Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 12

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Adding Comments Direct to Article's Talk Page

I worry that I expend effort giving helpful feedback to the creator of an article, only to find suggestions pertinent to the article itself are simply lost and overlooked on a user's own talk page. Some editors have no inclination to act on improvement suggestions. Here's an example of one set of my comments left here and responded to here. The salient comment back to me being I'm afraid that I have neither the skills, time nor inclination to expand on these articles.""

So, if our Page Curation tool had the option to "Add copy of comments to article's talk page" this would enable other editors to see those constructive suggestions and hopefully act on them themselves. Many short feedback comments are clearly of no relevance to the article, but where they are, it's a great shame for them to be unavailable, and a lot more work to have to paste them in directly. Maybe accompany the feedback with a statement like this:

A New Page Reviewer has left feedback for the creator of this article. The following extract may also be of relevance to other editors in improving this page: (inserted text and autosignature)

Any thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I would say users are more likely to overlook talk pages than user talk pages. They get a notification automatically. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting concept. I agree with DrStrauss and will add that I just reviewed User_talk:Mzj_10 and it appears to me that when a new editor creates a slew of articles that end-up at Afd in less than a week, it should raise a major red flag, and the action taken shouldn't be a simple TP notice. I think there should be a cut-off point as to what reviewers are expected to do under such circumstances. I would certainly support an Administrator's Red Flag Report Page here at NPP where reviewers can report such incidents in a centralized location that dedicated NPP admins like Kudpung and Primefac can easily monitor and take action as necessary. Atsme📞📧 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding to my comment above - in an effort to reduce the work load on our already inundated admins, page movers can move into Draft Space clusters/groups/series of articles created over the course of a week or two by the same problematic editor before they end-up as an AfD nom. It's sorta based on the expression killing two birds with one stone, or even assembly line production which takes less time and is far more efficient. If nothing happens while the articles are in draft space, the next option is MfD. See discussion thread about this very topic. Atsme📞📧 18:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought the same, and I was going to post this in suggestions section.
On a few rare instances, I have seen the creator's account going inactive after creating an article with a good subject (not about organisation, or any type of COI).

In any case, it always felt wrong to give tips regarding an article to one particular editor.
I think, the first note should go to creators talk page like it does now. And like Nick suggested, a copy of this note, with a little difference in automated content, should go on the the article talkpage. The tool already has an option, while marking the page reviewed, a message can be sent only to the creator. Other than that, all the messages through tool should go on talk pages of the article, and the creator. That would also be helpful to spread a word around about NPR flag. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed a similar idea, relating to redirects was added to the Suggestions page earlier this month (I should have checked first!). So, is the best way for those of us in favour of leaving a comment on the article talk page to pile over there and add their voices in support? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't much care where we discuss it, as long as we do, but it seems that a future step would be to set up a task in Phabricator, and Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements is setup to track those. More input would be nice. I'm especially interested in potential objections. I think the proposal is uncontroversial, but you never know. Please make suggestions for how this could be implemented. Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding things to Phab that are not strictly urgent is likely to delay their being addressed rather than being treated. The way thins work there is that they are accorded a priority which appears to be arbitrarily decided upon by whichever dev sees it first. In the first instance, Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements is the place to make suggestions - and there is already a long list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL at User talk:Jimbo Wales

A discussion has been started at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I am placing this notice here since it has been discussed at this project talk space before. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Musical notability

