Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed

• Sorted
• Easy
• Reports

Reviewers

• Resources
• School
• Top

Curation tool
SuggestionsCoordination

• Talk
• Awards
• Newsletter

• May backlog drive

NPP backlog

Articles

11149 ↓182

Oldest article

20 months old

Redirects

26268

Oldest redirect

4 months old

Article reviews

2240

Redirect reviews

3720

• There is a very large articles backlog
• There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of May 6, 2024

Drafting

I have a question regarding sending an article to draft. What should a reviewer do when they send an article to draft but the article's creator ignores the draft and recreates the article in main space a week later? It has happened a few times so far. In the latest instance I have sent the recreated article to AfD. But is that the right course? Thanks. Bruxton (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if the article has not been improved, AFD is the next step. However, I would note that articles are kept at AFD if the consensus is that the topic is notable even if that is not demonstrated by sources in the article. Be sure to tag it with (e.g. {{more refs}}) in case it survives AFD. MB 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MB, I noticed that you have reviewed the article in question. My original concerns were verification and the notability of a concubine. All of the references in the article are offline and in a foreign language. And I had trouble seeing the notability of a concubine. For instance the biblical figure Solomon had 300 concubines. The article's creator has a slew of creations with similar issues, and I notice most are not reviewed and some are tagged. Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not "review it" in the normal sense. I marked it reviewed to removed it from the queue, relying on the AFD to decide its fate. It looks like several comments are based on notability and others are just procedural because they disagree with your reason for sending to AFD. I think it would have been better to frame the AFD just on concerns of notabilty and not on draftification to keep the discussion more focused on the real issue. MB 16:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Sending the article to AfD is the correct call but the nomination statements seems off. I'd say that you shouldn't ask for it to be deleted, but rather argue that it should be draftified again (and maybe HISTMERGE) if it isn't ready for the mainspace, like here. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means that it can't be draftified again by hand, but community consensus can still overturn what is written on an explanatory essay. If we have to keep everything that has its draftification objected by the author, then draftifying itself is useless as a whole. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Note that we didn't stick with WP:DRAFTOBJECT in the example I provided and that the article was draftified many times by others, but I couldn't care less tbh. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in the normal course of looking through unreviewed pages I see it. I think to be honest, in the future I will ignore the recreation and let another reviewer deal with it. but perhaps there is a template we can place on the talk page notifying editors that a draft already exists? Similar to the prod notice: Bruxton (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, draftspace is optional. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT anyone, including the article creator, can move it back. At which point if the article is not notable, an AFD is appropriate. The AFD nomination statement should focus on notability though, if it focuses on "editor shouldn't have un-draftified this" everyone will !vote keep because of WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Going back to notability, royal consorts are tricky because they de facto seem to have a lower standard than many other categories of notability, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Daemyeong. Anyway, live and learn :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for being late to the party, Bruxton but the problem with AfD and often RfC is simply the limits of volunteerism and repeated occurrences of the hegemony of the asshole consensus (and I hope my colleagues will forgive my oft repeating of that quote, but I have not yet found a better example). Maybe I should just say "the hegemony". Can we fix it? Yes...BUT...that would entail adding qualifications to AfD, which would probably be seen as restrictive and not conducive to WP being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Atsme 💬 📧 12:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I think one of the problems with moving articles created in mainspace to draft is that no redirect is left behind. I think some newer editors don't have the first clue what happened to their page and so they try again rather than working on the one that got moved to improve it. Yeah, we typically leave a talk page notification, but for some of them, there are WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issues with that. I honestly think sometimes when a subpar article is created in mainspace and then draftified and then recreated (sometimes multiple times) it's because the person doesn't know where it went and where to find it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a note saying "There is a draft for this article at Draft:XXXX" when visiting a mainspace article that has been moved to draft? -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Banner blindness is a thing. Yes, there is a note saying there is a draft, but I'm not sure how many people actually read the (to them) gobbledygook in the pink and white box you see when you arrive at a page like Jeffrey Ruby. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Potential idea for changing the process of getting the autopatrolled user right

I've been thinking about how the autopatrolled user right seems to be a persistent source of controversy. Perhaps it would be better if the autopatrolled user right could not be applied for by users at all, and instead would be granted based on the suggestion of new page patrollers? Since the right doesn't actually allow a user to do anything they couldn't previously, and instead serves to remove noncontroversial articles from the NPP queue, it would make sense that the right is only granted if NPPers suggest it. Not ready to start an RfC yet or anything, but curious if anyone has thoughts about this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a silly idea. Needs some more thinking though perhaps. I guess a compromise could be make it harder for people to self-apply for it, but easier for NPPers/admins...? Don't want to overcomplicate things though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My reasoning is that I don't see a huge reason for someone to self-apply for it. The main benefit of having the right that isn't less scrutiny (which isn't really a good thing) is getting your pages indexed by search engines faster, but is that really a large enough benefit to allow people to apply for it? Also, in most of those clear cases NPPs would probably put forward appropriate people pretty quickly, especially once that becomes the accepted way of people getting the right (there's been people I've wanted to suggest the right for before, but haven't done so, as that's something that isn't often done and I wasn't sure how admins would take it). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(EC)Good idea, but IMHO not likely to fly. Better to totally eliminate it. I think that it does little good and more harm than good. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I admit it's something I applied for (and obtained) very recently, but my reasoning for it was more in terms of helping with the NPP backlog. I'm likely not the typical sort of editor who applies for it though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The right is useful to have around and eliminating it would do harm by massively increasing the backlog and making NPPers on average a bit sloppier (since far more of the articles we'd come across would be fine, people would take less care to check for issues that may not be immediately obvious). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree it's useful to have for the sake of the backlog, until such a time there are more active NPPers to keep on top of things at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is largely how WP:RAL already works (self-applications are allowed, but form a minority of additions by far), and that seems to work fine. As to Kj's concern, we could have the banner at WP:PERM/AP say something like, As this permission confers no direct benefit, nominations can only be made by administrators and new page reviewers. If you do think you should have this permission, you can ask any administrator or new page reviewer to nominate you; be aware, however, that such nominations may be scrutinized more heavily. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any need for a request page to exist at all? Why not just give new page reviewers the technical ability to grant autopatrolled and shut down the requests for permission page entirely? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the trust level required to grant AP is significantly higher than the trust level required to review pages. Maybe if you required discussion among NPRs first, perhaps in a section of this page? But at that point why not leave the final call with admins? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe write the policy in such a way to strongly encourage admins to grant the right if a NPPer requests it to be granted? (only deny in unusual/rare circumstances) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel comfortable letting someone who immediately got the NPP right to grant others the autopatroller right. I like Elli's suggestion though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea and would have my support: I know it's been suggested before (I found this and I seem to remember it being discussed elsewhere too), but I haven't seen any solid arguments against it. The biggest concern, of course, is that qualified editors would get skipped over, but since we'd have a strong incentive to make frequent nominations (reducing the backlog), I don't think that would be a serious problem. Ultimately the benefits—making it somewhat harder for UPEs and other bad actors to get access to a pretty dangerous permission—would outweigh any harms, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons listed above. (t · c) buidhe 22:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all ideas mentioned here (limiting nomination of AP to NPPs, limiting granting of AP to NPPs, eliminating AP). All of these ideas would increase the NPP queue at a time when our backlog is huge, and in my opinion no evidence such as diffs or statistics has been given that this is a problem that needs solving. To support, I would want to see statistics such as the total # of autopatrolled article creations per month, vs # of autopatrolled article creations per month that get deleted via AFD/CSD/PROD, and then use that to calculate a ratio of bad autopatrols. If the bad autopatrols is above like 1-2%, then it may be worth spending some bandwidth on this issue, but until then I think we'd just be shooting ourselves in the foot and making our backlog bigger in order to solve a non-problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, I imagine autopatrolled users' articles aren't deleted very often since (by definition) there's no one to review them. That said, I do think this is a non-hypothetical problem: I scanned the user rights log and found that at least seven autopatrollers have either been blocked or have had the right revoked just since July, with reasons ranging from conflicts of interest to referencing issues to sockpuppetry to copyright violations. And, of course, for each one we're aware of, there may be many more who create problematic articles but just haven't been noticed yet. Not all of those were self-nominated, of course, and some issues are unavoidable, but there does seem to be a real problem here to solve. At least in the original proposal, moreover, a backlog increase isn't inevitable: as long as we're conscientious about making frequent nominations (using tools like this report), the number of new autopatrollers may well remain stable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm more of the mind to increase qualifications. We should not take NPP lightly. This is the last line of defense for keeping garbage out of the pedia, and for offering some protection from UPEs and PEs who do not need to be autopatrolled. Let's not forget, we recently had a NPP reviewer and an admin who were UPEs. We need to know who and what our reviewers are doing. Good reviewers get more done, and create less havoc and confusion, so don't worry about the queue, just keep a steady pace. Think of it as bussing tables in a busy restaurant – hopefully someone will leave a tip on the table some day. Atsme 💬 📧 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Atsme, hope you're doing well. I think you might have misunderstood the proposal, though—this is a suggestion to increase qualifications for autopatrolled. The idea is that instead of letting people ask for autopatrolled themselves, we should have trusted new page patrollers independently recommending people for the right. This would mean that hat collectors, UPEs, and the like would be less likely to get autopatrolled since they couldn't simply go to WP:PERM/AP and ask for it (as they often do at present)—it would only be given to people who stood out to NPPs or admins as creators of solid articles. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Hi, Extraordinary Writ, I did speed read it, but I caught the gist. I'm of the mind that we need to raise the bar and require editors to have at least 2500 main space article edits, or equivalent in article creation, and not just chalking-up edits by adding brackets for WikiLinks. They also need enough experience at AfD to generate some stats. I actually like the idea of a potential reviewer applying here at NPP first, and at that time we can recommend NPPSCHOOL, or decide that the editor has enough experience that we are comfortable endorsing their request. NPP reviewing is far more important than what we are given credit for, especially considering reviewers are making important decisions that will affect another person's hard work relative to keeping, draftifying, or deleting. A reviewer also needs to be experienced enough to know RS, and what constitutes Notability, OR, V, etc. If they cannot create an article, what makes them qualified to judge article creations by others? It is possible that a new editor or two will come along with 500 edits who fully understand the nuances of NPP but I doubt it. We have some long term admins who don't fully understand it. Those are just my thoughts. I do appreciate the input and suggestions above by Elli, and it does my heart good to see us working together as a team, making suggestions, and trying to find ways to make our jobs more efficient, and a bit easier while still being able to maintain the safeguards. Anyway...that's my $5 worth (compensation for inflation). Atsme 💬 📧 02:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

    Atsme, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding here (if so, apologies!), but it sounds like you're talking about raising the qualifications for new page reviewers, which is a pretty different issue from what this proposal is about: raising the qualifications for autopatrollers. All Elli's proposal would do is make it harder for UPEs to get autopatrolled and create spammy articles that can fly under our NPP radar. Obviously you're free to oppose if you like, but I just want to make sure we're all on the same page regarding what's being suggested. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment Atsme. Do you recall who the UPE admin was? I'm surprised I didn't hear about it, would definitely like to see for myself. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Novem, I cannot recall the name, but if my memory serves, it was about the same time it was decided to remove autopatrolled rights from admin accounts. Maybe Joe Roe or Kudz will remember. I've scanned the archives, and it could be I was thinking about Esotrix who Usedtobecool said "had recently started getting more involved with NPP, was blocked as a sockpuppet mid-RFA. Ironic, as I noticed them first from their involvement in the thread about abusive NPPers, up above." In that same discussion, Kudz said, "Most cases of extreme misuse or abuse of privileges, such as for example Pastor Theo, Archtransit, admins who edit for pay, and former admin Sherlock under one of his many guises, don't get discovered until later (and woe betide the admin who dares to expose them). This brings the community with a knee-jerk to the reality that Wikipedia, along with holders of advanced positions, is increasingly being used for promoting personal, political, or corporate agendas. The recent discussions on this very page have somewhat heightened awareness to the rot within the ranks of reviewers." So there you have it, and I guess it holds true as evidenced with Hitchens or Hutchens, and other socking: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 42#Reviewer blocked. Atsme 💬 📧 01:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hey Atsme. Thanks for the explanation. I spent half an hour researching the 3 admins you mentioned. I read arbcom discussions, ANI discussions, SPIs, etc. and wasn't able to find mentions of paid editing. If anyone is able to dig that info up feel free to link it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

