Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) →Admins want to be patrolled?: really? |
Scottywong (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
: It's good that you provided this notice, but "removing the autopatrolled right from all admins" does not match my reading of the proposal. (Clarifying that is probably best done over there, rather than here.) --[[User:Joe Decker|j⚛e decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]] 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
: It's good that you provided this notice, but "removing the autopatrolled right from all admins" does not match my reading of the proposal. (Clarifying that is probably best done over there, rather than here.) --[[User:Joe Decker|j⚛e decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]] 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Just so you know, I do a lot of NPP myself; it was a substantial majority of my work before becoming an admin and is still a significant part of what I do, so yeah. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] ([[User talk: Writ Keeper|t]] + [[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|c]]) 21:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
::Just so you know, I do a lot of NPP myself; it was a substantial majority of my work before becoming an admin and is still a significant part of what I do, so yeah. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] ([[User talk: Writ Keeper|t]] + [[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|c]]) 21:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Then you should've known better. [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#442244;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#447744;">| converse _</span>]] 13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:55, 27 March 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).
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: [1]. 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)
Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation
At this point, it's not likely that anything positive will come out of this discussion. Page creators are not obligated to utilize user space while working on new articles but they must understand the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and anything in mainspace is liable to be tagged by someone else. New Page Patrollers should attempt to ascertain if the new article is currently being edited before tagging it (perhaps by asking on the page creator's talk page). Also, it is not the end of the world if a page is tagged and unless the tag is deletion-related, the issues probably don't need to be addressed right away. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)}} [ 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, [2], and the first thing I did was put the translation template on it. [3] Here's an older one.[4] 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)
- There is a similar scenario at WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. If you and others are disrupting the article creation process just because this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then maybe it's time to look again at WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
- And yes, editors are "not being allowed to finish what they have started". Unless you are 14 years old and live in your mother's basement, most editors must juggle WP with RL. I have a finite amount of time available to edit. If I have to use the time to deal with interruptions and with rude and aggressive individuals, then I lose that time for productive pursuits.
- —Neotarf (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- You don't need to lose that time for productive pursuits. Just ignore the tags and do the work you want to. The tags aren't hurting anything. You're choosing to waste your time here. There is no time limit. You are allowed to finish at your own pace, unless it's tagged for deletion, which isn't the case here. (Also, please don't insult editors who happen to have more time or choose to use more of their free time here.) --Onorem♠Dil 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please review my beginning remarks, and the remarks of the editor who started the other discussion that is now closed: that is not at all what is being said here. —Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- The belief of a minority of editors that people are somehow doing something wrong by not starting articles in their userspace is divisive and results in resentment. Maybe we need to directly state in policy that editors have the right to create articles directly in the mainspace, even if a few NPPers would find it slightly more convenient to have everything done in userspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Has any editor said that editors don't have the right to create articles in the mainspace? My article creations are probably half and half. What I, and others, have said is that if somebody chooses to create the article in the mainspace, they have no right to complain when their article is tagged or edited. Ryan Vesey 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if anyone is saying that editors are doing something wrong by creating articles, then they are in the clear, fringe, minority. A more widespread view is that editors that create articles in mainspace should be unsurprised when other editors modify those articles - this is, after all, a collaborative project. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Tag bombing new article within seconds 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 article's 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)
- What you describe is not quantification. I have spent a significant amount of time patrolling new pages. Avoiding WP:BITE is one of the most common issues that comes up when coaching new patrollers, and even patrollers with lots of experience can easily slip up and bite new editors. But the topic here appears to be more specific. So again, how do we assess the severity of the problem, and how would we know if any corrective action fixed (or even improved) it? VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- What kind of evidence is being looked for here? Are there statistics that would show when the new procedures kicked in that could be compared to new article creation or editor retention statistics? Even if you could establish correlation, it would not establish causation; this is a complicated place. You have above two real life examples, case studies as it were. Most editors just walk away when they see this kind of set up. I think it is extremely unusual that someone who had a bad experience on WP would 1) be able to figure out where to go to discuss it and 2) bother to wade through all the uncivil remarks to continue to try to communicate.—Neotarf (talk) 00:49, 18 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)
I am regularly lampooned whenever I mention Wikipedia on Facebook. With the exception of a few Argentinians who are appreciative of my translation efforts in the area of human rights, most on FB who are educated or knowledgeable will not touch WP with a ten foot pole. This week's sample comment: "Wikipedia is ruled by the Last Man Standing. Everything is doubtful, except your own convictions. Unless you are intimately familiar with the intricacies of NPV, OSE, TTV, WCZ etc you might as well stay off the Talk pages. Insults, smirks, sarcasm and holier-than-thou are all common fare: it is not territory for the faint of heart." I can never think of a good response to this sort of thing. —Neotarf (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- My advice in those types of situations is to tell people to try to use common sense, try to listen to the advice you're given, and try to have a thick skin. (Though most of the time I spend "defending" Wikipedia is explaining that you shouldn't trust what the article says just because it says it on Wikipedia. You should check the sources that Wikipedia uses to back those facts.) Hey...look at that. Full circle back to why tags matter and articles shouldn't sit unsourced in article space... --Onorem♠Dil 02:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- So all these professors need to do is STFU and become more masochistic? And for no money? Ha, ha, with an attitude like that, you should get lots of PhDs to write articles.