This conversation has been split from the section above
Oh bloody hell. On a separate note, I'm going through this unfathomably helpful feed and I was wondering if anybody is willing to provide me with a second opinion on the notability of these musical pieces. Thanks if you can! DrStrauss talk 20:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments about the Jimbo discussion. You linked to 'Unreviewed articles by user' but referenced musical pieces. What user are you referring to?- MrX 21:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: just a completely different topic. I should really have started off a new section. I'm currently reviewing the contributions of the user in question, most of them are one liners but folk tunes aren't covered in-depth by WP:NMUSIC so I'm tagging most of them with music notability tags. DrStrauss talk 21:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just finished reviewing them. My spidey-senses tell me that they probably aren't notable enough for Wikipedia but I'd prefer to defer a decision involving such a large number of pages to those who patrol the music notability tag category because they'll be better informed on such specific notability guidelines. I'll leave a message on the user's talk page. DrStrauss talk 21:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: see the below section for the answer to your question :) DrStrauss talk 11:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
DrStrauss, in my brief experience here, I've discovered that music, games, schools, and hospitals are rarely deleted, be it based in PAGs or strong Project support which may follow IAR over established PAGs, primarily because they misinterpret "encyclopedic value" or the topic happens to be in their area of interest. Political articles are equally as difficult but at least with them, the veteran editors are far more reasonable and collaborative than the SPAs, SOCKS and party adovates that frequent such articles. I'm not only supportive of ACTRIAL, but I'm also behind a 7-day waiting period (if it ever gets proposed) before an article focusing on "breaking news" is published, especially in today's world of MSM where there's no shortage of propaganda, opinions, and "celebrity pundits". Atsme📞📧 16:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I rarely touch music articles because NMUSIC is incomprehensible and overly complex for anyone who isn't into music. I'd support some form of simplification of it if anyone who is knowledgeable enough were to work on it *cough* Ritchie333*cough*. This is an area where we could use more reviewers who know the topic area well enough to make a judgement on the music criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, very few music articles nowadays are kept. The vast majority of new music articles are albums, garage bands, rappers, etc., and the best they offer for sources is usually YouTube and non-descript or marginal websites with mainly interviews or simple listings and of course thier social media sites and music download sites. Most articles on classical music have already been written and many of them are FA. For jazz and fusion music, ask me when you come across one (I was a semi-pro jazzer and studio session musician for many years, and I organised many concerts for the genre, and in the 80's I published a book on it (now out of print and lost - it was before the days of desktop computers.).I don't know much about the many US sub-genres of blues, R&B, Rockabilly, bluegrass, etc. or any folk music. Ritchie333 is probably a bit younger than me and may be a reasonable authority on more contemporary music, at least in the UK. For notability see WP:MUSICBIO. Schools have a clear treatment: High schools are usually kept as long as they are proven to exist; primary and middle schools unless they are truly notable for something special, are blanked (not deleted) and redirected to the school district (USA), or to the education section of the town where they are at. See : WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - some people will insist that tbis is not a guideline and just an essay, well, it isn't, it's simply a page that accurately documents how traditionally such articles are treated based on thousands of examples that have created a tacit precedent, but deletionists will always try... That page also documents some other exceptions to deletion too. Human settlements that appear on an official map are kept, along with geographical features (mountains, rivers, etc.), and listed buildings are kept if referenced. What has always baffled me is how the 100's of thousands of footballers (US & soccer) are notable on the flimsiest of sources, while academics who have made vast contributions to science and knowledge have to jump through many hoops to get notable (DGG is our specialist on that). Hope this helps.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it did, Kudpung, thank you. I had to do a double take on the last few sentences as it looked just like something I had written. 😉Atsme📞📧 04:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there still a character limit for comments?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T170946
Resolved

I thought the 250 character limit had been resolved Was I wrong?

So, I've just crafted a long and very detailed reply to an editor whilst tagging an article that neeed more references. It contained quite a few hyperlinks to suggested references and wikilinks to other relevant articles. But this is how my comments appeared on their talk page:

{{{3}}}

This has happened once before when I left detailed feedback and just the character 3 appeared inside triple wavy brackets. At that time my comments did actually appear to have arrived at their destination via message notification, despite not being visible on the user's Talk Page. I don't know if this is the case here this time. To be frank, I'm not sure I can face registering and learning how to use Phabricator to report this as an issue. Any takers or similar experiences? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

