→Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation (arbitrary break): there is a problem |
→Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation: retitle to correctly reflect the situation, add a reply |
||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
Note that we are mass-patrolling (or mass-curing, if you want) now the articles created on November 24, which corresponds to one month and one week.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 21:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
Note that we are mass-patrolling (or mass-curing, if you want) now the articles created on November 24, which corresponds to one month and one week.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 21:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
== |
== Tagging new article within first hour of their creation == |
||
[<small> This thread has been moved from [[WT:Page Curation]]. I am quite busy in RL right now but will try to respond more to this later. —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)</small>] |
[<small> This thread has been moved from [[WT:Page Curation]]. I am quite busy in RL right now but will try to respond more to this later. —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)</small>] |
||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
:::* If all of these people are really here to create an encyclopedia, it's not working. |
:::* If all of these people are really here to create an encyclopedia, it's not working. |
||
:::*—[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::*—[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::*The [[WP:OWN]] comment was in response to Colonel Henry's house painting scenario, not to you. No one is ever "not allowed to finish what they started". Edit conflicts can happen on old pages too. Unless the wmf devs work out an alternative merging/notification/warning system, you just have to accept that they will happen. Would you have had this same response if the edit that caused you to lose the info was another editor adding content or refs or fixing a spelling error? I have retitled these sections to correctly reflect the situation under discussion. [[User:The-Pope|The-Pope]] ([[User talk:The-Pope|talk]]) 16:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
=== Tagging new article within first hour of their creation (arbitrary break) === |
||
:Edit conflicts are very much part of the problem, and with a bit of pressure to up the priority of some easy software fixes we could reduce that problem. It should be possible for a categorisation edit and a typo fix not to edit conflict with each other. The WMF could easily invest some programmer time in improving the code to handle more simultaneous edits without losing half of them as edit conflicts - we just need to keep telling them that improving the edit conflict software should be a higher priority and get more programmer time than moodbars and Article Feedback tools. Similarly it would be easy to replace some tags with automatically generated hidden categories. We really don't need an uncategorised template, the latest newpage patrol screen doesn't use that template when it lists uncategorised pages, and we could replace thet template with a hidden category of uncategorised, and while we are about it deadend could be replaced with hidden cats for zero, one two or three links to other articles. All of that would reduce stress at newpage patrol, and hopefully shift people from stuff that could easily be automated like adding deadend and uncategorised templates to stuff we actually need volunteers for like categorising articles and adding wikilinks. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
:Edit conflicts are very much part of the problem, and with a bit of pressure to up the priority of some easy software fixes we could reduce that problem. It should be possible for a categorisation edit and a typo fix not to edit conflict with each other. The WMF could easily invest some programmer time in improving the code to handle more simultaneous edits without losing half of them as edit conflicts - we just need to keep telling them that improving the edit conflict software should be a higher priority and get more programmer time than moodbars and Article Feedback tools. Similarly it would be easy to replace some tags with automatically generated hidden categories. We really don't need an uncategorised template, the latest newpage patrol screen doesn't use that template when it lists uncategorised pages, and we could replace thet template with a hidden category of uncategorised, and while we are about it deadend could be replaced with hidden cats for zero, one two or three links to other articles. All of that would reduce stress at newpage patrol, and hopefully shift people from stuff that could easily be automated like adding deadend and uncategorised templates to stuff we actually need volunteers for like categorising articles and adding wikilinks. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Is there some way to sense if an article is stable, for example, if there have not been any new edits for a certain length of time? It seems a waste of time to start adding categories and such before the scope of the article is evident. Perhaps the only patrolling options open at the time of an articles creation should be for obvious vandalism. —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
::Is there some way to sense if an article is stable, for example, if there have not been any new edits for a certain length of time? It seems a waste of time to start adding categories and such before the scope of the article is evident. Perhaps the only patrolling options open at the time of an articles creation should be for obvious vandalism. —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:56, 17 January 2013
![]() | Counter-Vandalism Unit | |||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
See also: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/patrolled pages for discussion on development of the special patrol page (inactive).
How to identify articles that have been edited / cleaned-up
Hi there,
I just found the New pages patrol page - looks like great work! I have 2 questions:
I couldn't tell from the instructions how to remove an item from the queue if it has been edited. I just finished editing Matthew de Lacey Davidson and wasn't sure how to remove it from the list of new pages to be reviewed. How should I handle that?
By the way, for awhile I've been using AWB to edit new, random or category based pages - but it looks like there are other tools that are recommended (Twinkle, etc.) Should I look at getting something other than AWB?
Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- For removing an edit, you should go back to the queue, click on the article, and patrol it. (If you clicked on an article from the queue and first edited it, return to the first version you loaded from the queue, reload it to take into account your changes, and patrol the resulting version).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Patrol it" means "click the tiny link at the bottom of the page that says 'Mark this page as patrolled'" if using the old system, and click the checkmark in the middle of the sidebar if using the new pages feed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Couple of issues
I have a couple of issues that I would like clarrified
- Why is the defcon alert saying 30 days while the oldest unpatrolled page is of 3rd Oct?
- Is it ok a mark a page patrolled if I am resolving some of the issues while I am adding templates for others (and addressing all issues)? I might not be very knowledgable about topic and yet don't want to skip 20 pages and edit only five (as the defcon is at 30).
Regards -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't answer your first question, but the oldest unpatrolled page is almost certainly more than 30 days old. If you sort by 'oldest first' you'll see that list goes bac;k to at least 12 February 2012. The meta information on the page feed says '1638 total unreviewed pages (oldest: 983 days)' which may be due to a bug because the graph at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/patrolgraph.cgi showed an enormous drop in unpatrolled pages over the past 13 days. You'll get better feedback by posting your enquiry at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation.
- When marking a page you have tagged as patrolled, you need to be failrly certain that it is not going to remain unnoticed and and unimproved for the next 5 years. Topic knowledge is not required and that's why the new patrolling tool has the feature of being able to send a message to the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I don't know what I am doing wrong but when I try sorting unpatrolled pages (the one in yellow), the oldest article I am getting is for Oct this year (I am selecting the oldest radio button). Your answer for the 2nd option is a tall order. Right now I am tagging based on article content alone (without doing any google search). Addressing all issues with an article I feel is something that GOSE should be looking at (I guess it would be OK to mark all articles for GOSE/expansion/copyedit etc.), but then I might be playing it safe. Just a generic question to all editors, Is it OK to tag articles and not fix issues yourself? -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to the reccommendations on the tutorial at WP:NPP, patrollers/reviewers are encouraged to do some minor fixes on-the-fly, and if necessary some further detective work. For example, this can be very effective in catching serial vandal/hoax/attack page creators, recreations of deleted pages, COPYVIOs, and sockpuppets. At NPP, accuracy and thoroughness are far more important than speed. That said, The special:new pages that you are working from is all but deprecated and I thought in fact that you were already working from Special:NewPagesFeed - do try it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the bot's down or getting bad information or something. I manually changed it yesterday to reflect what it says it's supposed to reflect, which is the Special:NewPages list (which never exceeds 30 days). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Aggressive new page patrol edit-conflicts
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Barnstars all around.