NL, every word is true and probably even worse than you could possibly imagine. I'll tell you about it one of the days, but offline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme and Novem Linguae: Maybe you were thinking of Salvidrim! and the Mister Wiki case? Although that was quite some time ago. The desysop in the aether when autopatrolled was unbundled was Carlossuarez46, which wasn't for paid editing but for egregiously bad mass creations and lack of accountability. – Joe (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Joe!! Having an unresolved question stuck in one's head is like having a tune stuck there ... Twinkle, twinkle little star... Atsme 💬 📧 11:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Extraordinary Writ has a point. The access threshold to autopatrolled has been successively reduced over the years to what I can't see as having had an increased benefit to NPP. Plenty of abuse of it has been revealed though, and as one of the admins who for a long time was a regular reviewer of PERM requests, rather a lot of those self-noms appeared to be made on a misunderstanding of the right by the candidates. Nowadays I don't do enough patrolling to notice editors who regularly submit clean content. I do however frequently check out the autopatrolled creations from the filter in the feed and I often find issues that give me pause - even creations by admins - but there's little I can do about it so I just note it mentally and move on. Users are for some possible reason extraordinarily piqued about losing user rights, even if it's only for lack of activity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comments

1. I agree that having AP helps NPP because it keeps articles out of the queue that don't need to be there; I would not support elimination.
2. I don't see that it matters much if an editor self-nominates or is referred by NPP. Determination is made at WP:PERM.
3. I think there should be some kind of system in place to monitor AP articles in some form. I recently sent one to AFD and it was deleted as a non-notable subject, so it does happen. Like Kudpung, I have seen my fair share of other AP articles that I probably wouldn't have passed if I were reviewing them. But an editor can write 25 good articles and years later get sloppy or lazy and it just flies under the radar unless it becomes so flagrant that it gets noticed and brought to someplace like ANI. We have WP:ORES. It is used by WP:RATER to assess articles. If we had a tool that ran ORES on all the articles created by AP editors (over the past year) and reported stats by editor, I bet it would uncover some problems. I would recommend that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 21:22, September 13, 2022 (UTC)‎

We have the ORES tools already, MB. It just needs to be rolled out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung, I mean a report listing with a ORES summary of each AP editors cummulative work over a period of time, not what you linked to which is at the individual article level. MB 03:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I know what you meant MB, but I think doing that would just be busywork, although I admit the stats would be very interesting. Forget searching for past misdemeanours, it will only cause friction - remember the dire consequences of listing such individuals - in the worst case scenario, if you were an admin it could lose you your bit. Better is the solution I just requested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Number 3 is a good point, and it raises a related issue: since effectively the only way to get autopatrolled revoked is a long and unpleasant ANI thread, plenty of editors retain autopatrolled when they probably shouldn't. This probably has no chance of going anywhere, but if I were king for a day I might propose something along the lines of "if three (or five, or whatever) of your articles are deleted in a given year, autopatrolled is automatically removed"—not as a punishment, of course, but simply as a recognition that the person's articles might benefit from being checked by a reviewer. Just a thought. There's also the old idea of having some small fraction of autopatrolled articles put back into the NPP queue—perhaps that would be worth considering. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, a punishment for what? Taking away a user right that actually accords no privileges whatsoever? Apart from hat collecting... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to say: since autopatrolled exists solely for the benefit of NPPers, removing it should be seen as just a housekeeping matter rather than as some kind of punishment. Whether or not one has autopatrolled should be (to use a hackneyed phrase) no big deal. Apologies if I framed my point inarticulately. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "searching for past misdemeanours", but evaluating if someone with AP is continuing to make high-quality articles. If they aren't, there should be some "friction". We all face "friction" for not following other policies (e.g. edit warring, etc). Why should not living up to the expectations of AP be exempt? MB 04:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, MB: it would be a bit like doing a blanket CU sweep on a group of editors to see if they have any socks in their drawers. Highly illegal even if suspicion exists. If you catch someone red-handed, that's a different matter, but it can still get you into serious trouble for daring to mention it. Wikipedia has become a prickly place, as you know yourself, one can't even mention the increase in the number of new articles from certain parts of the world without being called 'xenophobic and racist'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI

Please note there is a discussion at WP:ANI that relates to NPP: WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about New Page reviewer draftifying work while I'm still working on it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Objections to more use of Draftification

I have been thinking about how to make draftification more acceptable. I wasn't ready to propose this yet, but it's directly related to the prior section on editors not seeing messages on their Talk Pages about their articles being moved to draft.

A major objection to draftification is that Drafts are too "hidden" and unlikely to be improved; the best way to improve an article is for it to be in mainspace where people will find it.

Currently, you do get this message if you try to create an article when there is a draft:

What if we make a major change and just leave an "article" in mainspace containing:

This means the title would show up in the search box, and could be linked from other articles. That would be a major departure from the current process of Draftification which completely deletes the article from mainspace, and would require a project level RFC. Since the article is not in mainspace, but the title is - it is as likely to be improved in Draft space as it would be if it had stayed in main space. There are other things to work out, like this would prevent someone moving the draft back directly per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, they would have to make a technical move request (which I think would be a good thing). I guess the first thing is to get a feeling whether we think this would be worthwhile, and do we think there is a chance of getting it approved at the project level? MB 15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• That's an interesting idea. My first practical worry would be, as you say, with WP:DRAFTOBJECT—people would probably just copy paste the draft into mainspace because "The move button doesn't work!" So AfC reviewers would probably need to be granted page mover. The other issue is that it will show up as a blue link, which people will assume contains content. I feel like this system would be appropriate for some drafts, i.e. those which have some genuine potential, and would encourage collaboration. But there are of course not-quite-CSDable-yet-yucky drafts which I'd rather not be findable through mainspace at all (at least for logged-out readers), certainly not through a blue link. Idk. Ovinus (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This would probably have to be a WP:SOFTREDIRECT, that way any editing of it would turn it back into an article and be put back in the queue as unreviewed. This could also be an option, only done for "promising drafts" that have genuine potential. They could even be tagged with {{promising draft}} which gives extra consideration before auto deletion. Doing that would may make Draftification more acceptable to to those that are against it today.

AFC reviewers currently have to deal with a redirect in the way and can request at G6 deletion of the redirect, so they wouldn't need to be page movers. MB 17:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• • I wonder if some magic could be done to make such psuedo-articles be a blue link? Maybe the route rather than being an "article" would just be to change the template and somehow make those searchable? I'm thinking such a technical change would get some pushback though, and I'm not sure the effort/reward ratio would be good enough... -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    If we're going to do that, then why not just keep them in articlespace instead of draftifying? Elli (talk | contribs) 14:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    In mainspace, they are part of the encyclopedia. If there is a soft redirect and and big pink banner, it is more obvious that they are not and that they are not ready to be included, but may have potential. MB 14:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    The encyclopedia is a work in progress, though, and we allow articles to be in mainspace even if they're not up to all our standards. If we're going to make drafts as prominent as normal articles, then we might as well keep them in mainspace. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    We allow articles to be in mainspace that aren't up to all our standards if we believe the subject is notable. That hasn't been determined yet for these and they are not as prominent as normal articles. With a normal article, you click on a link and you are brought to the article. With this proposal, you get a message saying there is no article, just a draft. You have to click again to see the draft; the draft is not Indexed so it's not visible in search engines; the draft will be deleted if not improved and moved into mainspace. None of that applies to articles in mainspace. And this does not apply to ALL drafts, only those we move there from mainspace for improvement. This does not apply to all the junk created in draftspace if that was not clear. MB 20:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    I dunno, this seems to me like it would lead to further blurring of the line between draftspace and mainspace, making it harder to actually move drafts to mainspace, as the cost of something staying in draftspace would be looked at as lower. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've been giving this some thought over the last few days. Not in favor of it. I don't know if I draftify more than most, but I do quite a bit of draftification. I follow the guidelines in the procedure WP:DRAFTIFY, but I err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to the article's creator, in that the subject is notable. But my gut tells me that most are borderline at best. If we leave these "title articles" in mainspace, that gives the appearance that they are probably notable. I think that once an article is draftified, if the creator does not work on it, that's a pretty good indication of lack of notability, since they are one who has shown the most interest in the subject. I'm not as concerned with blowback regarding draftifying articles as I am about crap articles remaining in mainspace. But then again, I think of this as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, not just some other wiki. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about "crap" articles, right? Those should be BLARed/PRODed/CSDed/AFDed. This is about the borderline ones. Right now, the queue goes back to March. That is six months. I think most of the old ones have been looked at, probably several times. Since they have survived that long in their present form, they may be notable. If we move them to draft with the present procedure, it's unlikely that anyone will work on them except perhaps the creator. If we use this method, it invites more people to improve them. But if no one does, they are still subject to eventual deletion at which time the soft redirect from mainspace will be removed. I'm trying to find a "middle-ground" between those that say be should Draftify more often and those that say we should do it less or not at all. MB 16:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi MB - depends on your definition of "crap". Probably should have used a more neutral word, but had just finished a slogging through a couple hundred articles. But an article with a single source is pretty much substandard, imho, and sometimes those single ref articles are a single line, and other times they are quite lengthy. There was one I draftified at some point in the last week that was FA length, and it had 3 footnotes throughout. And you get that a lot when articles are translated from other wikis, which apparently have less stringent ref requirements the EN does. I just don't see the need for this. Hundreds of new articles get written every day, it's not like there seems to be a dearth of subjects for folks to work on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The need is to give us a better way to handle articles in this gray area. There are a over 2,700 articles more than 90 days old that we can't Draftify now. We had a discussion about a month ago about whether to try to extend the 90 limit and while the idea seems to have support here at NPP, we also didn't think the community would go along and there wasn't support to even start an RFC on an extension. I guess I didn't mention that doing this would either be bundled with an extension, or if this passed we would propose an extension separately. MB 21:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• • The wording of any kind of banner would be important for it to be an improvement over the current situation I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

As to my judgement this template/sign would encourage the creation of mass creation of assumed draft articles as they'd still be named as the creator of the article if the draft will eventually be moved into article mainspace. We currently reward the creators of articles not so much the ones who expand articles or the ones who move them from draft to main space.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a reward; it's more of a public enemy list. Editors who create articles are routinely harassed and attacked, especially if they are actually rewarded, while those who create lots of articles get banned. The list now has its top 100 positions scrambled to protect them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• These seems to be a case of adding more words to say more or less the same thing, and the more words we add, the less people will read it. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, can you clarify your comment? What does "adding more words" mean. Adding to what? MB 14:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  The current message when you view a red link with a matching draft is eight words long. Your proposed template is 62 words. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, the proposal is not to add words to the current message. That message is only seen when you view a redlink to an article that has a draft. This proposal is to create Soft redirects to drafts when an article is Draftified. That means there would be bluelinks in other articles that link to the title. If someone is reading an article and see the current redlink, they are unlikely to click it unless they were intending to create it. If they see a bluelink, they may be interested in reading about the subject. If they click on the bluelink to read the article, they will then find that there is only a draft. They may consider improving the draft. The intent here is to get more eyes on drafts and encourage their improvement so they can be moved to mainspace. MB 15:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I realise that. I don't think the colour of the link will make a significant difference to the average reader. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are lots of articles in draft space that shouldn't be articles. This seems to presume "should be an article but needs work". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be for all drafts, only ones explicitly moved to draftspace as part of NPP. -Kj cheetham (talk)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

AfD Exorcise Tape

Your input would be appreciated as it is likely to affect how NPP reviews these types of articles. Also, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. Atsme 💬 📧 01:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exorcise Tape –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Education Wikipedia collaboration with AfC and NPP