All you need to do is click on the Phab number to be redirected to the Phab case. Once there you can change its status (if necessary) and add a comment. I've done it for you. And I'm pinging MusikAnimal (WMF) who I belived closed it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I've just experienced another failure with the same {{{3}}} content left. see here. A bit wordy, and containing two urls, but isn't leaving helpful feedback partly what we're all about? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
If MusikAnimal isn't replying to his pings, perhaps you could leave a message on his talk page. AFAIK, he was the engineer who addressed this request. That said, yes, your advice to the user was a bit wordy. It's usually considered that 250 chars should be enough to leave some links to the advice pages, which is all patrollers can really be expected to do. If however you would like to be giving more advice to new users, you could try your hand at WP:AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with this, sorry. My name until now was not listed anywhere at phab:T157056. But I did some testing and figured it out. This isn't an issue with the character limit, rather any message that contains an equals = sign. This breaks it because the message you're supplying is being passed into a template. So for instance, {{red|This is red text}} works fine: This is red text. However if I do {{red|This text won't show because it has a = sign in it}} you get {{{1}}}. The fix is to specify the text as being the value for the 1st parameter by adding 1= before the text, as with {{red|1=This is red text that has a = sign in it}}: This is red text that has a = sign in it. The difference here is in the Page Curation template it is the 3rd parameter and not the 1st. I thought I'd explain that, because you'll likely run into this issue when working with templates, and now you know how to get around it :) Anyway this should be an easy fix, that I will look into making, but for future reference I'm not really a good go-to for Page Curation — MusikAnimal talk 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I made a patch and it was merged. I'm not sure if it made this week's deployment train, if so that means the fix will be out Thursday, otherwise it'll be next Thursday. Best — MusikAnimal talk 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for looking into this, and for the explanation, MusikAnimal. It's really appreciated. And yes, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง is quite right about page reviewers not normally being able or willing to leave lengthy comments. However, amongst the dross, I do see some genuine new editors really trying their best. I think they deserve encouragement and so, if I can do it here when they've not gone through WP:AfC, I'd like to believe I'm being of help. (Hence my suggestion that the Page Curation Tool needs an option to leave comments on the article's talk page, too.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Prolific creator reviews

Hi all,

As I've mentioned above and on the talk pages of the users in question, I've been using Rentier's unreviewed by user tool to review articles of the most prolific creators. IMHO, giving these creators autopatrolled rights would be a bad idea considering that the content they churn out often requires tagging.

If you have time, please have a second look at the pages of the following users whose contributions I have reviewed:

The only reason I'm requesting this is because the articles made by each user are often very similar so if I have overlooked one thing it may be multiplied!

Thanks for your time,

DrStrauss talk 11:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Samizambak's new (folk song) articles concern me because they are poorly sourced. I doubt that most of them could ever grow beyond a stub. I sampled a few of the articles, and while there are many books that mention the songs, I don't see sources that go into any depth about the songs. This is the type of content that should be collected in a list article called Turkish folk songs.- MrX 13:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: I've done a mass AfD here, please feel free to participate! DrStrauss talk 10:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, how dare you refactor my comments! :P DrStrauss talk 11:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Change the autopatrol user right

