Crystallizedcarbon (talk | contribs) →Backlog: Comment |
→Backlog: cmt - ec |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
:And theres a key problem here: nobody can patrol a large number of articles and still give each editor who needs help individual attention--raw productivity and careful work are incompatible. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 12:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC) |
:And theres a key problem here: nobody can patrol a large number of articles and still give each editor who needs help individual attention--raw productivity and careful work are incompatible. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 12:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
*{{Comment}} I am also really against any kind of moratorium on article creation. I like better the proposal to encourage users. Do you think setting up a "reviewathon" might help get other experienced editors involved? I will also try to do my bit and review some pages. Thank you {{U|Kudpung}} por bringing it up.--[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon|talk]]) 12:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC) |
*{{Comment}} I am also really against any kind of moratorium on article creation. I like better the proposal to encourage users. Do you think setting up a "reviewathon" might help get other experienced editors involved? I will also try to do my bit and review some pages. Thank you {{U|Kudpung}} por bringing it up.--[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon|talk]]) 12:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{ec}} {{ping|Kudpung}} I will spend some time today on it. As to the general problem of getting pages patrolled they obvious solution is to get more skilled people involved. The how is the stickler for that though. One problem is there is a disconnect between what people see NPP as and what it needs to be. Right now editors seem to see it as a good place to start, kind of like searching for vandalism only easier because of the curation tool and less intimidating than Recent changes. We saw an example of that recently. I got started at NPP because I thought it was a good place to "get my feet wet" and was just lucky not to screw up too badly before I started to get a clue. So, step one - re branding and re-casting the perception of what NPP is. You are doing a good job of that but I think there needs to be a way to get more people to read the NPP page before they start with the tool. <p> The second issue that affects skilled participation levels is status. As you say NPP takes experience, tact and a large dose of clue because NPP can require major interpersonal skills to deal with: clueless new editors, clueless COI editors, paid-editors etc.- it is a skill and recognition is a powerful motivator. Content creators are king, admins are seen as 'something' but NPP is seen as tag-bombing and trigger-happy CSDers. Even AfC is seen as a place for 'experienced' editors because of the minimum edit requirement. People are social, even Wikipedians and status or more particularly <em>perceived status</em> is a motivator, even to altruistic volunteers. <p> The user right proposal was a good idea because it would address both of these issues. First, it is a stake in the ground that allows NPP to be 're-branded' and allows new expectations to be set. Second it gives NPP a 'hat', which on the practical, and most important, side indicates some minimum 'qualifications' and makes it harder for paid-COI rings from being able to patrol their own articles. It also gives some status which makes people <em>want</em> to do NPP. Another benefit is it is better and easier to be able to simply remove a user-right from an editor who is doing a poor job than it is to wait around until they do enough damage to get banned from NPP, or worse cruise along at bad but not bannable bad. In this 'hat collecting' can be good because it gets people trained and involved however, a way to gauge minimum performance and maintain expectations <em>after</em> the 'hat' is important. <small>(Not the least because the ability to mark patrolled is important to paid-COI rings but that is another discussion.)</small> <p> Setting expectations and providing training and motivation are medium to long term solutions and I am likely just repeating what you know. The only short term solution I can think of is to just go review some new pages, so off I go. PS On the re branding going to something like 'New page review' could allow a break from past perceptions. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 13:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:27, 9 October 2015
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).
Redirects
Do redirects require patrolling? I frequently create redirects, and do not wish to burden new-page patrollers with having to review each one. Bwrs (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bwrs, NPPers who are using the Curation Tool properly, will see at a glace if the redirect has been created by an established editor or a troll. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Guidance
The guidance as it currently stands focuses entirely on patrolling the article. The addition of some text along the lines of:
- If the article you have patrolled seems good you may wish to consider nominating the author for autopatrolled status at WP:RFP/A. This will help reduce the backlog of pages waiting to be patrolled.
would be constructive. Preferably to be added to the boilerplate on Special:NewPages, or as a second best, to Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Bazj (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this comes within the remit of pstrollers. They have enough to do already and unfortuntely too many of them don't do it well enough. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kudpung, I'm not sure what you mean by their remit there. To quote Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header#Handled here, "Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent." If they have enough wiki-juice to patrol, they can certainly nominate. And rather than them having enough to do already, giving autopatrolled to those who merit it would reduce the patrolling workload, wouldn't it? Hopefully MusikBot will soon be on the case full-time helping to sift the suitability of nominees and reducing some of the workload there. Bazj (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- If, and it's a big 'if', they have enough juice to patroll. How long and how systeatically have yu been patrolling the work of the patrollers? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't. However, if patrollers are as bad as you say, wouldn't you like to take more of the patrolling out of their hands?