Boyu Jin, a Boston College student wasn't able to get their draft reviewed in an unlucky way on the 3 May they were denied for the existence of a copy of the draft and on the 18 may the draft was denied because an article with the same title already exists in main space. Following a merge discussion ensued. The articles in Draft and in Mainspace were created by the same editor and maybe we could think of something to smooth out the collaborations between the wikipedia community and editors from educational institutions. If (hidden) categories for such drafts and articles would be created potentially supportive editors of a certain eduction wikipedia collaboration could take care of such drafts and articles. The articles I have seen from of the Boston college project were rather well elaborated and if such and other editors from other educational institutions were welcomed a bit more it might encourage them to join not only the particular project but then also become a regular wikipedia editor. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought the underlying principle of the education project was that students should be treated by the volunteer community exactly as if they weren't students. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? I'm struggling to see how NPP would be involved where a student creates a draft when there is already an article in mainspace. I would note that the student 'Choosing an article advice' recommends trying a few different search terms to see if the subject is already covered before starting an article. --John B123 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have received an encouraging answer from Esh77 here. There appears to exist a mechanism to label drafts and articles created by editors from educational institutions. I just assume that neither all of us nor of them are aware of that mechanism. I am on it and will try make it better known. If someone knows something about how that mechanism works, I'd be glad to know and I believe other editors as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I received another encouraging response from LiAnna (Wiki Ed) and there apparently already exists the mechanism of the hidden Category:Wikipedia Student Program which in this particular case was not added to the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I try to solve the mystery for @John B123: The editor created the draft first, but after this was declined due to another draft with the same title, they also created an article with the same title in mainspace. Then, the second draft was declined because there already exists one in mainspace with the same title. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The 'mystery' is how is this a NPP issue? --John B123 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I was reaching out to Esh77 but there I was encouraged to post here by Kudpung. For me his answer was helpful at the moment and I thought other reviewers might also be interested in this mechanism. Its supportive for new editors and we review the pages of new editors.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Two editors creating drafts for the same subject unfortunately does happen occasionally. Adding the hidden Category:Wikipedia Student Program to one wouldn't prevent this. Yes we do review the pages of new editors, but in mainspace not draft. --John B123 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Both articles the draft like the one in mainspace were created by the same editor and not by two different editors, then a merge discussion ensued as mentioned in the first edit in the discussion above. Anyway, I am glad to have learned about the hidden category and I'll see if there is more to learn from the mechanism at WikiEd. Thanks everyone for helping me finding the right way.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

More user rights for NPP

I am of the mind that advanced NPP reviewers should be given more tools to work with as content oriented reviewers, and that those who have graduated from NPPSCHOOL and/or have otherwise demonstrated their qualifications as quality reviewers should be given those unbundled tools as part of their NPP user rights.

Reason:

• Qualified reviewers go through articles with a fine tooth comb.
• Qualified reviewers do the research per WP:BEFORE
• Qualified reviewers do triage.

When a qualified reviewer decides to nom an article for CSD or PROD, it is because they did the research, and what happens next? They have to tag and wait for an overworked admin to show up and follow-thru. Unfortunately, it often ends in rejection when nomming for CSD & PROD, and then it ends up at AfD where even more valuable time is wasted, not to mention potential drama. Keep in mind that the admins who reject CSDs and PRODs do not review articles at the same level that NPP does – they don't do any BEFORE. Instead, they make their decisions based only on the as-is content. Why is that decision more reliable than that of an NPP reviewer, whose work is most affected by it? It is my understanding that admins are supposed to focus on behavior, not content. Content is NPP's job, but what we are faced with daily can create frustration and burn out because the work we do is not taken seriously, and we catch a lot of slack over it. A quick example of frustration: a 60 edit article creator did not like their unsourced stub being redirected, so they revert the redirect. The article goes back in the NPP queue, and another reviewer shows up, redirects, and the cycle begins again. Next reviewer draftifies, but the article ends up in main space again – Ad infinitum. Ad absurdum. Why not give the reviewer the ability to protect the redirect? I fail to see how an admin's decision is any more reliable than that of a qualified, experienced NPP reviewer who did WP:BEFORE and/or triage before they came to their conclusion. So here is my suggestion:

Proposal

Unbundle a few admin tools so NPP reviewers can handle their own CSD, PRODs, protect redirects, and close AfDs they are not involved in. That would take a load of tedious work off our admins while at the same time eliminate all the frustration that NPP reviewers deal with daily. It is easy enough to check a reviewer's Curation & AfD log for balance and good judgment. Why all the bureaucracy? I see far more pros than cons to unbundling a few tools. Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• A - Agree to all
• B - Agree to protect redirects and close AfDs but not to CSD or PROD
• C - Agree to protect redirects only
• D - Oppose all ^{added after the 3rd "D" below Atsme 💬 📧 00:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)}

local tally

1. A - It's a no-brainer for me. Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
2. A seems to be a very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
3. D oppose all. MB 20:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
4. D I don't think unbundling is solely to blame for our current RfA atmosphere. But it's a huge factor and so I don't think we should do any more of it until RfA is in a healthier place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
5. D It sounds like a good idea but Barkeep49 makes sense. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
6. D Maybe a few changes could be made to the NPP rights group, but I feel these may grant too much leeway at the cost of editorial oversight. ^Complex/_Rational 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
7. D Not convinced this would work in practice. I might consider supporting option C if there are sufficient statistics to show it's an issue, but I suspect NPPers may want to make more use of WP:RFPP instead. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

To confirm, by "handle their own CSD, PRODs", you mean be able to delete those pages? And by "close AfDs" you also mean delete those pages? As non-admins can already close AfDs as keep as per WP:NAC. Also, is this proposal to create a new permission set I take it, not give to all NPPers? How much of an issue are the redirects? I'd be very cautious with non-admins having the power to delete articles personally. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to imply there are regular NPP reviewers and those that are "quality reviewers". That is a flawed premise, we expect all reviews to be of quality. I think this is a non-starter on that basis alone. MB 20:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be the perennial proposal to unbundle certain admin tools, which has historically been a non-starter for a variety of reasons. Sam Walton (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The answer to the specific scenario posed above is to eliminate the ability to reject draftification. That’s the basic problem. If draftified by NPP, the article should have to go through AFC.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 (t · c) buidhe 21:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That would not be a good idea. Draftification should be optional; the solution to someone rejecting draftification is AfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

CSD and page protections deserve a level of independent review before they are acted on, even if the editor in question is highly experienced. Rejected CSDs and PRODs, more often than not, are a sign that these pages should not have been tagged as such, categorically not a pretext for editors to get a license to kill articles. CSD and RfPP don't have significant backlogs, so this proposal doesn't solve any existing problem. Moreover, for the reasons other editors have already pointed out, if this solution goes searching for problems it is bound to run into many of them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Rosguill, a second pair of eyes is necessary before an article is deleted. That aside, the chances of permissions to allow non-admins to delete articles being agreed to is virtually non-existent. --John B123 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The proposal is made in good faith and at least people are beginning to think outside the box for solutions to NPP, but this isn't it. Further unbundling of admin tools will always meet with resistance and there have been abuse of rights from NPR rights holders, and other reverts of patrollers' actions are not uncommon. . Even if it were to get consensus, anything like this that needs a tweak at Phabricator would be rejected by the salaried WMF devs who make up their own policies as it suits them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my good faith proposal, Kudz. I would not propose anything that was not made in good faith. Of course unbundling is going to meet with resistance; of that I had no doubt. I would actually be appreciative if the reason for not wanting to unbundle actually worked in favor of the project, but it does not...and having said that, I remain openminded to valid contradictions of what I believe to be the case. Convince me, please? We have NPP burnout because it can be a very frustrating exercise, through no fault of any of the involved parties; rather, it is the fault of our process – you know...the one that does not work. For example: a G11 was declined so I draftified it, and out of curiosity I asked the admin if I had gone with A7, what then? The response made perfect sense from that admin's perspective. Admins do not do BEFORE or triage. I am not criticizing anyone because that is not their job but isn't something backwards here? My concerns are focused on NPP, and the unnecessary waste of editors' valuable time on non-notable articles. Are we going to accept every single sports venue in the world? Is that WP's goal? What has the project gained as a result of wasting the valuable time of NPP reviewers who performed BEFORE and attempted triage to no avail? We cannot deny NPP burnout does not exist or that we are losing good reviewers, or that we worry about backlogs. Some reviewers get to the point they are saying WP:IDGAF, and simply let it go. Is that the MO we should adopt? Here is another random example of a rejected A7, and the response. Where is that article today? These are the stats I have requested so we can at least have an educated guess as to how much time is wasted, or if staying on this same path is the right direction. How do we really know what those 6 million articles in our encyclopedia actually look like considering how many fall through the cracks, or that admins have refused to act on? There is obviously an imbalance here. Atsme 💬 📧 01:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are aiming to grant patrollers additional privileges, you’ll need a darned good RFC to justify it. I have mixed feelings so I’d say "D" at this time, but I am open to changing my position if a well-phrased RFC is discussed. I’ve seen something similar with WP:RESPONDER-RFC, but like this proposal, possible hat collecting/abuse is a big sticking point. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit on my oppose, I believe that granting these rights would risk losing important editorial oversight, as even "obvious" cases could be reasonably challenged by some. I've seen enough threads here recently, as well as trends while reviewing the new pages feed, to believe that several problematic scenarios could arise with this set of expanded NPP rights (at least, assuming the bar for NPP is unchanged): for instance, a borderline A7/G11 gets deleted without the admin's second set of eyes (I have encountered a few that I may have draftified instead), or hasty (i.e., in much less than an hour – while an article is still underconstruction – a move already not advised per WP:DRAFTIFY) draftification occurs and a good-faith creator is met with protection. Similarly, while NPP carries a certain level of trust, closing discussions is not within the primary workflow of NPP, and a dubious patrol (it happens to the best of us) is much more easily addressed/contested than a dubious deletion. I agree with Rosguill that a second set of eyes is beneficial. However, I also will acknowledge the frustration that comes with the job; in my opinion, WP:DRAFTIFY needs an overhaul, more so than NPP user rights. ^Complex/_Rational 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback Request: RfC for adding suppressredirect to the NPP right

Hello, all!

I originally asked for feedback at the NPP Coordinators noticeboard but was encouraged to seek everyone's thoughts here . I have drafted a proposal to add the suppressredirect to the NPP toolkit, so we can draftify articles without needing to tag a redirect for deletion. My proposed RfC can be found in my sandbox. I am open to any and all feedback, but would love some thoughts specifically about how likely you would be to support such a proposal. Thank you! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This is sensible from my POV but you're going to get some opposes from people who are concerned NPP do too much draftification and/or are opposed to the concept of draftification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

suppressredirect is quite a powerful user right since it lets you conduct round-robin page swaps, which can be used to move pages to almost any title without much oversight. That means that in practice, this proposal could have the unintentional effect of giving new page patrollers the ability to (for instance) close most requested move discussions or carry out requests at WP:RM/TR, both things that are generally reserved for folks with "participation in requested moves and move reviews, or experience closing move requests". I'm not sure I'm quite convinced that the benefits of this proposal would outweigh the harms: it would slightly reduce the workload for the sysops who have to delete the redirects, but that's a pretty minor benefit, isn't it? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I got page mover on the basis of my NPP need alone which as not uncommon at the time - it's how I knew to ask. Page mover also comes with some other technical rights that an NPP would not need so it's not like the two rights become duplicated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a problem with the status quo of giving out page mover on a case-by-case basis to trustworthy NPPers who perform a particularly large number of draftifications: it's just that in my view, the average reviewer wouldn't get enough use out of suppressredirect to warrant handing it out to everyone. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Almost anyone is allowed to close RMs that they don't have the ability to technically implement (which they can then post to WP:RM/TR). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

True, but in practice people rarely make closures that they don't have the ability to carry out, and when they do RM/TR is there to provide a bit of extra oversight. (As an aside, suppose someone was doing a good job of reviewing but was making problematic moves—if the rights were bundled, revoking suppressredirect would also mean losing a good patroller.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This is also similar to those with the Page Mover Right, which gives one the option of not leaving a redirect. But I agree with Barkeep49, sensible, but you're going to get resistance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)]

