NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42 |
Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
Revisiting the scope of reviewing New Pages
'If we focus on just stopping the most extreme issues, we create an open door for Wikipedia to be flooded with rubbish. Individually many of the articles I take to AfD aren’t “harmful”, but they’re trivia, listcruft or nonsense about the chairman of a local party branch somewhere.'
One aspect that has not been mentioned is TRANSLATIONS. It's important because accuracy in content is vital. Google Translate's renderings of English prose, is now so good that it is not obvious that a new article is a translation from another language Wikipedia. However, the accuracy of such translations can in fact render a new article not only useless, but a gramatically correct gobbedygook of unintentional misinformation.
One autopatroller has just had their bit removed for churning out dozens of poor quality, seemingly respectful translations for years, with so little knowledge of the source languages that they wouldn't know if what they are getting is good enough. On the surface, such 'new articles' would pass muster at NPP because ORES doesn't flag them as having any issues. For example, due to the vast differences in grammar, and abundant false cognates, translations from German and French can be a challenge to anyone who is not bilingual and machine translation is often completely wrong and even sometimes states the opposite from the source text.
There are signs to look out for to recognise such articles, and of course they should be immediately sent to Draft and the creator asked to get the article cleaned up. The talk pages should be checked that they carry the required attribution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Kudpung, This seems to be a case of synchronicity. Please see:
- my related discussion WT:NPP#Required attribution for copied or translated content
- The new subsection I added to WP:NPP under WP:NPP#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO) about copied/translated content (diff)
- a list of frequent WP:MT violators at WP:PNT/by user (circa 2018)
- and finally, if interested in the specific user issue that brought me to NPP for the first time to raise the discussion about unattributed translations at en-wiki, please see my recent contribs in ns User talk (I prefer not to link it, as I'm interested in improving NPP process, not pointing to users). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot, synchronicity? No, not really. It just points out that some users with autopatrolled rights create machine translations by the hundred without even caring if what they are getting is accurate. Indeed very often the machine translation comes up with exactly the opposite although the actual English looks quite respectable. Example? "In the large house on the top of the hill, the dead body of a schoolgirl was found partially clothed and lying on her stomach" if you translate that with "In the cottage in the valley the dead body of a university student was found completely naked lying on her back", then there's something wrong and it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Such machine translations are absolutely worthless and it's scandalous that the users are bragging about being some of the most prolific creators of articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kudpung, by synchronicity, I meant your edit and mine only days apart, purely coincidentally. Anyway, I've long been concerned by MT issues, see the 3rd bullet. Also, there's a template for situations similar to the one you describe, {{hidden translation}}, but it hasn't gained much use. Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot, synchronicity? No, not really. It just points out that some users with autopatrolled rights create machine translations by the hundred without even caring if what they are getting is accurate. Indeed very often the machine translation comes up with exactly the opposite although the actual English looks quite respectable. Example? "In the large house on the top of the hill, the dead body of a schoolgirl was found partially clothed and lying on her stomach" if you translate that with "In the cottage in the valley the dead body of a university student was found completely naked lying on her back", then there's something wrong and it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Such machine translations are absolutely worthless and it's scandalous that the users are bragging about being some of the most prolific creators of articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- It seems the point of my thread has been missed or not clearly understood. While the effort is to reduce the tasks of patrollers to the most essential - after all, NP is not clean up - there are still many clearly unsuitable new articles being let through - and I'm still finding them. While Mathglot is reluctant to name names walking a tightrope should not intimidate patrollers from doing their job. The signs of a new article translated from anther Wiki are fairly obvious and such articles should be sent to draft and listed for checking by our bilingual editors. Perhaps admins can also do more background checks before according the Autopatrolled right. There is a long backlog at PERM and most of the aspirants still believe Autopatrolled to an award scheme for only having just a few of their stubs and creations deleted. While the final decision rests with an admin, non-admin comments that may be helpful are expressly encouraged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Of course this venue is at most is a place to incubate the idea, but IMO autopatrol should be eliminated. Every new article needs a second set of eyes. E.G. If I'm not mistaken, even NPP right won't let NPP'ers pass their own article.North8000 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Spotting issues with articles and fixing them is a main job for the zillions of editors, not for the 100 folks actually doing NPP. IMO basic NPP should just handle "should it be an article" and finding other issues be just an optional add-on when doing that. In essence telling budding NPP'ers "you aren't doing the job properly if you aren't also catching zillions of other types of problems" is not a good thing. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion has been moved to the subpage Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability and is still going. There are now 12 subporoposals, and subproposals 5, 8, and 10 are looking like they might pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Autopatrol request
