Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ɱ (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 28 August 2023 (→‎Break: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Reviewers
Curation tool
Suggestions		Coordination
NPP backlog
Articles
9644 ↓340
Oldest article
14 months old
Redirects
28657
Oldest redirect
5 months old
Article reviews
2130
Redirect reviews
18278
  • There is a very large articles backlog
  • There is a very large redirects backlog
Shortcut

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of May 21, 2024

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello New pages patrol,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

New flowchart

I made a new flowchart and added it to WP:NPP today. The flow is almost identical to the flow of the really detailed flowchart, except I reduced the amount of detail, put copyvio check before CSD, added several "draftify" cases, and recommended against PROD. Feel free to call out anything you think could use improvement. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's neat! Wish someone had thought of that a LOT earlier. Would have saved me a few bruises... Sigh... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As all the other optionals have a tool suggestion should "Maintenace tags" not have Twinkle as the suggestion? KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CSD, AFD, and maintenance tags are built into PageTriage/the Page Curation toolbar. I'll go ahead and add "use: PageTriage" in the next version. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very detailed; this will certainly be helpful! I would recommend adding a note to give a grace period before CSD (10–15 minutes) or draftify (1 hour) except for blatant G3, G10, and G12. Although perhaps not strictly codified in policy, I believe it is WP:BITEy behavior to tag for A7 (for instance) one minute after a page is created, so it ought to be discouraged. Complex/Rational 18:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We actually bumped the grace period to 1 hour a couple months ago. It's mentioned at WP:NPP. Great idea to add to the flowchart, will do. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a real improvement for most people over the more detailed flow chart we have now. The big thing that jumps out to me is a lack of BLP mention, including when to BLPPROD. I am also a bit wary of embedding specific tools into the flowchart which may cause it to become outdated more quickly than the more generalized "what to do". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this feedback. BLPPROD is mentioned under the draftify bubble, bullet #2, so should be all set there. It is quite rare so I don't think it needs its own bubble or anything. Adding more BLP stuff to the flowchart is controversial and some folks might object, for example, User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 19#NPP flowchart (ICPH's response to bullet #7). Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about that bubble more carefully, I think putting Draftify before notability encourages, even more than we do already, editors to draftify rather than nominate for deletion. I don't think that would be well received by the broader community. And I would suggest BLPPROD is more at home in the "CSD" tab than the Draftify tab - like many CSD BLPPROD makes no notability assessment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take the "borderline notability" bullet out of the reasons to draftify. While that bullet was meant to cover valid cases such as WP:TOOSOON (films, events) or promising articles where the NPP can't find enough sources but maybe the article author could if given a chance to add them, I don't want to risk it being interpreted as "draftify everything instead of using AFD".
With that bullet gone, all of the reasons to draftify are now non-notability related, so I think it probably makes sense to keep it before notability. Hopefully that solves some of the concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wow. Amazing how many sections there are. Thanks a lot.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR is an alternative to draftification or AFD that can be considered in more cases than are listed there. I think that a flowchart for only mandatory steps, not optional ones, would be more helpful. (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Changed create an AFD to create an AFD or WP:BLAR –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work and so much easier to follow through now, Thanks Josey Wales Parley 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flochart is a great help. Thanks. RPSkokie (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some nice work! It's always good to have as many ways of presenting the workflow as possible, as different approaches work best for different people. This version addresses some comments that have come my way over the years from people that didn't like my flowchart. I think for me I still like the traditional flowchart design as it lets me ignore certain criteria when I go down a certain flow line, but I'm glad that this exists! Well done. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One question though. Why copyvio before CSD? A lot of CSD criteria are instant delete (even if most of them rarely come up nowadays after ACTRIAL), which is why I put them first in my version, since a hate page or contextless page (for example) negates the reason for a copyvios check. I don't think it really matters, as most of these CSD criteria are a lot less common than it was in the old days when I first wrote the flowchart, and when they do come up people will just skip straight to CSD anyway. Just wondering what the rationale was, since you mentioned it specifically in your first post? — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. I can probably swap those. Will add to my todo list :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Novem Linguae: I'm not sure about describing the first group as "required" – it smells of instruction creep. The other steps were grouped under "optional" on WP:NPP fairly recently (a good idea), but that does not imply that everything else is mandatory. For me only the first two boxes (CSD/copyvio), plus checking for BLP violations, are really required, in the sense that if you don't do them there's not really any point in reviewing. The rest should be approached flexibly based on the size of the backlog, nature of the topic, general state of the article, etc.
Also: we have three flow charts on WP:NPP now... can we at least get it down to two, if not one?
Also also: SVG format would make it easier for others to edit. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another query