Hello community, i have the proposal to change the autopatrol right. The workload for a recent changes patroller is pretty big, don´t exist a system to show the edit was verified as a good edit, what complicates the RC patrol. My proposal is to adopt this system: when a user whithout the autopatrol right makes an edit, the edit will get a red exclamation indicating that the edit was not patrolled. Any user can patrol a edit, and i propose create the Special:Log/patrol to register who patrol a edit. So, if the proposal be approved, as well as creating pages that comply with the rules an user who wants the autopatrol right must make good edits, what will probably ocurr, a user who make good pages make good edits. Jasão (msg) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jasão, I think you've got new page review and recent changes patrolling mixed up. Your question may be better asked at WT:RCP. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: Hi, thank you for the feedback! Yes, the proposal is to mix the two patrols. I think that if an user make good pages the user make good edits. Because of it, o don´t see nexus in separate the two patrols, if my proposal be accepted. Again, thank you for the feedback. Jasão (msg) 16:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything remotely close to combining anti-vandalism and NPP. AWB tagbombing is the bane of my existence. I don't want to think what would happen if we moved in a direction towards combing anti-vandalism and NPP. I know this only deals with RC, but at some point the word "Huggle" will be raised, and I'll just go ahead and say any steps in this direction would be a disaster. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jasão: interesting idea but the issue is that they deal with two completely separate things. New page patrol is about quality control in recently created articles whereas recent changes patrol deals with already-existing articles. Problems with new pages are often in good-faith but anti-vandalism always deals with bad-faith editors. The two seem incongruous to me and I must therefore oppose the change. I'd also like to note that it's good to see a new user getting involved in the runnings of Wikipedia. As more experienced new page reviewers may remember, I myself prematurely made an RFC on ACTRIAL without understanding the niceties of the existing situation, so please don't feel disheartened at the rejection of your proposal. DrStrauss talk 16:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: Thank you so much with the feedback, especially with the praise. I was on lusophone Wikipedia since september 2016, editing frequently since february 2017 and in this months i get some experience. I hope to help improve this Wikipedia, but is so good that i have difficulty in find problems to solve, so i started with what bothered me: the recent changes patrol. Again, thank you for the help. DrStrauss and TonyBallioni: intead of change the autopatrol right, i will propose a new right. Thanks! Jasão (msg) 20:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Jasão, some people like looking through recent changes just to see what is going on. A good amount of vandalism work is now semi-automated with tools like Huggle and Stiki, which use algorithms to have users review potentially problematic edits. I'm not sure a new right would have that much use. Pinging Oshwah to see if he has thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the ping and the invite to provide my input here. Conceptually and principally, I think you're right - a user who is proficient at the creation of articles should... should (lol) generally have the proficiency to review them. However, I can point out my own experience (as can many others) when I say that being on one side of the spotlight is a completely different thing than being on the other. I remember my first day responding to AIV reports as an admin, or the first time I created an article (and my second, third, etc). I had many years of experience with reporting users to AIV, patrolling pages created and content edited by others, but when I went to operate on the other side of the spotlight - it was a completely different aspect that required a different way of thinking, evaluating requirements, and verifying that I was following proper procedures. I felt like I had to re-learn everything from the ground-up again, even though I was working in the exact same areas that I've been working in for many years... the process in which I participated is what changed, and hence everything is different.
While one can certainly be a superstar at article creation and expansion, they might be completely unfamiliar with the process of reviewing new pages that others have created - simply because the two processes require the implementation of different policies and procedures, different critical-thinking and problem-resolving skills, the familiarity of "how things work", as well as practice and improvement that's significantly different than each other. This is why the user rights are not combined, and why it's a good idea to keep it this way. And, of course, if one is proficient with one aspect and shows that they are also proficient in the other - they can easily have both user rights applied to their account ;-)
Like I said, conceptually and principally I agree with you. However, due to the significant difference in the tools, processes, and guidelines associated with each area - it's best not to bundle the tools. I hope my input has provided some help with this proposal. I certainly don't want anyone to feel down about it being opposed upon - it's this kind of creative thinking and ability to ask everyone here, "why not have things this way?", that good policies are designed and implemented into the project :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni Again, thanks. Although I have never used, i know a little bit about the working of the the Huggle tool, and i think my proposal does not disturb the use of the tool. Jasão (msg) 21:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it would disturbing the tool, so much as not needed because of it. Combine that with some people liking to look at all recent changes, and the ability with the new beta (or might be standard now), to filter by likelihood of constructiveness, I don't know if we need a user right. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you so much for the feedback! Looking to the arguments made me think in make a proposal of creating a new user right, i think it will be more efficient. Again, thank you so much! Jasão (msg) 12:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What problem does this solve? Vandalism? We already have that under control with tools like Huggle and bots such as Cluebot. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: In my opinion will give a better patrol in RCP. The workload is very big, this system reduce the workload because some users (anglophone Wikipedia have so much users that can have this user right) will have the right, and the exclamation not apear, reducing the edits to patrol. If a edit of a user is good, the patroller in the "edit patrolling group" (admins, bureaucrats, rollbackers, autopatrollers and editors in the user right that i propose) will click in this button: [Mark as patrolled] the red exclamation ! will not appear, indicating the edit was patrolled, consequently being good. If the edit was vandalism, rollback with Twinkle, Huggle or rollback tool, if was good-faith but bad, roolback with "AGF" of Twinkle or other tool. In my opinion it would improve the RCP. In lusophone Wikipedia, that adopts this system, it works pretty good, i am rollbacker in that wiki and patrols the recent changes, the workload is very reduced. Jasão (msg) 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

