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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It occurs to me that there are two basically unrelated aspects of institutional culture that both contribute to the review backlog, and, more importantly, toward the predictable (and almost planned) decline of quality at the expense of quantity. The first is the WMF, which imposes a culture from above. I have no personal knowledge of the culture of the WMF, but I can see that they like metrics, have a staff, have a budget, and (as User:Guy Macon points out), have an expanding budget and expanding staff. Controlling the expansion of the English Wikipedia must run contrary to what I see as a growth-oriented outlook by the WMF Board. However, if it isn’t controlled, we will soon enough have fifteen million articles, of which eight million are spam and three million are other kinds of crud. That is the first aspect of institutional culture that is contrary to reviewing. A focus on numerical expansion doesn’t place a high value on controlling the expansion. If we, the reviewers, are trying to control the growth, we are fighting against a culture from above.
The second and more subtle factor that works against improving reviewing is a cultural value among editors. That is the extremely high value that is attached to the need to be welcoming to new editors, as illustrated by the rule of Do not bite the newcomers. While that is officially a behavioral guideline, less formal than a policy (although more formal than an essay), I think that it has become a dogma, an almost religious tenet, in the culture of many editors. While as written it is a good guideline, it is my eccentric belief that as implemented it does more harm than good for two reasons. First, it is one of the first Wikipedia rules that many combative new editors, eager to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs, find, and they use it as a cudgel against more experienced editors who try to caution them. (In my perverse opinion, if you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to quote BITE, you are no longer a complete newbie, and you have been editing Wikipedia long enough that you should let a third editor decide whether you are still entitled to kid-glove handling.) One effect of the extremely high value placed on the need to be welcoming to new editors is that editors such as New Page reviewers, who have to be unfriendly to some new articles and some new editors, are sometimes rebuked or degraded.
Just a few comments that as reviewers we seem to be working against both a culture from above and a culture from within. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia."Can you point to evidence that that is actually the case, or are you perhaps expressing a hope. In my observation, the vast majority of the 80% of article that are deleted are from editors who are trying to promote something (a company, a person, a favorite record, and amateur sports club). Based on some quick sampling, my guess is that fewer than 10% of non-autoconfirmed users make any edits non directly connected with the original subject that they edited after two months. It should be easy enough to look at a larger sample to see what the actual stats for this are, but I think I'm in the ballpark when I say that a huge majority of new users come here to promote something. Sometimes their promotion overlaps our goal of creating an encyclopedia, but about 80% of the time, it doesn't.- Mr X 13:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia.". Actually, very few new users who create an articke as their first attempt to edit Wikipedia come to contribute to the encyclopedia. Anyone who patrols from the 'Were created by new editors' filter, clearly identifies without any difficulty that at least 80% of all the new article are created without the slightest consideration at all for what could even be broadly construed as 'Wikipedic'. These are 'pages' crated by spammers, autobiographers, vandals and trolls, COPYVIOS, hoaxes, gibberish,and foreign laguage pages (most of which also turn out to be completely worthless). The creators only have one goal: to get themselves or their org on Wikipedia or to leave vandalism on it. Those 'users' will never become useful members of the editing community, as clearly evidenced by the very low number of contested CSD and disputed PROD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that my concerns about unlimited expansion of the English Wikipedia may have been misunderstood. I said that if a focus on growth continues, we will eventually have fifteen million articles, of which eight million are spam and three million are other kinds of crud. (That does mean four million articles that should be kept. Since we currently have somewhat more than five million articles, I did mean that approximately one million of the existing articles are crud that should be deleted. Four million is still a lot of articles, and the English Wikipedia is an impressive electronic work.) I think that some editors may have thought that I meant that expansion of the English Wikipedia is not needed or is undesirable. I did not mean that. Expansion of the English Wikipedia should be encouraged, in particular in areas where coverage is known to be incomplete. Areas where coverage is known to be incomplete include those sciences where the scope of knowledge is both broad and expanding, including biology, astronomy, and chemistry. Every species that has been formally described is worthy of its own article, even if only a stub. Every star that is in a star catalog and every galaxy that is in a catalog is worthy of its own article, even if only a stub. Every distinct chemical substance is worthy of its own article, even if only a stub. Also, there are areas or sub-areas in which it has been determined that our coverage is incomplete or needs to be improved (women writers, medieval art). However, continued expansion of the English Wikipedia as such should no longer be a primary objective, and an increase in the number of articles should not in itself be reported as a measure of continued well-being. (An increase in the number of spam articles, far from being a sign of health, is, to modify Guy Macon’s metaphor, a cancer.)
