn it into a full article, and it will bypass our process. See, for instance,
Nathan J. Robinson (which looks fine, but others where something similar happens might not be). Can we address this?
Sdkb (
talk) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
This might be a mad idea, but how about some kind of "badge" that could be stuck on the articles of WP:RS/P's to say that it is an RS/P (or that it is definitively not considered an RS)? I don't know if this could be extended outside of RS/P (probably not until we have longer agreed lists per earlier discussions). My rationale is that, ultimately, RS is at the heart of Wikipedia. Without RS, Wikipedia, in theory, should be blank. However, I think the upkeep/debate/discussion of even RS/Ps is not great (you get much more participation in other less important areas of WP, imho). There are many times in WP (doing NPP, AfD etc.), when you find yourself checking out the WP article of a proposed RS to decide if it is an RS – wouldn't it be useful (and interesting for the RS/P community), if they could "stamp" a badge on articles that met their criteria (or definitely did not meet their criteria). Might raise interest levels both internally (and externally) on what an RS/P (or RS) is - E.g. high profile media publications might have a "Not RS/P" stamped at the top of their article, which would show the outside world, that while anybody can edit WP, our standards for what is kept are not trivial? Britishfinance ( talk) 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Bradv posted the following to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist which I'm BOLDLY moving here. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Can this page use {{ user2}} links for the list of users, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? – bradv 🍁 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that any page created by a user that is currently autopatrolled (including admins) and was not previously unpatrolled by a reviewer be automatically patrolled by bot ( DannyS712 bot III). I was trying to debug something and came across https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indian_head_bob&redirect=no - created by @ Rosguill: before they became an admin. Had it been created after becoming an admin, it would have been autopatrolled. Since it wasn't, but since adminship isn't granted to those who have recently created pages that would be controversial to accept, I suggest that it would be likewise uncontroversial for a bot to patrol the page. Thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Meeanaya, someone who had NPP and AFC rights, has been blocked for UPE. It appears they have been corruptly reviewing articles - suspicious patrols/AFC accepts include Hafeez Rahman, Kred (platform) and Draft:Jayride (I was suspicious of this user for unquarantining this draft). A review of their patrols is warranted. You may find this listing useful. MER-C 12:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yunshui strikes again! This one's created a slew of spam pages and, as far as I can tell, accepting AFCs created by socks ( Sadaharu Yagi). I haven't checked the patrols yet - see [1]. MER-C 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the NPP permission needs to be tougher with a longer period before qualification so that more time is available to identify socks, and upes, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree mandatory training only helps us with good faith new editors - UPE going to UPE. Now higher qualifications might help us slow down UPE. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had around minimums and around expectations - that is should the expectation really be above that minimum. As a person who has been doing a lot of work since I got the bit at PERM/NPR I have no trouble turning people down for lack of experience but once they pass the minimum I would have a hard time turning them down because they've only been around for 3 months rather than 6. So if they don't have experience I can latch onto to show an notability and deletion they're going to get declined no matter what. But honestly I have been looking for reasons to say yes to a person - we want the help after all - and to normally doing that through a time limited initial grant. Now even with that mindset I end up turning down a lot of people - though I normally try to offer a path to a future yes.
