Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Backlog

I got the NPP Newsletter. I see the backlog is huge again. I'll start working on in the next couple of days, try and do a coupla thousand before the end of the month. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SC!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Bot to mark redirect->article->redirect as patrolled

Seems like a common use case that fills up the back of the queue. We'll have a patrolled redirect get turned into an article, then reverted. Would there be support for patrolling these automatically with a bot? I can put a WP:BOTREQ in if there's consensus. cc User:DannyS712 –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• I support this request. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae no need to make a bot request there, I'd be happy to work on this if there is consensus. My recollection of the page curation code is that redirect->article results in the page being marked as unreviewed, but that article->redirect does not. So the simpler version of this task would be just to extend my existing redirect autopatrolling to including redirects that are not the only revision (which I think is currently a requirement). A more advanced and complicated version would be

• for every unpatrolled redirect
• if the last edit was changing the article to a redirect
• and a previous version of the article was a redirect to the same target
• and that previous version was already marked as patrolled by someone (including by the bot...)
• then mark the new version as patrolled as well

let me know what people think DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Danny. Thanks for the quick response. So the simpler version of this task would be just to extend my existing redirect autopatrolling to including redirects that are not the only revision (which I think is currently a requirement). Are there more details to that? If we simply patrol all redirects originating from an unpatrolled article, I think that could be problematic. Your bulleted list above is good, I think that workflow is correct and is in sync with what I was suggesting. To simplify the coding/speed up the bot, could change and a previous version of the article was a redirect to the same target to and the 2nd to last version of the article was a redirect to the same target, or put a limit of 10 revisions deep or something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

When patrolling the back of the queue, I sometimes see edit warring over article vs redirect. These often happen in pop culture topics, and they might be tricky. They might involve edit warring by a few users. Per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, if there is clearly no consensus on the redirect, we shouldn't be patrolling the redirect, we should be restoring the article. Consider the following case:

1. Article exists from 2010 to present. Never nominated for deletion.
2. Existed most of its history as an article, except during a couple of short periods that it was a redirect.
3. The article is so old that it originally didn't make it to the NPP queue (it didn't exist). The review log does contain one or two instances of redirects marked as reviewed.
4. There are currently 2 or 3 users edit warring over the redirect.
5. In my opinion, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, our action here should be restoring the article, marking it as reviewed, and ask everyone involved to discuss in the talk page or nominate for deletion. An article that existed as an article for 10 years, almost uninterrupted, is not material for NPP, there's no point for us in keeping it in the backlog.

And now here's a possible counter-example. An article in a similar state as the previous example, but:

1. It has existed most of its history as a redirect, except during a couple of short periods that it existed as an article.
2. There is one banned user who come everyday to restore the article, and their accounts are quickly blocked, and their creations reverted.
3. I would consider marking the redirect as patrolled, since I think WP:REVERTBAN has more weight here. A banned user doesn't get to legitimately object a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT or WP:DRAFTIFY.

I guess we could argue over what's the right action for each of these 2 examples, but they should probably be no task for a bot. MarioGom (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Thank you, DannyS712! Atsme 💬 📧 13:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirects as unilateral deletion

Completely off topic: Does article -> redirect not unreview? That seems like an easy way for someone to go ahead and soft delete a page. I personally have been checking histories as I review redirects. I remember recent(not so recent?) conversations onwiki about limits on draftifying because the community was concerned about NPPers doing unilateral deletions by way of G13. And be honest, when's the last time you've looked at page history for a redirect, cause I don't unless I'm patrolling? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I tested it on testwiki just now, patrolled article -> redirect does not appear to unpatrol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted some of such redirects recently. See my comment in the main section here for tricky cases in this category. MarioGom (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Hatchens

Earlier today I blocked new page patroller Hatchens for undisclosed paid editing. Specifically, he seems to have been accepting drafts written by other UPErs and as he also had autopatrolled I think these will have skipped the NPP queue too. More details at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Hatchens. – Joe (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the reason for this block and agree with it. If nobody objects, I will dust off my unpatrolling script in a couple of days time. MER-C 15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch Joe Roe. There needs to a CU done if not already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've taken a look. No hits, but we should keep an eye out. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Could we either have a Page Curation filter

• for reviewer (or ex-reviewer for articles that have been unreviewed)
• OR for all articles that have been unreviewed? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of those are good suggestions, MPGuy2824, but like most good suggestions that get made on this page, no one seems to follow up and get them done. What NPP needs is a coordinator or a Task Force. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I might have some extra time in the next few months to try and update the extension code, but I don't try to keep track of everything on this page. Good suggestions that have support should be filed on phabricator where the developers will see them DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I created T309008 for my first suggestion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If there is a developer willing to review my patches things would move a lot faster probably than if trying to coordinate with the WMF. If someone here wants to familiarize themselves with the code base and work with me on this that would be great (we may even be able to get a grant for the improvements in the next round of grant applications, who knows?) DannyS712 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried once, years ago, to tackle some of Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements, but trying to set up Vagrant made me want to bang my head against a wall. Have the WMF modernised their development environment yet? Otherwise, I'd long thought we'd be better off if we replaced page curation with a gadget like WP:AFCH so improvements don't have to go through the WMF bottleneck. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe take a look at https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/, tool for creating demo wikis for arbitrary patches. I've sent a pull request to add page triage support. I know from whenever I first set up vagrant that it was a huge headache (though I was setting it up with centralauth and wikibase too), have you tried docker? From what I recall when I set that up (I have 3 different MW setups on my computer :) ) - see mw:MediaWiki-Docker. You will separately need to install the page triage extension, but you can do that by replacing "GlobalWatchlist" with "PageTriage" and following the instructions at mw:MediaWiki-Docker/Extension/GlobalWatchlist. DannyS712 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Tips to increase individual reviewing speed

North8000 did a great job in the above thread that could be yet another attempt at NPP reform. I'd like to get a parallel conversation started about sharing tips. Discounting proposals to change how NPP works, do you have any practical tips to share with other reviewers about how to improve the work as defined today? MarioGom (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Citation highlighters can help with an initial source assessment. Don't take their results as definitive (especially if you're going to nominate for deletion), but they can give a good overview. User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter is currently the best suited for NPP work, since it covers both reliable and unreliable sources. User:Headbomb/unreliable is also very good, but focuses on unreliable sources alone. MarioGom (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The only question to answer is "Should this article exist in mainspace or not?" If yes, rule out copyvio, mark as patrolled and move to the next article. If not, see if there's another article it can be redirected to. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Here is a classic example of articles that were redirects and end-up in the NPP queue because one editor believes it shouldn't be redirected and others believe it should. So what is the best remedy for keeping these situations out of the queue without getting into an edit war, a t-ban, and whatever else tends to arise from such disagreements? Atsme 💬 📧 16:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

My usual strategy is to ignore articles like this and wait for the original edit war over the article's status to resolve itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't get involved in these cases too often, but when I do, I try to revert the article to whatever state has been stable for a longer time. For example, if this article has existed standalone for many years, and there's no previous RFC to support either outcome, then revert it to a standalone article and mark as reviewed. Then open a discussion in the article talk page, with mentions to people involved in the edit war, and ask them to please, please, solve it through discussion. In another thread above I shared a couple of other examples where I took different actions. MarioGom (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Also keep in mind: in the absence of special circumstances like a previous merge discussion, RFC or AFD result, WP:REVERTBAN, or something else, a repeatedly objected blank-and-redirect has less priority than a standalone article. See WP:BLAR. MarioGom (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Backlog getting out of control

Since we lost the diligent One the backlog has been spiralling out of control. One option is running another backlog drive; I believe we achieved at least moderate increase in reviewing with the last one. (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

You just noticed? It started long before that–kinda when all the coordinators moved on...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "out of control", I guess—it's the worst it's been since 2018. Anyway, I'm interested in helping resolve the situation. (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I can do more redirects (and start doing reviews again)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... that's what happens when all the work gets concentrated amongst a few very prolific reviewers. Lose one and it falls apart. There needs to be a recruiting drive and a push to get reviewers more engaged. I just checked the coordination page and only one newsletter has been sent in over a year! Those newsletters were instrumental in getting the team motivated. New page patrol can't just expect to tick along without anyone at the wheel to encourage people to be engaged. Everything has just been let to slide and Onel was taking up the slack that all the other reviewers have left in the system. It isn't his fault that the backlog is now skyrocketing, it's the lack of coordination, he was just a band aid on a very bad situation that was slowly getting worse. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. We need to do an effort to bring back some inactive reviewers to active status, as well as recruiting new reviewers. Any idea on how can we start this work? MarioGom (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right MG. I relatively focus more on declining bad AfC drafts than on NPP. Academics, family and other stuff keeps me busy. My laptop is accidentally damaged and I'm here on mobile. But doing NPP work on mobile is troublesome for me. There needs to be some sort of drive. Let's push the articles either to mainspace or to the trash-bin. Back to what you asked, a nice message could be prepared and mass-sent to all NPP'ers noting that an electronic certificate would be provided to all, imho. Shouldn't the editors be appreciated? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If editors aren't appreciated for what they do, I feel they lack the capacity to do so, or just they start avoiding the work. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

AafiOnMobile That's one of the benefits of a backlog drive: lots of barnstars are awarded! (t · c) buidhe 19:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What if barnstars are given to editors on monthly basis so that they remain in touch with the work, and feel appreciated. I'm thinking of something beyond drives that could keep the editors enjoyable. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

when I was awarded with the Precious; since then Gerda has been posting nice messages on my talk page about improving articles, even if improvement is very less. Gerda's lovely notes make me enjoy and improve more. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I find little reward in barnstars. I'm mostly self-motivated, and my greatest motivation is seeing the backlog go down (even if it's just within a WP:NPPSORT category). The downside of this is that I'm a bit demotivated by the sustained backlog increase. It makes me feel that no matter the amount of work I can individually do in this area... it doesn't make any difference. MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with MarioGom. Whilst I liked getting a barnstar for doing well at a backlog drive, monthly barnstars would not motivate me at all. Seeing numbers go down is more motivation, but that's not happened for a while... -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as resources for recruiting, see User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPP and User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list. Back in 2018/2019 over a couple months or so of spare time I used Quarry SQL searches (see the ones at the top of: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/Insertcleverphrasehere ) to identify potential recruits, manually filtered them, and sent out a ton of invites, and tracked the results of the invitees and what they reviewed. From this relatively mild effort 18,000 reviews were completed in the first six months, essentially equivalent to the entire backlog at the time when I first started sending the invites (we also coincidentally ran the backlog to near zero during this time). This number is also quite a bit larger than the number of reviews that I personally have done in total. Recruiting is important, and is actually more effective than just going out and slogging away at the backlog yourself. No one is doing it, so it should not be a surprise that we are running out of active reviewers. the editors on Wikipedia that would happily help us often don't know that we need the help.

Those SQL searches need to be re-run, manually checked (usually only 1 in 5 or so was suitable for an invite), and invited to join the project. If someone could take on this job, it would probably be the single best thing that could be done to turn the situation around for NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

it's the worst it's been since 2018 - What a coincidence! It's time to prune the deadwood out of that ridiculous list of 0ver 700 reviewers. Now where are the coords? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The last time I looked at the list (some months ago) there were 7 active members on a list of approx 705 NPP reviewers. The other thing to keep in mind is that WP:NPPSORT has an inclusion of articles that have been tagged. Many of these are articles that their creators are not going to do anything in regard to the maintenance tag. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I know that Kudpung and I disagree on this. I think we need more reviewers, though pruning the inactive ones from thee list is also a good idea. See my comment above regarding recruiting, but I think my push of inviting people was instrumental in reducing the backlog last time it was particularly bad, and managed to attract a few relatively prolific reviewers to the project that became invaluable over the last few years. Some people that applied after my invite also did sweet fuck all too, so there's that. But people with the NPR right, whether they apply under their own volition or are invited are always going to follow a power law distribution. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have some ideas that I'm trying to tidy up to present. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Have we considered discussing a reduction in the requirements for autopatrol? We could also ask that admins patrol Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege more. DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, the community has been tightening autopatrol recently. Example: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Passed: 7D Remove autopatrolled from default toolkit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I recognize a few names in that automated report, and I wouldn't grant autropatrolled at all. And I'm sure some wouldn't get it granted if requested. That being said, I think it's a good thing that NPPs nominate some people to autopatrolled from time to time. MarioGom (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The backlog has gone to around 14885 this morning from about 15k so some pages are reviewed, but we can’t get many reviewers when it takes weeks for the admins to review them, take my request as an example, because I had passed NPP school it was a request that took less time than usual, but some requests will probably take over 2 weeks. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 05:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The backlog won't disappear in a day, no. It will take a few months at least. But since Kudpung sent out the newsletter there have already been an influx of new people applying at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer people who probably had no idea that we needed the help before seeing the message. I just sent out messages to a bunch of the noticeboards, and already had a few takers. There is help out there to be had, we just have to ask. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The admins have sympathy for us (except Rosguill who is one of us) and are approving requests much much quicker, and I got about 50 pages done this morning so if every reviewer did something like that, that’s part of the backlog gone, but we are keeping up with the new pages as they come in. So those are some positives, negatives are that we probably will have some more UPE’s bubbling up if the admins are reviewing requests faster, | Zippybonzo | Talk | 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol capacity and backlog

I've been noodling on this for about a year and here's what I came up with.North8000 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The backlog of unreviewed pages is an ongoing unresolved problem which is getting worse. As of this writing it is 15,000 and rapidly growing. This is the result of hundreds of factors, some good, some bad. Any useful analysis requires identifying core solvable problems or good changes which will help improve the situation. I'll discount some other areas discussed as too small to help (e.g. autpopatrol and bot-change related) and focus on the core need and goal which is the amount of throughput of by-human NPP patrol reviews. For shorthand/terminology and ballpark I'm also going to use "30 reviewers" for shorthand because currently this is the number of reviewers averaging 2 review completions per day or more, and under best case scenarios, the number we might have reviewing big enough numbers to solve the issues. And I'll use "1 million" for the number of editors, knowing that it can be considered to be more or less than that depending on the criteria used.