Hey there! I am a an established Wikipedia editor with 15 years' experience, but I have recently become aware that my new page creations are appearing in this list and being vetted as if I were a brand new editor. I wonder if I could please be removed from this list? Thank you in advance. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- The place to make that request is at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Onel5969 TT me 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Coin945, you may have misunderstood the purpose of 'Autopatrolled'. It has nothing to do with brand new editors and especially since ACPERM. It's simply a technical feature that might, under rare circumstances, slightly reduce the workload of the patrollers. Stubs and very short articles only take a few seconds to patrol. The autopatrolled right is losing its significance and has been recently been removed from administrators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Articles converted from redirects can be autopatrolled
When someone converts a redirect into an article, it appropriately goes into the NPP queue. However, if they were not the original creator of the redirect and have NPP, they're also given the opportunity to patrol it (I just encountered this at Little New Year if you'd like an example). This effectively allows a form of autopatrol for users without that permission, albeit only in certain circumstances. Could we close this loophole? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sdkb, I don't think it matters. There are few NPPers, and of those many already have autopatrolled. For those that don't, I'm pretty sure any would be trusted with it if they desired to apply. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 10:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be the most pressing issue ever, but I do think it matters. If anyone with NPP could get autopatrolled, the rights would be bundled and the requirements the same, but they're not and they're different. At a core level, it's important that the NPP system is not leaky, since it's our only line of defense. This issue represents a leak, however small. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Rajić, Sisak-Moslavina County
Could somebody have a look at this one, I seem to be getting into an argument about it. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I understand your point, John B123, but it's not worth the grief. The one source tag, since it has a single source, is appropriate. Onel5969 TT me 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Interviews As A Reliable Source For Core Notability Claims?
This AFD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titi Kuti has got me thinking if I’m the one misrepresenting or misinterpreting policy and I’d like feedback on this, are interviews a reliable source for major claims of notability? I do not believe so, but it seems other editors aren’t of the same opinion thus I’d appreciate feedback on this from anyone here. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I believe transcript-style interviews are WP:PRIMARY and thus don't count toward notability (but may sometimes be citable for other reasons). Articles that are interview-ish and have a lot of quotes may qualify for notability, if you can remove all the quotes and still have an in-depth article with significant coverage and analysis. Feel free to link the source and we can give more tailored advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The argument is that an interview with the subject of the article is not independent of the subject. This goes back to something you frequently hear people say on, for example, the help desk or the teahouse, which is that Wikipedia "doesn't care what the subject of an article has to say about itself." In an interview the interviewee has an opportunity to tell the world what they want the world to know about them, meaning if you are citing it for facts about that person you should take it with a bit of a grain of salt. Unfortunately, this position (which seems to be the most common one on Wikipedia) lacks nuance in how it treats interviews, and conflates the two purposes we have for sources (establishing notability and providing facts). I could (and maybe someday will) write an essay about what's wrong with how we treat interviews as sources on Wikipedia, but suffice it to say that in terms of notability, I consider their existence in reputable sources to be strong indicators of possible notability (because reputable journalists don't generally interview non-notable people), but not by themselves sufficient to establish notability absent other indicators/sources. If I'm considering sending an article to AFD and there are interviews with the subject, I'm going to keep doing additional WP:BEFORE checks and really, really hesitate to send it to AFD. But if the only sources cited in the article are interviews I'm going to tag it with a more sources/independent sources tag. Also, what outlets are the interviews in? Are they interviews on 60 minutes? Interviews in a small town newspaper? Interviews on with an industry specific blog or podcast? Some of these I'll take more seriously than others. Does the interviewer go along with what the interviewee is saying, or is there push back and hard questions being asked? All of that needs to be considered when evaluating the source/article/notability.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae, ONUnicorn, thank you for the feedback, this is exactly my thinking, an article sourced predominantly to interviews do not count toward notability, ONUnicorn mentions something I find interesting, they say reputable journalists wouldn’t interview just anybody, from the sources listed there, I do not see any reputable journalists, Infact, some of those sources used in the article are indeed reliable, but in the past have been caught publishing pieces which were pre packaged sponsored material. Take the Nigerian Guardian for example, they have been guilty of this on numerous occasions, This interaction with Praxidicae is an example of reputable Nigerian sources, publishing pre packaged material and trying to pass it as a reliable piece. Thank you both for the feedback. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- “interviews a reliable source for major claims of notability” is very poor use of Wikipedia language.
- Reliable sources are universally required, but the reliability of a source is rarely the issue in a claim of notability. Reliability refers to facts. Notability depends on secondary sources, which are opinion, not really subject to reliably beyond the most basic requirement.
- Interviews are generally very reliable sources of facts and information.