If I come across an article at NPP feed and make some minor edits, such as adding an infobox or tagging it to request more citations, am I required to mark the page as reviewed? RPSkokie (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not obliged to mark any page as reviewed, even if you have done some changes like those above. If in any doubt always leave it in the queue (someone with knowledge in whatever field the article is in will come along eventually Josey Wales Parley 22:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I appreciate your assistance. RPSkokie (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecating PROD in NPP?

Hi everyone! For context: The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used, which was not opposed by any editors in the discussion above. In my opinion (and experience), there really is no place for PROD in NPP. Per WP:PROD, proposing an article for deletion is only appropriate if no opposition to the deletion is expected; that‘s not really a reasonable assumption for newly created pages. If an editor just recently put in the work to create an article (or publish it to the main namespace from their drafts), it is by no means reasonable to assume that they would not object to deletion. Accordingly, the PROD deletion mechanism is fundamentally incompatible with NPP, with only rare and narrow exceptions (such as old articles that have been added to the queue again for technical reasons). The documentation should reflect this; PROD should not be part of standard NPP workflows, and only described here as an outcome for the very rare cases where it may apply. I‘d like to hear as much input as possible on this. What does everyone think? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Edit: BLPPROD is of course a different matter. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m neutral on PROD itself here, but I definitely think we should keep using BLP PROD. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, that‘s a different matter. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had PRODed a new article and had it deleted one time. I think the factor at play was that I explained my reason and the article creator didn't object to it (they thanked me). AfD is an expensive process, and we should use cheaper ones if they work. Maybe I've had an experience that few others have had. I agree BLPPROD needs to stay, and I have a question about "The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used". Which one now mentions that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That‘s not an experience I‘ve had, interesting to hear from you on that. Re the flowchart, it‘s File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, which is currently used next to the other flowcharts in the tutorial. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also had new pages deleted by prod and I don't think it should be ruled out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on the context of this occurrence? Actualcpscm (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the exact ones but there are several where I gave a quite long explanation of the relevant policies and explained that I had searched for additional sources without success and then the editor allowed the article to be deleted by prod, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is a major tool I use for patrolling bad DAB pages (though I usually work from the {{One other topic}} backlogs). If there's nowhere else in NPP it has a role, it has one there. People don't usually care about their DAB pages getting deleted in my experience. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think PROD is entirely compatible with NPP in its current state.
Consider that, when sorting the new page feed to only include articles created between 6/1 and 6/7, it shows 527 pages (as of now). Even slashing 200 arbitrarily to account for some being in the queue for technical reasons, that's still 327 pages that are ~60 days old (or less) that still need an NPPer to take action for a single week. I'd say articles within that age range, presuming they meet the PROD criteria, are good candidates for PROD rather than sending to AfD or BLARing.
While the tool is "new page reviewer", considering our backlog at any given time and the lack of experienced enough NPPers to tackle it head-on instead of focusing on what they know, we can more accurately be called "created article reviewers".
I missed the topic regarding the new flow chart (though that's on me), buuut my 2 cents would be to rephrase "don't use PROD. someone will remove it" to something like "reserve PROD for articles older than 14 days without any edits for about the same time period." Regardless of the flow chart, I think taking steps to remove mention of PROD throughout NPP documentation would be unconstructive. —Sirdog (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think discouraging new NPPs from using it via our documentation, but not prohibiting it, is a good strategy. Since some folks clearly still find it useful. Kind of a "soft" deprecation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clotting factors page