I would further submit that any need for continued expansion of the English Wikipedia in areas where knowledge is expanding or where its own coverage is inadequate should be viewed entirely separately from any need for new editors. We should not think that we need new editors because we need to continue the expansion of the English Wikipedia. Expansion of the English Wikipedia in areas where it needs expansion, such as invertebrate species, is being done by editors who specialize in the areas of our need. In general, we should not look to new editors to improve our coverage of areas where our coverage is lacking. (There may be special cases where a WikiProject determines that we need to try to recruit new editors with specialized interests. Such a policy, if in order, is unrelated to the handling of over-the-transom editors.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
One respected functionary says that most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia. Others disagree. We agree that when their contributions are deleted by NPP (or declined by AFC), most of them leave and do not return. The statement that new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia can be interpreted in either of two ways, as an empirical statement, based on some assessment of their contributions, or as an axiom, a principle that must be taken to be true and is not subject to proof. I am aware that it is an axiom that new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia, and, as a result, the fact that they are not welcomed and are lost is a loss to the encyclopedia and a problem. But MrX asks: Can you point to evidence that that is actually the case, or are you perhaps expressing a hope.? Good question, and the answer does matter. If we do have a large number of new editors who come in order to improve the encyclopedia, and these new editors are not welcomed appropriately, then we have not only a shortage of reviewers, but a twin shortage both of reviewers, and of a corps of greeters and meeters. (We cannot expect the same volunteer editors both to protect Wikipedia from crud and to extend a special profuse welcome to new editors.)
My experience, first in AFC, and more recently in AFC and NPP, is that new editors of new articles fall into three overlapping classes: those who want to contribute to the encyclopedia; those who are clueless; and those who have self-serving agendas. If it is true that the majority of new editors fall into the first class, then it is true that we have a serious new editor problem in that we treat new editors badly, as if they are either clueless or self-serving or both. I would like to see an analysis of new editors. I would be more interested in an empirical assessment than in a quasi-religious statement of belief. If we are indeed losing new generations of editors because we do not welcome them properly, then we need an additional volunteer corps of greeters and meeters, not to nag our current volunteer patrol editors to do double duty.
Also, regardless of the merits or the numbers of the new editors whom we are losing, we should not count on new editors to facilitate a rounding out of Wikipedia or the addition of knowledge in areas that we know need improvement. We should not be assuming that new editors will fill in areas of knowledge and interest, such as invertebrates, medieval art, women writers. Regardless of the rate at which we should be expanding the English Wikipedia, any filling-in of incomplete areas must be done by conscious effort or active recruitment, not by idle hope that new editors will satisfy our needs.
Also, does “most new editors” mean most new editors whose first edits are to create a new article, or just most new editors? Many new editors introduce themselves to Wikipedia in some way other than by creating an article, such as by discussing at a talk page, or by copy-editing, or even by playing in a sandbox. If most new editors who submit an article really come to contribute to the encyclopedia, then we really do have an available resource that is being lost and is not being engaged. But do most editors whose first edits are a new article really come to contribute to the encyclopedia? The answer does matter. I am aware that it is often stated as an axiom or belief, but is it empirically true with regard to editors whose first edits are a new article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem will be in getting those stats, because the WMF has now clearly demonstrated by asking the help of a long retired volunteer, that they don't actually know how to consult their own data bases.