I would welcome feedback from the reviewers here who aren't sysops (and thus can't act directly) about what how free or tight I should be with the PERM, but would also suggest if we think 6 months (or 12 months, which on first pass I would be opposed to) is the right minimum we should plan on changing that through RfC rather than just through admin discretion. But we should do all this while balancing our desire to stop UPE from getting the PERM with our overall desire to have an active review corp. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request... Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted.-- DannyS712 ( talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Checkusers are given discretion to check an account...... in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption. Would you care to expand on your thinking on why this would be a bad thing, or is it just that you think it's not policy-compliant? GirthSummit (blether) 09:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. As a followup to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 32#Ratelimit, I have recently been coming across the ratelimit more as I try to do some more patrolling of redirects (while looking for potential tasks for DannyS712 bot III). Would other reviewers object if I asked for account creator rights in order to avoid the rate limit? I agree to continue patrolling responsibly. Thoughts? Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This may be a stupid question, but the green 'Set Filter' button disappers when I try to press it, becoming hidden behind the bottom grey bar on the New Pages Feed. Please help, thanks Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking this AfD might be of interest to NPP editors [2]. Regards --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 07:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
As I am guessing I am not the only editor who frequently comes across Eurovision articles this AfD may be of interest to editors here with experience and opinions on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am reviewing Battle of Firmum and in its current stub/single-sourced form it would, in my opinion, be better to merge the content with Social War (91–88 BC) and leave behind a redirect (Battle of Firmum could be a stand alone article--actually it was a siege I think--but would require access to some good databases/libraries). I've read the tutorial and the flow-chart but I am a little unsure on how to proceed. Do I nominate Battle of Firmum for merge through this process: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers ? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Today I noticed that Masoom Shankar came up in my Watchlist. When I checked the page, the page curation tool was opened, and it showed that the article had been reviewed. However, when I checked the logs, the only person to mark it reviewed was me...6 months ago, as part of an AfD nomination where it was ultimately deleted. If I'm correct that the bug here is that review-status persists after article deletion, then we would appear to have a glaring loophole where an article could be deleted, recreated, and then escape notice. signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Please be very careful with these articles. In the selection I checked two of the three references are fake, and some information is not confirmed by the remaining one source. I will now reach out to the author, but care needs to be exercised.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't done one of these backlog updates in quite a while, but it seems that it is needed at the moment. Currently the backlog stands at 5946 articles. There are also a further 6516 redirects which are unreviewed.
Currently there are just over 200 unreviewed articles in the backlog which have passed the index point (red in the above graph). This is a significant worry, as these articles have been freed to be indexed by Google but have not yet been ticked off by a new page patroller.
We need more reviewers reviewing the backlog at the back; oldest first. These articles are usually more difficult to review, often having been passed over by more inexperienced reviewers. So if you have the skills, please consider setting your New Pages Feed to 'oldest' first.
For others please continue to review what you can, and consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox to your user page!
This user has taken the pledge to review 2 new pages a day. Help us bring the queue to 0!
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 04:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CASSIOPEIA has been doing some great work at NPP School and has now designed some userboxes for graduates. As part of that they also drafted a possible new NPP logo. Thoughts on sticking with our traditional logo (top) or the newly designed logo (bottom)? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and created a draft of the list page and the request page. Both could no doubt be improved - especially the request page. However, since we still have a BOTREQ before this starts happening I figure we have some time. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 how did you decide on the "minimum" closure time? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new template that will display information relevant to these kinds of requests. I have also added in language about 24 hours and at least 3 patrollers in consensus. Additionally I am thinking that we set some sort of autoarchive - if 3 patrollers haven't come along (or a sysop acting in their discretion) that the requests are archived after X time. I threw out 2 weeks as a starting point but would welcome suggestions. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
While patrolling today, I came across articles created through participation of the Wiki Ed course
Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSD/IPE Money and Finance IMF WB (Fall 2019). My impression from sampling several of the articles created through the course is that they largely fail to include any sources that are not affiliated with either the World Bank or the IMF. I'm a bit perturbed by what is essentially a mass production of articles that portray only the World Bank's own perspective on its operations throughout the world. Something is going wrong if an article like
Morocco and the World Bank gets a peer review that says that all of the sources are from reliable sources and there is more than 6 sources used. Most sources are online sources coming from empirical organizations.
I'd appreciate input from other NPP reviewers as to what to do in this situation. signed,
Rosguill
talk 23:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping to give an NPP school pupil a primer on how to evaluate whether a source is reliable or not, and went looking around for relevant essays or guidelines on Wikipedia. However, while I was able to find some very subject-specific pages ( WP:MEDRS of course, plus the essays WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS), I wasn't able to find anything that introduces a reader to the process of evaluating the reliability of a typical secondary source. WP:V and WP:RS touch on it a little, but I don't think that the information there is really a sufficient guide to assessing an unknown source. Does anyone know of any useful essays or guidelines that I've missed? If we really don't have any, one should probably be written signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I have seen an activity a few times now doing NPP, where one "new" editor is trying to get their non-notable/refused draft article published into Mainspace, and another "low edits" editor comes along and moves it for them (bypassing AFC). The most recent example being Bobby-C, which, per the talk page of Libdolittle, was an article that has been re-created numerous times post various AfD/CSDs.