- “Claims of notability” is unclear. Whose claims? It is an odd construction. Independent, reliably published, secondary source comment on the topic is what demonstrates Wikipedia-notability. Editors may make claims, but sources demonstrate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I’m not sure anything you have said is policy based, per your comment “Interviews are generally very reliable sources of facts and information”, so in summary, are you stating interviews can be used as a source to substantiate non trivial assertions bordering on WP:REDFLAG? If yes, then that would be a factually incorrect answer, so far as policy goes, I however do appreciate your feedback/interpretation of policy, furthermore, I note you speak of reliable sources and notability as though they were mutually exclusive concepts, when in actuality both are very much intertwined, at least WP:GNG expressly establishes a relationship between both, do you mind clarifying on that comment with a policy based rationale? Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- As per WP:PRIMARY, which is policy, #5 states, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Furthermore, the footnote [c], states that interviews are considered primary sources. Finally, WP:GNG states that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and goes on to say that sources should be secondary sources. Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Onel5969, thank you so very much for this policy based feedback!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Possible Signpost report
How do you guys feel about being featured in the next Signpost WikiProject report? I volunteer to do the legwork if there are a few people interested in being interviewed. Hopefully additional exposure might broaden awareness of NPP and draw in potential reviewers. (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Reliable source?
Any thoughts on the reliability of this site? I get the feeling it is like Wikipedia.Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I had a look using google translate and I would agree with your assumption, certainly ask for something better if it is supporting anything that might be controversial Josey Wales Parley 22:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Joseywales1961. Onel5969 TT me 00:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Backlog
Greetings. Okay, so has of this time and date, we've managed to get the number of articles over the 90 day mark (at least through 11/2), down to 97. That includes 69 in October, 23 from September back, and 5 during the first two days of November. I've looked at each and every one of those remaining. I believe that I've tagged almost all of them. However, I'm getting a bit sick of picking up Wikihounds (which I've now done again on those insipid college athlete articles about some player who 10 years from now is going to be the assistant manager at some Burger King in Des Moines), as well as the plethora of AfD discussions where "enough coverage to meet GNG" satisfies the closing admin to mark it keep. If those of you who work the back of the queue could concentrate on the articles from 11/3 backwards, that would be wonderful. I've continued moving forward through the queue, and am now up to halfway through 11/20. My goal is to get through a day and a half every day, until we get the backlog down to around 4000, which at this rate should be 3-4 months. Onel5969 TT me 00:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- You are a machine Onel5969, incredible work. I do feel NPP's need some better protection from wikihounds, i.e. more support and recognition from admins of the vital role of NPP? Polyamorph (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Earwig tool
Anyone else having an issue with Earwig today? Hasn't been working all morning for me. Onel5969 TT me 18:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's down for me too. Looks like The Earwig has been alerted via their talk page: User talk:The Earwig#Copyvios outage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Novem Linguae - kind of makes reviewing difficult. Onel5969 TT me 20:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Same. I went to go approve a draft but I couldn't run Earwig on it. So I decided to wait. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps CopyPatrol https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/ can be helpful in the mean time? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Vexations, but I'm concerned about the accuracy. When I used it last evening, I was getting zilch in terms of copyvio issues, which is very suspicious, it's rare that I can review 28 articles with zero copyvios, even if they are simply copying 3 sentence plots from imdb. So when Earwig came back up this morning, one of the first reviews I did was for an article titled, B7 Media. Was a 90% match for a copyvio lifted from the company's website. Thought I'd check it again on CopyPatrol, and got a 0%. So not sure how reliable it is, but again, thanks for bringing it up. Onel5969 TT me 20:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, btw, Earwig is back up. Onel5969 TT me 20:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- CopyPatrol is where EranBot reports all of the edits that it finds suspicious, but the bot doesn't patrol every edit nor every namespace because we don't have an infinite supply of Turnitin credits. So while most reports on CopyPatrol are actionable, I'm not surprised that you had a hard time using it to proactively check for copyright violations because it's not designed to do that like Earwig's tool is. DanCherek (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Vexations, but I'm concerned about the accuracy. When I used it last evening, I was getting zilch in terms of copyvio issues, which is very suspicious, it's rare that I can review 28 articles with zero copyvios, even if they are simply copying 3 sentence plots from imdb. So when Earwig came back up this morning, one of the first reviews I did was for an article titled, B7 Media. Was a 90% match for a copyvio lifted from the company's website. Thought I'd check it again on CopyPatrol, and got a 0%. So not sure how reliable it is, but again, thanks for bringing it up. Onel5969 TT me 20:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps CopyPatrol https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/ can be helpful in the mean time? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Same. I went to go approve a draft but I couldn't run Earwig on it. So I decided to wait. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Novem Linguae - kind of makes reviewing difficult. Onel5969 TT me 20:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Are databases primary sources?