- And the justification for this contempt for the new editor and for ignoring WP:CIVIL is that "tags matter"? Why is that? Oh, I concede to you completely, the article carl emil pettersson is now live and stable on google, the google spiders having finished crawling it, and it has a tag that declares it to be "unclassified". It is also a stub and likely to remain so, so congratulations, you win the internet. BTW, this is an incorrect tag, which is why I removed it. But it was put back on without discussion, without a courtesy note on my talk page --the patrollers just chose to edit war with me -- and certainly without a link to the policy that describes why it was put there in the first place (which is a glaring oversight).
- —Neotarf (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- 88% of what you just said made no sense. Why are you bringing up PhDs and the like? What do you mean "you win the internet"? Why should a courtesy note be placed on your talk page when a tag is restored? You clearly know about it so you must have been watching the page. What tag is incorrect? It's been explained to you on the talk page why both tags are correct. Finally, it's unlikely to remain a stub, despite your statement that you'll discontinue improving it due to the drama you initiated. I've added a little bit myself, and will continue to expand it with any English sources I have found and am getting assistance from another Swedish speaking editor since I borrowed the book that the article uses as a source. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Vesey, I have already reminded you about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and on the article talk page I have also placed, along with a reminder about WP:BRD and a request for what policy you are citing for the inline citation requirement, a reminder to comment on content, not on the contributor, and now you make further unsupported and uncivil accusations against me. Please retract them. —Neotarf (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are no violations in of AGF or CIVIL in the post you replied to that I see. WP:BATTLE is policy as well. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- VQyakr, I have been dismissively accused of "initiating drama", and my concerns ignored. This whole discussion is nothing but one continuous ad hominem attack against me; no one has even addressed the substance of my comments. —Neotarf (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are no violations in of AGF or CIVIL in the post you replied to that I see. WP:BATTLE is policy as well. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Vesey, I have already reminded you about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and on the article talk page I have also placed, along with a reminder about WP:BRD and a request for what policy you are citing for the inline citation requirement, a reminder to comment on content, not on the contributor, and now you make further unsupported and uncivil accusations against me. Please retract them. —Neotarf (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- 88% of what you just said made no sense. Why are you bringing up PhDs and the like? What do you mean "you win the internet"? Why should a courtesy note be placed on your talk page when a tag is restored? You clearly know about it so you must have been watching the page. What tag is incorrect? It's been explained to you on the talk page why both tags are correct. Finally, it's unlikely to remain a stub, despite your statement that you'll discontinue improving it due to the drama you initiated. I've added a little bit myself, and will continue to expand it with any English sources I have found and am getting assistance from another Swedish speaking editor since I borrowed the book that the article uses as a source. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(multiple) *@VQuakr: As I said, as we did: by patrolling pages, including the ones that have just been patrolled and warning the patrollers who get their patrolling wrong (I have spent literally 100s of hours patrolling new pages and their patrollers). You will then ascertain for yourself that there is sufficient concern to campaign for training, minimum qualifications, or even a user right for patrollers. I am not aware of any extensive programmes for coaching patrollers - I've unofficially mentored a few who want to better understand the system, but generally those who regularly get it wrong are resistant to offers of help. I have yesterday made it a condition of an unblock request that the user refrains from patrolling new pages. That's how bad it is if you still need convincing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- We both have significant amounts of experience patrolling new pages, and as such are unlikely to be impressed by an argument from authority from each other. That is why I am asking for some sort of justification that a problem exists based not on your personal experience. With hundreds of thousands of patrol actions per year, mere existence of complaints (including valid complaints) is unavoidable. But before even considering solutions such as requiring a technical permission to "allow" patrol, we should have a much better characterization of the problem we are attempting to solve. I do agree that creating a more dedicated, voluntary program for coaching newer patrollers would be a pretty good step though. If editors are resistant to feedback that is a problem with the individual, not with NPP. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- All you have to do is look at this thread, and the two articles they reference, and you can see for yourself what is happening. It is not unique, I almost didn't start the article at all because of past experience. I take the tags very seriously, and as the person creating the article I evaluate every question the tags introduce, as well as whether the tags are appropriate. You would be amazed at the misplaced tags, missing persons begin marked as BLP, etc. One of the problems with this tag bombing of a newly-born article is that it does lead to incorrect tagging, as the tags are put on before the scope of the article can be seen. And as you can see, it also leads to editor burnout. The logical order is to translate the article from beginning to end, before the google spiders have a change to scan it, so that when it goes live there is at least a complete text, then start researching the sources to see what is available in English or other languages. The issue of the tags is being forced too early, if the tag bomber would only look at the article that is being translated, they would see that. I shouldn't have to stop my own process to look up the policies they are not following and point it out to them. Then there is the whole issue of the way I have been engaged on the talk page. My original question was answered within minutes, but the tag bombers chose to engage in WP:BITE, as well as giving me incorrect and unsourced (and unhelpful) information about the article creation process. Originally I had a block of about two hours to make the article. If the edit conflict had not wiped out the last half hour of translation, I still would have been able to finish it the next day, along with adding the sources, images and links. But the tag bombers want to argue, and have kept me occupied with that for that last six days, eating up six times as much of my time as I was originally willing to donate to the Project. —Neotarf (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- You have not provided an example of tag bombing yet, which is an accusation of disruptive editing by the pointy, excessive use of tags and is an accusation of bad faith. You seem to have an us/them mentality when you refer to "tag bombers" that is not going to solve anything. Since you are not a newcomer WP:BITE doesn't really apply in the strictest sense, though of course the underlying concept of civility applies to everyone. Realistically though, if the editing process that works for you requires you to take two hours until the first reference is added, and you find addition of an "unreferenced" tag to the article in that intervening time to be stressful, then the solution is to create the article in a draft outside of mainspace. AfC or User space are both usable choices. You mentioned before that you find the help page on user drafting too confusing; I am happy to assist in its rewrite or working with you individually to nail down the process if you wish. It really is not difficult. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tag bombing does not have to be pointy or done in bad faith. Tag bombing is (go read the page you linked) the act of adding multiple tags to an article. Many inexperienced NPPers do this with the best of faith and in the sincere hope of being helpful. It isn't actually helpful, but their intentions are good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The point is moot since it is just an essay, but the first sentence of the essay is qualified later on to note that "moderate" use of tags (plural) is not bombing. Adding more than one applicable tag to an article can, of course, be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tag bombing does not have to be pointy or done in bad faith. Tag bombing is (go read the page you linked) the act of adding multiple tags to an article. Many inexperienced NPPers do this with the best of faith and in the sincere hope of being helpful. It isn't actually helpful, but their intentions are good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- VQuakr, please do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my concerns. Plenty of insinuations here, but no one has been able to show where my observations are in error. Hmm, it looks like I am not the first to have some concerns about template bombing. —Neotarf (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you use an essay to advance your argument, showing how that essay does not apply to the situation is not "putting words in your mouth." VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- You have not provided an example of tag bombing yet, which is an accusation of disruptive editing by the pointy, excessive use of tags and is an accusation of bad faith. You seem to have an us/them mentality when you refer to "tag bombers" that is not going to solve anything. Since you are not a newcomer WP:BITE doesn't really apply in the strictest sense, though of course the underlying concept of civility applies to everyone. Realistically though, if the editing process that works for you requires you to take two hours until the first reference is added, and you find addition of an "unreferenced" tag to the article in that intervening time to be stressful, then the solution is to create the article in a draft outside of mainspace. AfC or User space are both usable choices. You mentioned before that you find the help page on user drafting too confusing; I am happy to assist in its rewrite or working with you individually to nail down the process if you wish. It really is not difficult. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- All you have to do is look at this thread, and the two articles they reference, and you can see for yourself what is happening. It is not unique, I almost didn't start the article at all because of past experience. I take the tags very seriously, and as the person creating the article I evaluate every question the tags introduce, as well as whether the tags are appropriate. You would be amazed at the misplaced tags, missing persons begin marked as BLP, etc. One of the problems with this tag bombing of a newly-born article is that it does lead to incorrect tagging, as the tags are put on before the scope of the article can be seen. And as you can see, it also leads to editor burnout. The logical order is to translate the article from beginning to end, before the google spiders have a change to scan it, so that when it goes live there is at least a complete text, then start researching the sources to see what is available in English or other languages. The issue of the tags is being forced too early, if the tag bomber would only look at the article that is being