- As quoted above, ANY user can nominate, it's just a question of whether you draw that to peoples' attention, and reduce the queue of articles waiting to be patrolled, or not. Bazj (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- And how would you suggest I should take more of the patrolling off their hands? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't propose YOU do anything, as you seem quite antagonistic to the proposal.
- I would suggest that a higher uptake of the autopatrolled status by those eligible for it would reduce the numbers of pages requiring patrol. Spotting these eligible users & nominating them would be a logical follow-on to the process of patrolling a page. Bazj (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bazj: when I see a new article by an experienced editor that is perfect, I have a look at their other contributions to see if they are a good candidate for autopatrolled. I usually ask them if they want me to request the permission though, since while I am allowed to request it on their behalf some prolific page creators still prefer to have that second set of eyes. This is an infrequent enough situation that I don't know if it really is necessary to discuss it on the how-to page, though I don't really see anything wrong with your proposed addition, either. A boilerplate on the actual newpages screen would probably be overkill in any case. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with it in principle except that it makes more work for the admins at PERM, but FWIW I've probably stripped a dozen editors of their Autopatrolled flag over the years - only by doing due diligence when patrolling the patrollers of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: how would patrolling NPPers identify article creators with the autopatrolled flag? VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone who has done any significant patrolling would know the answer to that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: nice burn. Can you answer the question instead? VQuakr (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. The answer is so blatantly obvious that the question should never need to have been asked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: I have patrolled a couple thousand pages, but do not understand how patrolling NPPers would connect you with autopatrolled page creators who happened to not merit the flag - the two editors typically would not interact. Rather than treat me like an idiot, why not answer? VQuakr (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: The New Pages feed shows patrolled articles by a tick in a green circle: hovering your pointer over this will display either "Marked as reviewed on... by... " or "This page was autopatrolled". In the latter case you know that the editor whose name follows "Created by... " had autopatrolled status at the time: Noyster (talk), 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oh, and if you have an article open and go for "Page info" on the Curation toolbar, it will display "This page was autopatrolled" if that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noyster (talk • contribs)
- Which would depend on using Special:NewPagesFeed rather than Special:NewPages, in which case it's not "so blatantly obvious that the question should never need to have been asked." Bazj (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Bazj: no poop. I would be less miffed by it if Kudpung were not simultaneously wondering why there is so little participation from the editors he is biting. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I couldn't comment on that because I've never visited or worked in a developing country. Bazj (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Noyster: that is a plausible workflow, but no one has explained what that has to do with "patrolling the patrollers" yet. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Community desysoping RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Issues
Several issues regarding moves:
- A redirect created from a page move cannot be patrolled
- When a page with title A was created, moved to title B, and then B is patrolled, the patrol log will show the original title A
- When a redirect created from a page move has been deleted, [1] no longer recognizes it as one of the pages created by the mover
GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
NPP DEFCON
Is the {{User:Snottywong/NPPdefcon}} really required on the project page? I've changed it a couple of times to try to reflect the actual backlog, but Noyster raised a good point on my talkpage regarding it's necessity. I propose it's removed until a better way of updating it is agreed upon, or an automated method is developed. Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Samtar:, @Noyster: Those defcons were created in good faith by Scott back in the days (many years ago) when the bcklog at NPP was often 60,000 pages or more and he and I completely rewrote the NPP project. I think they are now superfluous and a scar on the landscape. I've been witing patiently for a long time for someone else to suggest they should be retired (or placed somwhere less obtrusive). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: don't get me wrong, they're a great idea and they look interesting - but I think that's all they've become. I believe the CSD DEFCON should remain (prehaps elsewhere), but I fully agree that the NPP one should be retired. I'll wait for further opinions before actioning anything. Thanks. Samuel Tarling (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Any CSD backlog is only of interest to admins, and we have a special admin dashboard for that. It's what I generally work from. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Even less of a reason to have either of them. I'm going to remove them both, though if anyone disagrees and reverts the change, I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. :) Samuel Tarling (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Samtar. I don't see anyone raising any serious complaints. I seem to be almost the only editor who systematically maintains these pages, and any positive help or ideas are most welcome. What we really need here is a strong participation from the community of experienced patrollers such as they have at the much less important AfC. Wishful thinking? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- No worries Kudpung - is there anything further I can do to help maintain these pages? Samuel Tarling (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not just yet, but I'm working on something. Stay tuned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- No worries Kudpung - is there anything further I can do to help maintain these pages? Samuel Tarling (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Samtar. I don't see anyone raising any serious complaints. I seem to be almost the only editor who systematically maintains these pages, and any positive help or ideas are most welcome. What we really need here is a strong participation from the community of experienced patrollers such as they have at the much less important AfC. Wishful thinking? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Even less of a reason to have either of them. I'm going to remove them both, though if anyone disagrees and reverts the change, I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. :) Samuel Tarling (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Any CSD backlog is only of interest to admins, and we have a special admin dashboard for that. It's what I generally work from. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: don't get me wrong, they're a great idea and they look interesting - but I think that's all they've become. I believe the CSD DEFCON should remain (prehaps elsewhere), but I fully agree that the NPP one should be retired. I'll wait for further opinions before actioning anything. Thanks. Samuel Tarling (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Patrolling of non toxic older pages
I notice recently (perhaps it'a always been so) that several editors spend their time trawling through user sub pages and pages of Wikipedia projects to list any at XfD that simply don't appear to have been updated or edited for a long while. More specifically I mean user sub page drafts that are not in need of immediate deletion for COI, Spam, COPYVIO, Attack, etc, and pages that are part of the research carried out by projects, such as for example, say, the pages in Category:WikiProject Worcestershire which although required might not have been updated for years. I've even had someonetry to tag the entire WP:WORCS project for deletion!
The intentions of such taggers are appreciated but I feel their time could be better spent by working through categories of really urgent pages such as unreferenced BLPs, or even straight New Page Patrolling. Is there a way we can identify these users and reach out to them in an attept to channel their activities in to areas that really matter? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion
Perhaps we should add something to the guidelines suggesting that if patrollers encounter an article by a new or newish editor that appears to be exceptionally good and was created within the last week, that they might want to either nominate the article for WP:DYK or, at least, put a note on the author's talk page suggesting the author nominate the article for DYK.
Although the main purpose of patrolling is to keep unacceptable articles out of the encyclopedia, deletion and tagging for clean up shouldn't be the sole and only things patrollers do. Actually improving the articles when one can, and recognizing quality when one finds it should also be on the table. Especially since we have a huge retention problem with new editors. Having their work noticed and potentially showcased on the main page would do more to help us retain good editors than bitey tagging of new articles within minutes or hours.
I'm not saying it should be a requirement of patrollers; just a suggestion on the page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- All good ideas. Another suggestion recently was that patrolers would stop to assess if editors flkfil the requirement for autopatrolled and then nominate them at PERM if appropriate. It would be good however, if patrollers would at least first do what they are supposed to be doing, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely we should be on the lookout for DYK candidates, I've nominated several over the years and if you nominate someone else's work you are exempt from the quid pro quo at DYK. ϢereSpielChequers 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking for Volunteers to help Notability Detection project
We're building a tool to help New Page Patrollers and article creators make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be. Eventually, we hope to build a tool that will provide these scores to NPPs while they're patrolling to help them decide whether new articles are notable or not.