MARKED DROP IN QUALITY

It was bad enough before we introduced the New Page Reviewer group. In the last few days the backlog has dropped somewhat (now down to 16295), but at considerable detriment to quality. (Wrong CSD criteria, tagging innocuous nascent articles within minutes, etc.). I warned that review drives are not necessarily conducive to achieving the best goals for Wikipedia, as evidenced by the problems associated withe drives at AfC. Since I retired from micromanaging NPP/NPR nearly six months ago, I spend a lot of time simply doing what can at the coal face, and frankly, from what I see, I feel that my earlier efforts have been wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well shit. Could you try and notify some of the people you see doing this? I will try and do my part and tell the reviewers I know that could be doing this stuff. I think that a problem with stuff like this is that we can easily gamify reviewing a lot of articles, but we can't (or at least as easily) gamify quality patrolling. We probably need to encourage clean up over easy reviews. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I unreviewed User:Meg.bog.get/TwoMoons because it (as well as almost everything else Meg.bog.get created) is an unambiguous COPYVIO. I don't know how to identify which editor reviewed the sandbox before I got to it but they (and whomever else reviewed the other sandbox entries before me) needs to answer for their mistakes. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
We seriously need reviewers to review reviewers. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —usernamekiran(talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If they're really doing the job, fewer articles will be reviewed in a day, and that doesn't count some of the low quality articles that are autopatrolled and make it into mainspace undetected. I also think the 7-day moratorium that EEng put forward for "breaking news" is substantive; that combined with ACTRIAL and there are signs of real hope. Atsme📞📧 16:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme's talking about User_talk:EEng#Resuming_discussion. EEng 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Chris troutman, you can look through your edit history to see who page curation notified that you'd unreviewed it. You can also look at the log entries for that page and click "show patrol log" to see it. Also, I think we do need to remind people in general to always check for copyvio and remind them that the Earwig score can be as low as 18-20% and it still need revision deletion. Not to mention things Earwig doesn't catch, but Earwig at the least should be a minimum check. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I share this concern and am uncertain as a non-admin how to proceed when I see recurrent errors on the part of a given reviewer. I've unreviewed a few and left notes but to little effect, and at a certain point I don't want to HOUND anyone. I would welcome advice on how to proceed when I have a CIR concern that might even rise to the level of the revocation criteria, or at very least merits a sterner come-to-Jesus from a higher authority. Is there a procedure for notifying an admin--or just, any particular admins willing to field a head's up about cases that might necessitate such judgment calls? Thanks, sorry for the unpleasant business. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    Innisfree987 First, discuss with the reviewer; if they are not responsive, ask an admin to remove the flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Kudpung, who's supposed to have succeeded you in your micromanaging role? DrStrauss talk 09:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. For a list of permanent coordinator tasks, see: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Some examples would help support your assertion, then maybe we can address root causes. It doesn't help that the community has often contradictory standards for what's acceptable and what's not, or we have clunky systems to managing the torrent of bad articles. Much of the work could be automated, and some changes to policy could address much of it as well.- MrX 12:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, too much work on top of patrolling, Trust me though, I'm right, and there is a tool somewher that can show it. And I'm supposed to be retired from this as I keep telling everyone. For the rest, as NPP has already provided all the proof we need, I'm working with a few others together with the WMF to develop some better tools and an experiment to change a policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung and TonyBallioni: I cant be sure what you are talking about, i mean which policy. But unlike WMF's claims, "the system is becoming sustainable". There is a steady drop in the backlog. And it will keep going on that way, even though slowly. But if we get more editors with the flag of NPR, it will become fast. All we need is more editors with the flag. We need to do something that would attract users. Like the anti-vandal group does. The way they have WP:CVU, with impressive vocabulary/terminology, trainee/adoptee program, impressive photos/gifs of fighter planes, and so on. And there are still many long time users who dont know about this new flag. Tutlery, and legacypac are one of them. We need to spread the word. We need more reviewers. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
We are being very carefull about whom we give the New Page Patroller flag to because there are PR/SEO agencies on the Internet who claim they have admins and/or New Page Reviewers in their pay. Please don't run away with the notion that the backlog is decreasing - it might just be a temporary phenomenon, and the quality has already gone down again. Just adding more reviewers is not necessarily the best solution - 90% of the reviews are being done by just 10% or so of the top reviewers. Those of us who are very active on that front are still naturally worried about Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.~ We can't do it all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
(edit conflict) One area that does need to be checked on virtually every page is copyvio, and I am confident that most reviewers probably aren't currently. CopyPatrol does an excellent job, and MusikAnimal and I just confirmed via a spot check that it does check at the initial edit creating the article (or at least that there has been a recent G12 deletion that it caught at the initial edit). That being said, it uses TurnItIn, which while a wonderful software, sometimes misses things. Earwig uses Google which has a different algorithm and helps compliment TurnItIns algorithms. I don't expect every reviewer to go to the lengths I do to find copyrighted material in new pages, but Earwig is something I think everyone should do for every page if you are not familiar with copyright work. Other things reviewers should be aware of is Template:Copyvio-revdel. This is often needed for edits that turn up as low as 18-20% in the Earwig check. Copyvio work takes time and its difficult to do it accurately if reviews are being done too quickly
Re: recruiting more people and project culture. I'm for that, but I don't think the exact culture that anti-vandal users have would be as useful here. Largely because we have more grey areas than they do. We do have a barnstar at WP:NPPC, which anyone can award. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I would be cautious re the "increase the number of reviewers" idea. The whole point of introducing a user right was to restrict reviewing to users who are qualified for the task in hand. While I am a fan of backlog-slashing, quality must outweigh quantity, otherwise the whole point of NPP is defeated. A short comment on the WMF front: I would take what they say with regards to process failure with a pinch of salt, after delving into the depths of past discussions, I see that some members think that AI could do it which I consider to be utterly implausible. DrStrauss talk 09:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: I've just realised that the WMF has undergone a change of members since the AI idea was mooted and the new members appear to take a more pragmatic approach to the situation. DrStrauss talk 09:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on establishing a clearer notability standard for corporations

