User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:43, 8 April 2023

This user may have left Wikipedia. Bradv has not edited Wikipedia since July 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Bradv,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Bradv,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Talkback

Hello, Bradv. You have new messages at User talk:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks.
Message added by Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Expand diffs

At Special:PageHistory/User talk:NGC 54 (for example), when I click "Expand diffs", only 1 diff is collapsed, but User:Bradv/Scripts/ExpandDiffs reads "expand the first 50 diffs on a page". I have deployed the gadget globally (m:User:NGC 54/global.js) and I am using Windows 10 and Brave Browser. Do you know how could I fix this? --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 14:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Possible Vandalism on my Wikipedia Article

Hi Landplane123, I was made aware by Bradv that my page might have been subjected to vandalism. I see that you made some recent edits on my article and was wondering if you received any notifications about this. Please let me know as I was informed that my page could be in danger of being deleted.

Thank you for your immediate response Kwakeley (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Kwakeley[reply]

Kwakeley I created your Wikipedia article and removed some content as there was a notification that there was too much personal information that might be of interest to only a small audience. Perhaps this happened because I recently changed my username to Landplane123 from pennyframstad as I did not want to be using my personal name for Wikipedia edits. I will contact Bradv directly to get to the bottom of this. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Best, Landplane123 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Landplane123[reply]

Hi Bradv,

Kwakeley reached out to me letting me know that he received a notification about possible vandalism to his Wikipedia article. I created Kitt's article and check on my edits frequently and saw a notification on his page that there was personal information that might only be of interest to a small audience so I removed a section from his page that elaborated on his adoption story and his sister finding him recently.

I recently changed my username to Landplane123 from pennyframstad as I did not want to be using my personal name for Wikipedia edits. Perhaps this might be the reason and you couldn't see my editing history? That is the only content that I planned on removing and will only be making additions from here on out.

Please let me know that you received this so I can move forward with adding content to Kitt's page.

Thank you so much, Landplane123 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Landplane123[reply]

Bradv hasn't edited in months. I am another administrator - please can you let me know what this is about? Feel free to move it to my talk page, Bradv probably doesn't need a bunch of notifications. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been recommending that people use WikiExperts?

I have what seems to me a credible report that you have been recommending to people that they use WikiExperts. Is this true?

The report I have is that you contacted someone through Whatsapp to recommend WikiExperts, who then charged someone $15,000 for an article in Wikipedia. I am asking you because if so, then you definitely should not be an admin in English Wikipedia. If it is a lie, then fine. But please tell me the truth. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales I would guess that’s a scam; scammers and spammers have been impersonating admins and other well known editors for years. Bradv also hasn’t been active for almost a year. If you think otherwise, you know who to email… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales, this was also a very unwise way to post this. It refers to offwiki communications while making a public accusation, which is at best seriously unwise and at worst policy-violating. From someone with such weight on their words, I'd have suggested leading with an email to Bradv. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales, I'm disappointed that you would even think that Bradv would do something like that. I would consider this report about as credible as a paid editing firm slapping a picture of you on the top of their website and saying "endorsed by Jimbo Wales himself!" Next time, email first, or if you're dead certain that this sort of abuse of the admin office is going on, send the evidence to ArbCom - but don't go slinging accusations like this around. Paid editing groups lie about everything - what articles they've worked on, the privileges they have access to, the names of their accounts, their ability to manage who is adding things to the article you buy, whether their accounts comply with Wikipedia policy. Any claims they made to the folks they hoodwinked need to be taken with about a pound of salt. (also, for future reference - we do have processes for handling off-wiki evidence for paid editing, generally involving the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org queue). GeneralNotability (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :@[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] I would guess that’s a scam; scammers and spammers have been impersonating admins and other well known editors for years. Bradv also hasn’t been active for almost a year. If you think otherwise, you know who to email… [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 ::@[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], this was also a very unwise way to post this. It refers to offwiki communications while making a public accusation, which is at best seriously unwise and at worst policy-violating. From someone with such weight on their words, I'd have suggested leading with an email to Bradv. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 22:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
+:{{u|Jimbo Wales}}, I'm disappointed that you would even think that Bradv would do something like that. I would consider this report about as credible as a paid editing firm slapping a picture of you on the top of their website and saying "endorsed by Jimbo Wales himself!" Next time, email first, or if you're dead certain that this sort of abuse of the admin office is going on, send the evidence to ArbCom - but don't go slinging accusations like this around. Paid editing groups lie about everything - what articles they've worked on, the privileges they have access to, the names of their accounts, their ability to manage who is adding things to the article you buy, whether their accounts comply with Wikipedia policy. Any claims they made to the folks they hoodwinked need to be taken with about a pound of salt. (also, for future reference - we do have processes for handling off-wiki evidence for paid editing, generally involving the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org queue). [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)