General Analysis

It appears that a throughput of about 1,500 by-human review completions per day is needed. Since maybe a third are just tagged for later re-review, this means about 2,200 reviews a day including those. Attempted reviews where the NPP'er ended up just leaving it it for an expert would raise that number further.

The gorilla in the math living room that affects everything else is that under the best case scenario we have millions of article creators and 30 people doing NPP on what they create.

Analyzing one level down on the throughput side, throughput is the number of active reviewers and the rate of reviews that they can and do accomplish. And one level below that the factors are influx of reviewers that are really going to review, having them get better at it, having them spend more time reviewing, making it easier to accomplish reviews, and retaining them as active reviewers. And of course, making the process less difficult and more pleasant is key to many of these.

Even to get to moderate proficiency requires a wiki-knowledge level which is higher than that of an average admin. For example, to be able to review even 1/2 of the articles that need review requires extensive knowledge of all of the notability guidelines, wp:not, wp:common outcomes and some knowledge of of the undocumented fuzzy wp:notability ecosystems works. To get that to 95% requires far more than that, with medium knowledge of most of the fields covered by the SNG (e.g. to know the sports terminology and structure to interpret the SNG), fluency with a wide range of tools (source-searching, copyvio and translation tools) 4-5 other major guidelines and policies and fluency in searching sources in non-english countries.

If one listens to everybody who comments or complains on what seems to be implied, the expectations of what could be covered in a NPP review are gigantic. The list of all of the tags to apply implies catching every possible problem or weakness in an article. The NPP flowchart is not really as demanding as it appears at first glance, but does included copyvio searches and analysis of the results.

NPP'er satisfaction with and enjoyment of the work is essential to recruiting reviewers, having them do more, and staying around. Even if they ignore the complainers, the unwritten expectations inflicted by NPP itself are so high that nearly everybody is going to think "I'm doing a bad job". And, to add to that it is a painful job once one sees comments and happenings at articles that they AFD and similar places.

Of all of the zillions of possible tasks for NPP, 95% could be called article development including identifying and fixing problems. Mathematically the 95% needs to be handled by the millions of editors, not the 30 NPP'ers. The other 5% that can really only be done by NPP is acting as the gatekeepers on "is it OK for this article to exist?" questions.

WP:Before regarding sourcing inflicts a mathematical impossibility on NPP. For an extreme example to illustrate,in 10 minutes, each of the million editors could create 10 sourceless articles on non-notable people in non-english-speaking countries. Each will require about a 1/2 hour by an NPP'er to comply with wp:before before sending it to AFD. So those 10 million articles will require 5,000,000 person hours by the 30 NPP'ers to send them to AFD. If they each average 5 wikihours a week to work on NPP, WP:Before makes it so that it would take the NPP'ers 641 years to "properly" review what the million editors can create in 10 minutes. Mathematically, the only solution to this doubly lopsided situation is that including needed wp:notability-related sources (thus confirming that they exist) needs to be the job of the 1,000,00 editors, not the 30 reviewers.

Solutions

1. The general expectation within NPP needs to change to the only responsibility of the 30 reviewers being to be gatekeepers on the "Is it OK for this article exist?" questions. Everything else it's cool for NPP'ers to do but will be considered to be "above and beyond" their responsibility. And we need to convey this whenever it comes up. The change is mostly psychological; don't change the flow chart, just interpret it in this context.
2. It's ridiculous that our main tool (curation) here 50% doesn't work and isn't documented. We need to demand that WWF needs to stop their unneeded self-assigned ivory tower tasks and provide us with a working, maintained. documented tool. Until then, see below that work-arounds need to be covered in training.
3. Finding and putting in notability-required sources needs to be considered a main part of building an article, something done by the million editors. Specifically wp:before needs to be modified to reflect this. Supplying wp:notability required sources (and thus determining whether or not such exist) is the job of the million editors, not the 30 NPP'ers (or the AFD folks) NPP'ers can get that done. Until then, we need to implement that unilaterally during this emergency condition. When wp:notability requires sourcing, that we go by the sources that are IN the article.
4. Training here needs to get tweaked. The first stage needs to say to learn and get good at wp:notability guidelines, wp:not and the other ~6 guidelines related to the core task and come back after that. It's too much to try to teach that here. The next stage needs to include a lot of mission helpful getting started tips. (like how to use curation, when not to use it, and (simple as it is) how and when to use twinkle. And later, when reviewers are approaching near-rock star fluency, for the rock stars to give them tips on (off wiki) on practical decisions made to operate at rock-star rates.
5. Implement other items within NPP to help in the other areas identified in the analysis.

What next?

I'd been willing to be some type of an assistant co-ordinator here to work on such things. I'd navigate a discussion to decide on what to do and then to try to help implement.North8000 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't take 30 minutes to do a WP:BEFORE search. I bet I've never spent that long on such a search and my AfD record isn't bad. Just 2 minutes, Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, bam. If some articles are kept at AfD it's fine, although in my experience that disagreement is more about should we have an article in this situation than turning up sources I didn't find. It's true that you don't necessarily have time for a before search on every article, so if the content looks ok sometimes it's the right thing to do to slap on a notability tag and move on. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree 30 mins is excessive for a WP:BEFORE, and notability tags have their place too. I personally spend maybe 5 mins max when doing NPP usually, though I might spend longer being more thorough when commenting on an AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) P.S. I should note I tend to stick to specific types of articles when doing NPP, rather than just whatever random article is next in the queue. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

moderate proficiency requires a wiki-knowledge level which is higher than that of an average admin. For example, to be able to review even 1/2 of the articles that need review requires extensive knowledge of all of the notability guidelines. IIRC I can't pull {{tq}}'s off of discord without incurring the wrath of certain people, but we were just talking about sorting out who likes certain categories, and maybe targeting Wikiprojects for NPPSORT pages that have particular backlogs and ask the reviewers who watch that page who are more familiar with the subjects RS/NGs to try and get them down. Of course there is discussion above on this page about a full on drive, whoch could (should) help as well. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) ​

I'll spare others the risk of violating the outing policy, and I will quote myself:

Throwing here a half-assed idea before going to WT:NPP/R with it:

I'm thinking about some sort of active NPP census, where we share with each other what kind of reviewing we are doing or intend to do.

The structure I was thinking is a list of: all WP:NPPSORT categories + Redirects + Back of the queue + Front of the queue.

Each of us would add our username to the categories we do or intend to do.

This could be useful to drive a recruiting effort (e.g. oh, we have no one really interested in patrolling articles about X region?), maybe also the seed for some other coordination actions (e.g. topic-based drives), discover peers to ask for a second opinion about an article in the same topic of interest, etc.

What do you think?

MarioGom (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, can't hurt. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

My "needs 30 minutes" example was admittedly an extreme case to make the "asymmetrical effort" point. Not a statement that I'd spend 30 minutes on it. But to back that up, let's say that somebody puts up an article on a sports figure in a non-english-speaking country (maybe one that doesn't even use the same alphabet characters) in a language that you do not know. How long would it take you to research well enough to say sources don't exist to the point that somebody at AFD won't be finding something and saying that you screwed up? North8000 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not worried about someone at AfD saying I didn't do enough work. I can search the characters on Google Books and Google News and if it turns out sources exist after all, so what. Perfect AfD records are overrated. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks...yes, I know that.....after about 500 reviews I learned that doing the job requires technically violating wp:before and having a thick skin at AFD. (is this covered in the training somewhere? :-)...another of my points) And this also relates to several of the other points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's true. That's one place where you need a thick skin. The other place is CSD where you encounter the vagaries of admins interpreting the CSD categories. Whiteguru (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Essay to track reform ideas

I've created User:Novem Linguae/Essays/NPP reform notes. This is my attempt to document every NPP reform idea I see. I've grouped the ideas into 5 or so subheadings. Feel free to add to it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A thought but not a solid idea is us being able to assign autopatrolled as we see fit, after all, we are the reviewers. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-admins assigning permissions is not going to happen, but I'm sure that if you nominate someone for autopatrolled based on your reviewing experience, there are high chances an admin will assign it. MarioGom (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

July Drive

The July Drive sign-up is currently open, the drive starts on July 1st and ends on July 31st: Sign up here. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio feature in Curation tool

I've come across quite a few articles that are marked as potential copyvio that have been corrected, but the Curation tool still shows them as having a copyvio. Example: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. Can this anomaly be fixed or must we live with it? DannyS712 are you familiar with the code's instructions and if it can be modified? Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuing to show the tag even after being removed is the system working as designed. There are some reasonable reasons why to do this as checking against COPYVIOs is a bit resource intensive. It would make a great feature request whether it would be Danny or some other developer who might work on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussion Notability (sports)

I'm placing this notice here for active reviewers to consider regarding a few proposed additions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Expanding Notability for Equestrians. Your input is requested. Atsme 💬 📧 22:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: bot autopatrol of *userspace* pages created by admins

I know that we unbundled autopatrol from the admin toolkit, but many admins create user pages as they tag sock puppets, write essays or user scripts, etc. Would it go against that unbundling RFC to have a bot automatically mark pages created by admins in the user namespace as patrolled? DannyS712 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of an unwritten rule that we don't patrol userspace, so a bot may not be needed for this. Others should feel free to chime in though! –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Novem is right I believe, but also I think that would patrol any drafts they make kind of giving all admins mainspace AP, at least indirectly. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think user pages created as a result of a logged admin action need to be patrolled. They can be left unpatrolled. Generally the user has been blocked and/or banned so they won't be creating a normal user page. Content crpated by admins in their own user space is rarely harmful - I think it's best to AGF on what admins do there unless there sufficient are grounds for suspicion that they are acting out of order. Systematically Patrolling user space is otherwise just making work or 'a solution looking for a problem'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Not ready article in Mainspace, Identical Draft already exists

(Moved from another talk page to here for further input) RV University was moved to draft by a previous reviewer. The article has been re-created in Main space and is identical to the draft. Do I move to Draft:RV University-2 or use G6? Just questioning since G6 is not part of NPP script options. Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally have been PROD-ing such articles, with a reference to the draft already existing and the mainspace article isn't ready yet. Singularity42 (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Also - this should probably be at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Singularity42 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe G6 and throw a {{uw-c&p}} at the user? My brain is very foggy today but wouldn't c&p move qualify as G6, or some other speedy? I havent looked at this particular example, but in general i mean?. Of course this could be seen as a WP:DRAFTOBJECT and subject to not draftification anymore, in which case PROD/AfD would be the options leftover. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the drafting rules, we should persue other means rather than drafting. Just as it is fine fir us to move a new article, it is also allowed for them to contest that move. To re-draftify the article is tantamount to move warring. AfD it or stubify it. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter, Singularity42, IAmChaos, and Insertcleverphrasehere: since we rolled out the draft namespace several years ago, I personally move all new pages to draft that are clearly not fit or ready for mainspace, but which 'might survive an AfD' if given sufficient attention. Note that while NPP is not the 'fix-it' department, there are no deadlines at AfD where although many AfCers volunteer to do a lot of basic fixes, the principle focus of AfC is (was?) to educate the article creators to do the fixes themselves, and if they don't/won't, G13 is thataway! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, totally agree, issue here is an article created in main, moved to draft, new article created in main identical to draft. Where does the Main not fit for mainspace go? AfD, G6 eligible, move to draft with 2 appended?Slywriter (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: AfD it, MfD the draft, warn the creator about disruptive editing (or any other disobedience template that fits), perhaps hinting that a possible block may be lurking on the horizon. I've been around so long on NPP and seen so much drivel and gaming the system that I am no longer an 'inclusionist at all cost', nor am I afraid to be stern but polite with obvious scoundrels - it's not the same as 'not biting' new and otherwise good faith users. Watch it though, because under today's climate an admin (if you are one) can't say 'Boo!' to a goose without risking a character assassination by vindictive miscreants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, Thanks, NPP a bit different animal than AfC and routine patrolling for vandalism and promotional material, so trying to find the community norms. Not an admin and doubt I'd ever survive the inquisition to be one since I mostly handle the other side of editing- pruning, not creation. Anyway, I've AfDed. Will drop a note on the talk page of editor. Leaving the draft for now. If they continue then will seek more permanent steps to prevent re-creation.Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: bear in mind that (now that I have looked) this does appear to be a fairly new user and probably not a native speaker, so they may not realise they are doing anything wrong. One of the great failings of the WMF or Wkipedia is that after all these years, there is still not an informative welcome page for newly registered users, still leaving everything (AFAIK) up to the Welcoming committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: There is now actually some kind of start up info displayed to a new user's after registration, but it's not a permanent template on the user page and it carries no information on what to do and what not to do, or What Wikipedia is not, so from NPP experience, it seems as if most new users generally ignore it anyway. Kudpung Tester (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung@Slywriter There is actually advice about this exact thing over at WP:DRAFTIFY (more specifically: WP:DRAFTOBJECT). We aren't supposed to draftify more than once. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 18:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I hist-merged the draft which is the standard solution for cut-paste moves. Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Medical sources

Are we supposed to be upholding the medical project's reliable sources for medical articles in biographical articles? I know it's best practice but I used to review these in DYK and, in my experience, they hardly ever comply. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think maintenance tagging is optional for us now. Feel free to throw a {{More medical citations needed}} on it if needed. For determining whether to mark as reviewed, we can focus on the rest of the flowchart, which is mainly CSD and notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Novem Linguae! Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS does not necessarily apply to bios. It does apply to the parts of them which talk of having discovered a cure for a disease. Unlesss theee is very good documentation, I usually handle this by by saying something like which he proposed as a potential treatment for .... . If the med peopel want todeal wwith it further thtye will. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation – A new WMF restriction for all Wikipedia editors.