(edit conflict):Hi Matthewrb, I've read your draft but I can't immediately see how it will improve the current practice, it's workflow, or the reason for draftifying. I don't think it would be high on the priorities even if it were to gain traction - there are nearly 100 NPP bug and feature request tickets open at Phabricator, some of which have been waiting for attention for several years (see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter). You are welcome to try your RfC but even more important features have been rejected by the WMF because they didn't think the RfC had enough participants. As for where I stand on your proposal, I don't know, I'm more concerned with getting outstanding reviews done and obtaining service for the tools.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this proposal, if it were to succeed, would get implemented with little WMF effort - configuration changes usually do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposed for the same reasons as Extraordinary Writ. And, before you ask, adding an expectation that new page reviewers not use the rights outside of draftifying would not work, as by tradition extremely little effort is spent by anyone other than me enforcing such restrictions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with adding this, though admins should consider NPP a valid reason to ask for page mover (in my experience, they generally do). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A while back I considered asking for page mover, but after some discussion there, decided it was more trouble than it was worth. See Wikipedia_talk:Page_mover#Should_there_be_some_variant_of_this_right_for_new_page_patrollers? for the full discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

rsjaffe why not? It's easy to ask at PERM and the worst thing that can happen is admin says no. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked at PERM and got it and don’t use it for anything except NPP draftifications. Not clear to me why we would need to hand it out automatically, Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Why no? Because the benefits aren’t all that much, as removing those redirects appears to be a low load on admins. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe I said I was neutral when this was first discussed on the coord page. At this point, I am leaning opposed. The biggest reason is that there is not a big need, leaving the deletion of these redirects to Admins is not much of an issue to anyone. The potential problems/side affects/opposition do not outweigh the benefit. MB 20:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any statistics for how big of an issue this actually is? Is there evidence of a backlog of the tagged redirects not being promptly deleted? Without statistics I'd lean oppose. Especially when people can request the pagemovers already permissions anyway. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, all. Sorry I disappeared for a couple of days, real life appeared right after I posted my initial comment... Thank you for all the conversation around this proposal. My concern is not just the burden on the admins, but also the clogging of the feed, since the current guidelines are to not remove a speedy deletion nomination until it has been deleted. Many of the nominations can sit for over 24 hours - which means they are touched by multiple NPP reviewers before being deleted. That being said, in light of the comments here I don't believe this proposal will go far right now. Thank you all for your comments! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Where to report a patroller who has problematic patrols or article creation for possible revocation?

I noticed that a new page patroller had recently created an unsourced BLP and was warned by another editor for it. Clearly if someone believes that creating unsourced BLP is acceptable, they are not suitable to be a patroller. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You can approach any Admin you happen to know with your concern and ask them to look into it. The other option would be to do it publicly where most editor behavioral issues are reported, at WP:ANI. MB 01:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have official guidance on this. Maybe some long time patrollers can let us know if there is a usual spot for this? I would think smaller venues would be better in order to keep the drama down. Any of the following venues could possibly be a good spot: this page (WT:NPPR), WT:PERM, WP:ANI, WP:AARV. Please make sure to inform the editor for transparency. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I found some official guidance at WP:NPP#Unreviewing: In extreme cases you may need to inform an administrator, an NPP coordinator, or post at WP:ANI, but always try to help your colleague first. Is this still our preferred advice? We can always tweak this if necessary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:AARV says it covers advanced permissions. I like that better than ANI because, as you say, less drama. We can change the guidance to In extreme cases you may need to inform an administrator or post at WP:AARV, but always try to help your colleague first. MB 02:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

AARV is still very much in its infancy, and discussions there can go sideways very quickly (plus it isn't the place for discussions about revoking user rights). I wouldn't recommend WT:PERM or WT:NPPR either: they aren't really set up to deal with conduct concerns. ANI is ultimately the best place to take these issues (after trying to discuss with the user in question first, of course), although it can certainly be a bit of a cesspit at times. Bringing the issue up with a trusted administrator is also fine, I think. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This was one of the intended uses of WP:XRV/AARV and, while in a bit of an odd limbo period, it is still active and you are welcome to use it. Otherwise, I agree that the best way to go is to talk to an admin active at PERM and/or NPP directly. Nobody deserves to be thrown the lions at AN(I) as a first resort. – Joe (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

XRV is not the right place for this, it is for incorrect admin actions, not for actions that might well have been perfectly alright at the time but where now some right needs to be revoked for standard editing reasons. I recently tried to solve a similar case by talking to the admin that gave the right in the first place, but they were extremely dismissive, so that's not always a good solution either. WP:ANI is currently the best solution (if issues persist after talking to the editor involved of course). Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Good catch Buidhe. Slightly less public, and where admins still have a voice rather than at ANI which is mainly ruled by a peanut gallery and wannabe governance obsessives, is WP:AN. I certainly know what I would do but I don't tread any of those boards any more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP page issues

Hi folks. Shamefully popping in here to see if anyone can help me troubleshoot why I can't see any pages in my NPP feed? I get the red-text warning 'No pages match your criteria' but I hadn't knowingly set any search criteria yet. Using it on a Chrome browser. Any obvious reasons spring to mind? Cache issues maybe? Zakhx150 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Check your filters. Everything works fine for me with Unreviewed-allothers-showAll. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This has happened to me once. The way I dealt with it was I had to log out, clear my cache, and log back in. Everything worked fine after that. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 12:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I cant open the filters at the minute (presuming same issue?) and the cache clear/log out seems to be a swing and a miss. Curiously, it is also borking out for me when logged in IE and not just Chrome, suggesting something more problematic with my set up. Bafflement continues. Zakhx150 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

So in Special:NewPagesFeed, you click "Set filters" and no filter window opens? Get any WP:CONSOLEERRORs? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Ah, yup I do, two of them: 1) "This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui" Please use OOUI instead." 2) "ext.popups was loaded but everything is disabled". Zakhx150 (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are harmless yellow warnings. The juicy errors are usually in red. Hmm. Did you try Dr vulpes' suggestion of logging out and back in? If you still have the problem after doing that, can you post a screenshot of your Special:NewPagesFeed before and after clicking "Set filters"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I had, through the browser. Have now logged out and done a hard clear with Crtl, shift R and that worked...but only until I logged back in. So this is an improvement that I can now at least see the NPP list whilst logged out, but logging in and then clearing did not resolve it. I can screenshot, but its just the bare feed with 'No pages match your criteria.' in red text and everything else looks as ususal. I can't open the Set Filters drop down though when logged in. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot would be appreciated. I'll use it to identify your skin, see if I see anything abnormal, and see if I'm making a false assumption about something. I'm a developer for that software so I'd like to debug this so I can write a patch for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've bobbed a screenshot on Commons: here - clicking on the Set FIlters doesn't do anything, its as if the button isnt there. So there is no visual difference between them. I appreciate all the effort! Zakhx150 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussions

There are some interesting discussions taking place which may have an effect on NPPers. I've been attempting to help to get the backlog back to reasonableness, and in reviewing certain articles, I've come across large blocks of uncited text. It has been my process if the article might be notable, or in some cases is definitely notable, to draftify those articles. I am not saying these articles need several sources, but are clearly notable (that's a different case, where I'll mark them reviewed and then add the more ref tag at the top -- then go back in a month or so to see if improvements have been made). These articles simply have large blocks of text, usually the bulk of the article, which are simply unsourced. I've felt it was less disruptive to move them to draft, than simply gutting the article. If the draftifying is objected to, at that point I'll remove the large blocks of texts, since I feel that WP:VERIFY is one of the most important policies on WP -- helping us ensure the quality of the project, as well as adding to our credibility. We had an issue similar to this last year or the year before, where an editor was making Canadian river articles, and adding large blocks of texts describing the course of the river, it's tributaries, etc. Without adding sources, or simply adding a link to database, which did not back up the information they were including. And I believe that also escalated to ANI, before it was resolved that WP:VERIFY is a pretty important concept.

But back to the discussions taking place. The first is User talk:Onel5969#Citing the route section on road articles, there is a link in that to the second discussion on the Roads project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles. And finally, there's this brief discussion, as well as this where there's an admin threatening to block me for following policy. Now, looking at this, I bring it up, since I am most likely going to get attacked for following policy, but honestly, I do not know how to review without using policy as the bedrock for reviews. Regardless, I intend to continue reviewing until we get this backlog manageable, but I refuse to ignore policy. I know other reviewers have differing views (since one of the folks disagreeing with my is an NPPer, although not very active). Perhaps someone here could point out to me if I indeed am missing the point. Sorry to blather on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I follow the exact same process. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What article is it particularly? scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

M18 road (Pretoria) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I must say I am taken aback and somewhat annoyed by the statements Rschen7754 is making here and here. Quite frankly, your actions were a net negative as they removed content and alienated an editor in an underrepresented topic (South Africa). - If this is such a big deal, then why didn't you go ahead and add the citations yourself? - my aunt Fanny. Why are we getting these statements from an administrator who a) should be aware that enforcing a fundamental policy is more important than following an essay, and b) that obliging new page patrollers to "just go and find the sources yourself" is a recipe for getting NPP productivity and participation down to zero? We do triage, that means excision and/or draftifying to prevent unsourced stuff in mainspace. - Having said that, if you are heading into conflict you want to keep your ducks in a row; talk page use, formal warnings, and punting things upstairs when 3RR is looming. It's no good getting strung up on the strength of incidentals when you are right in principle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And now of course it's at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Elmidae, sage advice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. NPP off to ANI for removing OR and uncited material in a careful and considered manner? What next? Luckily, I think this one's a clear WP:SNOWBALL... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And possibly a WP:BOOMERANG but it's nothing more than a new user having discovered ANI and being a bit over enthusiastic with the power it gives editors over other editors. Do rally round and support Onel5969 there by all means because if we lose him we'll be in a pickle, but also to underline our policies more than anything else but I don't think Roads4117 needs more than a big trout, well, this time anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that... not really concerned about the ANI (although it's a pain), but was more concerned with the assault on the policy, VERIFY. I also found the fact of an admin encouraging an ANI action for this very troubling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, that ANI exploded very quickly... I see reasonable arguments on both sides, but I'd prefer not go too deep down that rabbit hole. Admittedly, roads aren't the most contentious subject, so in some cases it may suffice to slap on {{unreferenced}}, {{more citations needed}}, or {{citation needed}} (especially if a quick WP:BEFORE suggests that the necessary sources may exist), then check back and remove if necessary, and leave a friendly talk page message if any one editor is habitually creating such articles. Verifiability is indeed one of the core policies, but when BLP, quotations, stats, etc. are not involved, IMO there's little harm in a grace period and taking a step back. I see that Roads4117 has already received messages on several occasions about sourcing, though also said at the ANI that it says on my userpage this user recognizes the importance of citing sources. This is true - I just need a little bit of help/guidance for which references to use for what etc. – much more strongly suggestive of confusion. In any case, the burden on NPP is not to add sources, merely determine whether they have a strong likelihood of existing (pass or fail). Onel5969, given how the ANI blew up (even if you're not concerned about the outcome), I might suggest reviewing other articles in the meantime to not give an impression of singling out one editor's work (this is not a feeling only newcomers experience). I second Elmidae's wisdom above as well – NPP is overburdened enough with thankless work as things stand and upholding WP:V is a critical aspect of that work. ^Complex/_Rational 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I edit in queue order, nothing else. In the last 16 days I've reviewed 2 of the pages this editor has worked on. I've reviewed hundreds of articles during that stretch, and I had never interacted with them prior to that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't done a detailed examination of the log. Your chipping away at the backlog is, as always, appreciated. ^Complex/_Rational 01:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Chipping away? He appears to be armed with a chainsaw.... Ovinus (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

A chainsaw is just as valid a woodworking tool as a chisel and mallet, see Chainsaw carving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The new challenges facing the reviewers

We've discussed the exponential growth in the expansion of the Internet in some regions and the availability of low-cost smart phones there - well noted that we got some flak from two users who boldly accused us of "xenophobia and racism" for mentioning it in the first draft of the Open Letter - but this excellent article in August by Akhil George in The Times of India, one of the country's most respected newspapers, makes no bones about it: "India recently became the second largest contributor to the English Wikipedia after the US".