Has anyone taken a look at the Clotting factors page? At present, the whole article is a table from a textbook. However, the textbook is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It's my gut instinct that a whole article should not be a literal copy-paste from a textbook, but I'm unsure how to handle it. Recommendations? Significa liberdade (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using compatibly licensed material verbatim, provided that the tone and sourcing is appropriate. Tone is not exactly a concern with a table. However, I think the article should be redirected/merged to Coagulation#List_of_coagulation_factors, which contains largely the same information. Spicy (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Spicy! Significa liberdade (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation of Koli caste-related articles and drafts

These sock accounts have been blocked, and the creations they made have also been deleted. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Anyone noticed Koli caste-related mass articles and drafts creation by IPs and users? A similar SPI can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala.

Some Examples:

Creators:

𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check Editor Interaction Analysis 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could be an editathon. Are the articles in mainspace non-notable/problematic? Raja Hassan Khan Khanzada has more edits than the rest of the accounts, so could try leaving them a user talk message asking for an explanation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Novem; if the articles themselves are good or passable, this is most likely just a coordinated effort to improve coverage of a certain topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer, Novem Linguae, and Actualcpscm: I have blocked the above listed named accounts (among others) as socks of the Koli sockmaster(s) discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala who have been active for years and have created hundreds of socks. Note that many of the IPs are already range blocked from mainspace etc; hence the tactic of creating articles in draft space and then using named accounts to move them to mainspace. Will be G5ing the eligible creations. NPPers are requested to be on the lookout for more such accounts/creations. See also WP:GSCASTE and feel free to request article/creation protection as needed. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Thanks for your work on this, I‘ll keep an eye on this topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thelurelome created following pages, previously created by master User:Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala and their socks.
User:Mermermermerji created Devi Movement, previously created by Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala sock.
The following articles were created by the same IP range listed above.
Pinging @Abecedare for immediate action. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DreamRimmer! Blocked, G5ed and salted. Caught some more socks and their creations in the process. Cheers.Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare, Thanks for your help! Have you listed User:Thelurelome and User:Mermermermerji to the SPI case page for future reference? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just did. :) Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drive?

I'm new and don't know how often a page reviewing drive is held or under what circumstances, but it looks like it might be time for one. Everything is red across the board– 14K unreviewed redirects, and almost 8K articles, which is growing rapidly. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike. There's a backlog drive in the works for around October. More info at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Backlog drive and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put Analysis of References table

Sometimes I encounter a new article which looks questionable as to notability, and think that it should be taken to AFD. I begin reviewing the references and developing a table listing which of the references are Independent, Significant, Reliable, and Secondary. Then I conclude that the table shows that the article does satisfy the standards for general notability (or another notability guideline that is related to GNG). My question is: What should I do with the table analyzing the sources? I started the table with the intention to use it in an AFD, but I will not be writing an AFD if the table indicates that the article passes notability. Work has been done that should not be discarded. The one option that comes to my mind is to put the table on the talk page of the article. Does anyone have another thought? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of article. Zero harm in posting it there and it could save others the effort later on. Something like new page analysis as the section title and state at the conclusion of the post it's being marked as reviewed. I think that makes the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree talk page of the article is the most sensible place. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Lost access!

Not sure if this is the right place to pose this concern, but I seem to have somehow lost access to the page patrol toolbar. I haven't been actively working on NPP the past few days, but I was looking over some new pages from Women in Red. I noticed the toolbar wasn't there but figured they page must be older or something. However, it appears to just be gone altogether.

I don't know if it's related, but I'm also getting the following pop-up error on some pages: "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Significa liberdade" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, you will need to manually remove it from your common.js or your skin.jspage. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!"