translated, they would see that. I shouldn't have to stop my own process to look up the policies they are not following and point it out to them. Then there is the whole issue of the way I have been engaged on the talk page. My original question was answered within minutes, but the tag bombers chose to engage in WP:BITE, as well as giving me incorrect and unsourced (and unhelpful) information about the article creation process. Originally I had a block of about two hours to make the article. If the edit conflict had not wiped out the last half hour of translation, I still would have been able to finish it the next day, along with adding the sources, images and links. But the tag bombers want to argue, and have kept me occupied with that for that last six days, eating up six times as much of my time as I was originally willing to donate to the Project. —Neotarf (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- We both have significant amounts of experience patrolling new pages, and as such are unlikely to be impressed by an argument from authority from each other. That is why I am asking for some sort of justification that a problem exists based not on your personal experience. With hundreds of thousands of patrol actions per year, mere existence of complaints (including valid complaints) is unavoidable. But before even considering solutions such as requiring a technical permission to "allow" patrol, we should have a much better characterization of the problem we are attempting to solve. I do agree that creating a more dedicated, voluntary program for coaching newer patrollers would be a pretty good step though. If editors are resistant to feedback that is a problem with the individual, not with NPP. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Neotarf: Of course it would be unusual, that's the whole reason why new users need to be given some basic information the moment they sign up for an account. I'm interested to know ahat the new procedures are - can you give me a link? All I can think of is the new initiative started recently called The Teahouse, but it's not a 'procedure'. There has never been any proper information for new users on Wikipedia - nothing has changed since I first registered 7 years ago, but today I'm probably one of the best informed Wikipedians, but it was bloody hard work getting there and I'm still learning... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am self taught as well, as with all things computer. Don't know what to recommend to you, there are some welcome pages for new users, but I never received one. The first message on my talk page was from the sock of a banned user. I have never found any useful tutorials on WP, and have never been able to use the processes some recommend here, including the article wizard and user space process that the tag bombers seem determined to force everyone to use. I found useful off-wiki information, but there is a huge amount of incorrect information out there as well, so it's all trial and error, and very time-consuming. —Neotarf (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
@WhatAmIdoing: Many inexperienced NPPers do this with the best of faith and in the sincere hope of being helpful. It isn't actually helpful, but their intentions are good. Like so many situations in real life - they just get under our feet. There ought be be a rule of needing more clue before messing around in meta areas, but Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, which ufortunately also includes the management stuff. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2
Neotarf, what are you looking for as an outcome to this discussion? Ryan Vesey 04:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a shame this discussion was hatted in much the same way as new articles are also patrolled by well-intentioned but overzealous editors who are impatient to show their self-appointed powers. At the end of the day, Neotrarf really is over-reacting just a little bit, and I would welcome their help at the kind of new-page patrolling that I do, which is to nip those wannabe 'moderators' in the bud, and perhaps turn them into useful content creators. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a shame that I am being accused of "over-reacting" and by an admin at that. I'm not seeing any evidence at all that what I have stated is not correct. —Neotarf (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Being told you are overreacting is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. You have not provided an example of "Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation," so that would be a good place to start. This was pointed out very early on in the thread. VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this was presented earlier in the thread, here is just one again. [5] See also the new section I have started about patrolling. —Neotarf (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree this is a better example of behavior that we want to discourage. Here's a suggestion - how about modifying the new page patrol report on the tool server to allow tracking, by NPPer, of the median age of the pages they edit? If we could filter out the pages that are deleted (assuming that these were unwanted content that should be flagged immediately, that would help highlight the patrollers who are consistently tagging very young pages and might be in need of coaching. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems there is already some similar function "Average age of patrolled articles" and that it doesn't seem to be having any effect. The project page says to wait for 15 minutes after the last edit or up to an hour before patrolling new pages, for anything except "attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense", but that info doesn't seem to be available to the patrollers. Also, from what I can see, all the patrolling options are available all the time. —Neotarf (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I could be mistaken, but I think the "Average age of patrolled articles" column just refers to the articles that have been recently reviewed. I was suggesting longer-term tracking to recognize trends in individual patrollers' behaviors. Unless tagged already by an anti-vandalism bot, recognizing the page as unwanted content requires reading the page. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see. This would distinguish pages that had merely been marked as patrolled from pages that had been edited (with tags or templates), along with some sort of information about whether the page was a bona fide new article. And of course the reviewers would know in advance that this was being tracked. Sounds good. —Neotarf (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I could be mistaken, but I think the "Average age of patrolled articles" column just refers to the articles that have been recently reviewed. I was suggesting longer-term tracking to recognize trends in individual patrollers' behaviors. Unless tagged already by an anti-vandalism bot, recognizing the page as unwanted content requires reading the page. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems there is already some similar function "Average age of patrolled articles" and that it doesn't seem to be having any effect. The project page says to wait for 15 minutes after the last edit or up to an hour before patrolling new pages, for anything except "attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense", but that info doesn't seem to be available to the patrollers. Also, from what I can see, all the patrolling options are available all the time. —Neotarf (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree this is a better example of behavior that we want to discourage. Here's a suggestion - how about modifying the new page patrol report on the tool server to allow tracking, by NPPer, of the median age of the pages they edit? If we could filter out the pages that are deleted (assuming that these were unwanted content that should be flagged immediately, that would help highlight the patrollers who are consistently tagging very young pages and might be in need of coaching. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this was presented earlier in the thread, here is just one again. [5] See also the new section I have started about patrolling. —Neotarf (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Being told you are overreacting is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. You have not provided an example of "Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation," so that would be a good place to start. This was pointed out very early on in the thread. VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a shame that I am being accused of "over-reacting" and by an admin at that. I'm not seeing any evidence at all that what I have stated is not correct. —Neotarf (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
New page patrol report
I have noted with interest the instructions on the New Pages Patrol project page that "Working from the back of the queue eliminates complaints from editors that you tagged their page for deletion only two minutes after its creation. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it..." I have been monitoring the New page patrol report several times a day for the last few days to see if patrollers are really patrolling from the back of the queue. Typically, there are always 7 or 8 patrollers on line, but in the last three days, I have seen exactly 1 patroller ever editing from the back of the queue.
Now, if you open the New Pages Feed, right now it shows that there are currently 25439 pages in a filtered list, but it opens automatically sorted by "newest first". Now it could be that it is all the reviewers' fault and that the reviewers just need more clue, but I am puzzled about how it is possible to edit from the back of the queue using this resource? If I switch the view and select "sort by oldest" I see a list that has all the articles already reviewed.
—Neotarf (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Click on the left side of the gray bar, where it says "Set filters". Then, uncheck the box that says "Reviewed pages". VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- So they have to do that every time they start, plus they are supposed to click "sort by oldest"...—Neotarf (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- If they are editing from the back of the queue. Reviewers working from the front of the queue can still avoid the "two minutes after its creation" issue as long as they do not tag good-faith articles that are a few seconds or minutes old. Furthermore, merely reviewing a page does not cause edit conflicts - tagging or otherwise editing the page does. So if an article is created in excellent shape, it can be instantly reviewed without impact to the page creator's follow-up edits. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not only edit conflicts. The page states that "care should be taken to ensure that the author has finished the initial version before you evaluate the page" and also that "The {{construction}} tag may be placed on a new page by a creator to inform new page patrollers and other editors that the article is still being constructed, and its early revisions may not meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. If the creator has not placed it there him/herself, you may want to place it there yourself." —Neotarf (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- To address that, how about another line near the "review" button on the entry for each article, indicating the elapsed time since the article was last edited? That seems like a technically feasible upgrade, and an uncontroversial one since it simply provides more information for the reviewers. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds perfect. What about some feedback from reviewers? Maybe they have some insight about how these things are happening. They might also be able to say whether they are being given enough information about avoiding these conflicts. And how would you measure the effect of any change, if editing from the front of the queue is not always a problem?