If you're interested, please sign up here. We'll let you know as soon as we're ready for you to start. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Bluma.Gelley (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirects converted to articles and dates in New pages feed
This has been annoying me for a long time, but especially so recently. Let's say a page was created a long time ago, back in 2006. It was either created as a redirect or converted to a redirect at some point after being created. Now, on September 3, 2015 someone comes along and changes the redirect into an article. The new article shows up on the New Pages Feed (as it should - because it's essentially a new page). However, it shows up as a new page created in 2006, not a new page created on September 3, 3015. Why? Shouldn't it show up as a new page created September 3, 2015? Is there a way to fix this in the feed? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- This also happens when material is added to a redirect page without removing the redirect, such as entering it for discussion at RfD. Examples: Jeez and many other "minced oath" redirects entered for RfD today: Noyster (talk), 08:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fixes like these (and other bugs and requests) will not be addressed because the WMF has withdrawn its technical support. It prefers now to invest in projects such as that mentioned by Bluma.Gelley above. As I have said many, many times, the best tools in the world are however only as good as the people who use them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Paid advocacy: An urgent request
New Page Patrollers are asked to be particularly vigilant for pages suspected as being created or edited by paid users. The criteria to check are listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. More background on this important story of enormous abuse is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-02/Special report.
Generally, inexperienced or too rapid patrolling are the main reasons that such articles get patrolled and slip through the net. If patrollers come across pages they don't know what to do with, they can leave them and pass on to the next one. Ideally however, they should not be too embarrassed to ask for help at New pages patrol/Noticeboard. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Noted, although New pages patrol/Noticeboard appears to be intended for requests to review the work of other patrollers, not for patrollers themselves to ask for advice about particular articles; for this there doesn't appear to be any specific forum: Noyster (talk), 08:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it really matters.
I created the noticeboard.There just is not any sense of 'project' about NPP, unlike AfC for example - which at the other end of the spectrum is more of a social gathering around a common interest rather than an essential core feature of Wikipedia quality control which NPP is supposed to be. There is no cohesion at NPP and those who patrol rarely, if ever, communicate with each other. We always called it a lonely place. A bit like those huge, quiet railway marshelling yards (classification yards) where nothing much ever seems to be happening but where nevertheless thousands of tons of freight gets shifted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it really matters.
- @Kudpung: I have just completed and added to WP:WARN a template series for paid editing and compliance with the ToU. See
{{uw-paid1}}
,{{uw-paid2}}
,{{uw-paid3}}
and{{uw-paid4}}
. I came her to drop a note about them and found this somewhat related thread in place.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: interesting, thanks for the reminder! The signpost report states that the articles were generally reviewed by members of the same sockpuppet network, so "inexperienced or too rapid patrolling" would not really have been a factor. In any case there probably is no point in bringing it up in every discussion section on this page.
- More generally, this seems to be an argument in favor of creating some sort of organized, ongoing effort to backcheck patrols. Even if a low percentage of patrols (say, 5%) had been double-checked, if the questionable ones were tracked the pattern could have been identified before the victims started to contact OTRS.
- Unless, of course, you think this has garnered enough attention that we could convince both WMF and the community of the necessity of making "page patroller" a user right. That would make this sort of attack less feasible, too. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Some of these articles may have been patrolled by legit patrollers, and legitimately too. These were articles about genuine people and organisations, mostly of borderline notability - AFD would have deleted a lot of them but I doubt if many were A7 candidates. But the big problem of Orangemoody was that one group of accounts was patrolling each others articles, and that isn't something that individual patrollers have a hope of catching. If you want to catch that you need to detect mutual patrolling of articles. ϢereSpielChequers 18:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would that proposal be purely behavioral, or would it look at IP addresses (under the hood, of course) to detect related accounts and flag potentially bad-faith patrols? That's something we could really use, BTW - a logs that flag patrols by new users and patrols by users with IPs similar to the article creator. VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was assuming that we would just work on who patrols each others articles, though there is a separate suggestion that creating a spammy article could be deemed reason to do a check for sockpuppets. If 2 editors each patrol 2 of each others articles but also hundreds of others then that could be random, but if they each patrol half a dozen articles including 2 of each others it should look suspicious. While if 20 editors have patrolled a hundred articles between them and sixty of those are from the same half dozen accounts including 2 of the 20....... ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the system was automated and only flagged potentially abusive creator/patroller IP combinations, then the privacy issues surrounding CU could be mitigated (no human would be looking at the actual IPs). I agree though, that a lot could probably be done just by looking at publicly visible behavior. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- As a rule, if I see an article that has been patrolled and is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or just questionable, I check the edit history and then check to see how new the reviewing user is. Unfortunately, I'm not able to review every article in the NPP queue, so hopefully others are taking similar steps.