Any advice? Significa liberdade (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade, you were only granted the new pape reviewer right for a month, so now that it's expired, you'll have to go back to WP:PERM/NPP and get it renewed on a permanent basis. As for the other error message, if you want to review drafts that are in the articles for creation queue, you'll need to put in a request at WT:AFC/P—this is a separate permission, although it'd very likely be given to you if you asked for it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, @Extraordinary Writ. I wasn't sure if the two issue were related, so I figured it was worthwhile mentioning both. Also, I know it's not up to you or anything, but users should receive some sort of notification that their "trial period" is over. That would help with a lot of confusion! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get the NPP perm, you are also considered to be an AFC reviewer. So there's no need to ask for the latter separately. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct...apologies, it was a recent change. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice from Page Curation tool

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T344980

I recently used the Page Curation tool to send an article to AfD. When doing so, the Page Curation tool leaves a notice on the talk page of the editor to inform them of the pending AfD discussion. The notice (example) contains the phrase Hello, [article creator's username], and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username [my username]. This is perfectly fine for when articles created by newer individuals, but this may come off as condescending when it's used on the talk page of more experienced users.

Is there a way for me to customize this message so that the bits targeted at new users only trigger for users who meet certain requirements (such as those users not yet having attained ECP), or would this require a change to software for it to work?

CC: Tataral

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe customisation is available now, but I don't keep up with Page Curation patches (I will ping Novem Linguae who probably can help with this). But personally I just don't see any advantage Page Curation has when marking AfDs over Twinkle, which has a more informative user template (instead of this which is IMO completely unnecessary for anyone with over 500 edits) and also allows previews and delsorts easily. The template for CSDs is not that bad, but is to me much less informative than Twinkle's one (just saying Hello [example], I wanted to let you know that I just tagged [example article] for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top for G11). VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If there's no objections, let's just change PageTriage to use the Twinkle AFD user talk notices. I imagine those have plenty of consensus and solve the "sounds patronizing" issue. phab:T344980 –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually 11 of these "I edit here too, under the username" templates used by PageTriage. They've been used for many years without complaints. I'm having second thoughts. Would like to see a few more folks weigh in, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More NPPers should definitely weigh in on this issue since the current wording seems to be back in 2018 (five years ago). I also agree that this is not an urgent issue- one can of course always usee Twinkle as an alternative. VickKiang (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first time where this concern has been brought up, for what it's worth. Newslinger and Winged Blades of Godric were the participants in the ensuing discussion, though they each haven't been on Wikipedia in some time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New anti-vandalism tool starting development at the Wikimedia Foundation

Hi - as you may know I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage (final update to be posted soon!), my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This is a truly bizarre request, but can someone mark Fireaway as unreviewed? It was initially created as a redirect by myself from a Afc/rc request, but the requesting IP immediately expanded it into an article which could use further review. I mark it as unreviewed myself since I'm the page creator, and the page curation toolbar thus doesn't appear for me. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be marked as reviewed to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. I was going based on the log. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPPREDIRECT. It's made more confusing that there's no log entry for that though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank-you. Annoying that that isn't logged, though. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When redirects get flipped to articles, they will automatically be put back into the queue. Looks like that's what happened here. Should be all set :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep playing out of their scope?

Hello, I want to see if you agree with my frustrations and think this new page reviewer is playing out-of-bounds. It's regarding the article Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio. I am not sure if I can opt-out of my articles being reviewed, but here I am as a veteran article creator being checked. The point is, Scope Creep calls my references "unintelligence to the average reader", "I can't make head nor tail of them", and "They don't resolve to anything", and that "They are non-RS". The user is threatening to draftify the article if these are not fixed within a week.