IP Masking: After gathering final feedback, the WMF will soon be permanently rolling out its IP masking feature. On May 24, 2022 the IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. This will be of interest for New Page and AfC Reviewers and anyone else concerned with vandalism, COI, UPE, etc. Many of the reasons to view IP addresses will no longer be available to everyone or indeed to other special rights users (admins, recent changes/vandalism patrollers, AfC, NPP, SPI, COI, UPE, etc.) who are not CU functionaries. On En-Wiki, access and use of the CU tool is highly restricted, regulated, and limited in scope. On IP masking:

We currently have an access restriction in place which was informed by our conversations with Legal and Trust & Safety. In general, our goal was to ensure that we do not risk the privacy of an editor by exposing (potentially) sensitive information to users who a) may not need to see it anyway and b) may not be trusted with that information. – WMF

Individual Wikiedias will apparently not be able to opt out of IP Masking which is to be imposed on all WMF projects on a decision of the WMF legal division.
Some questions that are still open regarding this new feature and its tool include:

1. How, and under what criteria, does the WMF consider imposing or recommending user access levels to the tool that reveals IP adresses? Or will this be left up to the individual projects?
2. Will this mean that a new, special user group will need to be created locally (or by the WMF) to view IP addresses? If so, what user experience would be required, and what measures would be available to prevent users requesting such a right for the sole purpose of gaming the system?
3. Nowadays with most IP addresses being dynamic (especially mobile connections), and the hugely increasing use of low cost VPNs, the IP information and CU tool results are nowadays largely inaccurate and/or ineffective. What can be said about about the usefulness of this 'IP viewer' tool in practical terms?
4. How will this impact on the growing interest on some projects to simply ban IP editing altogether? (Portuguese Wiki has already done so).

See description and its discussion. See also further information and discussion for Beta testers on the Test Wiki, and those who would also like to test it and see what it does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

We are suggesting that admins should have the right to view IP addresses (alongside checkusers) by default as we know it is essential many times for admins to view IP addresses and block them, as appropriate. For patrollers, we suggest a new group/right that can be given to trusted patrollers, as defined by the community norms. We are suggesting a lightweight community-driven process for giving these rights to users who meet some minimum criteria of account tenure and number of edits. Advanced users in the community could also have the right to take away this privilege from anyone they think may be misusing their access to IPs. In addition, WMF T&S staff would also be responsible for handling cases of violation. – WMF

Please note that this is all advance information only. It's not a call to rush off and start a half-baked RfC anywhere on anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is an improvement. I liken the NPP new group/right to the rights afforded WP:VRT members, so I don't see a problem with it. Atsme 💬 📧 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, with the caveat that access to the WP:VRT user right has (or had) a relatively low threshold - I was a VRT agent myself. We have even had VRT users banned from there for using it to work around their paid editing. I know, because I discovered them myself when I was still active and one or two more have been kicked out since. Wikipedia could be more corrupt than the Cambridge Five, not to mention Orangemoody. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with IP masking. The only thing I really want is a way to know if an anonymous user is from the same IP range as another, and possibly loose geolocation to help identify vandals who IP-hop. If we could incorporate those, we wouldn't really have too much need for IP's outside of what CU's already do. I noticed there is a geolocation feature in the beta, but it seems a bit too broad for my liking. I suppose it's good for privacy though. (Well, except for a few cases, like shared IP tagging, which can be a useful tool. I'd like to see how we could accomplish that, we'd likely need a "viewer" perm in that case) ASUKITE 15:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

Currently 791 users are trying this feature. It can be turned on in your Preferences > Beta features. Testing it does not mean Beta testers will be authorised to use it once the IP Masking has been rolled out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Backlog reduction goal

The latest chart shows a sudden and significant reversal. This is getting me more motivated now that it doesn't appear to be hopeless. In lieu of any formal backlog reduction drive, how about just a simple monthly goal. I propose 14,000 by the end of the month. I think that should be easy to hit. Since there are no coordinators to discuss this with first, I boldly added a header with this goal. I hope no one objects. MB 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@MB well, I don't object, I just slightly doubt that we will manage it. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 07:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's try it! MarioGom (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that is a 'significant' reduction, be nice if the trend lasts though. Problem with backlog drives, as has been seen in the past, is that they just invite more speed and less quality. If push comes to shove, it would be better to draftify more of the questionable creations, or get the 90 day cut-off period extended. But good luck with asking for that at Phabricator these days. Experience has clearly demonstrated that a process like NPP needs its go-to person (or people), so some structured coordination wouldn't go amiss. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

they just invite more speed and less quality My experience with a similar backlog drive (the AFC backlog drive we did last year, which was really successful and cleared a 4,000 article backlog) was that the quality of the reviews was fine. We confirmed this with a re-review requirement. In my opinion, the biggest problem with that particular backlog drive was that it burned out all the top AFC reviewers for several months, which allowed the backlog to return. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: AfC is not NPP. While they are closely related (to the point of the community having considered several times merging the two processes), there are two fundamental differences: There is a 90 day deadline to review the current backlog of 16,000 new articles before they (especially the junk, nonsense, and spam) get released for indexing by search engines, while at AfC there is no deadline other than the procedural deletion if they are not edited for 6 months, and the backlog is much smaller. There are a few other significant differences, but that would be another discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a significant reduction, I said significant reversal. This was the biggest drop in two months of mostly steady increase. I would have been happy with just leveling off. As far as the goal, I was trying not to frame this as a "drive" but just a target for the month that we should try to hit with regular sustained effort. As I said in the newsletter, we need to more people doing more reviews routinely. MB 14:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm now planning a July 2022 backlog drive. Unfortunately, the participants list isn't set up yet but I hope to get that done in the next few hours. Hopefully there are a couple editors willing to act as co-coordinators; last time that was Elli and Tol. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy to coordinate, a July backlog drive would probably be quite good, especially as the backlog might be smaller by then. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

My sense is that an important issue is being overlooked here. The back of the queue consists of abandoned articles, and articles that are tagged for maintenance, that maintenance which has not been attended to by the creators and hence, left marked "Unreviewed". After focussing on one area in NPPSORT for several weeks, I can point you to a number of editors who have multiple messages on their talk pages about "ways to improve" this or that article, and such advice is patently ignored. It is many of these such articles that are in that → 14,000 queue as observed. The issue is "What do we do with these articles - which have had one preliminary review in NPP - and remain in NPPSORT? That figure in NPPSORT is inaccurate to say in the least. The other issue is what to do with abandoned articles. I have seen - at AFD - some articles from the back of the NPP queue. There is mention of a 90 day deadline: once that deadline is reached there should also available the option or facility for New Page Patrollers to apply "abandoned article" if it has been tagged and the maintenance required is not attended to. Determining the period for applying abandoned status can be debated, however, some of the material at the back of the queue is very dated. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Would "abandoned article" be a maintenance tag? What would abandoned article status do/allow outside of the normal channels? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth are processed tagged articles still malingering in the queue? Surely that's not sensible. If they are tagged for maintenance they are already in the category for that maintenance tag, and don't need further NPP attention. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Many articles are tagged for maintenance, the creator doesn't respond for 1 month or more, then I come along and draftify them. it makes me confident that they aren't going to fix up the article. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That might be pragmatic, but it isn't policy compliant, is it? The way G13 works these days, moving to draft is a 6-month-delayed prod with virtually no oversight apart from the areas that DGG looks through. If they went to AfD, someone else might fix them. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Which part do you consider to be non policy compliant? Draftifying is allowed, maintenance tagging is allowed. Some would consider doing both to be going above and beyond, giving the article creator multiple opportunities and many months to fix major problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying an article that isn't being worked on falls under the backdoor to deletion prohibition. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. WP:DRAFTIFY #3 seems to encourage draftifying articles that are not being worked on though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. I'm not sure it's what I remember from when I last looked at the policy a few months ago, but perhaps my memory is at fault. The two things do seem incompatible. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Funny, until recently I was also sure that it said the opposite, but it's actually been like that from the beginning. I pointed out the contradiction at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Why draftify articles that aren't being actively improved? and I think David Eppstein hit the nail on the head. – Joe (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe Indeed! I think what bothers me so much about moving to draft is that, if I, as an admin of nearly 15 years' standing, unilaterally delete an article I consider is not up to scratch, then I can -- rightly -- be disciplined, and if I continued to do so, would probably swiftly lose my admin privileges. However, any editor with move rights can delete an article (with a 6-month delay) merely by moving it to draft space, with no effective check at all. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict and Joe Roe: Aye, there's the rub. It's what comes of unbundling, while nowadays an admin can't say "Boo!'" to a goosr without being sanctioned by Arbcom - and theere's generally only one sanction for admins. No wonder why under today's climate non one wants to be an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@MB Nice work everybody! Just dropped below 14,000! — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 07:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching the queue and we actually dipped into the 13,980s once and then went back above 14,000. Now we are down below 13,900, so it's probably safe to say we met the target. Although, it is a long holiday weekend in the US and that may have an affect. But yes, good job everyone. MB 16:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, having tags does not mean the article has been "processed" by NPP. The tags could have been added by anyone, and they can be removed by anyone at any time (including by the author) without fixing the problems. The article needs to stay in the queue until someone does more than tag it (CSD/AFD/Draftify/etc/ or approve). MB 04:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I generally only draftify articles that are 100% unsourced. Since you can remove unsourced content in any article, I don't see why it's not allowed to remove 100% unsourced articles as well. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Buidhe. I don't have a problem with moving to draft in the complete absence of sources, though I would always suggest trying one's luck with Google first. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

MB "Triaged" is possibly a better word. There's a big difference between an article that has slipped through the cracks and could have any number of major problems, and one that a reviewer has checked and tagged appropriately but has yet to exit the system. Imo, it would be better in process terms and psychologically to have separate heaps of completely unreviewed stuff and stuff that has been reviewed but is waiting for the creator/other editors to do something to render it acceptable. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: 'Triage' was actually the working name for the new New Pages Feed and its Curation Tool while we were developing them over a decade ago. On the premise of 'could survive an AfD', I generally used to draftify anything that is not a strict candidate for CSD, PROD, or AfD but which is quite clearly not fit for mainspace. NPP is not 'fix it' - that's the domain of AfC or the creator of what is now a draft. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung: It's no secret that I don't think moving to draft is working, or at least it's working brilliantly to excise imperfect content, but not to develop content. There's -- understandably -- a lack of volunteers to work on inadequate content submitted by inexperienced editors at both AfC and NPP. Somehow we the encyclopedia need to reinvent the Sow's Ear Into Silk Purse Machine of those heady early days, but I fear it might be impossible. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There never was a "Sow's Ear Into Silk Purse Machine of those heady early days". Back when this encyclopedia was building entries covering the last couple millennia of history there were entries of merit to develop. Now we have all the articles we need and we're inundated with everything else we don't want or need, given to us by the least talented and most conflicted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Espresso Addict: I just dropped a reply to DGG's post below (he and I have been around and collaborated very closely on these issues practically since the genesis of AfC and NPP). He does a truly dedicated job nowadays of rescuing some drafts in his sphere of expertise, but of course it's only a drop in the ocean of all the junk that's there and because he's so good at what he does, he's the last person I would want to feel under pressure to get it done. That said, it's always been my opinion that if AfCers fix articles, they do it voluntarily and are under no obligation to do so. More important is to give tips to the creators and encourage them to do it themselves, and if they don't, well, G13 is thataway! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Written four years ago:

Although AfC is not the Article Rescue Squadron, many draft creators (and confirmed editors too), especially single-purpose accounts, submit their creation in Wikipedia expecting other editors to complete it or clean it up. They need to be informed up front that not only are notability and sources required, but that the article must also be appropriate for an encyclopedia, and that clean-up attempts by reviewers might not be the best deployment of their enthusiasm to rescue certain kinds of articles.
Dialogue with the creator is an intrinsic part of the AfC template system, and used well, more effective than Page Curation's message feature. Unlike New Page Review, whose principal task as a triage is to either tag articles for deletion or pass them for inclusion with perhaps some minor details needing to be addressed, at AfC the skill is in being able to sensibly recognise whether or not a new article has true validity and potential for the encyclopedia and offer some basic advice – the rest is about not being scared to keep or delete. –The Signpost June 2018

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Appeal the 90 day draftification ban?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 172#Proposal to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old without consensus. Just wondering if we should look into appealing this at WP:AN. I am having trouble reading the consensus of this discussion as a consensus to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old. By my count, there was 45 support, 46 oppose. Hard to imagine the support arguments were so convincing that it overrides the opposes. For example, during the discussion I did a spot check of draftifications at the back of the AFC queue and didn't find any egregious errors. You can search for "Chess, thanks for your comment. I spot checked the first 5. Draft:Dean Shomshak" to see my analysis. Overall I find the hard evidence and diffs of draftification misconduct to be quite lacking, and not enough to override the opposes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It is worth considering, but have you encountered some articles needing draftification after 90 days, counted since the day they were moved to mainspace? I use draftification quite frequently, and I have rarely encountered the need to draftify after 90 days since last creation or move to mainspace. On the other hand, maybe this is more evidence that the 90 days rule was based on bad premises in the first place... MarioGom (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I've encountered hundreds. They fall into two groups: ones where the editor is no longer present (as is the case for almost all inadequate wiki education program articles and many from editathons), and those where the editor is still around, often continuing to make equally poor articles and ignoring the notices. Iif the editor is not around, I can understand the limitation; if the contributor still is around, I don't see why there needs to be such as stringent time limit. But I cannot immediately see any way of codifying this.

My experience is that about 5% of abandoned drafts would make reasonable articles without extensive rewriting. If we automatically delete them, we are losing at least 10,000 articles a year; if we automatically move them to mainspace as we do now, we are adding at least 50,000 totally unsupportable articles.