If that doesn't confirm the need for reviewers who can read sources in Indic languages and who understand MOS:COMMONALITY, I don't know what does. Any campaigns to recruit new reviewers should bear this in mind, but we want to avoid another Wifione (former admin) which is another reason why reviewers should always be on their mettle and not patrol too quickly - and why admins should be sure to do in-depth due diligence before according the reviewer right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Rapid progress

Based on the number from yesterday, we should be able to clear the backlog this month at this rate, amazingly! (Of course that rate isn't sustainable though as people will burn-out.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A zero backlog may be attainable towards the end of the drive. That'd be amazing for morale. I participated in a 2021 AFC backlog drive that achieved zero backlog and it felt amazing. Let's see what we can do! –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

And I'm about to graduate another reviewer here shortly!! Atsme 💬 📧 16:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Woohoo. Atsme doing a fantastic job with training as always :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP is in The Signpost - again

The Signpost September issue was published a few minutes ago. This month's 'In focus' column is dedicated to NPP and also includes a reprint of the Open Letter appeal that was signed by a total of 444 editors. As yet there has been no official response on the page for replies to the letter which was published earlier this month on Meta and Wikipedia, and personally notified to around 80 members of the senior WMF staff and Board of Trustees. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The article about NPP had the highest number of visits on the first day of publication. It didn't generate a lot of comments but nor did any other articles. User comments were supportive. The WMF left a long speech instead of replying to the letter in the right place. They had clearly not read their emails and had confused the Open Letter action with an article about it in a newspaper. The Board of Trustees has not made any public acknowledgment to either the letter or the Signpost article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent article, Kudz, MB & NL!! I commented there, but the comments that were already there before I arrived cover it pretty well. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice article, y'all. Going forward it'll probably be wise to play into some of the WMF's priorities and sympathies, for example by focusing on new users and especially foreign-language users. How discouraging is it for, say, aspiring Indian- or African-language users to get all their contributions turned down or deleted, and only after 3 months (due to some backlog), without opportunity for improvement? That might sway them harder than a focus on the experiences of established editors and overall encyclopedic quality (even though we may weigh these higher). Ovinus (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It's already being done Ovinus, including the WMF's major current development for onboarding new mobile phone users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Keeping a log of AFD, CSD and others that you nominated using Page curation

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207237

Nominating new articles for AFD, CSD, and others using Page curation does not keep a log. Is there a way to activate it or is it only Twinkle that logs these nominations? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. This is a good idea and a ticket exists for it. phab:T207237. Unfortunately new features are harder than bug fixes so volunteer devs haven't gotten around to this one yet. If our open letter succeeds, perhaps WMF devs can code this. Thank you for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be even better if it used the same logging mechanism as Twinkle, getting compatible log pages. MarioGom (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. No need to reinvent the wheel. My suggested implementation is for it to read twinkleoptions.js and basically do exactly what Twinkle does. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow

I am so proud of all of you.... the backlog between 1/1/2020 and 4/30/2022 is .... 0. (There's one article there, but it's prodded). Great job folks. As the bard said, "I am amazed and know not what to do." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Says you! Ovinus (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

We definitely have reason to be proud or our little reviewers!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Marking AFDd pages as reviewed

Do you support/oppose the following sentence that is currently in WP:NPP: Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them, as their fate will be decided via discussion and they can't fall through the cracks if tags are removed (a bot will restore them so long as the AfD discussion is open)? An editor is concerned that it may not reflect consensus. There's some years old discussions so let's get a fresh consensus. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support AfD is dispositive so there is nothing left for the reviewer to do. What would be the point of having a page that survived AfD but was not marked as reviewed? Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per this prior discussion, and a more recent discussion wherein I stated: There are times when an AfD is closed as keep or no consensus based only on the closer's opinion and a single iVote, possibly 2; one of whom may be the article creator. That is not much different from a rejected PROD or CSD. I don't see how that could be considered a healthy consensus. NPP reviewers should at least get a second look at it. Per that same discussion (I linked to here): We now have a new filter at the NewPagesFeed that can filter out pages 'nominated for deletion' (CSD, PROD, and AfD, and soon to contain RfD as well), so we have a better solution for those that like to use the 'next' button; they can just uncheck 'nominated for deletion' and their system will just skip those articles in the queue. If an AfD ends in no consensus because there wasn't enough participation, any NPP reviewer should feel free to bring it up at WT:NPP for input, and at least give us a chance to either WP:FIXIT or renom with increased participation. It doesn't hurt anything for reviewers to participate in AfDs, quite the opposite is true. I wouldn't sweat the backlogs because having better quality articles in main space is far more important than rushing through reviews because of a backlog. If we are doing the job correctly, we should not be rushing through our reviews or making snap decisions that may lead to mistakes like this, and this. Atsme 💬 📧 21:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This procedure was added to WP:NPP in 2019 and to the flowchart in 2019 and has been stable since then. I agree with the logic, that is, the AFD tag is un-gameable (a bot will re-add it if it's removed, and the AFD page itself will exist and eventually be closed by an admin) and the community will decide notability for us, therefore these are safe to mark as reviewed as soon as an AFD is created. For these pages with an AFD that are not marked as reviewed, I usually do an Earwig copyvio check, a quick read to make sure it's not an attack page or other serious CSD, then I mark as reviewed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. When an article is sent to AFD, NPP's job is done and the article should not be in the queue anymore. If any editor, whether a reviewer or not, disagrees with the outcome of an AFD, they can certainly follow-up as they choose (WP:DRV, renominate in the future if something has changed that is likely to result in a different outcome, or perhaps start bigger policy discussions in any number of places). MB 22:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support If an article is severely problematic and still passes AfD—even as no consensus—then that's a problem with AfD, not NPP. We aren't the final arbiters of what does or does not stay, merely a first line of defense. And AfD tends to draw more eyes, including in borderline cases, which is usually better than the opinion of one patroller. Ovinus (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support - if an article goes to AfD and is deleted, there is no problem. If it is kept, than AfD acts as the review process. The one area which is problematic is if the result is "no consensus". And that could be a concern. Just in the past week I've come across at least 3 articles which fit this last category, and were still in the queue. For the past several years, I've routinely marked AfD'd articles as "reviewed" when I come across them in the queue. One thing I wasn't thinking about was something that Novem Linguae brought up, and that's copyvio ck. From now on, I'll incorporate that into my patrol before clicking an AfD as reviewed, since that is not something which the AfD process covers. However, aside from that, I don't think the no consensus issue is big enough to change the system which has been working for a couple of years, although I do understand Atsme's concerns. If the consensus was not to mark them as reviewed, I'd be fine with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It gives another editor a chance to look at it, furthering the "more eyes the better" process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 20:20, September 28, 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is the tool's default and seems to make sense to me - as others have said, AfD is itself a 'thing' and if we send an article to AfD and it survives, this is the will of the Great Consensus. The idea below merely adds to my supportiness and, I think, addresses Atsme's concern. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Most plausible issues that would hold up a patrol or justify removing an article from mainspace would almost certainly be flagged during NPP or at AfD; in the latter case, a WP:BEFORE also would inherently qualify as a review, after which NPP's job is done. If an article makes it through both, it's most likely suitable for publication (the same thought when marking articles as patrolled), notwithstanding collective oversights. Although bad AfD closures do occur, avoiding those ought to be the community's and/or closing admin's responsibility. In any case, one AfD closed as keep/no consensus does not immediately preclude another. ^Complex/_Rational 12:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support We have bigger fish to fry. A few problems escaping AfD shouldn’t be on our list of things to be concerned about for NPP. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support In an ideal world if we had plenty of active NPPers I might oppose as per Atsme, but right now I agree more with rsjaffein that there are bigger fish to fry. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm with MB on this one, NPP's job is done once a page is sent to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support . It's not up to NPP to question a close at AfD whether done NAC or by an admin. Once reviewed, move on and do some more reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Kudz, what about the AfDs that were tagged by someone other than a reviewer (deletionist), and only 2 editors cast iVotes? I guess that doesn't matter, either, right? Atsme 💬 📧 16:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, Atsme, it's not our concern. One of the conditions imposed by the community on creating the NPR user right was that all editors remain free to tag articles for maintenance and deletion manually or with Twinkle. I believe most articles that are tagged by non reviewers are no longer in the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Then let's get a bot to do all AfD noms, including AFDs by non-patrollers. If there is truly no reason for us to have AFD noms in our queue, then let's eliminate them by marking them automatically reviewed at the point of being tagged AfD. They are in the NPP queue, probably as a removed redirect or a reverted draftify, that a non-patroller nommed for AfD so make the AfD tag include auto-review and keep those articles out of our queue. Novem Linguae can you make that happen? Atsme 💬 📧 16:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Something we wouldn't want to happen, though, is an editor nominating an article for deletion, then having the page be automatically be reviewed by a bot, then that same editor withdrawing and/or G7'ing their nomination before it receives any input from others, while the article itself remains patrolled – regardless of whether it's a good-faith action or an attempt to game the system. DanCherek (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a Twinkle preference to automatically mark AFDs as reviewed and I believe most NPPers use that. As NL said previously, other ones need to be manually checked for potential copyvios, and that there is indeed a corresponding deletion discussion page. There are times a AFD is started manually and all the steps are not completed, and sometimes tools have hickups. I have been checking for these daily and I find no more than a handful (I don't have any idea how many others may be getting marked as reviewed by other than the AFD-nominator). MB 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking it is a simple fix, Dan - the auto review is done in concert with the AfD tag but not as a bot, more like a built-in switch with reviewed/unreviewed triggers (and-ifs?) in the code so if the AfD tag is removed before a consensus is reached (changing to a CSD, or PROD & removal of the tag), the article is unreviewed and stays in the queue. If it remains in place and is closed as keep, then reviewed remains. We don't have that tool right now but it seems doable to me. Atsme 💬 📧 17:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I tested both PageTriage and Twinkle just now by creating an AFD of a test page. Both were marked as reviewed automatically. Looks like our software already does this by default. I would speculate the most common situation where AFDs don't get marked as reviewed is non-NPPs creating AFDs. This would leave them as unreviewed in the queue. I would be mildly opposed to having a bot mark these as reviewed automatically because then they would not get checked for copyright violations and serious CSD violations by our patrollers. However our patrollers can still do a much simpler review than normal (no notability check) then mark these as reviewed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per MB. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's a pity we have no fully reliably way to distinguish when an article has been reviewed because of an AFD nomination, but for the no consensus problem, we could consider some additional technical assistance. Like using a bot to gather a list of recent no consensus outcomes in recently reviewed articles, or automatically unreviewing after a no consensus. MarioGom (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I personally consider "no consensus" a valid AFD result not needing an unreview, follow up, or second AFD. I mean no disrespect to those who disagree though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. While Atsme is right that AfDs are sometimes closed based on weak or no consensus, it isn't NPP's job to second guess that. We're a first-line triage, looking for urgent and serious problems. Even a no consensus closes indicates that the article probably does not fall into that category. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Unsurprising that I would support this, as I was the one that wrote the quoted line. NPP has nothing to do with article review after it has gone through AfD. If the guys at AfD do a bad job, that's a job for deletion review, or chatting with the closer. A close of no-consensus is still a de-facto keep. Once again, not our problem. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• support per above 10 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Marking AFDd pages as reviewed)

I would like to have a consolidated page for articles nominated for deletion by patrollers in the course of patrolling. This would get me to participate in afd more and hopefully get more eyes on certain discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea! Atsme 💬 📧 00:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Second that! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, this could be done with a bot that runs every X hours, or by adding code to PageTriage and Twinkle that writes to a log page when creating AFDs. This log could get quite big: I don't know the exact numbers but I suspect the majority of AFDs are done by NPPs. Because of the size, maybe a bot that deletes an AFD (from the log page) every time it adds an AFD is the best way to do this. Might be worth a WP:BOTREQ. It could log to a userspace subpage to be WP:BOTEXEMPT. Or it could be a deletion sorting subpage, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nominated by new page patroller. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Bot request filed at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to maintain a list of recent AFDs by new page patrollers –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Novem Linguae. That will help, as it appears consensus is going to support marking AfDs reviewed, but not CSD & PRODs, right? Hope you emphasized that above. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess a source of error (though likely small) would be people with the NPP flag who are creating AFDs for already reviewed articles as part of activities outside of patrolling the NPP queue? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a small source of error, because a large proportion of 'maintenance-focused' editors incidentally have the NPP perm. You would also have to figure out what to do with nominations by sysops, who don't need the explicit NPP perm to patrol. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Mccapra captures it rightly. Marking AfDed pages is very much convenient. I don't find any sense otherwise. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