They are links like this, which unfortunately require a library login, but the URL shows it's part of the NewsBank newspaper database. That isn't a non-RS. NewsBank has refused my request to create URLs friendly to any reader worldwide, and I am still in the process of creating articles, passing through afterward with better citation formats. I think it's out-of-line for this reviewer to tag-bomb the article, recognize its experienced creator, and threaten draftification, all without first giving a common-courtesy request first, and without even stating these moves are 'part of their article reviewer duties'. Instead, it just comes off as another random attack against the work. As mentioned on their talk page, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. ɱ (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't both play the "I'm an experienced editor part" on one hand, and use bare urls which point to a login page on the other hand. Giving you a week before draftification is already a courtesy not extended to most editors. Fram (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I start articles and then clean them up. The fire stations article has enough non-NewsBank sources to pass GNG anyhow. What I am highly advising is for cases like this, where a reviewer recognizes an experienced editor, don't piss them off with tag-bombing and a threat. If Scope Creep were to simply ask for more attention to the page, I'd happily oblige. And if they were to mention their role as a reviewer up-front, I'd again feel better than simply feeling the target of a drive-by complaint and threat. ɱ (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding tags is a way of asking for more attention to the page, many days after you created it. You can still format the refs as news sources even if a login is needed. That’s dead easy to do, so please consider that for future articles. Mccapra (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I never said it's not a way, it's just not a very nice way, when combined with a threat. A talk page comment is easier, less confrontational/aggressive, and is more likely to be successful. ɱ (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be autopatrolled, so I think your articles are already marked as reviewed by default, skipping the queue. This may make Scope creep's actions (concerns about your reference style, plans to draftify) that of a regular editor rather than of an NPP in this situation. You can still ask our opinion here and we're happy to give it, but just want to point that out. Are there any diffs where the two of you have spoken onwiki, besides your message on Scope creep's user talk? Such diffs could provide useful background. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Novem Linguae:. I forgot the extent of the problems. 8 months ago, after I was siding keep on some deletion discussions against their votes or nominations, I then witnessed that user unreview fourteen articles I had written, which had already been reviewed. Targeting my work just to attack me. I am not sure what resolution came of that, beside that their edits were reverted. ɱ (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This plays out to be the second abuse of reviewer rights in less than a year specifically against me. Scope Creep was warned not to abuse their rights last time. I think more serious actions need to be taken now. ɱ (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scope creep. Please do yourself and the editing community a favor: develop your articles in a sandbox and then move them to main namespace when ready. This encyclopedia doesn't need under construction articles about non-notable subjects, even if you are a well-established editor. Your behavior in this regard is a discredit to your longevity. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is always under construction. We can agree to disagree, however I am trying to ascertain if the other editor's actions were appropriate or considerate, not my own. ɱ (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Scope creep's point is that what is an NPP reviewer to do? You present a topic which doesn't seem notable. Scope creep can't just give you a pass because you're a 15 year editor. Personally, I subscribe to Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem, which is just an essay. I see no reason you can't take your time and complete articles before you make them live. The community has banned other editors for starting articles and never bringing them to fruition. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources for the "The community has banned other editors" bit? I highly, highly doubt that, unless other problems were at play. And again, reviewers ought to be up-front that they're acting as a reviewer, and it's clear this user was fully aware of it being a contentious issue, but consciously chose to go the attack-route. That is a huge problem. ɱ (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "You present a topic which doesn't seem notable" bit is silly. There are many, many published and reliable books cited fully. One of these goes into deep detail about each station. ɱ (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to say a name for obvious reasons. And no, the sources you cited do not make out notability. the subject fails NLIST and LISTN. Maybe you should have solved the bare URLs problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, sure dude, a book all about the fire stations of Columbus (and actually multiple books exist on this) totally doesn't mean a list of fire stations merits an article. Lol, what planet are we living on? (It's actually the main criterion for WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN (which are the same guideline...)) ɱ (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, like I said "unless other problems were at play". Accusations of racism and bigotry are "other problems". There were probably likely others. I'm not diving into this one random instance. ɱ (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but bare URLs are pretty easy to fix; it seems odd to purposefully publish them and come back later when you could have just formatted them properly in one big edit. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same conversation about the same issue, several months ago and I got the same amount of hassle and aggro then removing maintainance templates when the article(s) hadn't been fixed, although at the time the article was finally fixed with a lot of aggro. You can't have a non-standard reference format that cant be understand by the reader and no longer value, make the whole referenc effectively useless. I suspect your heading for admin, in a week or so. scope_creepTalk 15:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're consciously aware that tag-bombing and threats lead to frustration and aggravation, why do you keep using that tactic on me even presently? Again, simply asking nicely will get you so much further, and could've avoided my frustrations and this entire discussion. And I am not sure what you mean by "heading for admin", what does that mean. ɱ (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I expect as an established editor for you to follow process like everybody else. Here is one of the articles I unreviewed some months agi, the Lazarus House article, still with non-standard references that nobody can use and still not fixed. I asked nicely the last time and you told me to "fuck off". I tend to ask for your autopatrolled to get removed. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't ask nicely, you tag-bombed and unreviewed fourteen articles, in a breach of process that multiple people condemned. That's why I'm telling you to back off. This isn't an issue with my works, it's an issue with me keep-voting against you on some of Another Believer's restaurant articles. ɱ (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I go. Afd and NPP/AFC are seperate processes. scope_creepTalk 15:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you used that separate process to attack me directly after you weren't getting your way in the AfD. ɱ (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi, can you both COOL OFF, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to. Unfortunately Scope Creep refuses to, and has re-tag-bombed Lazarus House as having "unreliable references". The Columbus Dispatch, as hosted on NewsBank, is indisputably a reliable reference, and thus Scope Creep is indisputably in-the-wrong with that tag. And just doing it to get at me again. ɱ (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "unreliable sources" tag says "some" references and "may", not "all are". "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." We are not supposed to try to decipher your attempts at referencing to find out what it is you may be hiding in there. Fram (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't have to decipher. I already told Scope Creep what the URLs are, months ago, and they were fully aware by the time they re-initiated their attacks; as well you can read that it's NewsBank.com. I don't think if I cited a JSTOR.com URL, anyone would have a problem? Again, this is just simply another attack at me, completely illegitimate and not made in good faith. ɱ (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be happy to. Unfortunately Scope Creep refuses to... That's unnecessarily antagonistic. Again, WP:STAYCOOL. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a book all about the fire stations of Columbus (and actually multiple books exist on this) totally doesn't mean a list of fire stations merits an article." Which book? I can't find it in the article, but the dreadful refs make looking for it rather hard. Fram (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throckmorton Jr., Robert, ed. (1976). Columbus, Ohio Division of Fire: 1822-1976. Columbus, Ohio Division of Fire Historical Committee, Walsworth Publishing Company. OCLC 2809386 ɱ (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 2022 edition was just published as well, and there are numerous other sources throughout the years that have covered every station in existence at the time. ɱ (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's as far as I can see a book published by the Fire Department, so not an independent source, and thus not an indicator of notability. While I think notability is a side issue here, but again it is an example of you being very dismissive and superior-acting about all concerns, even though you don't display the actual policy knowledge or editing skills one would expect from your self-description. Please consider that you may be at least partially wrong here and that the concerns of Scope Creep (and many others by now) are not caused by some personal animosity, but by actual issues with your articles. Fram (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my citation? Walsworth Publishing Company. Don't make things up please? ɱ (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're attacking my editing skills? What skills do you think I lack? I have GAs and FAs, and now I'm unskilled? Hurtful and random personal attacks like these are why I am starting to think I should contribute less here. ɱ (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This book? About the Comlumbus Fire Department, by the Columbus Fire Department? Fram (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Google Books' automated citation information is wrong (and often wrong). See the OCLC website for a far better data entry: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2809386 . Would you like me to edit WP:LISTN or WP:RS and say that small publishers like Walsworth are banned? ɱ (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the book is published by the Fire