Does Wikipedia gain anything by assuming that all new pages are created by vandals and must be deleted? The instructions for this community appear to be all about dealing with vandals creating unwanted pages. Thanks for the bad faith assumption.
What about an instruction like, "If it isn't vandalism, why not allow the editor more than a damn minute to edit the article, instead of offering elaborate instructions on how to overcome an edit conflict you created with your aggressive new page patrolling?"
-Fjozk (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- New page patrolling is all about giving new pages a boost by making some minor enhancements on-the-fly to help the creator, tagging pages that need more attention, and tagging for deletion pages that are obviously not appropriate or do not meet criteria for inclusion. If you feel there has been aggressive patrolling, please list the details here and we'll look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Doing more to recognise the potential for good new pages isn't something that should be beyond our capabilities. We don't have to demand " pound of flesh" for it in terms of blow-by-blow disagreements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I forget just how bad disagreements are on Wikipedia, with a tag team turning up to do the flesh extraction, too. -Fjozk (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Doing more to recognise the potential for good new pages isn't something that should be beyond our capabilities. We don't have to demand " pound of flesh" for it in terms of blow-by-blow disagreements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, it's all too familiar here... certain people consider it their fiefdom, and to be a squire or page you have to prove your ability to do exactly what they say for a good long time - and just be very careful not to say anything that might be misinterpreted as being negative about the self-appointed authorities!
- As for how those who actually create new pages are treated... words fail me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- First, let me just say that everyone has already beaten me up about posting an article without an "in progress" sign, or without creating it in user space first and for a million other reasons.
- The issue is timing. I created an article and was still editing, when a proud NPPer came by and fixed an error I made in the first minute after creation, an error I was in the process of correcting while also adding sources and demographic data to the article, giving me an edit coflict while trying to insert a complex citation. The article was not an attack page or CSDable or anything other than an appropriate and includable Wikipedia article, and an NPPer interfered with its creation.
- The edit did not give the article a boost, instead it interfered with my continuing to edit the article. Eventually someone even added a link to a USGS publication that is a personal account of the subject of the article falling off a horse and missing a day in the field, not reliably sourced encyclopedic biographical content.
- It was not necessary to chase me away from the article within one minute of its creation. A little common sense would go a long way towards editor retention: it's not an attack article, wait a few minutes and see if it is still being edited. [1] And you would have a better Wikipedia article if I had been allowed to edit it. Instead you got the bold corrected and added a link to a pointless article. Lovely. -Fjozk (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, you asked about the link to the other article, that's why I added it. AutomaticStrikeout 02:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have realised that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you put something in the article space, people will do whatever they think needs doing. As soon as you start an article it becomes a living document that anyone can try to improve as they see fit. Complaining about this is pointless, if the changes bother you so much then go ahead and fix whatever is wrong. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Fjozk is right. We have begged, pleaded, scolded, and demanded that NPPers back off, and the fact is that a couple of cowboys think it's really, really, really important to go tag an article within seconds of its creation. All that stuff about "please, please, please patrol from the back of the queue" is being ignored by certain people. They are causing problems, and this editor's frustration is just one more proof of it.
- Look at the page history. Someone thought it was incredibly important to slightly change the formatting less than two minutes after page creation. Couldn't that have waited, oh, say, an hour or two? I think so. And do you think that NPPer was working the back of the queue, in accordance with repeated instructions from the community? I sure don't. But this is what we get, and this is what we're going to get until we get WP:BLOCK-level serious about stopping this behavior, and this inconvenience-causing and frustrating-raising behavior is what wrecks the reputation of the NPPers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Before you go calling Go Phightins! a cowboy, please consider what happened from a different perspective. Fjozk came onto Phightins! talk page to discussion the situation. Phightins! politely explained how to deal with edit conflicts and offered his assistance to Fjozk in case he had further questions. Fjozk started to become less friendly and asked why Phightins! didn't wait a couple minutes. Phightins! explained about how patrollers search for pages that qualify for speedy deletion. Fjozk pointed out that his article didn't qualify and that what happened was discouraging to an editor new to creating pages. Phightins! responded by saying he was sorry Fjozk felt that way and explained that once a patroller opens a page to check it, they usually review it so someone else won't have to later. Yes, this may not be desirable given that patrollers are supposed to look at older pages first, but Phightins! may not have realized that and all concerned should at least be willing to assume good faith on his part, especially given his attempts to be helpful to Fjozk, which included telling him about the Teahouse. Fjozk didn't seem willing to accept the explanation and wanted to stop discussing. It probably would have been wise for me to just let it rest, but I was not pleased at the way my friend (Phightins!) was being spoken to for doing what I felt was simply his job, so I asked what the complaint was and was informed that yes, Fjozk was ticked off because Phightins! had bolded the text and thereby caused an edit conflict. As I already mentioned, Phightins! had explained to Fjozk how to deal with edit conflicts, but apparently Fjozk wasn't satisfied. Fjozk didn't appreciate my involvement in the discussion and came back to accuse me of bullying (somewhat ironic given all the complaining he is doing about a good faith edit by Phightins!). Eventually, Dennis Brown came in and tried to help explain the situation, as did Ryan Vesey, however Fjozk didn't seem inclined to care much about what either said and has continued to insist on making a mountain out of a molehill and failing to assume good faith on Phightins! part. I doubt he will listen to this post either, but I feel it only fair that someone explain Phightins! side of this story. AutomaticStrikeout 02:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, WhatAmIdoing, just look at this page history - doesn't it tell you something? The answer is staring me full in the face. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The NPPer emergency edit. What did it do? It bolded the subject of the article and blocked my editing. This was not an attack article emergency, and the edit was done about 1 minute after I posted the article. I was adding sources and demographic information. I quit, because the NPPer was so aggressive about the necessity to attack and block vandals creating crap on Wikipedia, kinda implying I was guilty of such by submitting any content. AutomaticStrikeOut then added a template I requested another, politce user, to help me with.[2] User:Go Phightins! then adds a link to a memoir which mentions the subject in passing.[3] Then User:Ryan Vesey comes along to let the reader know that some fossils were later found in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument area of Utah.[4] No NPPer improved the article. They interfered with my writing the article. You think 11 minutes is kinda quick? How about 1 minute to bold the title, not to deal with BLP concerns, not to deal with attack pieces, not to deal with articles that don't belong on Wikipedia, 1 minute to bold, followed by three editors adding unencyclopedic and poorly worded information. You want more mature editors at NPP? Ask the current editors to act maturely by following the community consensus to edit from the back of the queue, instead of supporting the interference in encyclopedic article creation by editors who should be retained by Wikipedia? -Fjozk (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the plea to edit from the back of the queue. Too bad NPPers don't see it. Everyone defends it by screaming about all the attack pages, yet my article wasn't an attack page. Another editor posted on my talk page about editor retention. I guarantee if you slam the door on editors creating reliably sourced, encyclopedic content, then defend your actions because other editors created attack articles, you don't stand a chance at retaining the good editors, because you're refusing to acknowledge that they exist. I am not a vandal. I did not create an attack piece. NPPers should not have treated me and then responded to my annoyance as I were a vandal. -Fjozk (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, WhatAmIdoing, just look at this page history - doesn't it tell you something? The answer is staring me full in the face. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do realize that Wikipedia is collaborative project. And, I was doing what needed being doing. No one else improved the article. What they did was correct a single error, interfere with my adding the demographic data and more references, then add a piece of cotton candy about the guy once fell off a horse while out with some other guy--not encyclopedic, and certainly not worth adding a link to. If they had improved it, that would be one thing, but, no, WhatamIdoing is correct, it was just cowboy NPPing. It made the article worse, because it interfered with editing by someone who was capable of writing and improving the article. You want substance in an encyclopedia or you want to catch every format error within one minute? You got the latter. -Fjozk (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Fjozk. Several months ago I created a new article about a notable musician in Europe. It was attacked within minutes. The experience discouraged me so much that I haven't done anything to improve the article from the moment of the attack. I haven't really done much on Wikipedia the last two months (I returned to editing earlier in the summer after a 6 year wikibreak and created two good articles but could only deal with the frustration for a few weeks) because of the hostility certain power-mad "patrollers" have regarding even innocuous edits. I've given serious thought to going on a permanent wikibreak because it seems everytime I want to add something to expand the field of knowledge (and with the credentials, I have something to add), some 15-year old in his basement tags it, attacks it, and proposes it for deletion because he doesn't know anything before 1995. I'd say NPP delenda est but some Kanye West fan would tag the article as lacking notability.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- ColonelHenry, I'm one the first to complain that NPP is under performing and losing editors, and I've been campaigning for improvement for nearly three years. Not for myself though, because I believe my creations to be well within the criteria even if they're not perfect in other ways. The system does not need to be abolished, but what it needs is a different class of patroller. No user rights or training are required for it.