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). People have brought up how NPP works with businesses, so I think more voices from our group here would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

BLPs with Descriptive Epithets

Sometimes I see new articles with descriptive epithets, such as "Alan Alanson musician". My usual first response (perhaps unnecessarily assuming good faith) is to assume that the author doesn't know that the epithet is unnecessary, and I try to do a move to "Alan Alanson". The move seldom succeeds. Sometimes it says that the article already exists. There may be an article on the cricketer. In that case, the article can be moved to "Alan Alanson (musician)". If the existing page is a disambiguation page, of course the disambiguation page should be updated to add the musician. So far, so good. I don't have any real questions, but any comments are welcome. However, another possibility is that the title is create-protected because it has been repeatedly deleted. (In that case, the creator is using the epithet in less-than-good faith to avoid the salt.) The question is what should I do then. If one of the deletions followed an AFD, then of course the page should be tagged for G4. What should I do if all of the previous deletions have been speedy deletion? I assume that the answers, in part, are A7 if there is no credible claim of significance (but I probably already noticed that), G11 if it is really promotional, and go ahead with AFD if none of the above. Comments? Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fouadadanmp3

New Page Patrollers may encounter short BLPs of the subject of this investigation, who is a prolific sockpuppeteer who keeps creating articles about a person whom I assume is himself, who is described either as a Moroccan musician or a Moroccan muezzin, and I assume that someone can be both, because the call to worship can be chanted. Most of the articles are accompanied by an image. Now that I know that this is one sockpuppeteer, I am tagging the articles as G5 and using Twinkle to expedite the SPIs. Thanks to the admins who are taking care of the accounts on the English Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, and French Wikipedia. (At least, the Wikipedias that are being attacked are consistent with his really being in Morocco.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

New sock farm

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Four_new_sock_farms and my talk page for background here: CU has recently confirmed a sock farm of 28 socks that fit a clear paid editing pattern: complete creation of an article largely correctly formatted followed by the near immediate creation of a talk page by accounts with less than 1000 edits. These accounts also have the nasty habit of creating BLP violations framed as promotional pieces. They also challenge the notability of possible competition and of negative BLPs. Please also note that the title the original SPI was filed under has been confirmed by two checkusers as not being involved. I'm notifying this page because I think this is a larger running farm than CU can detect because of abandoned stale accounts, and that it likely will continue beyond this batch of blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The keyword search and browse tool