My question is whether the protections that we have over "new accounts" creating WP articles is consistent with the permissions regarding who can move articles from Draft into Main, AND, whether regardless of these rules, we need stronger rules for page moves? I am sure this issue has been debated here before, but I could not find the relevant discussion - sorry. thanks in advance. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I have seen this multiple times. I block the accounts on sight as sockpuppets. In fact, I was browsing [3] today and quarantined five articles, none of which were flagged by my usual means. Regarding some of the ideas here: there is no API for searching deleted titles, and there probably won't be for another 8 years (or however long it takes for the WMF to actually care about it), so there cannot be a bot that flags reposts. The lists of likely spam pages I post on WT:WPSPAM are about as close as it gets. MER-C 14:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
On thing I find is a time sink doing NPP is tidying up the article for basic issues:
All of these things could be solved by having a “New Article Wizard” that runs through a check list/questionnaire with the author before publishing (eg is this bio of a living person). We could also add the controls to the Wizard of not allowing an article to be published whose “reflist” is empty (eg stop the problem of a bare url in the EL as being satisfactory), and automatically fixing bare URLs etc. Has this been discussed before? I feel like we are ver low-tech in this area? Thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Jane Doe (born 1 January, 1950) is an English mathematician..., etc., with example sections, and Category:Living people at the bottom. That is trivial to set up. — MusikAnimal talk 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to thank MusikAnimal for the explanation and suggestions. Not everyone who edits or maintains Wikipedia is an IT expert and his elucidations are critically important to those of us (like me ) who aren't deep code programmers. The idea of providing squashable templates for different kinds of articles is excellent and shows how dumb the rest of us are for not thinking of it ;) In anticipation of ACPERM, I spent many hours rewriting all the pages of the Article Wizard (I am a communication scientist), complete with their functions, but someone who has hardly edited at all for two years went and threw it all out with not so much as a murmur and replaced it all with something which IMO is far too simplistic and defies the object of the purpose which was to encourage new editors to use it and adhere to its advice.
I haven't seen any instances of the Article Wizard being used since ACPERM was rolled out - there used to be a tag on such drafts and they included lot more preloaded elements than the wizard provides now. Perhaps template:AFC submission/draftnew means just that and it's a new feature I missed, but the text needs to be changed ever so slightly. What we need are some quick stats:
So if the wizard is indeed being used, I'd be happy to get the Article Wizard back up to date again - based on what we know now since ACPERM - and create the sample pre-loaded templates (which even for me is easy enough). We could then discuss making the wizard mandatory for all editors per Britishfinance (at least for non autopatrolled users), but I fear that there would be a lot of resistance from the community to such a suggestion. Nevertheless, even since ACPERM, a lot of junk - or at least inappropriate articles - are still being created by autoconfirmed users, and with an NPP backlog that has increased by nearly 50% in just 10 weeks, we cannot continue to rely on the work of our famous '750' reviewers.
I realise that a lot of this is possibly strictly AfC domain, and perhaps Primefac would like to chime in here, but we have to think how we can reduce the flow of useless articles through NPP which nevertheless are not covered by a deletion criterion or rationale, and in doing so, relieve both AfC and NPP of a lot of work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What I was actually looking for rather than the actual number of submissions was
Unconfirmed users are directed to to the Wizard which is exactly what since ACPERM is supposed to happen following what I and others campaigned for in ACTRIAL, so I guess MusikAnimal is reasonably correct with his wager. Many submitted drafts are from users who are already confirmed, but most of these are either not ready for mainspace or are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Few submissions appear to be from IP users.
Thus, arguably, anything that does not first come through the NPR feed is less work for reviewers and helps to keep the 7,000 backlog down, but it does not help AfC. How many submitted drafts actually make it back to the NPR queue? There is of course a clear distinction (or should be) between declined drafts and rejected drafts. Is there somewhere I can find a category of rejected (not declined) drafts? I found one here but it only has one entry in it.