PageTriage security patch

@MER-C, @Rosguill, and anyone else who deals with UPE editors. I found a bug in PageTriage that let folks without autopatrol mark their own articles as reviewed, if they used the API or Special:APISandbox. More details at phab:T314245. It's fixed now, but it may be worth a look through the logs to see if anyone besides me figured out this exploit and tried to use it. Perhaps WP:QUERY can assist with pulling some data. If we find out that someone did use this, I think the likelihood is very high that they are a UPE, and further action should be taken. Hope that helps, thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Novem Linguae. Perhaps someone who needs to formulate the exact request could ask for the people at QUERY to come up with the data. That said It's bugs like these that should really be the responsibility of the WMF to write the patches once a Phab ticket has been opened. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

How long has this bug been present? MER-C 16:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Forever, I believe. I doubt someone accidentally deleted auth checking code. It was most likely forgotten since PageTriage was created. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I did a database query and found 8 possible instances of this bug (an article that was, at one point in time, marked as reviewed by the creator when the creator doesn't hold autopatrolled). They are:

1. César Batiz - technically a false positive because the creator was autopatrolled at the time, however they were later blocked for UPE so the article may deserve a fresh review.
2. Gerua - the presence of a subsequent history merge makes it extremely hard to tell what happened, but it looks like an actual instance. It's moot, though, since an independent NPR reviewed the article later after a few rounds of contested BLARs putting it back in the queue.
3. Big room house - another false positive due to the creator having autopatrolled at the time, although they were later WMF-banned. (History merges again make the history confusing, the creation is Special:Diff/766507663, all earlier edits were history merged in.)
4. AK-726 - looks like an actual instance. Probably doesn't indicate any UPE behavior, though.
5. National Guard (Mexico) - false positive, the page was later pageswapped to a different title, moving a page that the reviewer created on top of one that they reviewed
6. Sharmila Thapa - false positive caused by history merge/split
7. George Nicholas (animator) - false positive caused by later undeletion
8. Amir Hamza (poet) - ironically, a UPE sock unknowingly exploited this bug when they used Twinkle to AfD an article they had created

So, I don't see any problems. It's possible I've missed something, though, so it may be useful to get someone else to do some querying. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done Pppery. Great detective work. Here is the query if anyone wants to tweak it: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/63531. It missed my test page, likely because I did db-author on it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I don't count deleted pages. I also don't count redirects, because there were several hundred instances of a user marking a page as reviewed and then moving it to a different title, which showed up as false positives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Quirk with curation

I'm not sure where this is best raised, so feel free to point me elsewhere, but I wanted to get some eyes on an issue with Page Curation, which describes User:Juandissimo1 as a possible attack page for reasons that aren't obvious (and blatantly faulty). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The "possible spam/vandalism/attack predictions, are also from WP:ORES." I don't know if they really have any meaning on a User page. I would just ignore them. User pages don't need to be patrolled in the first place. MB 21:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder, why hasn't the patrol/review option been removed from user pages? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it, but it has not achieved consensus yet. You and others, please feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Remove userspace from Special:NewPagesFeed?. If enough folks support, I'll create a Phabricator ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Voiced my support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It uses machine learning to decide when to apply the tag. Clearly machines wont be replacing humans anytime soon :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

PageTriage AFD bug is probably fixed

Those of you that often get the "I tagged for AFD with Page Curation toolbar and it did everything except make the AFD page" bug, please run the software through its paces and see if you can reproduce it. Pretty good chance it's fixed this time. In the event of great success, all credit goes to Chlod. In the event of great failure, we will all run and hide, making it hard for you to lodge your complaints! :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for posting this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries?

Why there's no edit summary on this edit? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile: See phab:T319121 for the Phabricator task. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, backlog down to 2k

Incredible job – all I can say is please leave us some unreviewed pages for NPPSCHOOL exercises! CONGRATULATIONS, REVIEWERS. I will be happy to buy a round for all of you at the next in-person WikiCon!!!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:21, October 11, 2022 (UTC)

Mine's a pint of Chartreuse... (others are WAY more deserving of libations, mind...) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Chartreuse only comes in single, double or treble... Atsme 💬 📧 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Great job to everybody contributing! Looks like those in the backlog drive are going to need to re-review articles to keep busy instead of just reviewing new articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• When was the last time the backlog was this low? Not sure I remember it ever being under 2000. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Back in 2018 or so, we dipped below 2000 for a few days I believe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Might have been 2019. I think we made a real mistake in not getting it to zero (if only momentarily) there because I suspect that would have some large psychological benefits and help with efforts to keep the queue longterm down. While I am not actively contributing to reviewing at the moment a huge congratulations and I genuinely hope the team can get it the rest of the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The July 2018 newsletter says that we hit 500 in June of that year. There was a backlog drive then too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I only started NPP in 2020 so it seems very exciting to me! Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mccapra, @Onel5969, @Barkeep49, @MPGuy2824. The longer term chart of the backlog is up on my user page (copied below). It hit nearly zero in mid 2018. It was around ~2000 in 2021 at one point as well. Both were very brief downspikes though. Hopefully we can manage to get it down and keep it down this time. There was also some prior manual data that I had added to the first chart below if you want to see what the pre-2018 backlog looked like. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

These two charts show all the data going back as far as we have records for. MusikAnimal didn't include the manual data (first chart) in the automated chart (second chart) when he made it since he didn't trust it (some of the early data was based on comments here and elsewhere that I scoured and collected where people where commenting on what the backlog was doing). — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

awesome work! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nicely done... very interesting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• And now we slip under 1,500... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• under 1,000--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Under 100! — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 02:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wow, this is the first time in my almost 4 years here that I've seen the backlog go to double digits. Major credit to everyone who has participated. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Curbon7 It hasn't ever been this low as long as I've been at NPP (since around 2017). I remember seeing a message somewhere that the backlog was near zero back in 2016 sometime though, so at least 6 years, maybe more. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 06:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Old backlog

I've been doing this for a little while now, and I group articles into categories: 1 - new articles - day or two old; 2 - front of the queue - up to 30 days old; Prime reviewing - 31-90 days old; old articles - over 90 days, up to a year old; and very old articles. In my time here, I've never seen the Very old backlog at zero before. Not only did we accomplish that, the backlog of what I would consider Old articles also hit zero for the first time I can remember. Now, of course, I'm not including articles that are in the process of prods/AfDs, etc. But wow.

Today's Queue

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Our current NPP team:  !!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is truly extraordinary! Never in all these 12 years did I expect to see a zero queue. - congratulations to all who contributed to this amazing feat! You'll all be pleased to know that while you've been slaving away, some of us are working hard to push for new, upgraded software that will make patrolling more pleasurable, encourage more patrolers to do more reviewing, and ultimately keep the queue within tolerable limits. Thank you all again 🙏🏼 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Has the backlog hit zero already? @Onel5969: In your screenshot it looks like it's filtered to just creations by one user? We're at 334 now, though, so today could be the day... – Joe (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Dang... wrong screen shot. That filter was for just one user, but at that moment in time. it was also zero for all users as well, up through 8/31. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Error with R2 tagging?

There's a bunch of redirects that reviewers have tagged via draftify user script for speedy deletion under CSD R2 (inappropriate cross-namespace redirects) that can be found here, yet none of them are included in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. A few of these were tagged for speedy deletion up to 24 hours ago (e.g. Korea TV and Terry Gudaitis). Bennv123 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

seems to have been done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bennv123 is right. I meant to follow up on this post but I never got around to it. I did see the same thing that Bennv123 did. I cleared cache several times but I was still not seeing several recently tagged redirects appearing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This issue only seems to affect redirects tagged via this draftify user script, so I guess that's where the problem lies. Pages tagged for R2 deletion manually or via Twinkle show up just fine in the speedy deletion categories. Bennv123 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There might be something unusual about how the draftify user script does its page editing. PageTriage bug phab:T321192 only occurs when the draftify script is used to place {{Db-r2}}, and smells similar to what is going on here. It just has a different symptom (the tag being invisible to PageTriage's Special:NewPagesFeed, instead of the tag being invisible to categories). –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC of interest to this project: How should we manage mass article creation?

There is an RfC in progress at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale about how the community should approach mass creations of articles. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello New pages patrol,

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.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

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.

an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation - I realized I've not been in compliance with this when it comes to G4, my thinking being that if a past discussion has decided the topic is not notable nothing can be done about it and waiting gives false hope. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify this still excludes G1/G3/G10/G11/G12 or has the policies changed? Per WP:NPP, Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. Outside these exceptions, 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. VickKiang (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What you quoted is correct. I imagine it was made more concise for the newsletter. Anything serious/egregious such as G10 should still be tagged immediately. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this probably was too concise, it should have said "(see tutorial for exceptions)." MB 04:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A 'thank you' message

Suggested minor new feature in Page Curation: Send a message to every creator on 'Mark as reviewed'.

On clicking 'Mark as reviewed', unless you use the message feature to send a very personalised message, the Page Curation would automatically send a friendly 'personal' stock message to the creator:

Thank you for creating xxxxxx. I have passed your article as reviewed. If you have any questions, or if there are any tags on it you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page or at the Teahouse. ~~~~

This lets the creator know that s/he is not an island, and it serves to let them know that their work has been noticed by a human. Just one of those nice little things that no one has ever thought of and it might help user retention; it's better than the current notification. Please let us know if you support or oppose the idea.

Support

1. As proposer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Love it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
3. I like this. It involves the editor, shows interest and collects them. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
4. I think it's a wonderful idea. Maybe add a way to opt-out for people who aren't interested in recieving messages like this? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
5. I like this too - though perhaps with an opt-out (either as a manual tickbox or intelligent based on the e.g. existence of the corresponding AfD page or conversion to a redirect) for cases where e.g. we mark as reviewed after sending to AfD, as that might get confusing. Mike1901 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
6. great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
7. Yes, but, "passed your article as reviewed" sounds like no problems were found and no tags added. Perhaps "reviewed your article"?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:04, 19 October 2022

   It doesn't, because it goes on to say "...or if there are any tags on it you don't understand,..." Not all tags are a reason to not pass a new article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, but some of those would be a "provisional pass", and doesn't guarantee the article won't be deleted later. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   What about "marked your article as reviewed"? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Kj cheetham, Why not? Good idea. There never was an RfC proposal that was graven in stone.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

8. Conditional Support with choice of 2 options - just Teahouse for Opt 1 and as is above for Opt 2 and let the reviewer choose which option. Atsme 💬 📧 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)(UTC)
9. Support the concept; but some of the people in the oppose or comment sections have suggested some tweaks that would be improvements. I think I can still support the idea and we can tweak the wording a little bit. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Of course it can be tweak, ONUnicorn - that what an RfC is normally all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

10. Support as long as 1) the reviewer can choose to send it or not, and 2) only for newer (non extended-confirmed) users. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Wouldn't this create a lot of user talk spam for high volume page creators? I could support a version of this that had some kind of constraint, e.g. send the message if the user is not extendedconfirmed. New users probably benefit the most from a warm welcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Even though I support this idea, I agree with your concern and your proposed solution seems simple enough. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Novem Linguae, Why not make that as a suggestion rather than an outright oppose? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   High volume creators should be autopatrolled, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