Just a heads up that the keyword search and browse tool can now be accessed through the Wikimedia Toolserver at https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ Rentier (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rentier, have you thought of geting the link to this valuable tool added to the 'Set flters' selector on the Special:NewPagesFeed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I thought about it and even analysed the code of the MediaWiki PageTriage extension. While adding the filter wouldn't be a big task by itself, learning the deployment process, complying with all the rules, getting the change through the code review, etc. is more than I can stomach right now. Note that any change in the MediaWiki code will be technically unrelated to the work I have done on the NPP browser, so I'm in no better position to do it than any other developer.
I am most interested in turning what I've built into a tool for discovering, through behavioural analysis, groups of accounts used for undisclosed paid editing. Early, relatively unsophisticated attempts have been very effective: ~80 accounts identified that were used to create ~70 promotional articles, 100% accuracy based on CheckUser confirmation. Rentier (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Rentier: is the tool which identifies the most prolific article creators available on Toolserver? Thanks! DrStrauss talk 10:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: It is now. As before, you have to get the code from https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/npp-by-user.php Rentier (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Excellent work Rentier!- MrX 18:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Rentier (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red events for August 2017

Kudpung has suggested we keep you informed of our editathons. Under the Women in Red project, there are three online editathons each month for the whole month. From 1 August 2017, we also have #1day1woman with no limitation in time. If any of you are aware of editathons specially devoted to the coverage of women and their works, please drop us a line on the Women in Red talk page and we'll try to coordinate with the organizers.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.


(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

Introducing...
WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage
Facilitated by Women in Red
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages too

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on CU policy

There is currently a discussion on changing the wording of the global CU policy on meta at meta:Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Lack of confidence, advice required

Hi
In recent past, I adequately reviewed new articles; including "difficult" ones. But since last few days, no matter what article I am trying to review, it feels difficult. Feels like I am not eligible to review it. Sort of "block" I think, or some sort of loss in confidence. Any suggestions/advice on how to move ahead? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Try setting your filter on 'new users', they are generally easier to patrol. Leave any you don't want to do for other reviewers. Or work slowly from the back of the queue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL length discussion

There is currently an ongoing discussion as to the length of ACTRIAL with the WMF. All are invited to participate at Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial#Trial_duration. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to limit drafitification

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Upgrade_WP:DRAFTIFY_to_policy_or_guideline_and_disallow_moves_to_Draft-_or_userspace_without_discussion_or_consent about limiting the use of draftification. All are welcome and invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing and indexing

The NPR manual says that unreviewed pages will not be available for indexing. However Hettich (company) appears on the Google search results 'infobox', on searching for Hettich despite it not being reviewed ever. Is there a dichotomy. Jupitus Smart 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Page was AFDd. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jupitus Smart: this was created in March, which means it was created before the 90 day NOINDEX period was implemented. Google sucked this up sometime in April. Newly created articles are on a 90 day NOINDEX. Either way, the article would be in Google by now. Edit: and the AfD removes NOINDEX if it was sent via Twinkle or Page Curation as Primefac mentions. In this case, it appears to have been a manual nomination, so the indexing would have been a result of the standard lapse into Google. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That explains it. Jupitus Smart 03:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

triggers for reviewing

The Sony Music UK article was reviewed twice. Can anyone tell me why? I know editors changing a redirect to an article can cause this but that doesn't look like the case here. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Chris troutman: its the redirect. I missed it at first too, but its in the time stamps: the version that was marked as reviewed was this version at 13:56. 16 minutes after it was marked as reviewed as a redirect it was recreated, thus triggering the need for review again. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting that an article be added to this list