This leads be to 3 general comments which are being lost sight of:

1. Shifting work between NPP, AfC and AfD does not yi)eld any net benefit.
2. Accumulating a backlog does not reduce the amount of work.
3. Arbitrary time limits after which action is taken without consideration do not benefit the encyclopedia,. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative to propose that doesn't needlessly burden other editors to fix/finish the work others have begun and are credited for creating? The latter also leaves us open to being BOT spammed with inadequate, un-cited stubs, not to mention PE who get paid for the mention while others create the good article for them. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have one. Putting in the wp:notability sources (and thus seeing if they exist) needs to be re-identified as a core part of article creation and the job of the million editors, not the job of the 30 NPP'ers. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

advance alert

As mentioned above, I am the principal person screening forthcoming afcs; this is putting an excessive burden on one particular individual. No WP process should depend largely on a single person. I have successively reduced the fields I look at, and I have been forced by the pressures of real life to skip over occasional days altogether. This sort of burden and time pressure is unreasonable for a volunteer. Even trying to keep up greatly reduces my participation in other processes, and my ability to improve or rewrite or translate existing articles, or to do what I really want, which is to help editors develop their skills on an individual basis. This is making my experience at WP increasingly unsatisfactory, and the last few months of statistics at XTools shows the decline in my participation. I shall try to help the forthcoming drive to reduce backlogs as efficiently as I can because I know I can do it efficiently, but otherwise I anticipate progressively reducing my work at NPP/AfC/AfD. I have helped a number of good reviewers get started, and now it's their turn. I see myself as primarily a teacher, and the role of a teacher is to bring students to the point where they work independently. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

DGG idem, with difference that I can't be bothered with maintenance tasks these days. I've burned out on NPP, UPE, and COIN, and today's new articles in the feed are just stream of sports people, Bollywood, and political candidates; the days when doing NPP was interesting and articles we could learn from are long since gone. Besides which I no longer have the tools to do it properly. NPP is nowadays soul-destroyingly boring and tedious, it's hardly surprising that that the majority of the 750+ rights holders won't do it. I have focused my work nowadays on writing new articles or getting some to GA. All when my new activities in RL (and my age) allow the time, of course... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Draftify or delete the unsourced OR

See this discussion which throws NPP into quicksand. We could deploy a bot to rid our queue of unsourced articles. Benefits - article creators will learn to cite sources, and our queue will shrink dramatically. It makes -0- sense to not draftify or even delete unsourced articles. I think maybe delete is a good option, too. Why are we even allowing OR??? It's a policy vio. Atsme 💬 📧 16:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, bot is not great at telling which articles are unsourced. I focus my patrolling on the "unsourced" queue and while a lot of it benefits from draftification, there are also many articles that use sfn referencing, are valid use of general references, or that don't need references (i.e. dab pages). All of these are counted as unsourced, but should not be automatically draftified. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, but I don't know why a command using missing items such as {{cite}}, {{reflist}} or ==references== wouldn't work. It might even work in JS Wiki Browser, which is somewhat automated. I'm just tossing out ideas. Maybe DannyS712 and/or wbm1058 can provide some input. Atsme 💬 📧 17:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've been pinged to this page a couple times now, so taking a look. On the issue of "unsourced articles" I've already seen that there are apparently some bots already working on some aspect(s) of this, but I'm not familiar with the details. First thing I noticed is Category:Articles lacking sources has some 74 talk pages listed on it, despite it being a category for articles lacking sources and not talk pages lacking sources. Note that the {{Parent monthly clean-up category}} sidebar lists these 74 as "undated articles". This is likely redundant as most of the articles themselves have already been tagged, and adds to the burden of our imaginary full-time reference-finding gnomes as now when they add references they need to edit both the article and the talk page separately to remove the tags (unless someone's written a handy-dandy script to take care of it). This categorization was apparently boldly added on 1 October 2019 to Template:WikiProject Cities by Awkwafaba. This template appears to be responsible for most of the 74; I'm going to revert the addition of {{{unref}}} from that template. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Was also added to Template:WikiProject Animal anatomy by the same editor. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

...and Template:WikiProject Micronesia. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

...and Template:WikiProject Papua New Guinea – wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Also Template:WikiProject Pakistan. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

...and Template:WikiProject Polynesia. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

...and Template:WikiProject Viruses. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

...and, of course, Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

and Template:WikiProject Fungi. Wish it were easy to revert toenail fungi. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: and many more categories that preceded those, and not made by me. I was following precedent, I didn’t invent this. No need to throw shade my way over and over. And are you really complaining that there are edit requests on talk page templates? As in all the image requests, infobox requests, map requests, and so forth that have been on talk pages for years and years. If you have a problem with this long-standing practice, burying it in a side conversation on a NPP talk page is not the proper venue. --awkwafaba (📥) 03:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: No, I'm not complaining about edit requests, image requests, infobox requests, or map requests. I'm only complaining about general notices of articles lacking sources posted to talk page WikiProject templates (many of which are collapsed to ensure that few editors even notice them). I've now cleared all of the 74 that I reported above. Unless I missed one, the nine templates listed above are the only ones which were populating Category:Articles lacking sources, and I believe you were responsible for each of those nine. Please give an example or two of one of the many categories that preceded these nine. If, as I noticed here, {{WikiProject Germany}} is an example, that populates Category:Unreferenced Germany articles which is a subcategory of Category:Articles lacking sources and thus is not a precedent for what you did. Category talk:Articles lacking sources hasn't drawn much discussion recently but @Buidhe: regarding "bot is not great at telling which articles are unsourced" see see here that in February 2019 there was consensus in favor of a bot run to tag pages with {{Unreferenced}} but in March 2019 GreenC bot 7 was withdrawn by the operator. – wbm1058 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: as you have no problem with edit requests being duplicated on both the article page and the talk page, as you just detailed, then it seems your issue was that a subcategory was not created. I’m not sure why changing the category parameter on a few talk templates required all this alarm. You merely could have created the subcategories and changed the parameters on the templates and the problem would be solved without the grousing. Or maybe have just asked me if you wanted help, as you seem to imply being bold and doing it oneself is not desirable. --awkwafaba (📥) 21:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: Wikipedia:Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. This is a different animal – edit requests are not allowed to linger for months; they are generally expected to be promptly responded to and closed. I do have a problem with tags reporting a lack of sourcing being duplicated – as I said above, this burdens the editor who adds a citation to the article with the need to edit two pages to remove the tags. There are some 14 special categories that operate outside of the {{Monthly clean-up category}} system. I haven't researched the basis for their creation, but I think there should be some basis for adding another one of these – a demonstrated need. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If there is blatant original research, I usually draftify (if draftification applies). I recently found a couple of articles that were original research to the point of being almost a hoax, CSD or AFD for these. MarioGom (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That being said, is there a good template to post on user talk pages to request them to please, please, please, include at least ONE reliable source? MarioGom (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

a filter might be reasonable, accounts with less than x edits cannot publish/save/move to mainspace without at least one ref/citation template/link. Of course this doesn't weed out the blatantly fake sources and would probably encourage people adding utterly unreliable trash. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd support such a filter. (t · c) buidhe 19:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but IMO articles with absolute zero sources of any kind seem exceedingly rare. But articles with 1-2 not-really-sources (e.g. a listing-only in some database website) are very common / very numerous. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

North, a few days ago there were more than 700 articles in the "unsourced" queue. Significant portion were fully unsourced and needed draftification or redirect. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe the places I work misses them. I usually work a 5-6 week old window or else the oldest end of the cue.North8000 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - although I'm no longer active in the project, thought I might add a couple of thoughts here. First, regarding tagging articles, that does not mean that the article is reviewed. When I was reviewing I worked in two areas, the back of the queue, and then articles about 2-4 weeks old. At the back of the queue, that was the triage. If there were issues, they needed to be dealt with, simply tagging usually would not suffice. The vast majority there I either marked "reviewed", or took one of the options: draftify, redirect, AfD or Prod. Sometimes I would tag them, and then watch for a week before taking any action, seeing if the issue they were tagged for was improved. During that week, sometimes other reviewers would act on the article. In the second group, those 2-4 weeks old, if there were issues in the article which if it were at the back of the queue would require action, I would tag it, to alert other reviewers of issues I saw with the article. Then when it hit the back of the queue a month or two later, if the tag was still there, with no improvement, I would then take action.

Second, regarding removing unsourced material. Be careful, as per WP:BURDEN it is allowed, but many editors will simply revert and re-add the unsourced material. When I was reviewing this happened on a daily basis, sometimes several times. I saw that as disruptive editing, and warned other editors, but admins felt that it wasn't disruptive, and that my continued insistence at adding sources was the disruptive factor, citing edit warring. It is what led to my one and only block, which directly resulted in my leaving this project. So just be careful. I'm very disheartened by the fact that the backlog has more than doubled in the 2 months since I left the project. Thus endeth my ramblings. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks for sharing that information. I've observed that the editor you were "warring" with was also blocked, and that they last contributed on 18 March 2022 (just 3 days after their short-term block), and that the disputed unsourced content was moved by the other party to their own user space just before they stopped editing. I don't understand why such a fuss over a list of fictional characters. Maybe the bar doesn't need to be set so high for a fictional character as it is for a living person. We could just let some of the fan cruft slide by NPP to reduce the size of the backlog and allow more time for focusing on the more important stuff. That wouldn't stop anyone from putting the fan cruft article up for deletion if they chose to do that. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think the bar for fictional characters (places/concepts, etc.) should be much higher than non-fictional people. But I guess there are those of this who think of this as an encyclopedia. And those who don't, who see it as more of a fan magazine. And in my opinion, any editor who can't grasp a pillar of WP like WP:VERIFY should receive very long blocks. Once unsourced information has been removed, and and editor puts it back, and is then warned re: WP:BURDEN, if they add it back a second time, imho, that's at the very least disruptive editing, and since it breaks VERIFY, it's, again imho, vandalism, since it is a deliberate act, and it violates one of the 5 pillars of WP (# 2, which reads in part, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources"). But obviously, there are admins which don't take VERIFY very seriously.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's actually more important that we ensure that Teslo the great-climbing Electroid is scared of heights (and not misstate that he loves to get high) than to make sure that we accurately state how a newly-elected politician voted on an important bill? I disagree. wbm1058 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: The way I read Onel5969's comment is that he believes that there should be a higher bar of notability for fictional characters compared to people who actually exist. I don't think that line of reasoning would contradict accurately stating how a newly-elected politician voted on an important bill? Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but when they shouted "VERIFY" at me three times in their most recent post above, I read that as a higher bar for verifiability, not notability. wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I can see that perspective, honestly. I guess I just focused more on the first sentence. You're right that "verify" is repeated thrice. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. It's hard to know what someone intends if you're not them, though. So that's all I'll say on the matter. I hope you have a good day. Mine sucked for the most part, but it still has the chance to get better. There's always tomorrow. Clovermoss (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058 - My apologies. I didn't see that as "shouting", but I can understand how you might have. I was simply using the formatting of the policy (much like Joe Roe is doing in the comment below this). I was also talking about two different concepts, inadequately as it would now appear. The notability of fictional characters, and then the separate concept of the policy of verifying information in an article. I should have been more explicit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Doing anything to automatically remove or filter out unsourced articles is going to fall afoul of WP:PRESERVE. Assuming the material can be verified, lack of citations is a surmountable problem, and we don't delete articles for surmountable problems. In my opinion we also shouldn't be using the backdoor to deletion via draftspace in that circumstance either, but perhaps that's a lost cause. Also, not everyone wants to or (especially amongst new editors) knows how to use citation templates and ref tags, nor do they have to. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  How 'bout we filter out the "unsourced" pages that aren't truly unsourced. For example, from Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2014 I see baseball players Ernie Alten, Ossie Álvarez and Bill Bailey (pitcher). It seems clear to me that these articles were all sourced from the databases linked to in the "external links" section. Just change ==External links== to ==References==, remove the {{unreferenced}} tag, and voila. Done. Any objections to my doing this with all similarly referenced American ballplayer bios?

  Though on a closer look at Bill Bailey I see information that doesn't appear to have come from those databases. We could add a citation to the SABR bio which actually is a real, detailed biography. Should we continue to trust one-edit wonder Nerdley's 17 April 2008 contribution, or revert it? wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's not just baseballers; I've often noticed that articles with valid external links are being tagged as unsourced, and sometimes resulting in unwarranted trips to BLP_prod. I think the correct tag is usually {{More footnotes needed}}, which isn't usually life-threatening and can always be supplemented with pinpoint citation needed tags if specific material (eg quotation) must be sourced.

  I think some of it originates from the early days when bullet-point ref lists were the norm, and I think more recent ones are often translations; afaik, eg de.wiki still uses the bullet-point references model. Or maybe folk who've read a commercial encyclopedia; their entries hardly ever have inline sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, Joe, I'm pretty sure the context of PRESERVE speaks to content within a sourced article, not an unsourced article. See the following w/my bold underline: As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. At that point we're assuming the content additions are to expand a properly sourced article or stub, and that the article itself was accepted into mainspace via AfC or was created by an autopatrolled user. Rather than delete content additions, we simply tag them but those types of issues would not be cropping up in the NPP queue. Unsourced articles do not belong in mainspace until they are properly sourced, and the onus is on the article creator to establish whether or not it's OR, and Verifiable in RS, not our already taxed admins and NPP reviewers. Such articles should be draftified, a PROD nom or sent to AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 23:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  +1, although in my opinion redirecting to an existing sourced article and stubbing (while adding a source that verifies the existence of the subject) are also potential options when dealing with an unsourced article. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Flowchart 'optional' steps

The NPP article review flowchart, updated to mark some steps as 'optional'.

Hi folks. I've gotten quite a bit of feedback on the flowchart over the last couple years or so, and the most common feedback was that some of the steps at the bottom should be cut. While I don't necessarily disagree, I have lost the original file that I used the create the flowchart, so updating it in that way would require completely remaking the flowchart from scratch, which is more work than I really want to put in right now.

However, I think that from what I have seen that there is a rough consensus that the bottom four bubbles of the chart should at least be considered 'optional' steps, and I've updated the flowchart with that in mind. You might have to clear cached images to be able to see the changes. Please let me know if you if you disagree with the change or have any further feedback. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 20:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If people were to prefer that these steps were removed completely, that could also be done I suppose, just by blanking them out and adding a bigger "mark as reviewed" button at the bottom and drawing a couple of arrows, which wouldn't be too difficult. I know some people are concerned with the chart looking too imposing, so any change to simplify it might be an improvement. Let me know if you would support or oppose this change. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 20:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I support marking them as optional. I lean towards opposing removal. MarioGom (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The flowchart seemed like a good idea at the time, it was a great initiative and I know I encouraged you to do it, but I didn't realise you had something so complex in mind. It is good and really does accurately summarise the flow and the things to do, but OTOH I think it detracts from the tutorial which Fuhghettaboutit and others completely rebuilt for the new user right, and which users then don't bother to read now or the video tutorial either. Obviously from the comments on this talk page over the years since September 2017‎, a few people do appear to find it a tad confusing.