- MrX 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since unsourced is only a deletion criteria for BLPs, surely you mean marked as patrolled without tagging as unsourced? ϢereSpielChequers 20:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, I check articles that are marked as reviewed shortly after creation that are suspicious for a variety of reasons. Of course I'm aware that being unsourced is not a reason for deletion. - MrX 20:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since unsourced is only a deletion criteria for BLPs, surely you mean marked as patrolled without tagging as unsourced? ϢereSpielChequers 20:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- As a rule, if I see an article that has been patrolled and is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or just questionable, I check the edit history and then check to see how new the reviewing user is. Unfortunately, I'm not able to review every article in the NPP queue, so hopefully others are taking similar steps.- MrX 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the system was automated and only flagged potentially abusive creator/patroller IP combinations, then the privacy issues surrounding CU could be mitigated (no human would be looking at the actual IPs). I agree though, that a lot could probably be done just by looking at publicly visible behavior. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was assuming that we would just work on who patrols each others articles, though there is a separate suggestion that creating a spammy article could be deemed reason to do a check for sockpuppets. If 2 editors each patrol 2 of each others articles but also hundreds of others then that could be random, but if they each patrol half a dozen articles including 2 of each others it should look suspicious. While if 20 editors have patrolled a hundred articles between them and sixty of those are from the same half dozen accounts including 2 of the 20....... ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would that proposal be purely behavioral, or would it look at IP addresses (under the hood, of course) to detect related accounts and flag potentially bad-faith patrols? That's something we could really use, BTW - a logs that flag patrols by new users and patrols by users with IPs similar to the article creator. VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting for a moment that the general poor quality of new page patrolling was the reason for Orangemoody articles slipping through the net. However, I have detected two Orangemoody pages in the last 72 hours simply through my own sporadic but routine patrolling, one of them before I had even heard of Orangemoody. I therefore thought that at this juncture it might be worth making a mention on this page yet again that perhaps patrollers' vigilance could be hightened. Sorry I was in error, and I naturally forgive in GF those who took me out of context. Nevertheless, we still have a reminder that unlike all the functions such as Counter-vandalism and Pending Changes, etc, the essential operation of NPP which requires more clue than any of them requires neither training, experience, nor special rights. IMO his is clearly an anomaly and in any 1-hour session I spend on NPP, most of my my operations are correcting wrong tags, declining CSD (or changing the criteria), unpartrolling and tagging where tags were not applied, notifiing creators so that they can address the tagged issues, and much more. It's very frutrating that we can't trust our patrollers to do a reasonably good job and it's of even greater concern that no one wants to do anything about it while at AfC for the few pages that pass through their portal, there is more action and noise than at a Mad Hatter's tea party, and our NPP noticeboard and talk page often remain dormant for months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think we can expect patrollers to identify which particular spammer or school of spamming is behind an article. But yes it is good to warn people if there has been an increase of spamming, better still if there has been an increase in something specific they can watch out for. In the case of Orangemoody that was mutual patrolling within a group of editors, and we already have discussions elsewhere about watching for that. ϢereSpielChequers 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, but we can make them aware that any new article about a company, posted in rolled gold condition in one single edit by a brand new editor should automatically ring an alarm bell - very loudly. Currently , most of our patrollers don't even recognise a hoax or an attack page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No patrol information
Hi, I was checking the patrol log, and noticed that many articles do not have any patrol information, for e.g. this. Is it because no one patrolled it or can there be other reasons? Srijankedia (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- The main rollout of page curation was September 2012. Pages created before then (including Aglaja Brix) generally will not have been marked as reviewed. VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, VQuakr. The patrol log dates back to 16 Nov, 2007 (see this). What hapenned during these ~5 years from 2007 - 2012? Srijankedia (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point. I must be confusing the patrol log with the curation log. I my memory from 2012 is too fuzzy to recall if that means it was never patrolled. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, in 2012 whatever was not patrolled within 30 day of creation, could not be patrolled anymore, and we had huge backlogs, so that it was not uncommon.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. So is it correct to say that if a page was not patrolled within 30 days of creation, then it would just remain on Wikipedia without being patrolled ever? Srijankedia (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is indeed my understanding. It was change a couple of years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Great thanks for the info. Srijankedia (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is indeed my understanding. It was change a couple of years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. So is it correct to say that if a page was not patrolled within 30 days of creation, then it would just remain on Wikipedia without being patrolled ever? Srijankedia (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, in 2012 whatever was not patrolled within 30 day of creation, could not be patrolled anymore, and we had huge backlogs, so that it was not uncommon.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point. I must be confusing the patrol log with the curation log. I my memory from 2012 is too fuzzy to recall if that means it was never patrolled. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, VQuakr. The patrol log dates back to 16 Nov, 2007 (see this). What hapenned during these ~5 years from 2007 - 2012? Srijankedia (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't changed. A handful of us (mostly admins) just worked day and night for a week or so to bring the backlog down significantly from its regular 40,000 or so. I belive at one stage we actually cleared it completely but due to the general apathy and NPP not having a carrot in the shape of a hat to wear, it's slowly crept up again to a 'mere' 3,000. The new curation feed keeps its backlog in its list so anyone who wants to work from the back of the queue can do so. In the old days anything over 30 days old - and that was most of them - just fell off the cliff to become a staggering unreviewed percentage of nearly 5 mio articles.