I am specifically working on some ideas that may significantly reduce the backlogs of both NPR and AfC queues but which would not put off genuinely motivated new users from contributing to Wikipedia and which may encourage others not to abandon their drafts. The length of time it takes to get a new article or draft reviewed is perhaps even more bitey than some of the comments and templates that new(ish) users are subjected to. I would be grateful if anyone ( Primefac for example) could help by pointing me to some of the stats I need if they exist already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Templates that take care of all the usual boilerplate are an obvious idea; word processors have had these for decades. But we already have an Article wizard and it doesn't actually help new editors create articles. Instead, it puts most of its effort into deterring or preventing its users from creating articles. I suppose that's because its development was influenced by the AFC/NPP folk who tend have a similar negative philosophy of preventing people from creating articles, rather than helping them.
So, if we create a wizard that makes it easy for new users to create articles which look superficially presentable then the natural consequence will be that you will get a lot more articles and so the flood will rise rather than sink. The trouble is that it will then become more difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff. Patrollers would have to focus more on reading what the articles say and check whether they make logical sense; that their sources stand up and so on. This tends to require subject-matter expertise and perspicacity and that's more challenging. For example, see English clause element which I found when reviewing Rosguill's work. I'm not convinced that this is a sound topic or a topic that we don't do better elsewhere. It may actually be subtle spam; designed to promote the particular grammars which it features. But because the article is superficially presentable and is written in a difficult but plausible style, it got past NPP. See the list of scholarly publishing stings where papers have been accepted when they look superficially ok but no-one takes the trouble to check that they actually make sense.
You get this type of issue when students are asked to create articles – see Wiki Education Foundation. They tend to produce articles that are half-baked and that's, of course, because they are students; they are still learning their subject. I recently helped out with an activity at a London college in which a horde of students were being turned loose to create a WikiBook on the general topic of Interdisciplinarity. This was an absurdly wide brief and, while the students might have got something out of it, their output was unlikely to be useful. Many PhD theses and academic papers have this quality because they are written for effect in the publish or perish setting of academia. More is not necessarily better.
Me, I'm going to be cranking out a stack of articles soon as we approach the 6 million milestone. I know what I'm doing and so have already selected a rich seam to work. But consider what happened last time. One person created a stack of articles about camera lenses such as Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS and they are still there. Another editor did Turkish villages while the winner did Australian shrubs from a large genus. You see the problem; you risk creating lots of Rambots.
Andrew🐉( talk) 16:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
"address common unwanted content such as spam, copyvios and nonsense, and also to encourage good faith new users"which I think was done here.That said I think you'll find many editors here in complete agreement to the criticisms you level at student editors (whose incentives do diverge from those of the same age who are here "naturally") and of the stacks of articles that can be made on specialized topics (one of the few specific unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia I can recall was with an editor about a camera article). But would helping these articles which are going to get made regardless be made better harm the encyclopedia? Or does it mean that the stuff that makes it through our processes are fixed by the people investing the time to make them, and who may not be around for the longrun, rather than an already overworked and overburdened editor base? I suspect that there are ways, including with these templates, that we can nudge these editors uncommitted to Wikipedia beyond whatever they're trying to write about to do a better job and if so that helps the encyclopedia as a whole. This strikes me as exactly the sort of thing we should be wishing for. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
In anticipation of ACPERM, I spent many hours rewriting all the pages of the Article Wizard (I am a communication scientist), complete with their functions, but someone who has hardly edited at all for two years went and threw it all out with not so much as a murmur and replaced it all with something which IMO is far too simplistic and defies the object of the purpose which was to encourage new editors to use it and adhere to its advice.That editor breezed out again almost as quick as they breezed in and what we have is not a Wizard at all - it doesn't provide any help whatsoever. What I have been attempting to describe in this thread is that the Wizard should be something that deters the creators of obviously non encyclopedic material and spammers, while actively helping those who are trying to make a genuine good faith article. It's not rocket science but what we are heading for - possibly because I said I was already working on something - is a lot of talk about picks, shovels, and backhoes - stuff we already know is is wrong with the current system, and stuff like Insertcleverphrasehere's suggestion which is exactly what I have quietly been working on in my idle moments. So, yes, be careful what you wish for; you might get it! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've filed a bug report at Maniphest to address this issue. I suspect that some new redirects have been created that have some weird formatting that is breaking the new pages feed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, apologies for adding another item to the talk page but I would be grateful for some guidance from NPP veterans. I have run across a number of new pages for upcoming events, movies, etc. For example this one: Slovakia at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics. It certainly seems that this article will turn into an appropriate, even valuable, encyclopedia entry in line with WP:EVENTCRIT once the Winter Youth Olympics start and no doubt the page creator is saving time creating this "shell" article to update later. However, at the moment it is basically blank (although maybe not an A3?). I have tagged it for references and categories. What would be the best way to treat this article and similar ones? Thanks. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 10:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill ( talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Arthistorian1977 ( talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | DannyS712 ( talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA ( talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Boleyn ( talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Ymblanter ( talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Cwmhiraeth ( talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Folks, does anybody know how to submit page to draft. It is this: Maria Canals (pianist). Thanks. scope_creep Talk 13:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill and I have been discussing having our first Source Guide discussion sometime in early January. The question is where should we go first. I have collected data on a couple of occasions and found the following countries while doing a search using the NPP Browser:
Country | 11/20 count | 12/9 count |
---|---|---|
China | 38 | 42 |
Ghana | 54 | 50 |
Indonesia | 26 | 27 |
India | 338 | 352 |
Iran | 52 | 61 |
Malaysia | 27 | 31 |
Pakistan | 47 | 47 |
Russia | 70 | 84 |
Turkey | 9 | 12 |
Vietnam | 8 | 10 |
I would suggest we either do Turkey first (despite being the least, Rosguill has already done the prep work for the RfC) or Ghana which has the advantage of being a country with English language sources without an overwhelming number of articles (ala India). Any thoughts from others? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this is a good initiative (and understand the problem, having NPP'ed myself); however, I think that the best outcome would be that this is integrated with the general community. WP:RS/P, is a great tool, but it should have the RSP's for a wider range of countries. In addition, we should have a WP:RS/Journal of Record (per Andrew Davidson), which are considered largely good sources, but not RSPs. Given the "core" of WP's mission is chronicling content from RS, I think this issue, which is a real problem in NPP, is also a wider weakness that now needs fixing. Why not conduct this exercise at the WP:RS-level – E.g. have a workshop that gets agreement on unambiguous RSPs for a wider range of countries (e.g. The Hindu in India, The Irish Times in Ireland etc.). After that, do another workshop for the JoR's? This is not just an NPP problem, but a real weakness of en-Wikipedia, and should be addressed at a community-level? thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The last NPP newsletter of the year is set to go out tomorrow. @ Rosguill, Scottywong, Britishfinance, and Vexations: (and others) the discussion has stalled out a little but I'd like to announce our next step. Do we feel like the countrapproachch (I think it would be Ghana) or the "top sources" approach is the best next step? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team has an important update: The Page Curation Improvements and New Pages Feed project is now complete, after 7+ months of work. We have posted the final update on Meta-Wiki, which provides detailed information on all remaining proposals. Thank you all for assistance throughout the project, and we're so glad we could help improve tools for New Pages Reviewers! -- IFried (WMF) ( talk) 16:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Ilana, reviewing new pages, is the single, most important function in the whole of of the English Wikipedia; naturally you are thrilled at having been able to address our needs, but you have only been doing what we are paying you for. We the volunteers do all the work compiling and controlling this encyclopedia. it was bad enough when the original developers of the Triage software abandoned development on Page Curation, but you will not remember the history, and there are few people left at the WMF who remember (or who want to remember) either. I admit that there has been important work done on it this year, but some of us have spent hundreds of hours over the years evaluating what is needed and trying to get the WMF to understand that if development had been done on a regular basis, there would not have been the recent panic to get an NPR user right established, ACTRIAL done, ORES to work, and something done about the increase in COI, spam and Undeclared Paid Editing (which even the WMF staff have been found guilty of in their spare time).