The bottom line IMO, is that just like RfA, anyone requesting the NPR right should have done their homework first, thoroughly studied the tutorial and the flowchart, have been around long enough, and have the relevant knowledge of policies and deletion processes already. They should then use the flowchart later as an aide-memoire but not try to base their entire work on it all the time, which is why they are taking 30 minutes to review a new page instead of the standard three minutes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I found the flowchart very useful initially. It's just like a cheatsheet: it's not supposed to replace every manual, it's only a support resource. And I think it's completely ok if not everybody finds it equally useful, or if we have different perceptions of its complexity. MarioGom (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The flowchart is terrifying. I'm sure it puts people off patrolling. I often look at new pages and try to copy edit a little, but have hardly ever actually marked anything as patrolled; I'm always afraid I've missed something. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Espresso Addict: Discounting the steps that are now marked optional in the updated version, is there any particular step that you find easy to miss? MarioGom (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom: The things I find particularly hard are: checking to see whether it exists under another name (especially for species where the name could be very different), and the demon copyvio -- not that I forget to do it but I only rarely successfully get Earwig to run, so I tend to stall mid review. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry so much. If there aren't any obvious secondary titles to check, move on. If the copyvio detector can't run, then grab a chunk of prose and throw it into google, see what comes up, if nothing obvious, move on. We aren't aiming for perfection here, just do the best you can with what you've got. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Insertcleverphrasehere. Outright copyvio is usually glaringly obvious, anyway, and Earwig is bad at catching close paraphrasing. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Kudz about doing their homework first. In fact, the first place I point my trainees is to the tutorials and flowchart, and the first part of my course tests their knowledge of the most relevant WP:PAGs for reviewers. I also agree that the flowchart is too complex – the flow got damned up. Shrink it to initial steps for a proper review, and maybe create a small companion chart with the options. NPPSCHOOL, mentoring and trial periods are all good options as well. Atsme 💬 📧 23:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying

I'm of the mind that Draftify needs further review. Just curious...who crafted the section WP:DRAFTOBJECT?? Was it a community decision to accept this explanatory essay as part of the deletion policy? Atsme 💬 📧 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was added in this 2017 diff, at the same time as the rest of the draftification text. It appears to be based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Archive 5#Clarification and guidance for draftification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Tags by author

St Lawrence's Church, Erfurt is a translation from German WP. It has one ref, but the bulk of the article has no citations, and there is a More Citations needed tag placed by the author. I believe this church is notable, but the author knows it is poorly cited and is apparently leaving it for others to fix. It would be declined in its present state at AFC. Draftify or pass? MB 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd accept it--I was able to find at least passing references on Google Scholar in German (didn't have time to evaluate a non-searchable PDF closely), and any still-extant building that old is almost certainly going to have significant coverage, albeit offline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it passes based on notability. It still doesn't feel quite "right" to accept with such poor sourcing. MB 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Stub it to what can be verified and move on (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled editors creating unsourced pages

Via this thread, I discovered that several autopatrolled editors are creating articles without any sources whatsoever: List of ports in Iran, Sara Fernández Roldán, Pierre Pasquier (colonial administrator), Lot (fineness), 2022 Leinster Senior Hurling Championship Final, 2022 UEC European Track Championships, Midnight Cop (all by separate editors). It looks like most of them have had the permission for years.

It's my understanding that such behavior is not considered acceptable for autopatrolled editors. What should be done about these editors? What processes are in place to identify autopatrolled editors who aren't using the permission according to community expectations? (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Treat it like a standard behavioral issue, raise it politely on a talk page and then go to ANI if not resolved? IIRC some editors have taken it upon themselves to scan autopatrol editors' contributions, but I'm not aware of any established process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I recently removed the permission from an editor who had been creating unsourced and undersourced articles for years, some of which are of arguable notability, including a close to unsourced BLP [1]. I see no reason why any admin can't simply remove the permission if the article quality isn't nearly always up to scratch. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ETA: Sara Fernández Roldán was created with sources, which were removed by IP who expanded page. I've restored. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the permission should be revoked from them, as was done with others.--Sakiv (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO if this is more than a couple of sporadic mistakes, the perm should be removed without excessive drama. WP:ANI looks like one of the worst possible venues to deal with this, except in the rare case where there's some bad faith abuse (e.g. UPE). MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

yeah that's what I was thinking (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe does this in any way appear to be related to UPE? I've not looked at the articles highlighted, but the behaviour makes my antennae twitch. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess for some of them it's possible, but in other cases not; I don't see why anyone would pay for Lot (fineness). I'm not the most experienced with UPE though. (t · c) buidhe 15:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I've encountered the author of Lot (fineness) (now redirected) several times; I'm sure they are good faith; I think they contribute a lot to de.wiki, which has rather different citation standards. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in redirecting something to an article which does not mention the topic. I can find nothing in OED to support this sense of "Lot", to add to the target article to make the redirect useful, and have proposed the redirect for deletion. It was a translation of an unsourced article in de.wiki. PamD 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO autopatrol should be eliminated. Nearly everybody needs a second set of eyes short term and long term to keep them on the right track. Just as NPP can't patrol their own work. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. In any case, I think a more immediate action would be not granting any autopatrol requested by the recipient. It would make sense for it to be granted primarily on nomination by NPP reviewers. IMHO, someone requesting autopatrol is a quite strong signal that they shouldn't get it at all. MarioGom (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no fixed process for reviewing and revoking PERMs (that's what WP:XRV was supposed to be, but it died on the vine). In lieu of one, people sometimes raise concerns at WT:PERM, Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled or of course WP:ANI. We should be able to trust autopatrolled editors to create articles that are completely clean 100% of the time, and in my mind leaving even one article unsourced invalidates that, so I'd pull it from these editors unless there's a very good explanation. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Joe. If we can't trust NPP reviewers with autopatrol rights, they don't need to be NPP reviewers. Atsme 💬 📧 12:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This problem runs deeper in Wikipedia. I should not be the only one facing consequences for not adding sources swiftly to the articles I create. Examples: 1, 2. Both articles remained unreferenced for over 10 days.--Sakiv (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I set a record. I was ready to put all of my sources in on minute 3 in a new article and somebody draftified the article with all of the stern warnings and instructions when it was two minutes old. (was not a NPP review) North8000 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we know how many autopatrolled pages are created per week? I think that would weigh in on a decision to remove the privilege altogether. If it's just a low number, it won't make things much worse than they currently are.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Would increase our queue at a time when the queue is out of control, with very low chance of the articles actually needing review. Not a good use of limited NPP reviewer time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with North8000 and anyone else who believes the Autopatrolled right is outdated, and as a compromise, with MarioGom's suggestion. Autopatrolled articles do not relieve the queue in the feed - any that are user right compliant only take a second to click the [Mark this page as patrolled] button, while any that are not, and the creator, should be give short schrift. If an article does not belong in mainspace or does not respect the spirit of Autopatrolled, it does not belong there with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Germany

So I was working away at the old feed yesterday and Germany came up. After a double take and a quick check to make sure I wasn't being pranked in some way, I tagged it as reviewed. But I can't shake the nagging question, WHY? And I thought I'd put the question to those wiser and smarter than I. Stop preening, that bar is pretty low... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the page curation log, Arwel Parry marked it as unreviewed on June 3. There's a link in left menu -> tools -> "Add to the New Pages Feed" that unreviews a page. Misclick? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, well. Thanks - should have thought of looking there myself. As I said, the bar is low... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Stats

Is it possible to acquire stats that tell us the # of PRODs that were denied, and went to AfD and survived? Atsme 💬 📧 11:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think so. This sort of thing isn’t tracked via anything that I know of. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme and Insertcleverphrasehere: it is almost certainly doable, just like a recent question for data on new articles sent to draft by NPP that finally did not survive an AfD or other avenue of deletion. It's not a question of it being 'tracked' already. The problem is finding someone to do it. Conventional Wiki wisdom appears to assume that every Wikipedia editor is an IT expert, at least those of us whose names hold additional user rights or who frequently figure in maintenance areas. However, in contrast to those who grew up already using tablet computers and mobile phones in kindergarten , many of my generation missed out on all forms of formal education in computer literacy. We were aware of the importance of statistics but the actual processing was done in the basement by our university employees wearing white coats and surrounded by huge banks of metal cabinets with large wheels of half-inch tape and lots of flashing lights.

Surprisingly though, despite its reliance on technology, there has been a shift away from applying essential statistics on Wikipedia towards the use of easier anecdotal evidence. This is why many important RfC now fail to gain the desired traction. Back in the old pioneering days of projects such as RfA reform, NPP, and ACTRIAL, we did produce a lot of stats to reinforce our arguments, but it seems to be a challenge nowadays to drum up enthusiasm for data mining. Users such as Scottywong were a godsend but AFAIK he has moved on from scripting search routines. Opabinia regalis was also extremely adept and helpful when I needed stuff, but I don't see her around so much nowadays. I am sure that there must be someone among the NPPers who could do it, or perhaps DGG, Barkeep49, and Worm That Turned, who know a lot of people, can point you towards someone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with PRODs is that there is no persistent record when an article gets PRODed. PRODing an article is just another edit in the revision history. While the PROD template is on the page, it's included in some deletion categories, but once the template is removed that information is gone. The only way to determine if an article has been PRODed in the past would be to examine every edit in its revision history to look for the prod template. That would be a very arduous and time-consuming task. I suppose another way would be to put together a bot that keeps a running list of all articles that have been PRODed (by frequently checking the deletion category), but you'd only be able to know about PRODs that happen after the bot starts running. Either way, it's not a straightforward task. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

PRODding leaves a template on the talk page though. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to have an edit filter that adds a tag when a prod template gets added to a page, so that it would be much easier to find prior prods (those added after the filter was created only though) DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've invited Wbm1058 to the discussion to see if he might have some ideas. I think he operates a BOT. Atsme 💬 📧 01:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether I should put a higher priority on responding here or here. Before I would spend time on any statistics gathering project I'd need a better understanding of the project and its objectives, and what actionable items would be derived from the statistics. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I would echo what wbm is saying: of potential NPP data we could gather is this really the most useful? Kudpung's ask about AfD actually strikes me as a more useful stat (and potentially one that is findable with quarry). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important in an effort to make sure we're not wasting the valuable time of our reviewers who PROD an article only to discover that admins won't take action on it; thereby, forcing us to AfD. The stats will give us an idea of how many refused PRODs actually survived AfD. I think it's important to know if we have an unnecessary time sink; i.e., reviewer doing the research, adding the PROD, waiting a day or more ^{after 7 days have past} for an admin to take action (if we're lucky), and in ??? cases, admin removes the PROD suggesting AfD. Now the reviewer has more work to do, the AfD also lasts a minimum of 7 days, but if there is no input or little input, projects are notified, and before you know it, we've waisted 2 weeks minimum with absolutely -0- benefit, not to mention the negative effects it has on reviewers who actually spent the time to do the research, and were turned down only to have the article deleted weeks later. I'm not saying all reviewers are perfect, but it appears these stats will have more positives than negatives if it turns out the rejected PRODs and CSDs are indeed a time sink with little value VS the value derived from the admin follow-through that favors the decisions of a good NPP reviewer who PRODs or CSDs articles they determined unworthy after spending time to do the research, (which also obliquely indicates they are probably not a UPE), and (b) with WP:REFUND in mind, why are we putting more work on the backs of our reviewers instead of making article creators more proficient in following WP:PAG? It's far less work for admins to refund than it is for reviewers to go through the time sink while our backlog increases. The stats will help us determine if our admins are making good judgment calls by not taking action, and that our reviewers have a good understanding of PROD & CSD – the STATS will help us make that determination, and will also help put our minds at ease re: admin UPE. Atsme 💬 📧 14:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

- Just a quick note, Atsme - PRODs have to last 7 days as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

- It's Saturday the day after – apologies & thx for pointing it out, One – but 7 days makes it even worse – and I get it that we're all overworked, including admins. Atsme 💬 📧 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

- Given that this page is for discussing the new pages patrol – I don't think WP:PROD is appropriate for recently-created pages. PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. Presumably the page's creator should be expected to object to the deletion of their recent creation. PROD is appropriate for pages created years ago, whose creator may have retired, and where community expectations for the page's content have changed from the date the article was created. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

- Given that we maintain a 5 digit backlog and try to start at the back of the NPP queue, they're not really new articles anymore. A substantial number of articles such as removed redirects, PRODs & CSDs comprise our queue because they're sent back to us as unreviewed. I realize that NPP is our second line of defense for keeping crap out of the pedia, but having said that, I've seen existing redirects that began as non-notable articles/BLPs – let's say it was titled John Doe when it began, and ended up a new article/BLP titled, Jane Doolittle. I'm not quite sure how redirects are recycled like that or if any of the following takes place or should even be considered: (a) is a MOVE required, (b) at what point is the transformation made, (c) can a UPE take advantage of it to stay off the radar, or (d) is it even worthy of concern for NPP reviewers? Atsme 💬 📧 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: I looked at the NPP feed ordered by oldest first to see what you were talking about. I got stuck when I couldn't figure out how to review a page. Then I realized I'd been conflating patrolling pages with reviewing them. I either forgot or didn't realize there was a difference. I checked my page curation log and saw that I'd reviewed just one page, back in 2014. I guess Billy needs to go back to school ;| and figure out how I enabled and disabled that toolbar. I figure I must have been unimpressed back in 2014 and disabled it after giving it a try. wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: - well, it's good that the differences are now known. There is also a big difference between new page reviewer & pending changes reviewer. I have no doubt you will get it figured out and that you & Danny can present us with some very useful tools to consider. Atsme 💬 📧 12:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Another stat – to better demonstrate the need for the stats I've requested, following is another question that screams WE NEED STATS relative to unsupported arguments made to not draftify, AfD, PROD & CSD unsourced or poorly sourced or nonnotable stubs/articles. Levivich brought this one up at the mandatory draftification proposal at VPP (which probably needs better wording). He asked an admin what evidence he had for unsourced articles that are frequently being notable, which is one of the misguided reasons for keeping unsourced/poorly sourced stubs & articles and not draftifying them. From where I sit, the reasons given for not draftifying are exactly the reasons we should draftify, and allow the article creator to finish what they started. Having said that, my concerns go even deeper and include UPE and BOTs that are spitting stubs/articles out faster than we will be able to keep up. Atsme 💬 📧 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Common practice on apparent conflict?