- However, of your 16 creations, only two were tagged perhaps a little hastily, and other are still lacking in references, and one, a BLP, has one ref, probably a primary source (the subjects CV) and the link is dead. It was tagged for notability 11 minutes after creation. (a bit hasty). It was then correctly PRODed by an experienced user a day later and also tagged for notability by another experienced user, and is still tagged 3 months later. This was the one where you accused editors of 'clubbing baby seals'. On one of your unreferenced creations, I actually provided a ref for you 50 minutes later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- the article in question is still tagged because i've been so dissuaded from doing anything the article isn't improved to remove the tag. Aside from checking my watchlist, i do little anymore. The brush with NPP really left a bad taste in my mouth--like Surströmming.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what NPPing does, it leaves a bad taste, it sends editors away, and meanwhile you have other editors wondering how to retain good editors. If the idea is to improve content, then sending away editors who are capable of improving the content in exchange for NPPers making sure the bold is correct and adding links to memoirs which mention the subject in passing isn't improving anything. No one has added the demographic data to the article I was trying to edit. But we now know the subject fell off a horse once. -Fjozk (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You know why the demographic data is not in the article? Because at the first sign of adversity, you complained about it, and when you didn't get the answer you wanted, you gave up. Besides, Phightins! explained to you what do in case of edit conflicts. As far as I can tell, you didn't act on that. That tells me you were less interested in finding the solution to your problem and more interested in griping about it. AutomaticStrikeout 02:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- (REPLY TO FJOZK 02:14 21OCT12 ABOVE) Wikipedia, for all its merit, still has a black eye from long ago when they called John Siegenthaler a Nazi war criminal. NPP shouldn't be open to any 15-year old who likes the mantle of power while not having to wear pants, eating cheetos and leaving orange faux-cheese powder on his keyboard, while taking a break from the new Halo. There needs to be a better screening and probation process. A new article should be given 24-48 hours for the creator to have the chance to put in a decent effort (without any arbitrary "hey, don't edit in the namespace" nonsense) before anyone throws up tags and goes on the war path like a hashish-emboldened Assassin--that is, unless it's palpable nonsense that deserves immediate deletion. If an NPP starts acting like a sadistic guard at Abu Ghraib, there should be swift, punitive action to stop the behavior that drives well-meaning and capable editors away because of such abused power. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who has done a certain amount of patrolling myself, I don't especially appreciate your characterization of patrollers. Perhaps you should give consideration to the fact that remarks like the above could drive away well-meaning and capable patrollers. After all, this is a volunteer website, and when people get chewed out for doing what they believed to be the job of a patroller, do you really think they want to stay and listen to it? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Go Phightins! was acting in good faith and the way he has been treated here is shameful. AutomaticStrikeout 02:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Deep down inside, we're all 15-year old power-hungry kids with no power in the real world writing fart jokes on Mitt Romney. Right now, my poison is a bag of Utz Sour Cream & Onion potato chips...so all characterizations and stereotypes have an ounce of truth. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps so.
In fact, I'd bet if we grouped all the jokes together, we could have a binder full of fart jokes. AutomaticStrikeout 02:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps so.
- Here we go, aggressively attack anyone who gets frustrated at the editing process, that will retain editors! And there it is, the old, "NPP from the back of the queue," right at the top, but none of that matters with the feudal opportunity to stand up for a friend. See, the community came to consensus, the consensus being that there was no benefit in interfering with editors creating good articles, so give them a minute to breathe. That's what I asked for, one minute, but I got feedback about attack articles. I did not' write an attack article, get it? You want me to read Go Phightins! edit conflict directions, why doesn't he/she read directions about NPPing him/herself. -Fjozk (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Guess what. I don't appreciate you twisting my words out of context with your edit summary. I was not calling women fart jokes, I was attempting to lighten up the mood by pointing out something Romney had recently said. I only linked to it because the Colonel mentioned jokes being about Romney. Again, you failed to assume good faith on my part, even though we have community consensus about assuming good faith and you appear to be big on following consensus. AutomaticStrikeout 03:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- To me this had less top do with NPP and more to with the edit interface, edit conflicts as unlike other sites/chat rooms etc, we have no way of knowing if other editors have the article in edit mode, not just reading mode. Maybe the WMF devs need to bring in a form of notification that precedes the edit conflict that says "this article is currently being edited, maybe you should wait a while" wherever anyone has it in edit mode. And of course, I just got an edit conflict for this post! The-Pope (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Without bothering to respond to Fjozk remarks, which they are repeating for the umpteenth time, I must say that the notification you are suggesting sounds like a really good idea. In fact, I think it would be wise for you to ask somebody at WMF about it. AutomaticStrikeout 03:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- But good that you got a personal remark in without replying. Feudally well done. -Fjozk (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "feudally"--who is selling peasants and paying quitrents?--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- But good that you got a personal remark in without replying. Feudally well done. -Fjozk (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Without bothering to respond to Fjozk remarks, which they are repeating for the umpteenth time, I must say that the notification you are suggesting sounds like a really good idea. In fact, I think it would be wise for you to ask somebody at WMF about it. AutomaticStrikeout 03:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Advising me to follow community consensus, AutomaticStrikeout? Why? You don't. Yes, The Pope, it is about an edit conflict by an overly eager NPP who decided that instead of editing from the back of the queue or dealing with attack articles, he had to edit an article that had been created one minute ago, and, likely was still being edited. Why not wait even 5 minutes? -Fjozk (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because waiting requires extra work. Well, going back to it later requires extra work, and leaving it open in a tab while you go on to other things requires realizing that you have this option. At the moment, it appears that this realization requires individually whacking every single NPPer. There aren't apparently enough hours in the day to educate them all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- To me this had less top do with NPP and more to with the edit interface, edit conflicts as unlike other sites/chat rooms etc, we have no way of knowing if other editors have the article in edit mode, not just reading mode. Maybe the WMF devs need to bring in a form of notification that precedes the edit conflict that says "this article is currently being edited, maybe you should wait a while" wherever anyone has it in edit mode. And of course, I just got an edit conflict for this post! The-Pope (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Guess what. I don't appreciate you twisting my words out of context with your edit summary. I was not calling women fart jokes, I was attempting to lighten up the mood by pointing out something Romney had recently said. I only linked to it because the Colonel mentioned jokes being about Romney. Again, you failed to assume good faith on my part, even though we have community consensus about assuming good faith and you appear to be big on following consensus. AutomaticStrikeout 03:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Deep down inside, we're all 15-year old power-hungry kids with no power in the real world writing fart jokes on Mitt Romney. Right now, my poison is a bag of Utz Sour Cream & Onion potato chips...so all characterizations and stereotypes have an ounce of truth. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who has done a certain amount of patrolling myself, I don't especially appreciate your characterization of patrollers. Perhaps you should give consideration to the fact that remarks like the above could drive away well-meaning and capable patrollers. After all, this is a volunteer website, and when people get chewed out for doing what they believed to be the job of a patroller, do you really think they want to stay and listen to it? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Go Phightins! was acting in good faith and the way he has been treated here is shameful. AutomaticStrikeout 02:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You know why the demographic data is not in the article? Because at the first sign of adversity, you complained about it, and when you didn't get the answer you wanted, you gave up. Besides, Phightins! explained to you what do in case of edit conflicts. As far as I can tell, you didn't act on that. That tells me you were less interested in finding the solution to your problem and more interested in griping about it. AutomaticStrikeout 02:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Strikeout says above something about "doing what I felt was simply his job". That's my point: it is not an NPPer's job to create edit conflicts on articles that are about 90 seconds old. It is actually an NPPer's job to carefully avoid creating situations that are difficult for inexperienced editors to cope with, such as creating an edit conflict over a trivial formatting error.
The easiest way to avoid creating problems is to stop looking at articles that are only a few seconds old. "Speedy deletion" is not measured by counting the seconds between the article creation and the article's tagging. Speedy deletion is about the time that it takes to delete an article after it is tagged. If the deletion recommendation is processed without waiting one entire week after tagging (the minimum time required for AFD or PROD), then that's speedy deletion on Wikipedia. You can have a month-old, or year-old, article speedy-deleted. It's not just for seconds-old pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Concurring with WhatamIdoing. There is a misconception among some NPPers that 'speedy' deletion means deletiing articles as quickly as possible. There may be a backlog, but NPPers are not entirely on their own out there. Accuracy is far more important than speed, and if all the recommended checks are being done, it's almost impossible to tag an article within seconds, or even a minute of creation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly why he was able to edit my article so quickly: because my article was so obviously not a candidate for speedy deletion, not an attack piece, not any type of article that required the immediate attention of a NPPer. The most likely outcome from him editing is exactly what happened, an edit conflict and a pissed off good content contributor. Don't you have enough of those already leaving Wikipedia in droves without creating an entire project around making more of them? -Fjozk (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Who is 'you'? Everyone is an editor here, including the NPPers who do not require any knowledge, experience, or training. Its up to the entire community to do something about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Who is "you?" "You" is Wikipedia, as in my sentence, "Don't you have enough of those leaving Wikipedia already?" Doesn't Wikipedia have enough good content editors leaving the encyclopedia already? You mean I should feel part of the community after getting stomped on by buddy boy AutomaticStrikout because I hurt the feelings of his buddy boy? And suggest what to do about it, when the community is clueless? Stop tag-teaming like a bunch of little boys would have been a good start.
- The community already decided what to do about it: edit from the back of the queue. If Go Phightins! can't do that, ask him to find another project where he won't be interfering with creating an encyclopedia. -Fjozk (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must say it is disappointing that certain people are incapable of following community consensus and assuming good faith on Phightins! part. I intend to have no further part in this witch hunt, but I would like to know how you starting this dramafest has contributed to building an encyclopedia. Fjozk, your condescending tone is annoying enough that at this point, I don't care if Phightins! did anything wrong. AutomaticStrikeout 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here, let me cram this insult down your throat, but I won't be here any more, because I'm the king of good faith. Got that, you with hunter for non good faith assumers. -Fjozk (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must say it is disappointing that certain people are incapable of following community consensus and assuming good faith on Phightins! part. I intend to have no further part in this witch hunt, but I would like to know how you starting this dramafest has contributed to building an encyclopedia. Fjozk, your condescending tone is annoying enough that at this point, I don't care if Phightins! did anything wrong. AutomaticStrikeout 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you contribute to Wikipedia, the pronoun is 'we' because you also have the same editing powers, and also the power to discuss things with the patrollers and even leave official warning messages. Patrollers have no special status or other tools at their disposal that everyone can't use. People like WhatamamIdoing and I have been aruond a long time and probably know a lot more how things work here than the youngsters and newbies who want to patroll pages, but although we give them advice occasionally we can't force them to take it - unless of course they are actually doing serious damage, but that's another story. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- And we must remember that unlike most other complaints about NPP, this isn't actually about speedy deletions, tag-spamming or "agressive patrolling". It's about a very minor EDIT, not a patrol, that caused an edit conflict. Whether it was done via the NPP window, the recent changes link or the random button, it was a basic, MOS-compliant, valid edit. The-Pope (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Fiozk. Patrolling from the back of the queue is important, and we need more people doing that, especially when we have good coverage of the front of the queue. But the default is and should remain the front of the queue. There have been proposals to shift the default to the back of the queue, but they will continue to be snow fails until and unless we find another way to identify attack pages as fast as they are created. In the past there have been proposals to give goodfaith creators a bit more slack with new articles, and we have longstanding consensus that A1 and A3 deletion tags should not be added to articles in the first few minutes after creation. Personally I've supported several unsuccessful proposals to broaden that, I'd like to see all goodfaith new articles given 24 hours before being tagged for deletion, and with new articles now being NoIndex until patrolled I think we could move towards that. But a restriction on productive edits at Newpage patrol is a non-starter, if you don't want collaborative editing then start your article in a sandbox and move it to mainspace when you are happy with it. Some of us have put a lot of work into encouraging patrollers to categorise, wikify and fix typos instead of just tagging articles for deletion and despite your comments I still think that Newpage patrol would be a nicer and more productive place if more patrollers installed Hotcat and took the "if in doubt categorise!" pledge. That said if the developers could find a better way to handle edit conflicts then life would be a lot easier for all of us. ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- How many more editors are going to demand I assume good faith and accuse me of writing an attack piece? Not only did I not write an attack piece, the edit was such a fast hit and run by the NPPer, that there was no way he even assumed it was an attack piece. My article was never in danger then or now of being tagged for deletion. Never. It is not an attack piece, it is not in danger of deletion, and it was categorized. Keep giving side justifications, keep screaming at me to assume good faith, keep tag-team bullying, AutomaticStrikout, and, Pope, great wiki-tax-lawyering. If you want to change the community consensus to editing from the front of the queue, then change it, and remove that advice from the page; but don't tell me it doesn't exist when it's there. And, since I did not forget to bold the subject of the article, merely deleted a single tick mark while copying and pasting into the edit window, I could have made the same error in a move from user space. And I did preview it.