2. Users already get notified via Echo notification when their page is reviewed, that's sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Strongly oppose. I don't keep records, but I would guess somewhere between 30-60% of the articles I mark "reviewed" are still poor articles. Sending a message like this to all those creators would simply encourage them to create more poor articles. I mean, do we really need to encourage 1 line articles to a village in India or Pakistan, with a single source? I wouldn't be opposed if there were something we could click, which would send that message if we chose to, and yet not as much effort as the personalized message.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   onel5969, Perhaps in the race to turn NPP into a MMORPG too many borderline articles are being passed. Why don't you make a suggestion instead of an outright oppose? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   I thought my last sentence did just that? Or should I put it in another category? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Then your version of English is not the same as mine, Onel5969. I read 'Strongly oppose'. I don't see an attempt at aiming for a genuine suggestion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   "I wouldn't be opposed if there were something we could click, which would send that message if we chose to, and yet not as much effort as the personalized message." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   onel5969, like I said, its a clear strong oppose. I don't see any attempt to engage in a discussion. Lets leave it at that, shall we? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   "Perhaps in the race to turn NPP into a MMORPG" Ah, come on, now - do we need this? NPP is looking good right now - is there some conflict of approach/ideology? I didn't see that (mind you, I'm tone deaf). I think this boils down to a suggestion that the message is potentially optional or conditional. So we have the option to 1) send Kudpung's encouraging default message (possibly a text modified with input from the AfC) 2) send a personalised message to the author (and not to the article talk page, as per our earlier discussions about this sort of thing) or even 3) Just mark as reviewed and send no message. But let's not fall out about discussing/wrangling a (what I, at least, see as) fundamentally good idea. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Oppose, as per User:onel5969 and others. I would still support this as an optional add on. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 15:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose, echo notifications are sufficient, if there is additional context to be provided, page curation already has support for sending feedback. This seems like it would just generate a lot of spam on frequent page creators talk pages. W42 15:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
6. This would require developer (volunteer or Foundation) time to do and I'd prefer that time be spent on other priorities. Obviously if a volunteer went ahead and made this an option - not just when leaving a comment - it wouldn't be the end of the world for me because volunteers should get a lot of discretion in their time but this is fairly "low hanging" fruit for the foundation and I could see it being bumped up above things we care about more were it to land on their plate. This is beyond the issues Onel brings up. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Barkeep49, I don't think the proposal was about the way it could be done. The question was more as a proof of concept. If it were to gain consensus, it's not urgent and like RfA reforms, the technical details could be argued about later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   @Kudpung I'm just reacting to the proposal. On clicking 'Mark as reviewed', unless you use the message feature to send a very personalised message, the Page Curation would automatically send a friendly 'personal' stock message to the creator. We do not have that ability with current message templates. So someone would need to program a new template to be sent. If it's a volunteer, well OK. It's not my preference but hey volunteers get to do what they want. But if it's the foundation who would do the programming I'd much prefer them to focus on other priorities. And precisely because this is "minor" I suspect they'd favor this change over ones we'd care about more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Barkeep49, like I said, the proposal is a Proof of concept. No RfC proposal is graven in stone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

   Sure. I'm just commenting on the two ways this can go from concept to feature. One of them is no problem for me, one of them is a problem for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

7. Oppose for the same reasons as One. (t · c) buidhe 16:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose. One, the target demographic is actually quite small - contributors so new that they appreciate and/or require this kind of early-career encouragement (and a possible link to the Teahouse) - i.e., first or second article? That's not your average new article producer, so it would definitely have to be case-by-case opt-in rather than opt-out. But two, I frankly don't see the point of this additional message feature. The NPP "mark reviewed" function already gives the option of adding a personalized message that is delivered to the creator's talk page. So this would in effect just duplicate this with a pre-set macro? Wouldn't it be easier for any reviewer interested in such a thing to have a little text snippet ready to paste in there? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per Onel. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose per rationale that Echo notification is sufficient and reviewer has ability to send direct feedback separately via curation and regular talk page interaction. —Sirdog (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
11. Weak Oppose per Onel5969. However, I might support if it's an optional message instead of automatic. VickKiang (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment

1. I really like this idea, but I think it would put more work on our high volume reviewers. If there was a setting I could check while reviewing that would send this message I would do it selectively like if I see the author is a newer editor. I like that this happens in AfC but I feel that dynamic is different because in AfC you're waiting a long time and are expected to give at least some feedback on the article if you decline it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 14:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
2. I like this as the default, but I'd only support it if there was an option to not do it, on a case by case basis (e.g. a checkbox that is checked by default). I don't believe it's required for every single review done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Provide 2 options - one that just uses Teahouse, and the other uses both. Atsme 💬 📧 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Options

In looking at the comments/votes above, even in the oppose section, many of the editors are not adverse to some form of this. Rather than simply support/oppose, how about we vote on choices. I'll make an attempt at summarizing what I feel are the options, and then we can all see which the majority of us prefer.

1. Option 1 - Do nothing.
2. Option 2 - Kudpung's original suggestion (see above).
3. Option 3 - To make Kudpung's suggestion an option you have to select.
4. Option 4 - To make Kudpung's suggestion an option you have to opt out of sending.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'll start it off by choosing Option #3.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Good idea, I would be okay with option 3. I wouldn't use it myself—I think automated "friendliness" is kind of a contradiction in terms—but as long as it's opt-in, why not? Opt-out would be too risky given that it's common to review batches of articles by the same author one after the other. – Joe (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Functionality effectively already exists, and I guess I'm with Barkeep49 when it comes to implementation - there's plenty of more important stuff to fix/expand and I wouldn't want this taking up development resources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for me. I get Onel's reservations, but I loved the idea from the get-go. So this fixes things for me. We could still finesse the language, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 That way, you're unlikely to inadvertently thanks-bomb a frequent contributor — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Should be similar to AfC script for teahouse message, which reviewer has to select and also does sanity check on whether editor has previously been sent the message.Slywriter (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4. As I said, an RfC is a 'Request for Comment'. It's not a straw poll and there was never a RfC where the proposal didn't get fine tuned. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - it's a no-brainer. Atsme 💬 📧 12:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 seems sensible, though isn't high priority to implement. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 is ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Option 3, Prefer Option 1 If it is to be created then I believe it's a no-brainer that it's opt-in, easy peezy. However, I concur with Elmidae and in extension Barkeep that the ability to do this functionally already exists. Sure, this would be faster, but the NPP ethos is quality over quantity. I think that should extend to communications with people where this template would matter, and there is already a significant shortcut in giving the custom message before you hit the review button. —Sirdog (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Question about google search

This may be the wrong venue to ask, but here it goes. . . . I created the article "Robert Searight" in May and it passed NPP review in July. Why doesn't the page show in a google search? For example it doesn't come up when I search for "Wikipedia Robert Searight". Thanks in advance. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Bammesk, Just because Google and other search engines can see and index the article doesn't mean they'll display it. It does look like some index servers have recorded that it's there. Check this link out. Hope that clears things up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

And then there were none...

(with apologies to Agatha Christie...

And yes, Joe Roe, I did doublecheck my filters this time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely historic. Congratulations all! – Joe (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Incredible! I never suspected I would see a zero backlog when I saw the monster of it back in June when I was training under Atsme. Thank you to all of the active patrollers who took part in this! —Sirdog (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow. And now we will get to find out about the latency of this particular process :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, seriously. I haven't seen this since I first started doing reviews almost a decade ago. I hardly remember what it was like to run out of pages to review and have to wait for somebody to publish something! ASUKITE 15:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I remember mad numbers - 14,000? More? And now a shiny, clean stable smelling of cheap pine disinfectant! Well done, all you Herculean folk! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done, team! I'd like to say now, "a review a day keeps the backlog away" if we can maintain this level of commitment. ^Complex/_Rational 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What amazing teamwork! I am a new reviewer who joined the team a few months ago during the peak of the backlog (but I've been an editor on WP for a while). I am thoroughly impressed with the NPP community, and am grateful to many of the editors here for your help and guidance and answering my various questions and pointing out my mistakes. When I first joined NPP, I thought, "uh oh, this is the short cut to insanity" and that maybe I wasn't cut out for it. But time an again I witnessed how editors work together here and I have one word for you all: RESPECT!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

well done!!!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This is amazing, well done to all! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Congrats team! And special thanks to those heavy lifters (you know who you are), and thanks to the newcomers that have been doing the good slog (I even came out of retirement to do a few reviews last night as well, just to feel part of the moment ;). We are still in 80/20 territory with the reviewrs, but the 20 has gotten a lot more diverse recently. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 01:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's quite amazing. I can state that it's never been done before (yes, I've been around that long). It makes a change from the 36,000 backlog we had before the user right was rolled out. In order to keep it this way we're working on a project that will not only make Page Curation more streamlined, but will also better educate the creators in several more friendly ways. Our Open Letter has had the desired effect and we now have the full attention the top people in command. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Amazing is an understatement. We have an excellent team, and it is growing. In addition to having bright reviewers, I credit camaraderie (at Discord), kinship & a bit more confidence after graduating NPPSCHOOL. We learn the basics in school, and the real life, hands-on experience verifies what we've learned and sets our course. Just my thoughts... Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• And now the question: How long can we keep it under 100? What record number of days/weeks/months can we manage? — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 06:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Stuck pages needing review

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T321322

Hi all — some testing has uncovered a few pages which are unable to be marked as reviewed due to a bug. These are:

• Body of light (c. 2006)  Done
• Demographics of Northern Cyprus (c. 2008)  Done
• List of Norwegian football transfers summer 2014 (c. 2014)  Done
• Lilian Shelley (c. 2014)  Done
• 2018 Miami Open (c. 2018)  Done
• 2019 FireKeepers Casino 400 (c. 2019)  Done
• 2020 PDC Home Tour (c. 2020)  Done

On a quick review, these all seem to be pages which would be marked now as "reviewed". I'd like to propose, technical restrictions notwithstanding, that these are manually (i.e. via a database change) marked as reviewed. Seeing as NPP reviewers are the editors who would have marked such pages as reviewed, I believe it proper to ask your permission and gain your consensus to do so, instead of just "fixing it" as a technical hiccup. @Novem Linguae: Pinging just so you're aware of this proposal. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it a chrome bug? Body of light is good. scope_creep^Talk 11:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, not a front end bug. Likely a back end bug in PageTriage PHP somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I just marked Lilian Shelley as reviewed without issue. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

List of Norwegian football transfers summer 2014 I can't do though. I've not looked at the others. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: Interesting.. I just made a null edit to that page and was then able to mark it reviewed — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oohh, you're right, Body of light is now showing reviewed... can you try Demographics of Northern Cyprus? I'm on Firefox, but I've not tried with another browser.... — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

🤦‍♀️ like all good bugs, this seems to have fixed itself just as I make a public fool of myself! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If needed, we can skip pre-reviewing by fixing the bug, then putting these pages back in the queue again. In theory after our fix the review button would work :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made null edits to the remaining 3 pages, but will leave marking them as reviewed to an actual reviewer :) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts § WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts § WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia guidelines and help pages are verbose, and hence often ambiguous; this does not help the exponentially increasing number of non native English speakers who try to submit new articles. They should be concise, but explicit, i.e. giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive. OTOH, a few are so scant as to be almost meaningless and just invite a quick click-'next'-and-mpve-on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD

It comes as a huge relief that the AfD bug has now been resolved. No more switching back and forth between Page Curation and Twinkle. A big round of applause please for Novem Linguae and any other volunteers who helped him pull this rabbit out of the hat. Let's hope he will send the bill to the WMF. The whole issue was another example of the blatant refusals of the WMF to address bugs in the software they built and telling us to clear off and do it ourselves (diffs available). Fortunately thanks to our open letter things are hopefully going to change. Fingers crossed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Full credit to Chlod for cracking this bug and writing the patch for it. Very impressive test engineering work. Well done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't have done it without you, TNT, and all the people who contributed to T238025, of course. Everyone deserves a pat on the back! 🥳 Chlod (say hi!) 05:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Kudos to both of you. Now, I'll have to get used to it .Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Tasks that need doing

Following is a list of requests for tools we need that have not been fulfilled at phab:

1. T124396 - Allow moving to draftspace and tagging accordingly (keywords: draft, draftify, draftification)
2. T207437 - Add a Special:NewPagesFeed auto-refresh, similar to Watchlist's "Live Updates"
3. T157048 - Redirects converted into articles should appear in the New Pages Feed indexed by the date of creation and creator of the article, not of the redirect
4. T168350 - Page curation marking pages with citations as having no citations
5. T313650 - Expanded info on previous deletions
6. T310974 - Extend PageTriage MaxAge for unpatrolled articles at enwiki – per the outcome of the RfC it was "indefinite"
7. phab:T313645 - moved to Growth Team board - When reviewing, make posting to article talk page optional
8. phab:T315930 moved to Growth Team board: Tool to create talk page and tag WikiProjects
9. phab:T315206 moved to Growth Team board: Autopatrolled reviewer tagging a redirect as CSD should not autopatrol the resulting article
10. phab:T316301 moved to Growth Team board: Add Special:NewPagesFeed filter "Nominated for AFD/RFD"
11. phab:T315591 moved to Growth Team board: Bug report: Regression: Undeleted mainspace articles are not added to the PageTriage queue

Atsme 💬 📧 10:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Context: This is from User talk:Atsme#NPP bugs & requests. cc MPGuy2824

I'm happy to report that most of these are already internally prioritized by us. You can tell because they have tags like "PageTriage (soon)" and "PageTriage (code review)", instead of "PageTriage (backlog)". I am in charge of the PageTriage tag at the moment.

