Q: Where are you based? (you do not need to answer this if you don't want us to know)
Q: Is English your first language (mother tongue)?
Q: What other languages do you speak fluently?
Q: Do you find the instructions on Wikipedia hard to understand or follow?
A: The notability
Q: Have you contributed content to Wikipedia articles?
A: I mostly gnome these days, due to lack of time. The last article I have contributed in a big way was Tristen Gaspadarek.
Q: have you created any Wikipedia articles? (If yes, which ones?)
A: Ground proximity warning system Half-width kana, but those were eons ago.
Q: Why do you want to patrol new pages?
A: I did a spurt of it last year (see my CSD log), and did a little just a few days ago to experiment with the new curation tool, where I had some rejects. I thought I should suspend tagging any more CSDs until I get some guidance about the borderline cases, namely marginal garage bands and mostly unremarkable athletes. Perhaps some notability rules have changed or I am getting a little rusty. Looking back, I know I had been a bit bitey and I am trying to be more friendly to newbies. I am doing NPP as a change from vandal fighting, AWBing, and AFCing. Alanl (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alanl and welcome. My apologies for the delay, but I've been stuck on some other issues that needed my immediate attention, and a bit of work in RL.
I'm going to take a while to go through your CSD log and other edits, and make a general check on your editing History. I've noted that you find notability for certain subjects a bit puzzlesome and if it's any consolation, one of them is an enigma to me. I assume you've thoroughly read WP:NPP, so based on your earlier and most recent experience at NPP, here is a first task for you:
- In your opinion, what are the most important things to look for when reviewing a new page? Put your answer in a numbered list of priorities below. I've started some of the numbers for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thecurrent difficulties and hence the long backlog in NPP and AFC I believe stem from the lack of actionable policy for the reviewer. In NPP, there is disagreement what is the minimum threshold to mark an article 'as reviewed' and what that tick mark signifies: that it is not so bad to be CSD'd, or that it meets a certain quality level. In particular, if an article is questionable and tagged say hoax or coi, should the article still be ticked as reviewed as the toolbar is doing currently? If the desire is for a more permissive 'as reviewed' threshold, there is no language in the NPP policy/guideline to support it. On one hand, if patrollers are expected to improve articles to stub quality, then the backlog will grow out of hand. But patrollers is an very important (and for obscure articles) the only avenue of review and a poor quality article that is allowed to stay for weeks if not months can damage wikipedia's reputation. Adopting the CSD threshold will enable edit-count inflation and enable cliques to slip pov articles to slip under the radar. I'm proposing a middle ground as stated below.
And then there's the question of articles that are on the tipping point of acceptability. What should be made of a patroller who ticks an article that is later discovered to have a one paragraph copyvio or In AFC there is the need to build the article to such an extent it will likely survive a AfD in the main namespace, and the lack of authority to firmly remove articles from the queue that will never or highly unlikely to ever be sufficiently notable. An example of this would be Sassy Goat.
- As of 2012, there are plenty of deletionists. There is no need to expend emotional energy contending with the author/fans of a marginal subject if a deletionist will happily do it for you.
- The vast majority of new pages/afcs are of blp/companies/organisations and other self-promotion like subjects. The current policies are not very helpful to the reviewer and below is my attempt at creating a process that is actionable and useful to the reviewer.
- My checklists below are ordered to minimise 'wasted effort' on articles that are not likely to survive. It acknowledges the limited time of the reviewer and is my attempt to triage and maximises effort on the most promising articles that are likely to survive. It is also structured to avoid pointless and unproductive disagreements concerning notability.
- The main weakness of the checklist (and why I contacted you) is what to do with very marginal subject matter and I currently just press next when I encounter them. Suggestions and guidance on what constitutes 'minimum notability' is especially appreciated. How many different tv guest
- The terms 'lost cause' or 'hopeless' refers to subject matter that violates the first, secondd or third pillars of wikipeedia that cannot be repaired.
11:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Non BLP, non org, non music/actor checklist
- Do a quick check of the article creator's edit history and talk page. If the user hasn't already been welcomed, post the welcome tag on the user's talk page. TODO: find the most attractive welcome template that mentions the teahouse. If the user's edit history and/or talk page suggests a history of policy violations, just press next as experience shows that expending effort fixing an article created by a editor with a troubled past tends to be a lost cause. If the username is of COI concern (ie. article title/content sounds similar or the same as the username) , UAA the user, tag the article coi and stop. In my experience, articles where the creator username suggests COI do not tend to survive. If the article less than 3 hours old, wait as it may still be worked on..