The actual number of unpatrolled articles and ones tagged for eternity out there makes a mockery of anything we do at NPP or AfC but the WMF doesn't give a hoot because they simply thrive on stats of number of pages created, and that's why they stomped on ACTRIAL and quietly swept their Article Creation Flow project under the carpet and let it die completely when Brandon Harris left. Perhaps with the now fully accomplished 100% change of senior staff since Tretikov arrived we could get interest in it rekindled - it's something every Wikipedia would have benefitted from enormously. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Files
Special:NewPages only shows file pages that are either local description pages of files on Commons or can be deleted with {{db-imagepage}}. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Backlog
There is now a 7,105 total of unreviewed pages. As of today, Friday 9 October, only 484 pages had been reviewed this week. This is less than the daily number of pages that need to be patrolled. Ths is slowly approaching the very reasons why WP:ACTRIAL was proposed and the Page Curation suite was created. It's obviously not working. Does anyone, such as for example Scottywong, DGG, Ironholds, Arthistorian1977, Compassionate727, Crystallizedcarbon, I dream of horses, Jbhunley, Kges1901, Lstanley1979, Mr RD, OccultZone, Oiyarbepsy, Rberchie, Sulfurboy, SwisterTwister, Swpb, TheLongTone, Trivialist, Ubiquity, Vanjagenije, Wgolf, Winner 42, WMartin74. know of any solutions? Bearing in mind of course that quality of patrolling rather than speed is the essence of the process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm aware and I had somewhat lowered my intense efforts with this recently due to actual life and attention to other areas such as AfD (as well as looking to nominate articles of concern to said AfD) and I think this has happened with some of the most recently active patrollers. I heavily cleared the last "backlog" (went through a few months worth in a few days or so, having multiple tabs taking of it and using mobile as I am using it for this message now) and all it needs is persistent watching (a lot of the articles are easy anyway such as geography and such). BTW, Wgolf (last active July 18) and Sulfurboy (September 28) will not be responding anytime soon as they have taken an extended vacation and I also haven't seen Chrislk02 (last active June 26) and FreeRangeFrog (August 26) so I'm not sure what happened to them (hopefully we will not have to fear the worst). Also, FWIW, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Scottywong retired in December 2012 citing no interest anymore and pressure. No worries either way and I'll attempt my best to look through some of these, SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- We got a lot of backlogs. I kinda wonder if the answer is a one week option moratorium on new content and encouraging everyone to work on backlogs. Is this worth bringing up at the idea lab? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's also worth mentioning the recent bombardment of "redirects for deletion" have affected the flow and ease of NPP. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not think this suggestion stands a single chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, what are you talking about exactly by "suggestion"? SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Moratorium for content creation, as suggested by Oiyarbepsy--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, what are you talking about exactly by "suggestion"? SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @SwisterTwister, Oiyarbepsy, and Ymblanter: I'm simply not that interested with patrolling pages at the moment. I am currently using autowikibrowser at the moment, being quite fascinated.