- The NPPer was a trigger happy cowboy and accomplished nothing by doing what he did. The article is still missing its demographic data, substantive information. All this time discussing it with me is time spent not editing. Can we get some more Wiki bullies pounding on me demanding that I assume good faith and talking about my behavior in the face of the bullying? People get ticked off at being bullied. The bullied don't like that response. Let me cry about it. -Fjozk (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Who is 'you'? Everyone is an editor here, including the NPPers who do not require any knowledge, experience, or training. Its up to the entire community to do something about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly why he was able to edit my article so quickly: because my article was so obviously not a candidate for speedy deletion, not an attack piece, not any type of article that required the immediate attention of a NPPer. The most likely outcome from him editing is exactly what happened, an edit conflict and a pissed off good content contributor. Don't you have enough of those already leaving Wikipedia in droves without creating an entire project around making more of them? -Fjozk (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A technological solution would be best, because then we wouldn't have to worry about any NPPers knowing what they're doing (and a lot of people try it out, so it's not just a problem with the "regulars"). I'd love to see improved handling of edit conflicts; so would the devs. It is an incredibly difficult programming problem, but they have made some progress, and I'll always hope for more in the future. A technological stop that prevented a second person from editing an article within the first ten minutes, or at least from tagging it using automated tools, would also be nice. But where we are right now is at the point of needing to tell each and every NPPer to look at the older articles (even an hour older, rather than the very latest) and to let minor fixes wait for a few minutes. And they either hear us or they don't, depending on their experience and maturity and personal goals.
- Fjozk, as sad as it is, this is where we're at. No amount of talking here will change the past. You got burned by someone who honestly didn't mean to screw up your work. You got burned because he didn't perfectly follow the advice we've put out there for the express purpose of reducing that problem. But the fact is, that talking about this particular incident any longer is likely to be a waste of your time. That one editor will very likely do (somewhat) better in the future, but the structural or systemic problem unfortunately isn't going to be solved today. I suggest keeping that dismal fact in mind while you decide what you want to do with your time next. You could still go create a great article. The readers will never know how much effort it took to get past these problems, after all, but at least they'll know that you cared enough to do whatever it takes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, in particular because the talking has mostly been about scoring points against me in defense of the NPPer, and my attitude stinks from the tag team bullying; but, yes, way past done. -Fjozk (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflit) @Fjozk. Neither I nor anyone else has accused you of creating an attack page. The reason why the newpage patrol screen defaults to showing the latest edits is that every day amongst the thousands of new articles there are a small number of attack pages created and many of us think it important that they are quickly spotted and deleted. That is the main reason why the community consensus is that we prioritise patrolling at the front of the queue, and so when you go to special newpages the default is that it takes you to the front of the queue. We also need some patrolling at the back of the queue hence the message encouraging people to go there, but proposals to reverse that and have special newpages default to the back of the queue have not had consensus. It is natural that when people are patrolling newpages looking for attack pages etc that they also fix other things as they come across them - most newpages are not attack pages but many need improvement of some sort or other. There are ways that we could and in my view should reduce edit conflicts, I've proposed some at bugzilla. We could also try to get consensus to broaden the time and type of articles that should not be speedy tagged for deletion in the first minutes - that wouldn't alter what happened in your case, but it would make things easier for others. However I don't see many people supporting you in setting some rule that new articles can't be edited in their first few minutes. You are of course welcome to propose a change at the village pump or in an RFC. Shifting the default at new page patrol from the newest articles to the oldest unpatrolled ones would be technically easy and would achieve what you want. But my advice would be that unless you found some other way to quickly identify and remove attack pages changing the priority at special newpages would not get consensus, not least because I and many if not most of your fellow editors would be deeply opposed to a change that left hundreds of attack pages on Wikipedia for weeks at a time. ϢereSpielChequers 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- If getting rid of attack page is so frigging critical, why did someone bother to take the time to insert another tick mark in my article when an emergency was going on? It is obvious that removing attack pagesis no where near as important as bullying me to at least the Go Phightins! tag team, nor as important as interfering with my editing, so dealing with them is not really all that important. It just sounds rather self-important, "Oh, me, I interfered with the article being created by another editor, because there is an attack page emergencey going on, and while dealing with that attack page emergency, I noticed the equally emergent issue of a missing bold in an article that had just been created a minute ago." -Fjozk (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
What the community already figured out
"Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author."
Yes, it was not constructive, so please stop saying that it was part of a constructive edit. -Fjozk (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you see anybody on this page who disagrees with the bolded statement?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Me. I prefer the text above every single edit box. "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." Until the devs find a way to notify us if someone else is editing, we all just have to cope with edit conflicts. Your editing wasn't lost, blocked or prevented. It was still there, down the bottom if the edit conflict page and you choose to ignore it and instead go on this 4 day rant. Btw, this may not have had anything to do with NPP as someone else actually patrolled the article. The-Pope (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Luckily ranting is a one person job, so the rant stopped as soon as it started rather than being continued forever by editors popping up with random claims such as yours that Go Phigtins! and AutomaticStrikeout lied about it being a NPP edit, so let's move the whole discussion to the Don't Bite! page and start it anew there. Way to contribute to editing, just as useful as that emergency bold edit by Go Phightins!, which had to be done in the immediate second or Wikipedia would have crashed to the bottom of Google searches to the loss of all. Next time I edit an article, I'll spend an hour reading the edit window. Hoping for that Ultimate Wiki Lawyering Barn Star for the User Page, are we, The Pope? I suggested the wiki-tax-accountant barn star above, but maybe an offshore-politician tax-lawyere special can be made up just for you. -Fjozk (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- You do realise that if you had clicked edit one minute later yourself, then you wouldn't have even noticed the edit? Or if he had waited 5, 10 or 15 minutes later, you may still have been constructing your second or third edit to the article, and still caused an edit conflict. Edit conflicts happen. Whether on that article in the first minute, 5 minutes later, an hour later or on this page now. They happen. When they do, you deal with it. I'm at quite a loss as to why you were unable to do so. I would also request that you also read WP:NPA, but you seem to be doing a great job at walking the fine line. Patrolling, fixing, gnoming, is a never ending task. Yes, it could have waited, but he was looking at that page at that moment, had no idea that you were editing it again, and fixed an error. That should have been the end of the story, if you have dealt with the resulting edit conflict appropriately. The-Pope (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, apparently, according to you, I must be a complete moron to not be able to edit with 100% technical ability without a learning curve at all. Talk about bite, you're stalking and devouring for failure to be fully competent. I see this should be transfered on whole to the bite page, and I thank you for repeating and repeating your point that I am incompetent at handling edit conflicts and therefore should be forbidden from participating in Wikipedia, or whatever point you are trying to make and make and make and make and make. After all, technical ability and bold ticks above content at all times, you've made your point and made it and made it and made it--bite, stab, devour any editor without 100% technical ability from the start--retention winner in this corner! -Fjozk (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- My first few actions in relation to this issue were to ask at a couple of places if it is possible to improve the edit conflict detection and inform the "2nd editor" that someone else is already editing the article. So, no, I don't think you are a moron. I just think you are a very unpleasant person. The-Pope (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input on your personal feelings about me. I think the same of you and your pounding and pounding your point. In fact, I am going to create a sarcastic barnstar called Pound for Pound a Pope just for unpleasant point-pounders-to-the-editors-just-trying-create-content like you. Yes, I think you are a very unpleasant point pounder. So, now we have done the useful and established our personal feelings about each other, can we close this? I'll you get one more pound in and unwatch the page. Keep on pounding your point in. -Fjozk (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- My