RileyBugz, according to this, we have ~1.15 million users who have made 10 or more edits ever. Out of a total of ~31.2 million users who have ever registered that means ~3.5% reach autoconfirmed status. Not an answer to your exact question, but maybe it provides some insight. According to the same numbers, we have been gaining between 5-7k new autoconfirmed users a month over the past year. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can take some of the blame there too since I restarted the conversation at NPPAFC, which I thought would be a good place to centralize (and still do, to be honest, but you can't really control where people talk.) I do think its a good thing that the conversation at the WMF essay has died down: its a lot more difficult to talk about future plans when you are reacting to something that was generally not well received, and I think shifting the location of the conversation has also shifted it to be broader. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This is, sorted by most-important to least important, the things we need to know to judge what effect ACTRIAL could have.
These are the things that we need to know, in my opinion. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 15:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Any method at all with dealing with new users and their articles will be trying to minimize both the proportion of unsatisfactory articles that get accepted, and the proportion of satisfactory ones that get rejected. These can not be both minimized at the same time--any system that tries to prevent any possible bad article, will always have the error or rejecting more good ones, and vice-versa. We need to find an optimal point , and then figure out what measures we can take that will get there. But there is no really objective criterion for what is an optimal point Most of us have our preferences; I know my preferred point has changed: I was 8 years ago trying to minimize any possible rejection of a fixable article much more so than I am today. The optimum also varies among different types of articles, and among different types of bad, and no two of us will see this just the same.
I know to some extent what my own preferences are, and I can argue for them, but I do not realistically expect anyone else here to have the same goals as mine. (for example, It does not in the least bother me keeping articles on every possible geographic feature, but I am very concerned that we not lower the standard for eminence in any profession--both professions I care about like science, and those I do not care about, like sports. I am much less interested in the standards for minor differences in notability in either direction, as compared with keeping out lapses towards promotionalism. These are just samples--there's a whole list). Every one of us wi;l have analogous differences, even if not explicit. If we all had the same goal, we could rationally collect data and design the system towards attaining that goal. But we don't, and we cannot optimize towards different goals at the same time. I can --and I do-- give extensive argument why my preferred goal is the best for WP, but I would be surprised if anyone else sees it the same way. In arguing for or against a particular method, I naturally judge according to how far it will match my preferences in different aspects and in different fields. And regardless of goal, there is no magic trick that will permit us to simultaneously optimize accepting the good and rejecting the bad.
There are in fact other criteria than the results. We also want a system we can deal with using the available people. We want a system which will encourage other to join. We most of us want a system that involves a minimum of complicated procedures. We most of us want a system that avoids exaggerating the tendency to dispute minor issues. I at least want consistency, so we can tell people what will be accepted and what not--and I am willing to sacrifice many other preferences to get this--most others here seem to think this less important.,And so on. But we can not do all of these at the same time. (As an example, there will be fewer errors if we have multiple levels of review--but this will also increase the workload on the people dealing with this).
We will never settle these differences. There is for me little practical advantage in having detailed data that different of us will interpret in opposite directions. More important, we can not simultaneous collect detailed data, and also move quickly towards solving out problems. We will always need to proceed on incomplete data, and there is no optimum place to stop collecting data and decide. I think we certainly should continue gathering data, but that's partly because I'm interested in this data for understanding our system, even if it will be of little immediate practical importance. In a different direction, I am so much involved in doing the practical day-to-day work on these problems that I want almost anything which will attract more people to help immediately, than get what I think is an optimal balance of inclusion. Therefore, I tend to support suggestions like ACTRIAL even though I think it will have the wrong balance, because it will decrease the immediate workload. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'm alone in forgetting to mark pages as patrolled before moving them to draft or user space - where the [Mark this page as patrolled] option no longer exists. Personally I'd find a reminder useful in the text at MediaWiki:Movepagetext along the lines of:
Any thoughts? Cabayi ( talk) 19:18, 24 June 2017 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It occurs to me that there are two basically unrelated aspects of institutional culture that both contribute to the review backlog, and, more importantly, toward the predictable (and almost planned) decline of quality at the expense of quantity. The first is the WMF, which imposes a culture from above. I have no personal knowledge of the culture of the WMF, but I can see that they like metrics, have a staff, have a budget, and (as User:Guy Macon points out), have an expanding budget and expanding staff. Controlling the expansion of the English Wikipedia must run contrary to what I see as a growth-oriented outlook by the WMF Board. However, if it isn’t controlled, we will soon enough have fifteen million articles, of which eight million are spam and three million are other kinds of crud. That is the first aspect of institutional culture that is contrary to reviewing. A focus on numerical expansion doesn’t place a high value on controlling the expansion. If we, the reviewers, are trying to control the growth, we are fighting against a culture from above.