At Nsports I requested a tweak to clarify: Request from NPP'er that apparent conflict in "seasons" section be clarified But absent that / in the meantime, is there a common practice to handle those. For example a season article on a higher-level sports team which is "stats only" other than an introductory sentence? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS is such a war zone that whatever you do will be attacked by one side or the other. My honest view is that NPP, especially while it's so run down, should just avoid getting tangled up in it. If we leave such articles unreviewed they'll come off the conveyor belt in 90 days and NSPORTS can fight about them then. I dare say that that's absolutely the wrong thing to say, and doubtless someone will be here presently to tell me so, but I think it's the least bad and most pragmatic response in a no-win situation. Ingratis (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now been called “liar” in NSPORTS nominations several times. (by an admin!) and people consistently ignore the criteria or argue that the sports specific criteria are wrong. I was about to quit NPP altogether but maybe I’ll just ignore all the sports cruft. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, after 90 days they'll be indexed by search engines but they'll still be on our "to be reviewed" list. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, aren't there are enough other articles to be reviewed keep us all fully occupied? For the present, these articles are a huge potential time sink and as User:rsjaffe notes, any action at all on them is likely to attract a lot of time-wasting animosity. It's a question of picking one's battles, and this is one to avoid, IMHO. Ingratis (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean that we might choose to review them. I meant that they still have "unreviewed" status, will show up on curation lists and sit in our 14,000 article backlog until somebody reviews it. In short, the the "90 days" has no effect of any kind in the NPP system. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It's more like OWN, or worse...COI editing, or even worse, UPE. Sure, sure - we must AGF because we might just be dealing with overzealous sports fans. WP is inundated with WP:NOT, including sports promotions and movie promotions (NOTCRYSTAL). How is it not the antithesis of NOTDIRECTORY when we are including stats? Atsme 💬 📧 14:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Not just including stats, but "stats only" articles are pervasive. There's something much more doable than just eternal hand wringing. If we just got organized with established practices at NPP, such would go a long way. And if we do it well, such could become seen as the organized guiding light in the vague ecosystem of wp:notability and wp:not. This is much more doable than most things in Wikipedia because it is a matter of allowable routines within that fuzzy ecosystem, which can go far without any changes in policies or guidelines. "Make no small plans....." North8000 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What about all-stats elections articles? (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Nsports mentions in several places about avoiding all-stats articles and that there should be prose. I think that there is less guidance available regarding elections. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A little concerning

Anyone want to play detective for these UPE classifieds? I can’t find anything that is of use, but someone else might, anyway, here are the classifieds [2][3]. Anyway, some more eyes would be helpful with this. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone direct me to a page that list articles by creation date? I have one article of the second post identified but it was created with IPs so not sure I want to disclose without more information and giving away the WP:BEANS on how I got it without being able to tie more together.

On the first one, easy way to search for addition of external links? and does anyone know if Alexa scrapes external links despite our no follow?Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter, with the IP’s try emailing the CU team to see if they can find any accounts. With the first one, try AWB, that might work. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 15:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

These are ads for run-of-the-mill spammers. There are, at least, hundreds of them. There's usually nothing useful starting from the ads themselves unless the platform discloses customers or finished projects. MarioGom (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Backlog count

With help from DatGuy, I have a new template to display the current backlog (updated every 15 minutes). I have added it to the header of the NPP project pages. It can be used elsewhere (e.g. your user page) just to make the backlog more visible to more people. It is {{NPP backlog}}. MB 22:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool! It's nice to know the actual number, and the very current one at that. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@MB I dont want to mess with the template, but are the two brackets meant to be there in the front? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also would it be possible to get the template to link to the Feed, like the PCB temp does? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

awesome and accurate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Curation Tool Bug

Is anyone else having an issue with the curation tool? I've noticed that I can't see the latest edits in the top left hand corner of the article anymore, and also, when I nominate to AfD, the corresponding entry in AfD doesn't appear. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing recent edits in the Curation toolbar (on the right). My xtools gadget has been not always loading (top left). Happy Editing--IAmChaos 18:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Off topic perhaps, but while talikng about bugs, with the lack of structured coordination of NPP, is anyone maintaining this page and following up with Phab? Unless there has been some consensus to remove some of the features of the feed and the curation tool that we fought tooth and nail with the WMF to get made, there are a lot more bugs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Right now that page looks like just another talk page....a duplication of this one. We probably need place/routine of really hammering out decisions, (including which technical things to ask for) and a place to record decisions that have long term relevance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Could somebody check me on this?

I just did my first userfication of an article. Otopeni Olympic Aquatics Centre to En.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaduDB28/Otopeni Olympic Aquatics Centre Did I screw anything up? Any comments/tips? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I did a full explanation in the curation tool intended for the editor and the article talk page. I don't see it. I may need to reenter. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I use the standard move tool from top of screen to place the articles in draft, not userify. Then leave a note on their page and a CSD on the old mainspace. Never used curation tool to do a move, but definitely something went wrong there as you haven't moved it out of mainspace, just given it a really long name :) Slywriter (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I did use the move tool but obviously screwed it up. I just moved it again, attempting to move it to user space but it went to draft space. I don't know why but maybe all's well that ends well. :-) North8000 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Otopeni Olympic Aquatics Centre I have moved article there.Slywriter (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: So I think I learned two things. One is to go to draft space, not user space. The other (I think) would be to use the move tool and specify the new name as "Draft:Otopeni Olympic Aquatics Centre" ???? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, may need one of the more experienced movers to explain what went wrong but my assumption is you didnt switch main in first drop down and then cut and paste the url, rather than a shortened Wikipedia version of article name and path (username/articlename) into second column. Sending to Draft is easier since rarely have to change anything other than change Main to Draft unless article needs renaming.Slywriter (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

For draftifications to draftspace, you may be interested in installing the user script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, which takes care of 1) leaving a talk page message, 2) leaving a CSD R2 on the old mainspace page, and of course 3) moving to draftspace. The Page Curation tool is known to be buggy when doing things like PROD and probably some other stuff, so I generally only use it for the green check mark, and for everything else I use Twinkle and some user scripts. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Thanks! Now I'll go learn how to install and invoke a user script. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Method 1: add importScript('User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js'); to User:North8000/common.js. Method 2 (my preferred method): go to Preferences -> Gadgets -> Advanced -> check "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files" -> Save. Then visit User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js and click the "Install" button at the top center. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Thanks! (I think) I did that. If you don't mind another question, how do you invoke/use it? North8000 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Every script is different. That particular one places a link in the "More" menu called "Move to draft" :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Or {{subst:iusc|User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js}}

For those of you getting into user scripts, I highly recommend these:

• User:Evad37/rater.js: easily adding WikiProject banners.
• User:Danski454/stubsearch.js: adding stub tags.
• User:Wugapodes/Capricorn.js: adding redirect tag templates.
• MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js (available as a gadget to): striking blocked usernames.
• User:GeneralNotability/mark-locked.js: striking globally locked usernames.
• User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js: reliable and unreliable sources highlighting. MarioGom (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this comment on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention directed at us?

On the page, there is this note:

Note: Patrollers may wish to monitor usernames flagged by filters 148 and 149 and this recent changes filter tag.

Filter 148 is about possible autobiography creation and looks interesting. Filter 149 is user adding link to an article that contains the user's name, and does not look interesting, as those users get blocked pretty quickly by admins. The third link points to possible self promotion in userspace--is this something we should be looking for? (Often the user page qualifies for speedy deletion. This doesn't seem to be as heavily patrolled as filter 149 is.) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally do some RC patrolling time to time, and have a lot of tags tagged in the feed, including that last one. (If you look at my userspace dashboard, its the link called colorful updated). As for the question in your header, I have taken it to mean those who are patrolling the Special:Log/newusers, which I also do from time to time, but I don't usually look at filter outputs, maybe I could. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting stats

New pages, and various other options in user-preferences at this stats tool. This link shows the stats that include edits by Anonymous + Group bot + Name bot + User. Search it any ole way you like. Atsme 💬 📧 17:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks!

It says about 150,000 new pages a month. We (including the bot) are reviewing about 50,000 per month and staying even. Autopatrol can't be adding much to that. So the 150k probably has other page types in it. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Including maybe a new article counts as two pages (article and talk). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

An episode of How I Met Your Mother

Admittedly, "How I Met Your Mother" was a popular TV show. However, currently in the queue is an article created in 2010 about the eleventh episode of the first season here. In 2015 it was tagged for multiple issues. There are no citations and only an external ink to IMDb.

I checked for sources about this particular episode and I haven't found any. I'm thinking articles like this should go through the deletion process. Is there any consensus here for keeping or wishing to delete articles such as this? Or any recommendations on how other NPP members deal with such pages?

For the moment I am going to PROD this page. I am leaving the multiple issues tag in place. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to TV show episodes deletion and redirect wars ;-)

The article exists since 2007, and has existed since then, so it has nothing to do with new page review. These articles only land in the NPP queue because of the redirect warring by a small number of users. I tag them if needed, mark them as reviewed, and move on. This does not preclude anyone from opening an AFD, obviously. MarioGom (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there advice or common NPP practice for "stats only" articles for local elections?

Is there advice or common NPP practice for "stats only" articles for local elections? A typcal example of many that I've see is 1996 Chorley Borough Council election Maybe an intro sentence saying that it was held and who won. and the only source is to the stats. It can be assumed that every election ever held had coverage. WP:not says there should be prose. Thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: This isn't really an NPP thing as much as something relating to how we should cover elections. Summarizing the results is a good first step in improving such an article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What I meant is our main question which is "Should we pass it as being OK to exist as a separate article?"North8000 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I just sent 2004 Salt Lake County Council election and 2002 Salt Lake County Council election to AFD. It's only been two day but so far there is one KEEP. Every local election will have routine local coverage, so I don't see a case for notability unless there are some issues that get more than routine coverage. MB 20:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, they look fine to me (as do the ones MB took to AFD). I would mark them reviewed and move on. I do agree that 1996 Chorley Borough Council election in particular is a little light on the prose, (the 2004 Salt Lake one is by far the best of the three as far as actually having prose content goes), but I wouldn't do much more than maybe throw a stub tag on them.

I think our purpose here as new pages patrollers is to weed out or improve problematic articles. I don't see how these are problems. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I think NPP's main role it's to identify articles that shouldn't be separate articles in Wikipedia under relevant policies, guidelines and norms. If the topic is OK for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia, even the worst article just needs work. If the topic is not OK, then it doesn't matter how nice it is, it shouldn't exist as a separate article. I really don't know the answer on these. I think that each of the ~100.000,000 local, elections held has probably had coverage and so could pass current wp:notability requirements. IMO the less sure area is whether it passes wp:not. Sincerely,, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Local elections in say New York, Chicago, or LA are obviously notable. Local elections in Peoria are probably not. I think Salt Lake County is reasonable to have articles for. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I AFD'd the example one and asked for a thorough review as it may provide guidance or precedent for similar articles. ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election ) My summary there is: Reviewed during new page patrol. I wasn't sure what to do with (ones like) this one and opened a discussion at NPP and there were mixed thoughts/ no clear answer there. Accordingly, I would like to request a thorough large-participation review as the results this might set a direction or provide guidance. This is about a 1996 election in an area with approx 107,000 residents. It consists about 99% election results data with the other 1% being a few intro sentences. There is nothing unusual about the election. Wp:not is not explicit on this but in a few places seems to preclude this type of article. There was doubtless some local coverage. Saying that "presumed local coverage" alone should green-light it would mean that there probably I'd guess about 100,000,000 stats-only local election articles that could be green lighted. I believe there is no applicable SNG, nor precedent documented in wp:outcomes. The editor appears to be in the process of creating separate article for each election / year for this borough. Thanks in advance for your thorough review of this.North8000 (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

An issue that needs our attention

I prefer to not let this issue die on the vine because the problems are still in the forefront. Apologies for the length, but from a cost vs benefit perspective, the cost is overwhelming. I do know that some admins & editors are using WP:PRESERVE incorrectly in their keep arguments, despite the fact that the policy unequivocally states (my underline): As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. Upon arriving at an unsourced article, the state of the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG, and should be left to NPP's discretion to either draftify, userfy, CSD, PROD or AfD. Of course, a volunteer can also choose to spend their time finding sources, and verifying another editor's credited creation. I mentioned the latter relative to UPE/PE. But how does that extra work reduce the AfC/NPP backlog?

There's also the issue of NPP tagging for CSD or PROD, that turns out to be for naught if the responding admin is an inclusionist, or misinterpreted a policy, such as PRESERVE, and simply removes the tag. Why are admins making content decisions? Now I understand why some editors insist that RfA candidates have GAs or FAs under their belt. Some of the reasons to refuse a CSD or PROD of an unsourced article actually conflict with our policies. NPP is then left with AfD where more time is wasted, in part because of the inclusionist vs deletionist wars. See the current ArbCom case. It could all be so easily resolved without losing any of our long time editors to (a) burn-out, (b) an admin action or (c) feeling unappreciated.