The growth team tag can be ignored. They don't currently do much work on PageTriage, and have no specific PageTriage work scheduled.

There are 4 tickets on your list that are not prioritized by me yet. I'll go ahead and move them to "PageTriage (soon)". You can view the entire "PageTriage (soon)" list here. These are the issues I plan to ask the WMF to work on in our meeting in November. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung - FYI...Atsme 💬 📧 19:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme - I get notified of every single post that's made to this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Let’s forget about the backlog

Great work getting the backlog removed and the queue down to zero. Now can we forget about it for a bit? It’s tempting to focus on staying close to zero when that’s not our purpose. Editors need time to improve their articles and we have 90 days to do our work in. If NPP now turns into a zapathon it will just piss a lot of people off, so let’s not be too hasty with draftifying where that’s appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, agree. My concept of patrolling has always been that their should be 3 steps. Step 1: at the front of the queue, the speedy deletes need to be removed (G1-5, 10-12). That all other problems should be tagged and left unreviewed. Step 2: Articles reviewed after 1-2 weeks, this is when prod/AfD/or draftify comes into play. Step 3: Articles greater than 90 days - obviously this step is not needed with such a low queue, but it was similar to step 2, just with older articles. Now it will be limited to articles that have been created from stubs, or articles coming from AfC or draft/userspace.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that sounds like a good working rhythm. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I left out an incredibly important part of Step 1: obvious "marked reviewed". Duh. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the amazing current shortage of pages to review, are we saying that NPP has not recently been a zapathon? According to the massive complaints on the VP, NPP and AfC reviewers are the destroyers of the Wiki and driving all the nice newbies away. At least with what we are trying to achieve now with the WMF, one of the days zapathons will hopefully become a thing the past. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Kudpung I mean... some newbies want their articles reviewed quickly. Sometimes they even come here to request it. I say we get out the gatling zapper and spray. Realistically, we should neither be too hasty, nor be too reticent to review, and we should give creators time to write obviously unfinished articles. The vast majority though? They can get sprayed by the gatling zapper. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 11:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ICPH: I mean... some newbies want their articles reviewed quickly. You mean within a week instead of three months, or in 15 seconds instead of a zapper's 30 seconds:? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung If you have put in the effort of writing a good article, with lots of sources, it feels like vindication for a reviewer to snap off the review. If an article is in a 'finished' or semi-polished state, there is no reason to delay review. As for reviewing in 15 seconds, I'll often do this myself, as I can plainly see that this is an article that I can review, and I am planning on going through all my normal steps of the review, but I want to remove it from the queue so that I don't end up doubling up with another reviewer. It can be somewhat annoying when reviewing the front of the queue to have two people hitting the buttons at the same time, not to mention the wasted effort of two (or more) people doing BEFORE searches simultaneously.

Also, I just realised that there is an 'hourly' chart (it isn't hourly, it's only updated a few times a day, but it shows the last week in close detail). Very satisfying. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 12:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• There was a perfect case in point in this morning's queue, Now, Follow Me. When created it was two uncited lines. I looked at about 5 minutes after reviewed. Did not tag it, as I felt this could be something in the process of development, sure enough about 10 minutes later the article was fleshed out to the point where, while not a great article, was enough to pass review. If I treated it like an article that had been around for a week, it would have been zapped.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Journalists have a skill for writing polished pieces with a raft of references. Such articles make me immediately su$piciou$... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Been speedied. But your issue is deeper. COI/UPE is where I struggle mightily. Unless it's an obvious case, I might miss it. And I guess I'm a bit gun-shy at ANI about being too aggressive in tagging for COI/UPE unless it is obvious. I'd suggest someone write an essay on how to spot it, but why give potential UPE's a guidebook for getting around it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I and one or two others have a fairly accurate gut feeling for a COI or a UPE, but it takes time to make a watertight case. It also often needs tools which I don't have so I don't bother doing it much these days. Not giving them a guide book is precisely why we keep our methods under wraps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think now that we're hovering around zero it should (hopefully) be easier to both stay on top of newly created articles and give them the time/space to develop as Onel and Kudpung suggest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Well if patrolers get board with not much to do, AfC has climbed back up to 3000 and always need more help. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Signs of COI/UPE

redacted — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As per the discussion above and Kudpung's reference to a guidebook. Might I suggest you delete this comment? This is something that should be talked about off-wiki with other patrollers, so as to not give UPE editors guidance on how to go hidden. Just a thought. Good ideas.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I've redacted it. Personally, I don't think many COI/UPE people would think to look up this sort of stuff on this noticeboard, but I'll hide it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. You'd be surprised. I once had a UPE editor say to me on his UPE notice... "I didn't _______, so why would you think I was a UPE". Where the blank is one of the obvious giveaways. Obviously, they had read some talkpage about how we look for them. Regardless, nice ideas, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draftify things, or improve-in-situ

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draftify things, or improve-in-situ, which discusses on potential improvements when drafting articles. VickKiang (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I read it - huge and all it is, as usual, but good grief, what's the point of it??? There's no proposal as such... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

But…but…but DELETION BY THE BACK DOOR!!!!!!<Mccapra (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, pardon? What is deletion by the back door? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The pet theory of those editors who are against draft space. They generally start off saying they’re against hasty/repeated/inappropriate draftification but as discussions unfold it often turns out they’re just against the whole concept. I expect that after years of insisting “take it to AfD”, if they succeed in removing the safe harbour of draftspace they’ll probably then start complaining “but you’re all DELETIONISTS!”. Mccapra (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I like draftspace. I think it should apply until extended confirmed, personally. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Strawmen arguments and us vs. them mentality. Always helpful. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I hate the idea that some people consider draftification (telling someone they need to work on the article) somehow less bitey than tagging for CSD, PROD, or AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have recently taken to adding an offer - where it's appropriate (ie when there's clear potential value in the article) for the author to ping me and I'll review the submission to avoid the queue. I'm not sure if that's 'naughty' per policy, but I feel it takes any bite out of the process. I add the offer to the template or just go to their talk page. It feels 'better'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• When I was asking What is deletion by the back door? it was naturally a cynical rhetorical question. Complaints against all aspects of NPP come and go in cycles. This month's flavour is 'moving to draft'. Next month will be AfD. Around Christmas it will probably be BLPPROD. The only common denominator is that most of the anti NPP crowd are either newbies or very old inclusionists who haven't done any patrolling for yonks or never done any at all, or WMF staff masquerading as volunteers and suggesting that NPP is a superfluous process (diffs available going back to 2010). Fazit? Well, I wholly concur with @Mccapra and Alexandermcnabb:. OTOH, Hey man im josh, it depends how draftification is done. There are several options. The one I use isn't bitey at all, but at the end ofthe day the onus is on the crreators to submit policy compliant articles. Hey, wait - isn't that the fault of the WMF for not creating a proper landing page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait, we're bad guys??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Draftification" covers many scenarios, but I assuming we're talking about an article that has not established wp:notability. Draftification both provides the opportunity and responsibility for the GNG source search task to the article creator/proponent. It is different than AFD, not a "back door" to it. North8000 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change the default filters for fresh NPPers

Currently, the default filters shown to a fresh New Page Patroller are "State (Reviewed, Unreviewed), Type (Nominated for deletion, All others)". You can check this out by logging out of Wikipedia and then going to Special:NewPagesFeed. This doesn't make sense to me, and i think we should show such folk only the pages in the article and redirect backlogs i.e. things that they can work on immediately. I propose the following changes:

1. Remove reviewed pages. (may already be default)
2. Remove "Nominated for deletion". (phab:T321953)
3. Show redirects in addition to articles. (phab:T42135)

I've purposely separated these out, in case folk think that not all three are good to do. This will not affect any reviewer who has changed their filter options, only fresh NPPers; and even they can change these filter defaults, whenever they want. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Slywriter (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, seems sensible. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I agree more strongly with #1 and #2 than #3, for the reason MB said below. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with #1 & #2. #3 has had an open phab since 2012. I'm not sure about this one. Reviewing articles and redirects is different. I always set my filters to do one or the other; although I know others keep them mixed. It may be better for a new reviewer to start out focusing on one or the other as well, and we almost always need more help with articles. I think that a lack of consensus is why this has been open for 10 years. MB 14:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to double check, I'm interpreting this as being just about default filter settings.

• Change #1 Support...Makes sense

• Change #2 Support....Makes sense

• Change #3 IMO probably not a good idea. Redirects are a different and specialty skill set / rulebook than normal NPP. Suggest not flooding a newbie's feed with those

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have no issue with #1 & #2, as that is how I have my settings now anyway. And if I can go in and remove the redirects, or show only the redirects (like I currently can), than I have no issue with #3, if that's what most folks want.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just to reiterate: This proposal will not affect current NPPers (or their settings) at all. This is only for the first time that an NPPer looks at the filters in Special:NewPagesFeed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  My bad, I misunderstood that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Insect Invasion

Well the queue has just exploded because User:BilledMammal redirected a huge number of insect stubs and User:Elmidae reverted, bringing hundreds into the queue. Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's annoying. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal about this. I'm in the process of helping to clear these out. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that :/ One of the uncommon occasions when the redirect un-review mechanism rather bites. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey you have nothing to be sorry about, you didn't cause this issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I can start helping to clean up in an hour or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Between myself and a couple other editors we got them all taken care of. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all, looks debugged :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Something similar has happened with Boca Jóvenes having redirected the cricketer articles and then self-reverting the redirections. That has also led to hundreds of articles being added to the queue. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And as I have already told this person at least TWICE, I made a mistake and I rectified it. 187 is not "hundreds". I would suggest WP:JUSTDROPIT is applicable here. BoJó | talk UTC 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Request: Backlog chart for redirects

I'd like to request a backlog chart for redirects. I understand some people don't care about reviewing redirects, but I think if a backlog chart exists it will bring attention to the fact that there is a backlog. It'll also be useful for tracking the overall level of unreviewed redirects overtime and useful if we do have a redirect backlog drive at any point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

agree w/ Hey man im josh, it actually would be a very good idea if we had a redirect chart--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We'll first have to make sure that the data for the chart starts being collected. I'll try to see which bot does it for the article backlog number, and contact the bot operator. Once we have that, creating the chart template isn't that tough. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

great, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Learning how to review redirects

Is there a summary place to learn practical redirect review? For example, the common reasons that they get deleted? WP:Redirect (only) gives examples of when and when not to delete. Is that the rulebook? North8000 (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Rosguill who is like the king of redirects. Personally, I check to see if it's a plausible typo/alternate for the target, (e.g. The Look Of Love for the The Book of Love, or T. N. Wills for Thomas N. Wills -- I can't think of a plausible type off the top of my head, but something that had an ie at the end instead of y). If it's not obvious, I check to make sure it's mentioned in the target (using control F), if not, then I send it to RFD), if it is, then I mark it reviewed. But I don't do a lot in redirects presently, although I'll start to take a look again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, WP:RPATROL has a more thorough list of advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Redirect checklist –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Another point to make is that in general, with any "how to" questions, the first place to look is in the NPP tutorial which leads to both of the above links (actually, NL's link is a sub-section). MB 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)