Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New Page Review is not

I noticed a couple comments in the RFC about the following sentence, which sentence I hadn't previously noticed. "New Page Review is not the venue for mentoring new users or completing their articles, you as a reviewer already have enough to do."

@Kudpung:, do you mind if I take that out? I think expecting people with the new page patrol right to treat it like a job or task, to approach it robotically, is unrealistic and misses the way people approach Wikipedia. At any rate, although I can't speak for anyone else, it misses the way I approach Wikipedia.

I also think it encourages people to do exactly what the joke at the top of this page complains about - people who can't be arsed to fix the problems they spot but prefer to simply slap on a tag and let it languish indefinitely while biting the good faith initial contributor.

Does it take longer to fix problems than tag them? Yes. Do we have a severe and growing backlog in unreviewed new pages? Yes. But we also have a severe and growing backlog in unresolved issues that are tagged at the top of articles. I think reviewers should be encouraged to fix issues in articles if they can, and tag if they can't. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with removing it too. While in depth stuff should be passed on to things like the TeaHouse I, personally, prefer to give brief help to those who ask or give a bit of semi-tailored boilerplate advice. Also, I consider it good form to spend a few minutes cleaning up short articles or odd formatting etc. It is often part of my BEFORE and keeps me from getting overly cynical and critical and I think, ultimately, improves my overall work. Probably 75% of my talk page consists of interactions resulting from reviewing articles. Jbh^Talk 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Let's put it this way: I do the minimu necessary when I patrol pages and it still takes e up to three minutes per page. That's without stopping to do work for lazy page creators who can't be arsed to read the instructions. If we start doing AfC's job for them, they'll let us, and if the WMF hear what we're doing, that will be the end of the Landing Page project. Then of course there's the backlog and the tiny handful of reviewers... . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: And what's wrong with it taking up to three minutes per page? I have spent many hours on pages I've found on New Page Patrol. I come on Wikipedia when I'm bored, and New Page Patrol is a good way to find something for me to research, learn about, and improve productively. Why would you discourage me or any other New Page Patroller from doing this? Is that not improving the encyclopedia? Moreover, what do you mean by, "and if the WMF hear what we're doing, that will be the end of the Landing Page project"? Who is "we" and what are "we" doing that we don't want the WMF to hear about? And why will it be the end of the Landing Page project?

Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaborative editing. Person A comes along and sees there is not article about Glafdayls. Person A writes, "Glafdayls is a type of flower." Person B comes along and sees what Person A wrote and thinks that tells him nothing. Person B pulls out a book on flowers and is able to add "Glafdalys is a type of flower native to North America.[Book] It was discovered by John Glafdalys in 1645.[Book] It has edible flowers.[Book] (etc.)." The sentence in question actively discourages this type of collaborative editing. You seem to have the idea that it's not your job to fix articles for lazy people, and it isn't, and it shouldn't be, but why do you want to ban or forbid prevent people from doing who are interested in that type of work? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are over reacting here. "New Page Review is not the venue for mentoring new users or completing their articles, you as a reviewer already have enough to do" refers to activities which go far, far beyond the scope of NPP, and are what we have DRaft space for, AfC, and the WP:ARS. Using words like 'ban' and 'forbid' give me pause. So much so, that you might be encouraging me to retire from Wikipedia entirely and ask for my money back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'm sorry if you think I am over reacting. I am trying to understand your point of view, and to ensure you understand mine. I certainly don't want to encourage you to retire from Wikipedia entirely, just as I am sure you don't want me to retire from New Page work entirely. I have rephrased the last sentence of my comment above. You have not addressed my concerns. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be talking past each other a bit. I believe what Kudpung (please correct me if I;m mistaken, I do not mean to put words in your mouth) is getting at is that as a rule NPP should be concerned just with making sure articles are compliant with the PaGs while in depth help and handholding is best left to other processes and one should not get bogged down by handholding. That is not to say that NPP can not be a source for reviewers to identify "projects" they would otherwise want to do as a part of their normal Wikipedia editing or their participation in other projects. Just that those "projects" are not part of what is expected of NPP.

I do agree the wording is prone to misreading and I would suggest "New Page Reviews should not feel obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles. There are other venues better suited for these tasks such as WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:AFC to which new editors should be directed for in depth help.". @Kudpung: does this still capture the essence of what you intended? @ONUnicorn: does this cause you less concern? Jbh^Talk 14:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Yes, that wording is much clearer. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. I don't know what the fuss was all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd classify this discussion as a "fuss"... ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn:, (FYI Jbhunley), See how differently people interpret the written word? When I mentioned '3 minutes' I was actually hinting that while it should not be the minimum amount of time spent reviewing a new article, it's actually what it takes on average (tested 2012 against a stop watch over 20 patrols) to carry out most of the tasks listed at WP:NPP on a medium sized new article. What we need to be on the look out for, even after rights have been granted, are reviewers who are regularly patrolling taking a minute or less; they will either bedoing superficial reviews, or just going through the feed picking the low hanging fruit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Page Patrol

The right does not show up in the request for permissions. I also qualify for the 200 uncontested patrols within the time period, so... Adotchar (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adotchar: The qualifications for getting the right are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications. Currently the right is granted to all autoconfirmed accounts, but it was decided at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right to split it out and make it a separate right. That will be done once the qualifications are decided upon at the current RFC. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They are asking here because they have been asked to stop on their talk page [1].

@Adotchar: it is not about meeting the minimums. It is about demonstrating competence to properly review pages. The large number of concerns and warnings on your talk page are a big red flag that you have not yet done so. Try participating in WP:AFD, that will help you learn about notability and sourcing. Try reading and participating in WP:BLPN, WP:COIN and the other noticeboards to get a feel for how WP:BLP works and how to spot promotional editors. Then do some reviews at WP:AFC. Jbh^Talk 21:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to go through the user adoption thing with one of the new page patrollers. Adotchar (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments on draft

• The "Grandfathered" subsection says "Only users with the New Page Reviewer right will be able to mark pages as ‘patrolled’ but this does not affect access to Twinkle for tagging pages that are no longer displayed in the New Page Feed." The text that I have italicised appears either superfluous or to go beyond the stricture that was placed in the first RfC? No Twinkle tagging should be affected. If for example any user's Watchlist highlights a page (e.g. because they were involved in the CSD, Prod or AfD of a previous instance), then they should not be impeded in tagging or marking it for deletion, regardless of whether they have the new NPP right or not. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• That subsection also says "Users who have made made 200 uncontested patrols ...": I'll highlight again my unanswered query on the 2nd RfC: Clarification sought on criterion 2 concerning what is measured here. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  This search was more difficult then expected, a list of users were identified and notified; all other requests are being handled now at WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)