This year has seen the biggest Community/WMF constitutional crisis ever. Volunteers' trust in the WMF is at its lowest level ever but there should be a happy symbiosis between the owners of the servers and the creators of the content on them. However, the WMF who enjoy their office comforts, perks, and junkets never admit that it is our volunteer work that generates the huge surplus of funds, and hence any claims of 'not enough staff' or 'not enough money' are absolutely risible.
Ilana, I find this WMF statement to be typical of party political campaign BS. The Foundation is preaching to itself and nobody here believes any of it. If you are personally in a genuine managerial position, I appeal to you on behalf of the NPR community, to ensure that the development of NPP remains an on-going work in process and one for which there should exist a permanent departmental team of developers. If you do not in fact hold a position of responsibility (and I concede that you are quite new in the WMF), then please ensure that the people at the top, who are ostensibly neither fully aware nor overly concerned about what goes on the shop floor (and have practically told us so) are made aware of what's going on and that a competent delegation of tasks is carried out as soon as possible. I and others fought long and hard for nearly a decade with no thanks to get ACPERM and NPR where it is today in face of the constant insults online, at Phab, in the corridors by senior WMF staff at Wikimania conferences, and our scheduled slots on the topic neatly replaced at the last minute by WMF people with more promotional, repetitive WMF navel-gazing screed. Please don't let me and all the people on this page down who have worked so hard.
The Signpost has been mentioned; indeed, besides the mentioned piece, among my many routine articles for the magazine in 2018, I wrote some wholly justified criticisms of the WMF and its management, but so have others. This year's major events caused by WMF incompetency, although perhaps not directly New Page Patrol related, resulted in many admins laying down their tools in protest. It therefore marks the beginning of some changes in the way this en.Wiki project is going to be run, and mark my works, the core of hard-working reviewers is getting fed up already, the backlog is rising steeply again, and if they ever go on strike - which they may well do - there will be hell to pay. We are fiercely proud of our voluntary, unthanked and totally uncompensated work which very often goes far beyond a paid staffer's 35 hour week, or telecommuting from the comfort of their living-rooms, and the occasional junket to head office or a contrived conference, but it will be the end of something the WMF is so pompously proud of and refuses to give the tens of thousands of volunteers any credit for. Rant over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019 includes this:
[[File:2019 NPP Backlog.png||800px|A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19]]
The double pipe results in a Bogus file options lint error, an empty option. File declarations should not have double pipes. Please try to avoid this error in the future. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 11:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and published an essay-in-progress about reviewing redirects at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects (shortcut WP:RPATROL). Consider yourselves invited to make changes and suggestions as you see fit, but it's long overdue that we have some sort of a guide to reviewing redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 01:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
When an RfD tag is placed on a redirect, it gets added to the redirect queue, likely because it gets tagged as an article created from a redirect. These pages don't need reviewing as they are already receiving more than enough scrutiny at RfD, but they end up cluttering the back of the new pages queue. I would propose that we have a bot automatically mark these pages as reviewed. Such a bot would be easy to program if it's allowed to mark AfDs and MfDs as reviewed as well: I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario where this causes a problem. Courtesy pinig DannyS712. signed, Rosguill talk 07:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I've drafted the following and figured it could be of some use:
It appears that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject of [[Draft:|Draft:]], and as such you should submit this article to be published through the Articles for Creation process.
Before editing the article further, please first disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.
I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s
neutrality and
verifiability policies, as well as our
notability guidelines. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
source code
|
---|
It appears that you may have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] with the subject of [[Draft:|]], and as such you should submit this article to be published through the [[WP:AfC|Articles for Creation]] process. Before editing the article further, please first '''disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.''' I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]] (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s [[WP:POV|neutrality]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]] policies, as well as our [[WP:N|notability guidelines]]. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~ |
Here's a slight variation for new users who clearly have issues with POV on an article with the potential to be promotional, but that are not clear-cut COI cases:
An article you recently created, [[Draft:|Draft:]], does not conform to Wikipedia’s neutrality policies, and as such you should submit this article to be published through the Articles for Creation process.