first few actions in relation to this issue were to ask at a couple of places if it is possible to improve the edit conflict detection and inform the "2nd editor" that someone else is already editing the article. So, no, I don't think you are a moron. I just think you are a very unpleasant person. The-Pope (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, apparently, according to you, I must be a complete moron to not be able to edit with 100% technical ability without a learning curve at all. Talk about bite, you're stalking and devouring for failure to be fully competent. I see this should be transfered on whole to the bite page, and I thank you for repeating and repeating your point that I am incompetent at handling edit conflicts and therefore should be forbidden from participating in Wikipedia, or whatever point you are trying to make and make and make and make and make. After all, technical ability and bold ticks above content at all times, you've made your point and made it and made it and made it--bite, stab, devour any editor without 100% technical ability from the start--retention winner in this corner! -Fjozk (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- You do realise that if you had clicked edit one minute later yourself, then you wouldn't have even noticed the edit? Or if he had waited 5, 10 or 15 minutes later, you may still have been constructing your second or third edit to the article, and still caused an edit conflict. Edit conflicts happen. Whether on that article in the first minute, 5 minutes later, an hour later or on this page now. They happen. When they do, you deal with it. I'm at quite a loss as to why you were unable to do so. I would also request that you also read WP:NPA, but you seem to be doing a great job at walking the fine line. Patrolling, fixing, gnoming, is a never ending task. Yes, it could have waited, but he was looking at that page at that moment, had no idea that you were editing it again, and fixed an error. That should have been the end of the story, if you have dealt with the resulting edit conflict appropriately. The-Pope (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Luckily ranting is a one person job, so the rant stopped as soon as it started rather than being continued forever by editors popping up with random claims such as yours that Go Phigtins! and AutomaticStrikeout lied about it being a NPP edit, so let's move the whole discussion to the Don't Bite! page and start it anew there. Way to contribute to editing, just as useful as that emergency bold edit by Go Phightins!, which had to be done in the immediate second or Wikipedia would have crashed to the bottom of Google searches to the loss of all. Next time I edit an article, I'll spend an hour reading the edit window. Hoping for that Ultimate Wiki Lawyering Barn Star for the User Page, are we, The Pope? I suggested the wiki-tax-accountant barn star above, but maybe an offshore-politician tax-lawyere special can be made up just for you. -Fjozk (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Me. I prefer the text above every single edit box. "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." Until the devs find a way to notify us if someone else is editing, we all just have to cope with edit conflicts. Your editing wasn't lost, blocked or prevented. It was still there, down the bottom if the edit conflict page and you choose to ignore it and instead go on this 4 day rant. Btw, this may not have had anything to do with NPP as someone else actually patrolled the article. The-Pope (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Automatic patrol?
I was patrolling some of the user talk pages and I noticed that the earliest unpatrolled ones listed are only a month old. Are these pages automatically patrolled after a month? AutomaticStrikeout 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Special:NewPages only lists articles under 1 month old. You might be able to find articles that have fallen off the list, on an outdated list of unpatrolled new pages at WP:NPP30. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. AutomaticStrikeout 01:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirect patrol
Is there a list of new redirects, as opposed to a list of new pages in general? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you using Special:NewPagesFeed? If so, set your filter to show redirects. Ryan Vesey 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- How do you exclude non-redirects? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's possible, I'll talk to Oliver and see if he knows anything I don't or if he can get that created. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- How do you exclude non-redirects? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are AfDs patrolled?
I see no reason why that particular type of page creation needs to be patrolled - it's closed if it's bad, and it's closed in seven days anyhow. I have a feeling that this happens with all XfDs that create new pages, so perhaps that should be excluded? MSJapan (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- They are not, so I assume that it's probably a software bug. Please report any unusual events like this to Wikipedia talk:Page Curation. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
RfC regarding CSD
For those who may be interested, there is an RfC regarding a potential new CSD criterion. The RfC can be found here, please feel welcome to weigh in. AutomaticStrikeout 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The articles in the Category:All unreviewed new articles are not part of the usual New Pages Patrol effort. I regularly review articles in this category, but I would appreciate some assistance by other editors at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I sent a TV episode to prod. There are only seven pages left in the category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
User pages
I'm told these show up in the queue - are they really meant to be patrolled? Do sub-pages show up as well? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- User pages don't by default, eg this link only shows articles: [5]. There's a pull-down where you could see other namespaces, but I don't think most of them are as useful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I found the queue at Special:NewPagesFeed, using the "Set filters" option, it allows you to set it to the article or user namespace. Since there is an option to set the user namespace there, it seems as if user pages can/should be patrolled. Just my opinion... The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes they can be patrolled, and I for one think they should be patrolled, but we don't have the resources to do it in the same way as we do articles. So in practice userpages are nowhere near as thoroughly patrolled as articles. My view is that since we are allowing anyone to write anything and post it on the Internet we should at least be patrolling all pages for attack pages and copyvio. Occasionally I trawl userspace for certain high risk words and phrases and delete the attack pages that I find, but it is a big project and some of the stuff I've found had been up for some time first. That's why I've proposed in the past that we default to making userpages editable only by the user and by admins, with a page by page option by which an editor can open up pages in their userspace for collaboration. If we did that we'd at least resolve the problem of long dormant editors having their userpages vandalised without anyone noticing. ϢereSpielChequers 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I found the queue at Special:NewPagesFeed, using the "Set filters" option, it allows you to set it to the article or user namespace. Since there is an option to set the user namespace there, it seems as if user pages can/should be patrolled. Just my opinion... The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Backlog
Note that we are mass-patrolling (or mass-curing, if you want) now the articles created on November 24, which corresponds to one month and one week.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Tagging new article within first hour of their creation
[ This thread has been moved from WT:Page Curation. I am quite busy in RL right now but will try to respond more to this later. —Neotarf (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)]
Why are new articles getting tag bombed within seconds of when they are started? Neotarf (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can you point to an example or two, Neotarf? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, is there anything you don't have watchlisted? Okay, [6], and the first thing I did was put the translation template on it. [7] Here's an older one.[8] This one actually got added to a list of articles needing translation, even though I had put a template on it, and there was some demand that it be completed in a certain time frame, even though the edit summaries should have shown that it was being worked on a little bit every day. Neotarf (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wrote something longer at the "Templates for newcomers" thread before I saw your comment here. —Neotarf (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- 49 minutes is not 10 seconds. Please use your sand box or learn how to cope with edit conflicts rather than getting angry with other editors. Remember the tagger has no way to know of you are still working on it or have logged off for the day. The Swedish source article had a reference, why didn't you copy that over with the first edit? Unreferenced articles, even translations, will always attract attention these days.The-Pope (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two ways to avoid this tag bombing are: use of the {{inuse}} template, or better still, developing articles in user space first and moving them to mainspace when they are sufficiently complete to avoid the risk of them being tag bombed - even many experienced, established users do this. That said, there is still much room for eduducation of the patrollers, and issues of this kind are still best reported at WT:NPP which has not been made obsolete by the curation tool and where replies will also be very rapid. This page is mainly for reporting issues concerning the technical use of the New Pages Feed and the Curation Tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try that one, then. I used {{ New page }} before, but still ended up with several days of talking about what I was trying to do instead of actually doing it. I see someone even has an essay on it: WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
- I posted on this talk page because it was the one in the edit summary.