The second and more subtle factor that works against improving reviewing is a cultural value among editors. That is the extremely high value that is attached to the need to be welcoming to new editors, as illustrated by the rule of Do not bite the newcomers. While that is officially a behavioral guideline, less formal than a policy (although more formal than an essay), I think that it has become a dogma, an almost religious tenet, in the culture of many editors. While as written it is a good guideline, it is my eccentric belief that as implemented it does more harm than good for two reasons. First, it is one of the first Wikipedia rules that many combative new editors, eager to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs, find, and they use it as a cudgel against more experienced editors who try to caution them. (In my perverse opinion, if you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to quote BITE, you are no longer a complete newbie, and you have been editing Wikipedia long enough that you should let a third editor decide whether you are still entitled to kid-glove handling.) One effect of the extremely high value placed on the need to be welcoming to new editors is that editors such as New Page reviewers, who have to be unfriendly to some new articles and some new editors, are sometimes rebuked or degraded.
Just a few comments that as reviewers we seem to be working against both a culture from above and a culture from within. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia."Can you point to evidence that that is actually the case, or are you perhaps expressing a hope. In my observation, the vast majority of the 80% of article that are deleted are from editors who are trying to promote something (a company, a person, a favorite record, and amateur sports club). Based on some quick sampling, my guess is that fewer than 10% of non-autoconfirmed users make any edits non directly connected with the original subject that they edited after two months. It should be easy enough to look at a larger sample to see what the actual stats for this are, but I think I'm in the ballpark when I say that a huge majority of new users come here to promote something. Sometimes their promotion overlaps our goal of creating an encyclopedia, but about 80% of the time, it doesn't.- Mr X 13:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia.". Actually, very few new users who create an articke as their first attempt to edit Wikipedia come to contribute to the encyclopedia. Anyone who patrols from the 'Were created by new editors' filter, clearly identifies without any difficulty that at least 80% of all the new article are created without the slightest consideration at all for what could even be broadly construed as 'Wikipedic'. These are 'pages' crated by spammers, autobiographers, vandals and trolls, COPYVIOS, hoaxes, gibberish,and foreign laguage pages (most of which also turn out to be completely worthless). The creators only have one goal: to get themselves or their org on Wikipedia or to leave vandalism on it. Those 'users' will never become useful members of the editing community, as clearly evidenced by the very low number of contested CSD and disputed PROD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that my concerns about unlimited expansion of the English Wikipedia may have been misunderstood. I said that if a focus on growth continues, we will eventually have fifteen million articles, of which eight million are spam and three million are other kinds of crud. (That does mean four million articles that should be kept. Since we currently have somewhat more than five million articles, I did mean that approximately one million of the existing articles are crud that should be deleted. Four million is still a lot of articles, and the English Wikipedia is an impressive electronic work.) I think that some editors may have thought that I meant that expansion of the English Wikipedia is not needed or is undesirable. I did not mean that. Expansion of the English Wikipedia should be encouraged, in particular in areas where coverage is known to be incomplete. Areas where coverage is known to be incomplete include those sciences where the scope of knowledge is both broad and expanding, including biology, astronomy, and chemistry. Every species that has been formally described is worthy of its own article, even if only a stub. Every star that is in a star catalog and every galaxy that is in a catalog is worthy of its own article, even if only a stub. Every distinct chemical substance is worthy of its own article, even if only a stub. Also, there are areas or sub-areas in which it has been determined that our coverage is incomplete or needs to be improved (women writers, medieval art). However, continued expansion of the English Wikipedia as such should no longer be a primary objective, and an increase in the number of articles should not in itself be reported as a measure of continued well-being. (An increase in the number of spam articles, far from being a sign of health, is, to modify Guy Macon’s metaphor, a cancer.)