- Does the article sound like an advert or hoax? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Is it near April fools day? tag g3 in clear cases, hoax in questionable cases and in severe cases, aiv
- Does the article sound like original research/fringe theory/conspiracy theory? tag original research if the citations look flimsy
- If the article is over ~1000 words and especially if formatting (signs of copy and paste, leftover html tags) suggests a probable copyvio, do a quick google search (are there now better copyvio research tools now?). tag copyvio if suspicious
- Quick NPOV check. If the article is otherwise good and/or the article subject is one that is undercovered by wikipedia, fix weasel/peacock terms. Otherwise tag advert, peacock, pov, weasel as appropriate and move on. (from hereon the decision should have already been made that the article can and should survive.
- Check that the article title is not blatantly against MOS. If the patroller knows off hand the convention, great, but no expectation should be made about knowing all the finer points of MOS
- Sure up the article to help the article survive. If there are no refs and one can be found easily, insert it. If none can be found easily, tag no-refs. If there are two or less refs, or from the url the refs look fishy (links to blogs, ecommerce sites and the like), tag more-refs as appropriate. Check the citation format, and tag bare-url or fix the citation(s) as appropriate
- Prevent orphanage. Add at least one category to the article and try to make appropriate link-backs to the new article. (I believe the minimum threshold for marking an article as reviewed is about here.))
- Check the lead sentence and bold appropriate word(s) if necessary. If unable to fix, tag lead missing/rewrite
- Quick grammar/spelling check. tag proofread if appropriate
- run article through auto-ed or awb if there appears to be MOS issues. tag copyedit/wikify/cleanup as necessary
- If the user is new and the article would pass a C or B grade, find an appropriate wikiproject and leave a message suggesting a mentor be found for the article creator.
Alanl (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
As the vast majority of new article/afcs are BLP, the limited resources of patroller should be reserved for those who are firmly notable/important/encyclopaedic.
- Does the blp appear to be strongly defamatory or exists solely to disparage or threaten the subject (attack page)? if so, report at irc #wikipedia-en-revdel. In less severe cases, tag csd g10 and monitor outcome
- check creator's history/talk page. Welcome if new. Check coi. deal with as above on user checking with the exception of blp with political or press connections in which case should be referred to a diplomat/ambassador (list?). An example would be a blp of a newly elected state/national MP/senator who by username or ip address appears to be vanity-editing. A firmer hand should be used for blp self-promotors than other subject matters to serve as a deterrent to others who wish to use wikipedia as a marketing/seo platform
- If the decision is made that the blp subject worth expending effort on, the first job is to confirm and (if necessary find) quality third party citations to show notability. There is no point doing anything else until the survival of the article is ensured. If two cites cannot be found, then question strongly the notability of subject
- peacock/weasel/npov is often a problem with blp. Rectify/tag as necessary.
- As per blp policy, trivia items should be removed, even if true and can be verified. An example would be that Lily Allen has a third nipple which she has stated directly on television.
- Check article title is appropriate per MOS. It becomes much more difficult and contentious to change it later on.
- Prevent orphanage as above.(I believe this is the minimum threshold for marking an article 'as reviewed')
- check lead sentence has the usual blp format and write/edit/tag as appropriate
- the rest is the same as above.
Alanl (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Almost all firmly notable singers/bands have articles already, so in almost all cases, new articles concerning a singer/actor are of marginal notability. What is the minimum notability needed for a blp of this nature to survive?
- If John Lennon's "imagine" surely deserves it's own article, what is the minimum notability that needs to be demonstrated for a song to have it's own article?
Alanl (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No idea. Seems to be a minefield here. Alanl (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look this [HMS Wivern (D66): Revision history edit history] and explain in your words what the difference is between the version you tagged and its current version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- The big difference is the copyvio issue, which I understand concerns the leading paragraph. The article was too short to be of concern and there didn't appear to be any copyvio red flags.
- The next is I tagged link rot instead of refimprove as it should be. the other differences are mos changes. Alanl (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
You've done a very good job here, very eloquent and well thought out. Far more than I expected. It's interesting that you have identified some of the areas that are confusing for everyone, young, old, experienced, and newbs alike. It will take me a while to fully review and explore your answers and comment on them, so below are some things to be going on with (take your time because I'm going to be busy over the weekend) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC):
- Over the next couple of days, do some page patrolling. When you come across pages you consider marginal or you find hard to decide, tag them, or pass on, but make a note of them until you have about 10 - 15 of mixed types and we'll look at them together. If they get deleted, don't worry, I can still view them. Keep away from Athlete/Sprtsperson articles for the time being, because as you rightly identified, that's a special case and we'll look at it later.
- There are some kinds of articles that are handled at NPP differently (or should be). Do you know what they are? If you don't know, it's nothing to worry about and this is not a test so dont't bother trying to find out, but do try to make some guesses.