The ambiguity and contradictions in our PAGs are another part of the problem, but more specific to NPP is the following jewel 💎: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#WP:NOTCSD, particularly as it relates to unsourced stubs/articles. I inadvertently ruffled an admin's feathers when, in my head, I was referring to all hoaxes, including 2. Less-obvious hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism. Nearly every single item in that list leads to the heart of our woes, and encourages bad behavior...including the use of BOTs for article creation. It also demonstrates a level of inconsideration, inadvertent or otherwise, which leaves NPP with morale issues. Within minutes of an unsourced article being indexed and published in mainspace, multiple webcrawlers are all over it before NPP has had a chance to review it. Think about the time spent at AfD because of garbage articles that were in the NPP queue, including reverted redirects, unsourced articles, less-obvious hoaxes, OR, essays, non-notable BLPs, etc. (Part of the reason for my stats request) NPP volunteers do have the advantage of the curation tool, a sorted and filterable queue, and (hopefully) a growing number of qualified NPP reviewers, but for some reason whenever our work is involved...well, Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind.

It's a time sink.

If a subject is notable and worthy of inclusion, the stub/article should be properly written and formatted, and cited to RS by the article creator. The absence of RS speaks loudly to WP:V and WP:GNG, and clearly justifies drafity/userfy/PROD/CSD. To add to the weight of the world on our shoulders, we also have to struggle with UPE, and as we've long since learned after a few desysops, site bans and removals of autopatrolled rights, money is a big motivator...but we continue to AGF.

I think we're too focused on the symptoms instead of removing the cancer, which requires looking in the right places in order to craft a proper remedy. Admins and arbcom are taxed with looking at editor behavior, which is obviously a symptom of a bigger problem; we're leaving the cancer untouched. The remedy lies somewhere in the process of creating articles in mainspace, and that is what needs to be changed. We should be putting safeguards into place to prevent or limit unsourced BOT creations, and work more diligently at preventing unsourced articles from going viral on the internet. NPP should not have to deal with these relentless time sinks that can easily be resolved. Think about the following:

1. CSD – article creator is notified of the problem, the onus is on the creator to fix it. But we have admins rejecting CSD based on reasons that contradict our core content policies. Now imagine a UPE with a BOT spitting out unsourced articles they know will be salvaged, and others will do the work for them. I'm sure they appreciate our hard work which is why they keep sending it to us.
2. PROD – article creator is notified of the problem. They will either (a) remove the PROD and fix the issue, (b) remove the PROD and not fix it, or (c) do nothing. "B" creates the problem, and the remedy should be an unquestionable speedy, not an AfD. We have a backlog at AfD, we need more closers - part of the root cause? See CSD and PROD above.
3. Draftify - article creator is notified of the problem – onus is on them to fix it. If it's not fixed during the allotted time, bye-bye!
4. Userfy - article creator is notified - onus is on them to fix it.

I look forward to further input. Atsme 💬 📧 17:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

But what does it mean to be "fixed". Does it mean that notability sources must be included? Without that requirement, our work is nearly hopeless. Currently, we must prove the absence of evidence of notability. How many pages of searches is sufficient to prove absence? What do we do with other languages, particularly ones not spoken by many people?

And, if we draftify lots of articles, what does that do to the AfC process? They'll be flooded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Rsjaffe, AfC still goes through NPP, so the quality of AfC reviews is less important as we still have to review them. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe - fix means correcting the reason NPP took whatever action was taken. If it's unsourced and sent to draft or it was userfied or PRODed, then the onus should be on the article creator to provide the RS needed to satisfy GNG. We can certainly provide the link to GNG and offer our help. We should also direct them to The Tea House, or to an instructional video, or to other relevant PAGS. IOW, if we're reviewing an article that has issues, we identify those issues, and if the article truly does have potential, it doesn't hurt anything to post some encouraging words on the UTP of the article creator, and explain what issues the article needs corrected. It's good for NPP to help new users, and encourage them. The latter is how we build a trustworthy encyclopedia, and recruit more qualified editors into a welcoming community. I am referring only to articles that meet the above a-b-c-d criteria. In other cases, we simply tag the article, or fix little issues that we can easily fix. I also agree for the most part with Zippybonzo. AfC is where the article is initially incubated. Repeated denials are not helpful if the AfC reviewer is not explaining or helping or guiding the article creator as to why their article cannot be published. AfC is stage 1, and yes, NPP is also part of that segment in article publishing as Zippy explained. Atsme 💬 📧 18:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Within minutes of an unsourced article being indexed and published in mainspace, multiple webcrawlers are all over it before NPP has had a chance to review it. The webcrawlers ignore new articles until NPPs marked it as reviewed or until 90 days pass, thanks to the $wgPageTriageMaxAge setting in mw:Extension:PageTriage.

The ambiguity and contradictions in our PAGs another part of the problem. I think for any wiki-issue where there are two major sides that can't agree, the PAGs get out of date, stuck in an equilibrium that is tolerable to both sides, but verbose, ambiguous, and not reflective of how things are currently working. The notability guidelines are the crown jewel of this, in my opinion, making notability one of the most complicated Wikipedia policy areas to master. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, does that include autopatrolled new articles, and reverted redirects? Atsme 💬 📧 00:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled articles skip our queue and are indexed right away. Reviewed redirects flipped to articles become unreviewed and are treated like a normal unreviewed article by the software. The software does not attempt to track reversion, it just goes "if reviewed redirect is changed to non-redirect, mark unreviewed". More info at WP:NPPREDIRECT and Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Technical details. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment To use a time-honoured format. There is a discussion at AfD that I think also touches on some of the core points here - this here discussion. For me, there a couple of problems that could use some dramatic solutions. 1) AfD requires WP:BEFORE. That's lovely, but I think for NPP that requirement should be waived. NPP should surely pass an article AS PRESENTED in its current state. Does it pass muster? Yes, reviewed, maybe tagged. No, draftify/delete but without people harping on about BEFORE. A new page patroller is going to get very little done if every single AfD means looking for sources the article creator didn't bother to find - which is, in fact, the case: it's a time suck. And, as we know, NPP tends to throw up more AfDs than generally get thrown up. I now tag for notability in 60% of cases I'd have sent to AfD, but a tag is not really a solution, it's kicking the can down the road. I'm acutely aware that AfDs are rammed and quite a few are now hitting 'no consensus through low participation'. 2) Articles should not be searchable in 90 days automatically, but ONLY AFTER they have passed NPP. The onus is then on the article creators to build articles that actually present as fit to pass new page review in order to get search. 3) The bar to take articles from draft to mainspace should be higher - ie: only after AfC or other oversight. I realise that one's problematic, 'cos AfC itself is hurting. So there them is, a couple of thoughts... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  AfD requires WP:BEFORE. That's a killer for NPP and needs changing for new articles. When the article is first written is the time of best opportunity for the writer to find notability sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are a couple of observations I've made that may be pertinent, in no particular order:

• If and when the onus is on NPP to do a WP:BEFORE, some reviewers may only feel confident doing so in a topic of interest or (relative) expertise, or may be limited by accessibility of sources or language barriers. With this setup, the consequence is that fewer patrollers are willing to investigate certain cases, and those who do must spend a considerable amount of time on each case.
• Sometimes, articles that aren't eligible for speedy deletion get recreated in mainspace after they're already draftified/userfied. In that case, there's no alternative to PROD/AfD.
• Especially with PRODs (again when no CSD applies), and as permitted by policy, I've seen editors (e.g., possible UPEs) contest deletion without any clear reason, even though the vast majority of reviewers/editors would consider a deletion uncontroversial. Once, I even saw a PROD tag removed with the edit summary "Fixed typo", then what? AfD it is... again. As far as I can tell, there isn't a good way of dealing with this.
• The onus should be on the creator to write an article that, while naturally a work in progress, won't have any trouble demonstrating notability, neutrality, and verifiability, and with a presentation coherent enough that a non-expert patroller can seamlessly pass the article. If one wouldn't author an article on a topic (e.g., for not being familiar with the subject matter) and is faced with a half-baked new article in mainspace, why is it reasonable to expect them to search and sift through sources on the level of a subject-matter expert or in another language? That's a rather more difficult task than simply checking that the text and provided sources meet all the core content policies.
• we're too focused on the symptoms instead of removing the cancer – I might be missing something, but what is the "cancer" that's the main focus of this thread?

ComplexRational (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus should be on the creator to write an article that, while naturally a work in progress, won't have any trouble demonstrating notability, neutrality, and verifiability, and with a presentation coherent enough that a non-expert patroller can seamlessly pass the article. If one wouldn't author an article on a topic (e.g., for not being familiar with the subject matter) and is faced with a half-baked new article in mainspace, why is it reasonable to expect them to search and sift through sources on the level of a subject-matter expert or in another language? That's a rather more difficult task than simply checking that the text and provided sources meet all the core content policies. Yep. 100% agree. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I really like "The onus..." bullet point that ComplexRational added above and rsjaffe re-posted in agreement. Add another +1 from me, as it is one of my primary concerns which I mentioned when beginning this discussion. CR wrapped it up nicely in a nutshell. It appears we have identified some of our most immediate concerns; therefore, I recommend that we craft an RfC and present it right here to community. Our focus should be on our most urgent concerns and proposed remedies but should be presented one at a time so that we don't overwhelm the community. I remain cautiously optimistic that most editors are aware of, and understand the issues we're facing, but it also appears that we have a substantial portion who do not, much less understand the reviewing process or why we should not allow unsourced articles into mainspace. Evidence of my concerns are demonstrated very clearly at VPP; in fact, there is a whole page of it. I recently commented here, and also commented earlier in that discussion as I alluded to in my initial post above. There are quite a few admins who have a much different view of NPP and unsourced articles, which puts me at a loss as to how we should deal with it, if at all. Perhaps it will require an ARCA case, I don't know. Let's just take it one step at a time, start with a well-crafted RfC, and hope for the best. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The tasks of New Page and AfC Reviewers

Reprinted here from recent comments in another place:

NPP has an atrocious backlog, some of which results from reverted redirects. [...] NPP is currently discussing how best to create some form of automation that would handle a significant portion of these issues, but it's not going to happen quickly. Furthermore, we do have issues with UPEs creating noncompliant articles and stubs, and new editors creating 2 sentence stubs that are unsourced. These problems are not shrinking, rather they are growing with advancements in technology as more people globally learn the benefits of a WP article. NPP reviewers are not here to create, expand, source, and fix articles for the creators of those articles – be they UPE or newbies. –Atsme

I am more concerned about UPEs and the problems they create, and equally as concerned about the fast pace of NPP reviewer burn-out. [...] I'm hard pressed to believe that poorly written, and/or unsourced articles add to the credibility of WP, or that we will ever run short of articles in mainspace. I'm also of the mind that it's actually in the best interest of the project to AfD, redirect or draftify poorly written, unsourced articles that fail the key elements of GNG, V, & NOR than to leave them in mainspace with tags that too few editors have time to address. The onus is on the article creator to properly prepare their article(s) for mainspace. For us to not enforce that aspect of AfC, we are rewarding the creators of bad articles by allowing those articles to remain. –Atsme

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

To me the no-brainer would be that to find & include suitable sources for the existence of an article (or find out that they don't exist when they try) needs to be the job of the million editors, not the 30 NPP'ers or those at AFD. And it's doable to get this changed, it's just at wp:before. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally my ideal policy amendment would be to carve out an adjusted BEFORE for articles that have not passed NPP, but to leave it essentially as-is for longstanding articles. The BEFORE safeguards are reasonable as a way to reduce workload at AfD and avoid the deletion of valid articles whose sourcing is hard to find for editors without special knowledge of subject matter; our specific problem with them is that they create an undue burden for the small set of editors doing NPP, inside the context of NPP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And the workflow could be: NPP reviewer finds article without notability sourced in it but sees no other reason to delete it

1. Send article to draft. This gives author notice that there's an issue and gives author time to find proper sources.

2. If article comes out of draft by any means (e.g., author rewrites it in article space, draft passes AfC) and still doesn't have notability sourced in it, nominate for AfD. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe:'s idea sounds like a way to easily implement @Rosguill:'s idea. We should start discussing, solidifying and agreeing on such ideas instead of letting them just disappear into the talk page archives. My idea would be write up a tidied up version of the Rosguill/DarkSlateGrey with "The following is considered to be a common and acceptable practice at NPP:" Should we work on this? North8000 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we'd need to rework G13 if we're going to be relying on draftspace as a holding area for articles. I'm not really sure what the G13 log looks like, but sending potentially-promising drafts to AfD instead of G13 might be a way to go about fixing it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And to write out a flow for NPP for articles initially without references or links to resources sufficient to demonstrate notability:

it can run one of two ways depending upon decisions made by the author:

1. NPP sends article to draft. It gets modified and submitted for AfC review. Comes out of draft when passes review. NPP sees it for the second time. If it still doesn’t meet notability based on the links refs in the article, it is sent to AfD for final rescue chance.

2. NPP sends article to draft. Author declines draft by recreating the article in mainspace. NPP sees it for the second time. If it still doesn’t meet notability based on the links refs in the article, it is sent to AfD for final rescue chance.

This utilizes our current tools and processes, but changes two rules: it liberalizes the send to draft recommendation, and puts the burden of notability documentation on the creator. By liberalizing the draft rule, it gives the creator unlimited time to obtain documentation. It also reduces time in queue, which will at least make the queue number lower. Obviously it reduces our work load since we don’t have to do research on each of those articles and gives us a better chance of getting to most articles before they hit the 90 day boundary. We will be seeing more articles since more will enter the queue twice, but with much less work each time. My main concern with hitting 90 days in the queue is it causes unpatrolled pages to be indexed in search engines, which is not a good thing in my opinion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. It recognizes that finding references (or seeing if they exist) is a main part of starting a Wikipedia article and is the job of the 1,000,000 editors, not the 30 NPP'ers. Here it would not only help with the capacity, it would also make the job less painful when reviewers get beat up for not doing reference searches in far away places with different languages being one of a handful of people trying to review ~1,000 articles per day. You should start / we should tweak a final form draft and then see if there is support here. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft of proposal: "At New Page Patrol, one common method of handling articles which do not contain sourcing needed for wp:notability is to send them to draft so that the article developer(s) can determine if such sources exist and add them."