- And what about something from the article writers' end. It seems the most common reasons for tagging have to do with internal linking and/or citations. I usually start new translations from the foreign language article, but starting it from a redlink in another en.wiki article would avoid the orphan issue. The construction tag seems to be a useful idea as well, assuming the reviewers know about it. The wiki software must have some way of knowing when a new article has been created; is there some way to display small informational message when that happens? —Neotarf (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I started a section at Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation#Request_for_addition_-_time_since_last_edit (where this whole thing started) to request the upgrade. I dropped a note on the NPP report owner's talk page to see if he is interested in upgrading the report with some queries that might help track the creation-to-patrol times over the longer term. The new page feed is precisely that - a list of newly created articles. Or am I misunderstanding your second paragraph? VQuakr (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nicely done. By the second part I meant something to provide some kind of info to the editor about what their newly created page would be scrutinized for. For instance, if editors knew there was a program that was checking for refs within the first hour of page creation, they could add refs early in the process. It could save work for everyone. —Neotarf (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I started a section at Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation#Request_for_addition_-_time_since_last_edit (where this whole thing started) to request the upgrade. I dropped a note on the NPP report owner's talk page to see if he is interested in upgrading the report with some queries that might help track the creation-to-patrol times over the longer term. The new page feed is precisely that - a list of newly created articles. Or am I misunderstanding your second paragraph? VQuakr (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- To address that, how about another line near the "review" button on the entry for each article, indicating the elapsed time since the article was last edited? That seems like a technically feasible upgrade, and an uncontroversial one since it simply provides more information for the reviewers. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not only edit conflicts. The page states that "care should be taken to ensure that the author has finished the initial version before you evaluate the page" and also that "The {{construction}} tag may be placed on a new page by a creator to inform new page patrollers and other editors that the article is still being constructed, and its early revisions may not meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. If the creator has not placed it there him/herself, you may want to place it there yourself." —Neotarf (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- If they are editing from the back of the queue. Reviewers working from the front of the queue can still avoid the "two minutes after its creation" issue as long as they do not tag good-faith articles that are a few seconds or minutes old. Furthermore, merely reviewing a page does not cause edit conflicts - tagging or otherwise editing the page does. So if an article is created in excellent shape, it can be instantly reviewed without impact to the page creator's follow-up edits. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- So they have to do that every time they start, plus they are supposed to click "sort by oldest"...—Neotarf (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Collecting sources, for example, is #4 in the lede section of WP:YFA; I do not know how practical it would be to condense that help page into a splash screen when someone tried to create a new article though. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- A wide range of topics on that page: what is an encyclopedia, how to avoid plagiarism, how to find the chat rooms for newcomers, how to search Wikipedia, how to register an account. The part about new page patrol just links to the tutorial for new patrollers. It isn't really written for someone starting an article.
- At this point I'm going to be unavailable for WP for some time, probably for several days at least.—Neotarf (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Initial version of user NPP report is online
The user NPP report is now online, many thanks to Scottywong for his prompt development! VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
AfC Backlog
Could any New page patrollers who are sitting around twiddling their thumbs with not a lot to do (!!!) cast their eyes over the Articles for Creation submissions queue. There's a substantial backlog in there, and editors are starting to complain or wonder if they've made a mistake because stuff just isn't getting processed quickly enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
New Pages Queue
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The New Pages DEFCON has been at 1 for 16 days. To get anything done here, we need to organize this patrol. We need ideas. If you have any, please reply to this post. 1. First of all, we need to crack down on the backlog. Spring Break just started, so I'll have time in doing that. But I'll need help from you guys. 2. Second of all, whenever I am patrolling, I always wikify the new article or do basic copyedits. I suggest others do the same. 3. Lastly, for this post, I had an idea: Organize the patrol in shifts, so we will always have someone on duty. If you have any other suggestions, PLEASE post them below. Thank you. Revolution1221 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Admins want to be patrolled?
There is a proposal to increase your workload and backlog at the Village pump by removing the autopatrolled right from all admins (who IMO ought to know better than to create a CSD-able article). At a quick glance, it appears that no NPPers have been involved in or informed about this discussion, even though you're the ones who will be most affected by it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's good that you provided this notice, but "removing the autopatrolled right from all admins" does not match my reading of the proposal. (Clarifying that is probably best done over there, rather than here.) --j⚛e deckertalk 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I do a lot of NPP myself; it was a substantial majority of my work before becoming an admin and is still a significant part of what I do, so yeah. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Then you should've known better. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I do a lot of NPP myself; it was a substantial majority of my work before becoming an admin and is still a significant part of what I do, so yeah. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)