With respect to putting the tasks in order of importance, it's really a question of what deletion/reviw criteria to put first. When patrolling, the obvious cases for deletion, such as attack pages, and vandalism are easy enough (although many are confused with A1 and A3)n, but the major task which is mostly missed by patrollers, and generally considered to be the most important is COPYVIO. However, this is more complex that meets the eye. COPYVIO and blatant promotion often go hand in hand, and can also lead not only to a rapid deletion but also to a rapid block for the creator, and possible subsequent discovery of socks.
Take a good look at a new page that is obviously professionally written, then check the refs to the personal bio site, blog, or corporate page. When something looks both smooth & promotional, I usually find something to be a COPYVIO or closely paraphrased. It is absolutely essential for any promotional page that you check the websites. Sometimes they're conveniently listed in the article's refs or EL, or even as (disallowed) inline external links in the prose). Sometime they're not, and that's a real warning sign that the editor is just a little more clever. Every contemporary person who might conceivably be notable in the US and Europe at least has at least one personal page somewhere, and most companies have a page.
- I can't find any copyvio from Appreneur, but there are 3 spam links there.
- No copyvio from Empower either, but sneaky writing to get around A7 and G11, complete with ip address positive feedbacks (which I've hidden already for suspected spammer)
- finally found one: Lyris detection tool result. Is there a tool that tags copyvio properly and reports it or do I have to do it manually? (I assume this can't be CSD'd?) The creator, Briana.Iwuji1985 turns out to be the company's social media manager. Guess he wasn't smart enough. (I've noindexed this page so we don't show our hand) Alanl (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Appreneur is an essay or original research and personal opinion. Belongs in a blog but not on Wikipedia. Possibly also a vehicle for spam links but that might be innocent rather than intentional. Yes, the only thing to do with an article like this is to PROD it because there are no CSD criteria for apps, books, products, or services (IMHO, a major failing), but there are for webs sites and web based products. with sufficient rationale. See what I have added to it. Remember that at least when using Twinkle, PRODS and BLPPRODS reproduce the rationale on the creator's talk page. There are a lot of things wrong with this because no PROD warning was placed there. This might be a Twinkle glitch so it's worth following up. This is even more essential because the creator has only made a total of 4 edits and may not realise at all they he is doing anything wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Empower Network is a bit spammy, but it does make a claim of importance: any web site ranked as the 600th in the world is almost certainly notable, but such claims must be substantiated through very reliable sources, and notability must be asserted for Wikipedia's criteria. Although it could theoretically be tagged for CSD A7, that claim stifles it. Personally where my searches have failed to come up with anything that meets the criteria for web content, I would be careful here and PROD it with: 'Fails to produce reliable independent 3rd party sources for web content per WP:WEB' and keep it on my watchlist. Check their talk page for any previous warnings, and their contribs to see if they are an SPA or have dropped any spam elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Lyris is a blatant COPYvio per , but unless it has been tagged by Coren Bot, searches need to be done manually in Google. If you want to do it, you can tag it now CSD for both G11 and G12, because if you don't nobody else will now and it will have slipped through the net. Feel free to leave a message at User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards politely suggesting that he do more research when patrolling. Tagging for COPYVIO through Twinkle will automatically add the Duplication Detector link so you can check back. Leave a CIO warning on ghe creator's talk page, and possibly also an Advert warning too. kepp an eye on the creator, because he made need to be blocked later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've done everything except message Pharaoh of the wizards. If this company later emails otrs to give permission to copy the text, then what? do you want me to search for another copyvio case?
- It's most unlikely that they will mail OTRS. Most of the stuff at OTRS is permission for images, and people complaining about the content in their Wiipedia bios. Don't search for a copyvio, just keep patrolling, using the gut feeling I've described, and do what you have to when you find one. If you get stuck, ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow that page has been delete twice already....maybe the title can be salted?
- I don't usually salt a page until it's been deleted at least three time. There is a small chance that this might be recreated without the copyvio. Let's see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Spam masquerading as articles
Not all professionally written pages contain COPYVIOs. There are some very clever PR people out there who know our rules and try to get around them. The rough criterion for accepting such pages is tthat they must be able to pass speedy and have at least a decent chance of passing AfD, It is no help to the editor to accept something that won't. Check the creator's contribs history and see if they have edited other pages - chances are thay have dropped some 'innocent' spam links there too. For a recent example see the edit history of Stanbrook Abbey. I got on the trail of this because as coordinator of the Worcestershire poject it was on my watchlist.
Minor task: See if you can follow the same trail as I did, and what the final consequences were.
- when you've read all the above, let me know if you have any questions, then I'll continue.
- This IP's geolocate looks very suspicious: this edit inserted a link to amazing retreats which is just another name for that company. I wonder whether the ip address was the same as the blocked user (checkuser)?
My bad - it wasn't a very good example, because I forgot that you are probably not using the js. that highlights all blocked users names wherever they appear on Wikipedia, but it was an example of a complete promo section being inserted into a suite of articles about notable landmarks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you talking about Mark Blocked? Alanl (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)