North8000 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I've tried to add something similar to this to WP:DRAFTIFY before, but was quickly reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: IMO we just need to agree on it here. As a common/acceptable NPP practice that does not violate any policies or guidelines. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - this discussion needs to be revived and hopefull result in some kind of positive action. Based on the current discussion at VPP, I'm concerned that a few of our admins are inadvertently misinterpreting PAGs and losing sight of CONTEXT. See my VPP comment here. I'm very concerned that if we don't figure a way to automate some of these routine processes, 3rd party BOTs, UPE, and AI advances will antiquate WP, and it will happen quickly. Atsme 💬 📧 17:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  People on AfC talk right now are saying that accepting an unsourced list is ok... ! (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Atsme 💬 📧 18:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Adding: At first glance, I'm inclined to agree that geographical locations with blue linked names and coordinates are an ok replacement for citations. On the other hand, the red linked names need some form of verification that they actually exist at the given coordinates. Atsme 💬 📧 19:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• I support any attempt to make things easier. Creating unsourced, undersourced, and poorly sourced stubs gives the appearance of Wikipedia growing but at a net negative on really improving the encyclopedia. This is especially true considering the above statement "...unpatrolled pages to be indexed in search engines". As for "geographical locations" sourced through GNIS, there have been a horrible amount of articles created as a populated place, that point to a barren area with no other source to corroborate it might have been a historical populated place. Several editors have been concerned about the reliability of that source alone. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In Amber still not patrolled after

The article about an album In Amber has not been pratrolled yet after three days. It is already seen 300 times a day. Could anyone patrol it as for now, one doesn't still find the article on a google research with the words "In Amber album Hercules and Love Affair wikipedia". Carliertwo (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Carliertwo when you clicked on this page, did you see the backlog chart? That explains why all articles are not patrolled immediately. (t · c) buidhe 18:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Carliertwo, generally, assume pages will be patrolled when the patrollers have time, I rarely do reviews on request, and the page will be patrolled soon. This page is for reviewer discussion, not asking for your page to be reviewed, asking quite often has the opposite effect. Kind Regards, | Zippybonzo | Talk | 18:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Messaging the creator

See Messaging the creator. Whether optional or not, does anyone know why the message feature has been removed entirely? Have I missed something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing it in the curation tool when in "add tags" mode –

• Add a message for the creator: (optional)
• Write a helpful note for (creator). It will be posted on their talk page.
• Mark this page as reviewed.

Atsme 💬 📧 14:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

An issue that needs review

Please see my response at Village Pump relative to WP:OR footnote (a). Kudz - your thoughts, please? I asked Joe if he could provide a link to that community discussion. I think it's very important for NPP & AfC participants to provide input here in this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Atsme, I've scrolled the whole VP page but I can't figure out what it's all about. Can't find the topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Thoughts on sourcing our articles from an inclusionist -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MPGuy2824. I've skimmed over it Atsme but I'm going to have nothing to do with it - it's far to contentious and full of borderline PA. I have some very firm ideas about what the work of NPP & AfC is supposed to be, and some even more firm and less flexible philosophy on what is appropriate for the encyclopedia and what is not. Half the community agrees with me and half the community does not. For me to get involved there would just make me angry and the discussion will still be stalemate. Besides which, now that the WMF ideology has got the thread firmly in its claws like it invariable does everywhere else on community discussions, it's even more important that I stay away. In any case, I'm supposed to be semi-retired, as someone poignantly pointed out recently, so I'm better off minding my own business. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust: Tamingimpala

• Tamingimpala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked for spamming and sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mostly shoaib. Neil Patel (digital marketer) is a very suspicious accept (see history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (digital marketer)). Reviews should be examined for corruption. MER-C 08:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a link to their reviews. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe most of their reviews are not linked to UPE activity, and mass unreviewing wouldn't make sense, but it's worth a look. MarioGom (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh my - first article on the list MPGuy provided above is Meera Krishna – I added it to the queue to get the curation tool which shows that it was previously deleted but I can't find that discussion. Scrolling the UTP of the article creator Anianju indicates some issues but it appears Tamingimpala tagged it properly as a reviewer. I dunno - we're not staffed well enough to go back through a sock's prior reviews, and still be expected to carry the burden of finding sources for unsourced articles, and checking cited sources to make sure they actually support the material. That should all be done at AfC which is also understaffed. We need to know how these non-notable, poorly sourced or unsourced articles are getting into mainspace and plug that hole before the ship sinks, or there's a mutiny. Atsme 💬 📧 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The prior deletion was a 2014 CSD MB 15:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Finally. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's part of the system that unsuitable articles get into mainspace and then weeded out by NPP, so it's no mystery how they got into mainspace. The problem is that NPP job has gotten too difficult, painful and time consuming. On the face of it the big problem is the lobsided math dictated by wp:before. (30 NPP's are supposed to be doing the source searching instead of the zillion article creators). I think more recently compounded by the large influx of articles where the potential sources are not in English where the search gets 10 times more time intensive/consuming. But if you set aside the possibility of changing wp:before, we can easily do a big part of the fix by saying that the NPP routine is that articles which don't satisfy an SNG and don't have GNG-establishing sourcing in them will be moved to draft space so that sourcing to satisfy can be added if it exists. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Need a second set of eyes on this

One user, Littlefriendlyghost, is on a BLP creation rampage. Today alone they created 5 new biographies and a total of 8 since the 16th. Couple of things cause some concern, with one mitigating factor.

Concern that this is an UPE is that there isn't any theme or nexus that would pique the interest of a random editor in all the people being portrayed. The editor has 17 live edits, 8 of which are page creations. Also, one page created was deleted under G11 and A7 (advertising and no indication of significance).

Mitigating factor is that the editor, on their user page, essentially states that this is a new user id because they lost their credentials to their former id. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

New pages: Ethan Striker, Brad Bose, Alton Chapman, Ivan Entel, Jim Coniglione, Joseph Torres, Draft:American Lifeguard Association. Deleted: SimTech Labs. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And noticed that they have date of birth for these bios even though the date is not in any of the references. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I checked Draft:Joseph Torres and saw that almost the entire page was not supported by the provided citations, suggesting either off-wiki communication (to be expected for UPEs) or blatant OR. ComplexRational (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The mitigating factor you mention is something that is most common among UPE sockpuppets. Creating a new account and immediately create a user page explaining that they forgot password without naming the previous account is part of the UPE bingo. MarioGom (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That also seems like a "waiting game" for autoconfirmed status to bypass draft space – indeed suspicious behavior. ComplexRational (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Arb Case on deletion-related editing

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing

I am wondering whether NPP (and AfC to a lesser extent) collectively should be a party to this or at least some statement should be submitted about NPPs concerns, since we have several active discussions on this page revolving around the issues of delete/draft/noindex. Slywriter (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm eligible to provide evidence and will be happy to present a consensus view in that case. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Almost everyone is "eligible to provide evidence", but not everyone is best placed to present some "consensus" view, as if that would be wanted. Judging from User talk:Fram#Youth Olympics, there is more chance of you becoming a party than anything else. If for some reason a "consensus" view of this project would be wanted (no idea why), best leave it to someone uncontroversial to post it perhaps? I just reverted one of your ref insertions on an article I recently nominated for deletion, as your ref didn't support even the single thing it tried to[4]. Like I said before, I wonder whether you should be involved with NPP at all, seeing how difficult it is for you to get sourcing or many other things right. Fram (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Fram's talking about this discussion. BTW, he nominated that list for deletion, and it was properly closed by Ritchie333 as no consensus. I simply tried to help find sources, and his comment above is what happened as a result. Isn't that lovely? I thought it rather ironic for him to show up here to criticize my efforts and cast aspersions against me while Liz just speedy deleted 21 categories he created. Perhaps that ArbCom case needs a closer look at the editor who filed it, not those of us who want to help the whole NPP process by providing evidence. Atsme 💬 📧 00:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't help it if you are not aware that categories are "speedy deleted" all the time when they are renamed, as renaming a category means creating a new category, moving all articles from the old to the new, and then speedy deleting the old category as empty. Speedy deleting a category like this is the same as moving an article, and is often done in batches as many categories follow the same patterns. What these "deletions" have to do with the Arbcom case is not clear, and is again an indication of why you are probably not the best person to present yourself as some representative of NPP (never mind that the case has very little to do with NPP in the first place). And yes, you "simply tried to help find sources", which resulted in you putting in a source which didn't support the simple fact it supposedly referenced. Which, coupled with previous experiences with you, makes me doubt how you can effectively contribute to AfD, or NPP. And your initial comment, about how you are "eligible to provide evidence", is either a complete misunderstanding of how an Arbcom case works, or some attempt to make you look more important and special than you really are. But feel free to make your case about how the editors at the case somehow make NPP harder. Fram (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the other way around Fram. It's other editors' experiences with you, including at AfD and yes, I was invited to provide evidence at the current ArbCom case, but it's not my desire to get anyone in trouble. I prefer to find peaceful remedies without the drama. My reference to Liz's deletions was to draw your attention away from me so you could go help Liz because you obviously have other work you could be doing rather than hounding and casting aspersions against me. Perhaps you don't realize the negative effects of your bad behavior, especially considering that it's over a non-issue, and an AfD dating back to 2018 that I politely asked you for input a month ago. I admit that asking you for anything was my mistake. I was wrong to think you had changed for the better, but here you r hounding and bullying another female editor. I've already asked you to stop the behavior on your UTP, and you refused - basically telling me that you were going to continue. Find another target in your weight-class, Fram, because this gal ain't taking your bait. Atsme 💬 📧 20:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"I was invited to give evidence at the current Arbcom case", is that the source of your confusion? That generic message to all people who commented in the case request, without any indication that the committee really is waiting for your evidence with baited breath or has especially singled you out and declared you "eligible"? Okay... No idea how I am supposed to help Liz with long-since deleted routine cat cleanup. Anyway, if it makes it happy to think that my problem is with you being a women and not with your problematic editing, then feel free to dream on. I probably started this very ArbCom case against two men just to be able to bully a woman, sure. Fram (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A collective party to an ArbCom case would be pretty unusual and at this point the parties are set and unlikely to change. Any editor can submit evidence individually and if you think your experiences at NPP are relevant to the case (which has "a specific focus on [the three] named parties") you should feel free. I would note that two of the drafting arbs (Barkeep49 and CaptainEek) are old hands at NPP/AfC, so it's unlikely they're going to overlook issues of general relevance to this project. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't imagine supporting a collective party to this case or any other. Both of our full cases this year have involved groups of people (GSoW and a Discord server) and we named specific editors not groups. But a small correction: the parties to this case are explicitly not set. See more on how that works here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

While I am interested and concerned about NPP and AfC, and have had some very in-depth conversations about reforming them, I'm not so sure we're having behavioral issues in those areas. If anything, my sense is that we have problems in those areas only because they are either too complex or we don't have enough volunteer hours to put into them. But if you have evidence to dispute that, you're welcome to drop it on my talk page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Behavior is certainly not the issue. For the most part, this seems to be quite functional as far collaboration and collegiality go. My concern was if ArbCom is going to take a deep dive into AfD and that it's decisions go beyond behavioral that NPPers would be bound to the results of a case that it had no voice in. NPP triggers many PRODS, CSD and AfDs and as evidenced by the threads above is trying to sort out just how to handle those processes against the larger policies of N, V, and OR.

With that said, it is unlikely even a consensus statement could be generated by NPP in the short time if it was proper to do so, so all I can hope is that the Arbs are mindful of the discussions occurring here (and with the larger community at Village Pump) surrounding the issues of deletion and draftifying of articles as to some extent, the individuals are proxies for the larger community, even if their specific behavior is the impetus for taking the case. Slywriter (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Arabic literature

WP:ANI#Recent influx of problematic articles on Arabian language novels may be of interest to the people here (and vice versa, the input from people from here may be of interest to the people at ANI ;-) ). Fram (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Disabling the page curation toolbar

Is there a way to disable the page curation toolbar? I am experiencing a typing lag when editing Wikipedia that first manifested approximately around the same time I received the new page patroller privilege. Schierbecker (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schierbecker Try disabling JavaScript, or you can just make a second account to hold the NPP privilege on. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 11:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this what we should keep infinitively in draft?

Mostly an observation, but look at these two examples: Draft:Madhvi Subrahmanian, and 5 potential biographies in draft. The following category is interesting: Category:Created_via_preloaddraft – they appear to be worthy articles/biographies in main space. I randomly read a few, and picked this one as an example, but then I'm a bit of a history buff, and tend to consider much of history notable. Atsme 💬 📧 15:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The first 6 I'd call ideas for articles, not articles (even though the stub technically is one) and so less germane to our discussions. The seventh one is one that I'd call a slam dunk "pass" regarding existence as a separate article. , albeit needs work including on the copied text. It's has lots of text content, much of it covering real world notability and possible SNG notability type items. And it has 2 sources. Doubly so being historical where searchable sources are more a "tip of the iceberg" Historical also means there is no monetary gain to be achieved by having a wiki article, so the available sources are probably not already maxed out by a wiki-skilled paid editor. North8000 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor creating one-line articles from foreign language wikis

Hola. So I've been coming across a number of new articles like this one in the feed from one editor, who is creating one-line articles with three sources from foreign language wikis and tagging the newly created article with the foreign language sources tag!!! This strikes me as mildly egregious - bagging article creation (undoubtedly the name of the game) and then leaving other editors to turn it into a halfway decent article. I've left a message on their talk asking them to perhaps consider, but is there anything else we can do? We're looking at a large number of poor one-line articles being created as a result... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

For articles like that one where there is a substantial, well sourced wiki article in another well developed language/ wikipedia, IMHO it's a plus for English Wikipedia to have it, even with all of the issues that you describe. But of course, encouraging the editor to develop it is a good thing. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a valid stub. From a NPP perspective, we should not worry about it. The creation rate does not seem to qualify for WP:MASSCREATE either. MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)