Hi, my new article creations are normally exempt from showing up on this list. However, my most recent article, Stewart Levenson, warrants being reviewed by another editor and flagged for cleanup or marked for deletion, as appropriate. Please note that I was a paid contributor to this article, and have declred this on my userpage and on the article talk page. How can I make sure this new article goes through the New Page Patrol process? KDS4444 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444:Thanks so much for your assiduous attention to policy on this matter. For the time being, I've simply clicked "unreview" so now it'll go into the queue. That said, if you're going to have more such articles, probably there needs to be a more systemic solution. One simple one would be to submit any paid entries to AfC rather than post directly to mainspace. Other NPPers (especially those with stronger feelings on paid editing) may have other ideas. I wonder whether it's a case where it'd be appropriate to have a declared (and let me emphasize: declared) secondary account (WP:VALIDALT perhaps under the "designated role" rubric) that does not have the autopatrol flag, so all creations there would go into the NPP queue. But this is not my area of specialty so some may chime in immediately to tell me why that's not an acceptable approach. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent, excellent idea— I honestly do want my newly created paid articles to be reviewed (every time) by some third party, and it is frustrating that my current user rights means I automatically bypass this (those user rights are great for the articles I create on things like the Cecil Kelley criticality accident, which was not a paid edit and with which I have no COI and that don't really need to be taking up valuable space in the NPP queue, but my paid article creations really aught to go there). The thought of possibly being accused of sockpuppetry is a pretty terrifying one, though. Will have to do some looking into this, and would appreciate any thoughts that others can offer here on the matter. Thanks again, @Innisfree987: this was very helpful. KDS4444 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh! I now see you're a new page reviewer yourself. You could simply go to "curate this article" on the left-hand side of the page to bring up the toolbar and then uncheck the green reviewed button. There may be some here who will feel this poses a "who will watch the watchman" problem but I don't know of any policy that says you have to do differently. (Would be glad to learn if there is.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: Oooo! I have found the "Curate this page" link (never noticed that before!) and have clicked on it but so far no green check mark appears anywhere, just four icons along the right side of the screen. Hm... Am I doing this wrong? KDS4444 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh drat you're right KDS4444--looking at my own creations it's the same, I only get four buttons, not the toolbar's full complement of options, as when I look at others' new creations. (For instance I've just started a book article, Home Fire (novel), and I bet if you click the "Curate this page" link on it, you'll see the green check, but I cannot.) Hm, that's too bad. And understood about sock puppetry concerns; others will certainly see this conversation and hopefully be able to advise. I should think that clearly indicating the two accounts as related and their respective purposes, on both accounts, would be adequate transparency but yeah, far better to have admins advise. Or consult ArbCom. (Although it seems wild there would not be already be a clear process for this.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Bingo: green check mark, full tool access. That explains that. And you are right, there is surely some already established process I should be following... somewhere. Must keep looking, and thank you for confirming the green check mark thing! KDS4444 (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reviewers do not have the technical ability to mark their own pages as patrolled. If they did it effectively make the NPR right the same as autopatrolled, which would cause issues since those rights are intended for two different skill sets. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sound logic. Just too bad it also excludes autopatroled NPPers from unreviewing their own work! Another idea: would adding the Template:New_unreviewed_article put an autopatroled entry into the queue? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios and Revdel

For all reviewers (I'm probably preaching to the choir as far as people who follow this page), please make sure if you remove copyright violations during a review (as happened here) that you also request a {{revdel}}. I'm still working with some folks to make an easy-to-use script to make the revdel process easier, but in the meantime please be sure to keep it in your thoughts. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks for putting this note here. I was planning on adding something about that to the next newsletter. I'm waiting on getting a more firm timetable from the WMF at WT:ACTRIAL about when ACTRIAL will take place before sending it out. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks- as the responsible party I do apologize, and I will certainly assure I do this correctly in the future. Cheers to all and I hope I didn't harm anything too badly. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
El cid, you're fine, and you're certainly not the only one who does it (otherwise I would have just let you a note). I've just seen a lot of it recently and felt like saying something. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting on S:NP

The yellow highlighting of unpatrolled articles on Special:NewPages has disappeared. Is it just me or is it affecting anybody else? Is it permanently gone? Does MediaWiki:Newpages-summary need to be updated? I don't recall any plans in meta:Tech/News about this. Cabayi (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I don't think so, anyway the highlighting on the page appears to be back up. I thought it was only a temporary issue. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 20:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
All good now. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_12"