- One obstacle I ran into is that page curation seems to have years old, recently edited pages in the queue if you go from the back.
- Oiyarbepsy, I don't think a temporary solution is a good idea, particularly if it might be done repeatedly. It would be confusing for newer editors. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 05:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- What you're obviously referring to is what I mentioned as "redirects for deletion" tagged articles or I've also noticed someone will vandalize and, in other cases, restoring a previous article (non-notable musician best known for a band, for example) thus placing it at NPP. While I'm at it, I want to also mention NPP seems to have a "time lock" where it says you have exceeded your time limit and I simply bypass this by refreshing and clicking again. I mention this because it would be nice to not always have this "time lock". Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Moratoriums just cause problems later on. We've had first backlogs before. The only real solution , as with most other problems here, is to get ore experienced WPedians interested. No one person should be doing too much of this. I find if I do more than 10 or 15 a day, I start getting over-critical. Some other people when they try too many do that also; some do the opposite, and let too many pass. As SwisterTwister says, in practice, nobody can pay full attention to everything: one cannot focus simultaneously on AfD, AfC, and NPP. There are a number of thingsthat would help a little: Kudpung's proposals for unifying the flow of new articles between AfC and AfD would help a little, or at least get things more consistent. It would also help to have fewer AfDs--about 1/4 the articles that go to afd should have been deleted by speedy before that. And has generally been the case, Prod is being underutilized. And of course getting rid of the promotional paid editors should have a positive effect all down the line. I long ago proposed that various WPedians in different time zones sign up for a fixed commitment, but this doesn't fit the working pattern of most of us.
- And theres a key problem here: nobody can patrol a large number of articles and still give each editor who needs help individual attention--raw productivity and careful work are incompatible. DGG ( talk ) 12:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I am also really against any kind of moratorium on article creation. I like better the proposal to encourage users. Do you think setting up a "reviewathon" might help get other experienced editors involved? I will also try to do my bit and review some pages. Thank you Kudpung por bringing it up.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Kudpung: I will spend some time today on it. As to the general problem of getting pages patrolled they obvious solution is to get more skilled people involved. The how is the stickler for that though. One problem is there is a disconnect between what people see NPP as and what it needs to be. Right now editors seem to see it as a good place to start, kind of like searching for vandalism only easier because of the curation tool and less intimidating than Recent changes. We saw an example of that recently. I got started at NPP because I thought it was a good place to "get my feet wet" and was just lucky not to screw up too badly before I started to get a clue. So, step one - re branding and re-casting the perception of what NPP is. You are doing a good job of that but I think there needs to be a way to get more people to read the NPP page before they start with the tool.
The second issue that affects skilled participation levels is status. As you say NPP takes experience, tact and a large dose of clue because NPP can require major interpersonal skills to deal with: clueless new editors, clueless COI editors, paid-editors etc.- it is a skill and recognition is a powerful motivator. Content creators are king, admins are seen as 'something' but NPP is seen as tag-bombing and trigger-happy CSDers. Even AfC is seen as a place for 'experienced' editors because of the minimum edit requirement. People are social, even Wikipedians and status or more particularly perceived status is a motivator, even to altruistic volunteers.
The user right proposal was a good idea because it would address both of these issues. First, it is a stake in the ground that allows NPP to be 're-branded' and allows new expectations to be set. Second it gives NPP a 'hat', which on the practical, and most important, side indicates some minimum 'qualifications' and makes it harder for paid-COI rings from being able to patrol their own articles. It also gives some status which makes people want to do NPP. Another benefit is it is better and easier to be able to simply remove a user-right from an editor who is doing a poor job than it is to wait around until they do enough damage to get banned from NPP, or worse cruise along at bad but not bannable bad. In this 'hat collecting' can be good because it gets people trained and involved however, a way to gauge minimum performance and maintain expectations after the 'hat' is important. (Not the least because the ability to mark patrolled is important to paid-COI rings but that is another discussion.)
Setting expectations and providing training and motivation are medium to long term solutions and I am likely just repeating what you know. The only short term solution I can think of is to just go review some new pages, so off I go. PS On the re branding going to something like 'New page review' could allow a break from past perceptions. JbhTalk 13:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)