I would further submit that any need for continued expansion of the English Wikipedia in areas where knowledge is expanding or where its own coverage is inadequate should be viewed entirely separately from any need for new editors. We should not think that we need new editors because we need to continue the expansion of the English Wikipedia. Expansion of the English Wikipedia in areas where it needs expansion, such as invertebrate species, is being done by editors who specialize in the areas of our need. In general, we should not look to new editors to improve our coverage of areas where our coverage is lacking. (There may be special cases where a WikiProject determines that we need to try to recruit new editors with specialized interests. Such a policy, if in order, is unrelated to the handling of over-the-transom editors.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
One respected functionary says that most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia. Others disagree. We agree that when their contributions are deleted by NPP (or declined by AFC), most of them leave and do not return. The statement that new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia can be interpreted in either of two ways, as an empirical statement, based on some assessment of their contributions, or as an axiom, a principle that must be taken to be true and is not subject to proof. I am aware that it is an axiom that new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia, and, as a result, the fact that they are not welcomed and are lost is a loss to the encyclopedia and a problem. But MrX asks: Can you point to evidence that that is actually the case, or are you perhaps expressing a hope.? Good question, and the answer does matter. If we do have a large number of new editors who come in order to improve the encyclopedia, and these new editors are not welcomed appropriately, then we have not only a shortage of reviewers, but a twin shortage both of reviewers, and of a corps of greeters and meeters. (We cannot expect the same volunteer editors both to protect Wikipedia from crud and to extend a special profuse welcome to new editors.)
My experience, first in AFC, and more recently in AFC and NPP, is that new editors of new articles fall into three overlapping classes: those who want to contribute to the encyclopedia; those who are clueless; and those who have self-serving agendas. If it is true that the majority of new editors fall into the first class, then it is true that we have a serious new editor problem in that we treat new editors badly, as if they are either clueless or self-serving or both. I would like to see an analysis of new editors. I would be more interested in an empirical assessment than in a quasi-religious statement of belief. If we are indeed losing new generations of editors because we do not welcome them properly, then we need an additional volunteer corps of greeters and meeters, not to nag our current volunteer patrol editors to do double duty.
Also, regardless of the merits or the numbers of the new editors whom we are losing, we should not count on new editors to facilitate a rounding out of Wikipedia or the addition of knowledge in areas that we know need improvement. We should not be assuming that new editors will fill in areas of knowledge and interest, such as invertebrates, medieval art, women writers. Regardless of the rate at which we should be expanding the English Wikipedia, any filling-in of incomplete areas must be done by conscious effort or active recruitment, not by idle hope that new editors will satisfy our needs.
Also, does “most new editors” mean most new editors whose first edits are to create a new article, or just most new editors? Many new editors introduce themselves to Wikipedia in some way other than by creating an article, such as by discussing at a talk page, or by copy-editing, or even by playing in a sandbox. If most new editors who submit an article really come to contribute to the encyclopedia, then we really do have an available resource that is being lost and is not being engaged. But do most editors whose first edits are a new article really come to contribute to the encyclopedia? The answer does matter. I am aware that it is often stated as an axiom or belief, but is it empirically true with regard to editors whose first edits are a new article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The problem will be in getting those stats, because the WMF has now clearly demonstrated by asking the help of a long retired volunteer, that they don't actually know how to consult their own data bases.