- I have not found the whole develop-in-userspace concept to be particularly user friendly, and yes, I did spend several hours looking at the tutorial. It seems to require admin tools to finish, and I suppose some editors have admin friends they can ask to help. The last time I waited for an admin (for a contested page move), it took maybe 3 months, due to backlog. At that point, who can remember what else needs to be linked to the article and from what language wiki. Easier to put everything together while you still have all the the windows open. I seem to remember that the last time I had this conversation, I found out that most people don't really start articles in user space.
- —Neotarf (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Developing a page in user space is identical to doing it in main space (other than hiding categories and some templates if it is going to be days/weeks in your user space) and if the target page is available for use, then you don't need any admin assistance to move it when you are ready. You may be thinking of articles for creation which is mainly aimed at IP or new editors who can't create articles. Whilst the whole site is a work in progress we dont want too many obviously half finished articles in main space. If you put a few internal wiki links and a reference or two in your first draft then you are probably ok to work direct in main space. (and you really need to learn how to deal with edit conflicts. I've had two in this thread alone, and haven't lost any text.The-Pope (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever. —Neotarf (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of users make use of user space drafts. When the article is ready for prime time, just move it to article space and then request deletion of the redirect from your user space sandbox. There is not a significant backlog on housekeeping deletions. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, I have wasted a lot of time looking at the instructions for this and did not find them to be particularly user friendly. Also, most people do not use this method. —Neotarf (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Developing a page in user space is identical to doing it in main space (other than hiding categories and some templates if it is going to be days/weeks in your user space) and if the target page is available for use, then you don't need any admin assistance to move it when you are ready. You may be thinking of articles for creation which is mainly aimed at IP or new editors who can't create articles. Whilst the whole site is a work in progress we dont want too many obviously half finished articles in main space. If you put a few internal wiki links and a reference or two in your first draft then you are probably ok to work direct in main space. (and you really need to learn how to deal with edit conflicts. I've had two in this thread alone, and haven't lost any text.The-Pope (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Back to the original question...one reason is that it's easier for patrollers to find and examine new articles than "articles that are stable after creation" or "newest articles at least 24 hours old". -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only slightly easier. It takes half a second to click Sort by: ( )Newest (X)Oldest in the new pages feed. Braincricket (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewing the oldest articles isn't what was requested. To review articles that are a day old is more difficult and to only review those articles which aren't still being edited by others is not possible at the moment. The-Pope (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Q: "Why are new articles getting tag bombed within seconds of when they are started?"
- A: Because people don't review from the back of the queue. Braincricket (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewing the oldest articles isn't what was requested. To review articles that are a day old is more difficult and to only review those articles which aren't still being edited by others is not possible at the moment. The-Pope (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only slightly easier. It takes half a second to click Sort by: ( )Newest (X)Oldest in the new pages feed. Braincricket (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- We have to default newpage patrol to the front of the queue because of the need to delete attack pages ASAP. Consequently a large portion of the tagging and other patrolling takes place at the front of the queue because the typical patroller is not just looking for attack pages. As a result of some people's concern with overhasty tagging we have consensus that A1 and A3 tags should not be applied in the first minutes after an article is created, personally I'd like to see that broadened to include more goodfaith articles, but consensus has not yet been with me on this. However the current arrangements are unsatisfactory and we do have a problem with tagbombing at newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) My first edit on this article should have translated enough of the article to establish notability and keep it from being deleted. Twenty minutes into translating, someone tag bombed it with notes that it was uncategorised, unreferenced, unlinked. Does anyone really think those things are going to go onto an article in the first minutes of translation? I also see yet another tag saying the article needs inline citations. Per WP:IC this is not correct.
- So now I have to stop editing and deal with all these Issues, not to mention the pontificating snarks. And most of the tags would be unnecessary once the article is finished. If they had waited an hour I would have had the article translated already, and have been ready to start the peripheral stuff in the morning. As it is, I have stopped editing.
- They wonder why the number of new articles has gone down and why the new editors are leaving? This is why. The system is broke.
- —Neotarf (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we're even discussing this issue. Neotarf seems belligerent and unwilling to create articles in his or her userspace. If Neotarf did so, Neotarf would have no problem. As such, Neotarf has no reason to complain when somebody patrols his or her pages. Ryan Vesey 15:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because editors who insist on it drive away editors who aren't comfortable with creating an article in the user space. I'm one of them. Different editors edit with different styles. Policy doesn't mandate one way of creation or another because of this realization...only a few inconsiderate new page patrollers who abuse that power sometimes by being imperious by insiting on one way or another. It's aggressive and hostile, and burns people. How would you like it if you had just started painting your house and I came up and stapled a sign on the door marking it as "condemned" or a "violation?" You'd tell me to "piss off." Same here, if I start an article and someone tags it while I'm doing those initial things to start it up...the way I feel comfortable editing, you get me out of my comfort zone and I'm more likely to walk away from wikipedia and such hostility than continue subjecting myself to it. I haven't yet (almost though) because I like contributing and it happens to me rarely. Mind you, I don't write attack articles, or write about things not notable. I aim towards solid editing and contributing substance. Multiply me by a few hundred, or a few thousand and think how NPP has contributed to driving that multitude away because of the pettiness of some NPPers who were just a little too trigger-happy. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- If somebody wants to create an article outside of their userspace, I have no problem with that. If somebody who should know better wants to create Carl Emil Pettersson outside of their userspace with no references and wants to complain when it is tagged 49 minutes later, I do have a problem. Creating foreign language articles in the mainspace, like this one, is inappropriate. If an appropriate article is created in the mainspace and it has some errors, the creator shouldn't be angry that it was tagged, they should be happy. I know I am. It might allow me to recognize an error that I didn't see and fix it. Ryan Vesey 16:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- When it's benign like that, I have no problem with it. I rarely tag an article, but before I do, I check to see if it has been recently edited...because of this very conflict. If someone has recently edited an article, and there are several edits within a short time frame...i.e. within an hour, I'm not going to tag it thinking it may still be worked on at that time. A friendly reminder on an article that is obviously not being worked on should not be a problem, and I would endorse such a policy. Unfortunately, even benign suggestions can be taken too seriously creating bad faith situations--especially when someone's thoughtful work disappears because of an edit conflict only to find out it was an NPP tagger. Even more unfortunate, and not infrequently, some NPPers are a little too sadistic with the tagging. That's why this discussion pops up as often as it does. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- And once you hit save, this isn't "your house" anymore, it's all of ours. This is a collaborative environment. It's written on every edit screen: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited ... by anyone", not "can be edited by anyone when you have finished with it". I wish we knew when someone else was still editing. I wish the edit conflict system was easier to use. I wish people would realise tags are offering advice, not just condeming their work. But we are stuck with what we have, and sometimes an article (good or bad) will get missed by everyone, other times it will be jumped on in seconds. The hyperbole and exaggeration in this case (it was tagged almost an hour after creation, not seconds) doesn't help, but as it is the second case like this in the past few months, I hope something can be done - which hope doesn't include banning tagging for a certain length of time after creation. The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. But a little better judgment on the part of an NPPer is to be asked for unless there's an obvious bad faith error. For example, sometimes it takes me 4-5 edits in a half hour to start a good intro, set up the sections, put in references, external links, categories, and I do them in separate edits. Sometimes, I'll write a paragraph from my notes and put in the references in subsequent edits. To be shot at by an NPPer upsets that flow if they decide to butt in. While some will say "this wouldn't be a problem if the user edited in the user space"...it can equally be said, "this wouldn't be a problem if the NPPer checked the edit history to avoid interjecting his tags while someone (in his good judgment of that editing activity) is actively editting the article." An hour or two isn't too much to ask for, and might be a good policy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I object to Mr. Vesey's categorizations of me as "belligerent" and "unwilling", and of his dismissal of my legitimate concerns as "complaining". They are uncivil and unsupportable. I suggest he review the salient policies and adjust his remarks accordingly. —Neotarf (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Moved in order to maintain proper indentation. Neotarf appears to be responding to my initial comment, but placed the response in a place where it appears like I had responded to this statement with my second comment. Ryan Vesey 02:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are very clearly "belligerent" and "unwilling" when it comes to the concept of creating the article in your userspace. It's as easy as creating the article at User:Neotarf/ARTICLE NAME. You responded to statements related to creating articles in your userspace with "Whatever" and "As I said before, I have wasted a lot of time looking at the instructions for this and did not find them to be particularly user friendly. Also, most people do not use this method". You have made zero effort to find a solution on your end, expecting others to bend over backwards for your sake. If you don't want to deal with articles receiving tags for necessary improvement, create the articles correctly in the initial edit, create them in your userspace, or don't create them. Ryan Vesey 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are ordering a content editor who is editing in good faith to do it your way or get off the wikipedia? And you want to be an admin?!—Neotarf (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I never said that. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear on the math, since I have been accused of everything from ownership of an article (that I have not edited for 4 days!) to "not making an effort" (on issues that I have dropped my intended editing project in order to explain my exact efforts here and elsewhere over and over in minute detail); I started the article at 12:58, I added a translation banner at 13:00, and by 13:18 I had finished a rough draft of the first part, with an edit summary of "translate two paragraphs". At 13:47, twenty-nine minutes later, the first template bomb was dropped, and I have not edited the article since.
- I have noticed that almost the exact same thing happened in a thread above. Someone created an article, was not allowed to finish what they started, and then was subjected to bullying and harassment by the very people who have apparently been told to hold off of templating newly articles.
- If all of these people are really here to create an encyclopedia, it's not working.
- —Neotarf (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The WP:OWN comment was in response to Colonel Henry's house painting scenario, not to you. No one is ever "not allowed to finish what they started". Edit conflicts can happen on old pages too. Unless the wmf devs work out an alternative merging/notification/warning system, you just have to accept that they will happen. Would you have had this same response if the edit that caused you to lose the info was another editor adding content or refs or fixing a spelling error? I have retitled these sections to correctly reflect the situation under discussion. The-Pope (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Tagging new article within first hour of their creation (arbitrary break)
- Edit conflicts are very much part of the problem, and with a bit of pressure to up the priority of some easy software fixes we could reduce that problem. It should be possible for a categorisation edit and a typo fix not to edit conflict with each other. The WMF could easily invest some programmer time in improving the code to handle more simultaneous edits without losing half of them as edit conflicts - we just need to keep telling them that improving the edit conflict software should be a higher priority and get more programmer time than moodbars and Article Feedback tools. Similarly it would be easy to replace some tags with automatically generated hidden categories. We really don't need an uncategorised template, the latest newpage patrol screen doesn't use that template when it lists uncategorised pages, and we could replace thet template with a hidden category of uncategorised, and while we are about it deadend could be replaced with hidden cats for zero, one two or three links to other articles. All of that would reduce stress at newpage patrol, and hopefully shift people from stuff that could easily be automated like adding deadend and uncategorised templates to stuff we actually need volunteers for like categorising articles and adding wikilinks. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is there some way to sense if an article is stable, for example, if there have not been any new edits for a certain length of time? It seems a waste of time to start adding categories and such before the scope of the article is evident. Perhaps the only patrolling options open at the time of an articles creation should be for obvious vandalism. —Neotarf (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- ColonelHenry, we had this very same discussion exactly 6 months ago in the thread you started at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Archive 2#Clubbing baby seals - has it started all over again because I recently archived it to create a clean page for 2013?
- The WMF could better invest some programmer time by producing the long promised new landing page they offered as a consolation prize to their uncivil rejection of WP:ACTRIAL. All they did was to develop (an albeit excellent) new interface and tool for patrolling new pages.
- Untill we get that landing page (and I'm having my doubts) we're saddled with the same old problem of editors who without any experience or user rights whatsoever are allowed to wield a big stick over new articles. Some of us, (me and WereSpieleChequers included) have been campaigning for over 3 years for improvement to the standards of NPP, but it won't happen until the community gets together and calmly reaches a consensus for changes. Sometimes we have to look at the future and the bigger picture rather than simply get angry over what directly concerns us personally as individuals. The only possible solutions are one or the other (preferably both) of the following:
- Making NPP a user right for suitably experienced users
- A new new-user interface that clearly explains without walls of text to newbies what the basic requirements are for every new article in order to avoid tagging and possible deletion.
- There is another advantage with solution #2: it would reduce the need for CSD, XfD, PROD, BLPPROD, DELREV, REFUND, etc and hence reduce the work load for admins which in turn would address the current dearth of adminship candidates.
- On 'comfort zones' I can't think of anywhere I would prefer to develop my articles than in the comfort of my own Wikipedia workspace, or better still on my computer until ready to move to mainspace - the only time any of my new articles were tagged were, believe it or not, by inexperienced drive-by taggers... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- How big of problem is this as a wider issue? Hasty tagging for minor issues obviously merits coaching, but there NPP is always going to get complaints so the mere existence of complaints should not be used as an indicator of a problem. How would we go about quantifying this in assessing if there really is a need for a change? VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You'll quantify it like we did: by spending several months patrolling new pages as well as the ones that have been patrolled. You won't need much convincing that there is a problem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- How big of problem is this as a wider issue? Hasty tagging for minor issues obviously merits coaching, but there NPP is always going to get complaints so the mere existence of complaints should not be used as an indicator of a problem. How would we go about quantifying this in assessing if there really is a need for a change? VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)