Before editing the article further, please first disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.
I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s
neutrality and
verifiability policies, as well as our
notability guidelines. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
code
|
---|
An article you recently created, [[Draft:|]], does not conform to Wikipedia’s [[WP:POV|neutrality policies]], and as such you should submit this article to be published through the [[WP:AfC|Articles for Creation]] process. Before editing the article further, please first '''disclose on your user page and on the article's Talk page whether you have received money to write this or other articles on Wikipedia, or if you have any other kind of conflict of interest with the subject.''' I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]] (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Before submitting, you should make sure that the article is fully compliant with Wikipedia’s [[WP:POV|neutrality]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]] policies, as well as our [[WP:N|notability guidelines]]. When you’re ready, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~ |
Seems like this happens every few months. Current breakage plays out as creating the log entry [5] but "failing to create" (or find?) "the target" for the actual discussion, which then has to be set up manually. Instance in question was not a 2nd+ AfD, just a normal 1st one. That shit ain't helpful :/ I do try to remember to just use Twinkle instead, but sometimes I don't. Is there some constant, weakly tested tinkering going on with that functionality, or why does it repeatedly break? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Would just like to thank everyone for the huge decrease in the queue recently, as evidenced by the graph at the top if this page. Let the momentum continue. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 12:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
2020 FC Seoul season was created without sources, so I moved it to Draft:2020 FC Seoul season. The user copied the page content back, replacing the redirect. What is the best way to handle the situation? b uidh e 05:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the work of many (but especially DannyS712 and Rosguill) the redirect whitelist is off to a great start. As this endeavor becomes more mature adding more specifics to the guidelines seems appropriate. Rosguill added some today reflecting the standard that they've been using. After some discussion on their talk page, it seems like we should have some minimum standards (though the in practice standard will likely be higher the - just as it is for many PERMs). Rosguill has suggested:
Minimum criteria is generally over 100 redirects created with few-to-none deleted outside of housekeeping processes"
does this seem right? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Not an issue after all
|
---|
This was brought up a while back and appears to still be happening. Editors can take an article that was originally a redirect and turn it into a full article, and it will bypass our process. See, for instance,
Nathan J. Robinson (which looks fine, but others where something similar happens might not be). Can we address this?
Sdkb (
talk) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
This might be a mad idea, but how about some kind of "badge" that could be stuck on the articles of WP:RS/P's to say that it is an RS/P (or that it is definitively not considered an RS)? I don't know if this could be extended outside of RS/P (probably not until we have longer agreed lists per earlier discussions). My rationale is that, ultimately, RS is at the heart of Wikipedia. Without RS, Wikipedia, in theory, should be blank. However, I think the upkeep/debate/discussion of even RS/Ps is not great (you get much more participation in other less important areas of WP, imho). There are many times in WP (doing NPP, AfD etc.), when you find yourself checking out the WP article of a proposed RS to decide if it is an RS – wouldn't it be useful (and interesting for the RS/P community), if they could "stamp" a badge on articles that met their criteria (or definitely did not meet their criteria). Might raise interest levels both internally (and externally) on what an RS/P (or RS) is - E.g. high profile media publications might have a "Not RS/P" stamped at the top of their article, which would show the outside world, that while anybody can edit WP, our standards for what is kept are not trivial? Britishfinance ( talk) 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Bradv posted the following to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist which I'm BOLDLY moving here. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Can this page use {{ user2}} links for the list of users, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? – bradv 🍁 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that any page created by a user that is currently autopatrolled (including admins) and was not previously unpatrolled by a reviewer be automatically patrolled by bot ( DannyS712 bot III). I was trying to debug something and came across https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indian_head_bob&redirect=no - created by @ Rosguill: before they became an admin. Had it been created after becoming an admin, it would have been autopatrolled. Since it wasn't, but since adminship isn't granted to those who have recently created pages that would be controversial to accept, I suggest that it would be likewise uncontroversial for a bot to patrol the page. Thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)