Department, and printed by Walsworth. It's not even listed as such in the book, hence the square brackets at OCLC and the missing name at Google. So not an independent book, and thus not an indicator of notability. Fram (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's wrong, and I don't get where you're making up this idea from. Walsworth is the publisher, it's listed that way in the book and in OCLC. Stop making up things just to attack the reputability of the article? What goal do you have? Just to frustrate me more? ɱ (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Fram (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OCLC is located in the Columbus metropolitan area, so they're not an independent source. Should I add them to WP:RS/P? They cannot reliably give data on Columbus books and materials. ɱ (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from you just being ridiculous here; this side discussion isn't even about reliability, but about independence: "So not an independent book, and thus not an indicator of notability." I have made no claims at all about the reliability of this book. Fram (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. You're being ridiculous as well. We can agree to disagree. You clearly think it's made up that Walsworth Publishing Company is the listed publisher. OK sure believe a fantasy. You've been blocked before for being belligerent. Why do you continue down this rabbit-hole of attacks against me and the article, when I was trying to address one specific user's conduct? ɱ (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You've been blocked before for being belligerent." That's news to me. You were trying to address the conduct of one editor, but it turned out that the issues that editor had with your articles were justified, and your reaction to them not. Others listed similar issues here, and it seems that you are not even willing to agree that a book about the Columbus Fire Department, by the Columbus Fire Department, is the poster child of a non-independent source and thus doesn't show any notability for the subject. Fram (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you discount an independent publisher, fine. And yes, I can see the swarms of editors instead opting to attack my works. I don't get it. Sure there's real issues, but when I ask for pie, I don't expect to get an essay about cake. As for 'justified', I disagree. The only admin to comment here found them to be unjustified. ɱ (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The only admin to comment here found them to be unjustified."? I must have missed that, what comment would that be? Neither Novem Lingua nor Rosguill seems to have stated anything resembling that. Fram (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brackets just means that the information isn't listed on the title page, which is the proper location to put it (for instance, they could be listed in the colophon, or else inferred from information not in the printed work but available elsewhere). signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This was published in the 1970s by a small publisher; it doesn't even have a proper title page or copyright page. It's instead all in an acknowledgements page. What does anyone expect? ɱ (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I am unsure why I am again the victim of a random attack from a new-page reviewer, out-of-process. As Novem Linguae stated, I am autopatrolled. And though, sure, my references aren't great, I don't understand why most every editor here is focusing and picking on my honest shortcomings, and not on this second aggressive attack on an article that clearly wasn't even in the new page feed. I would like these aggressions to stop, it's incredibly stressful, and incredibly uncalled-for. ɱ (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should have your autopatrolled revoked because you are creating articles that are not problem free and your comments above indicates lacking understanding of notability and references, combined with an unwillingness to learn and change your behavior... (t · c) buidhe 17:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, again attack me and say how I lack understanding of basic Wikipedia tenets, when I've also crafted many Good Articles and Featured Articles, which are among the top 1% in quality we have here, and are pretty near perfect works. And I never said anything about being unwilling (for one thing, I've actually begun filling in the refs). Please don't make up things to attack me with. Again this is overall just another baseless attack on my reputation here. What about this harasser? ɱ (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is harassing you; you are subjected to well-reasoned criticism following justified scrutiny. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


ALL: I'm going to archive this thread. This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community. I reached out describing what comes off to me as a hurtful attack, and instead of any slight degree of compassion or righting wrongs, everyone instead proceeds to over-examine my editing style, call my work "dreadful", "ridiculous", with a "lack of understanding", "dismissive", "superior-acting", "unwillingness", and more. I was very open to the fact that my ref work is substandard, but I do have a proven track record of going back to fix them, and especially when asked. If nobody likes my work here, I can just stop contributing. Your loss. ɱ (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community. It really isn't. And archiving it would halt an in-progress discussion, which would probably be perceived a trying to avoid scrutiny. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's gaslighting when a victim says they're being abused and you tell them they're not. ɱ (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers&oldid=1172728861"