RileyBugz, according to this, we have ~1.15 million users who have made 10 or more edits ever. Out of a total of ~31.2 million users who have ever registered that means ~3.5% reach autoconfirmed status. Not an answer to your exact question, but maybe it provides some insight. According to the same numbers, we have been gaining between 5-7k new autoconfirmed users a month over the past year. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can take some of the blame there too since I restarted the conversation at NPPAFC, which I thought would be a good place to centralize (and still do, to be honest, but you can't really control where people talk.) I do think its a good thing that the conversation at the WMF essay has died down: its a lot more difficult to talk about future plans when you are reacting to something that was generally not well received, and I think shifting the location of the conversation has also shifted it to be broader. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This is, sorted by most-important to least important, the things we need to know to judge what effect ACTRIAL could have.
These are the things that we need to know, in my opinion. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 15:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Any method at all with dealing with new users and their articles will be trying to minimize both the proportion of unsatisfactory articles that get accepted, and the proportion of satisfactory ones that get rejected. These can not be both minimized at the same time--any system that tries to prevent any possible bad article, will always have the error or rejecting more good ones, and vice-versa. We need to find an optimal point , and then figure out what measures we can take that will get there. But there is no really objective criterion for what is an optimal point Most of us have our preferences; I know my preferred point has changed: I was 8 years ago trying to minimize any possible rejection of a fixable article much more so than I am today. The optimum also varies among different types of articles, and among different types of bad, and no two of us will see this just the same.
I know to some extent what my own preferences are, and I can argue for them, but I do not realistically expect anyone else here to have the same goals as mine. (for example, It does not in the least bother me keeping articles on every possible geographic feature, but I am very concerned that we not lower the standard for eminence in any profession--both professions I care about like science, and those I do not care about, like sports. I am much less interested in the standards for minor differences in notability in either direction, as compared with keeping out lapses towards promotionalism. These are just samples--there's a whole list). Every one of us wi;l have analogous differences, even if not explicit. If we all had the same goal, we could rationally collect data and design the system towards attaining that goal. But we don't, and we cannot optimize towards different goals at the same time. I can --and I do-- give extensive argument why my preferred goal is the best for WP, but I would be surprised if anyone else sees it the same way. In arguing for or against a particular method, I naturally judge according to how far it will match my preferences in different aspects and in different fields. And regardless of goal, there is no magic trick that will permit us to simultaneously optimize accepting the good and rejecting the bad.
There are in fact other criteria than the results. We also want a system we can deal with using the available people. We want a system which will encourage other to join. We most of us want a system that involves a minimum of complicated procedures. We most of us want a system that avoids exaggerating the tendency to dispute minor issues. I at least want consistency, so we can tell people what will be accepted and what not--and I am willing to sacrifice many other preferences to get this--most others here seem to think this less important.,And so on. But we can not do all of these at the same time. (As an example, there will be fewer errors if we have multiple levels of review--but this will also increase the workload on the people dealing with this).
We will never settle these differences. There is for me little practical advantage in having detailed data that different of us will interpret in opposite directions. More important, we can not simultaneous collect detailed data, and also move quickly towards solving out problems. We will always need to proceed on incomplete data, and there is no optimum place to stop collecting data and decide. I think we certainly should continue gathering data, but that's partly because I'm interested in this data for understanding our system, even if it will be of little immediate practical importance. In a different direction, I am so much involved in doing the practical day-to-day work on these problems that I want almost anything which will attract more people to help immediately, than get what I think is an optimal balance of inclusion. Therefore, I tend to support suggestions like ACTRIAL even though I think it will have the wrong balance, because it will decrease the immediate workload. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'm alone in forgetting to mark pages as patrolled before moving them to draft or user space - where the [Mark this page as patrolled] option no longer exists. Personally I'd find a reminder useful in the text at MediaWiki:Movepagetext along the lines of:
Any thoughts? Cabayi ( talk) 19:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)