Are databases primary sources? Is the primary maintenance tag appropriate for an article whose only citations are to databases? Example: Orbicula richenii. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Surely it depends on the database, which is just a particular way of presenting information. Those in your specimen article all cite their sources and summarise them, so presumably that makes them secondary. Ingratis (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's currently a discussion on similar sourcing at WP:ORN. I would note that the other issue is WP:NOTDATABASE - articles sourced solely to databases can't be more than a database (without synth issues) - but it doesn't appear there is a maintenance tag for that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has an RFC
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd recommend every NPP patroller offer their perspectives at this proposal. Onel5969 TT me 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN
Interesting pseudo-discussion I've had over at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, regarding these two policies. Thought reviewers might benefit from checking it out. Onel5969 TT me 19:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- AFD might be a good way to de-escalate that situation. WP:BLAR mentions AFD as an option. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, while I agree that BLAR is a valid avenue in some cases, this is not one of them, as the articles were wholly unsourced. In those instances, as per BURDEN, the material should not be re-added without citations, and doing so is considered disruptive editing. If, after warning the other editor of BURDEN, they re-add the material again, it is okay to revert again, and if they do it a third time, as per WP:DDE, report them at ANI. And any of you who know me, know I simply LOVE going to ANI (heavy on the sarcasm). Onel5969 TT me 02:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- A clear example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT if I've ever seen one. Onel5969 has been edit warring across multiple articles, despite multiple attempts to discuss (including at User talk:Onel5969, Talk:Kayako Saeki, and being advised to take the matter to AfD in edit summaries), and was given a final warning yesterday. He has been informed (and several policies have been quoted to him) that WP:BURDEN doesn't justify his behaviour or even apply to the several articles he's simultaneously edit warring on (especially his template warring on Kayako Saeki).
- Sorry, while I agree that BLAR is a valid avenue in some cases, this is not one of them, as the articles were wholly unsourced. In those instances, as per BURDEN, the material should not be re-added without citations, and doing so is considered disruptive editing. If, after warning the other editor of BURDEN, they re-add the material again, it is okay to revert again, and if they do it a third time, as per WP:DDE, report them at ANI. And any of you who know me, know I simply LOVE going to ANI (heavy on the sarcasm). Onel5969 TT me 02:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- So far, three different talk page discussions have been opened (including on his own user talk page) and he has been advised to take the matter to WP:AFD even before now. As you can see here, he's not interested in dispute resolution because he thinks he found a policy loophole that gives him an unlimited set of reverts (even though he's been repeatedly told that no such exemption exists), and would prefer to keep gaming the same policy instead of discussing the matter with the community.
- Confronting him on policy and his disruption has been a waste of time. He will simply repeat himself over-and-over ad nauseum, without actually responding to anything that has been said, even after his points are addressed. He was warned yesterday that he had roughly 24 hours to undo his changes and get consensus for his edits. If he still hasn't done so by tomorrow, I'm reporting him for edit warring and spurious allegations. Darkknight2149 04:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:ULTIMATUM and WP:Personal attacks. You may well find escalating the situation has a WP:BOOMERANG effect. --John B123 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: Stop tag-teaming with Onel5969. You're well-aware that this forumshop was opened by him and everyone else can see that as well. I'm currently replying to your comment on the other thread right now. It's also standard to give disruptive users a final warning when they persist. The WP:ANI report isn't an ultimatum, I'm filing it tomorrow (currently night as I'm posting this). Darkknight2149 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Because other editors disagree with you doesn't make that tag-teaming. Either file the ANI or drop it, you continued statements that you're going to do it can only be seen as threats. --John B123 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: The ANI report is being filed, that's not in question. The reason I mentioned tag-teaming is because you replied to Talk:Yoichi Asakawa simply to say "I agree with Onel5969," then you showed to this thread (which was clearly opened by Onel5969) to accuse me of forum shopping. Darkknight2149 10:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: My reply on Talk:Yoichi Asakawa was an attempt to explain policy to you, not 'I agree with Onel5969' some please stop misrepresenting other editor's comments. For the record, I do agree with Onel5969, simply because what they have said to you is correct. --John B123 (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: The ANI report is being filed, that's not in question. The reason I mentioned tag-teaming is because you replied to Talk:Yoichi Asakawa simply to say "I agree with Onel5969," then you showed to this thread (which was clearly opened by Onel5969) to accuse me of forum shopping. Darkknight2149 10:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Because other editors disagree with you doesn't make that tag-teaming. Either file the ANI or drop it, you continued statements that you're going to do it can only be seen as threats. --John B123 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: Stop tag-teaming with Onel5969. You're well-aware that this forumshop was opened by him and everyone else can see that as well. I'm currently replying to your comment on the other thread right now. It's also standard to give disruptive users a final warning when they persist. The WP:ANI report isn't an ultimatum, I'm filing it tomorrow (currently night as I'm posting this). Darkknight2149 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:ULTIMATUM and WP:Personal attacks. You may well find escalating the situation has a WP:BOOMERANG effect. --John B123 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: Onel5969's points were not only incorrect in their application of WP:BURDEN, but disenguous and already heavily-refuted in that thread alone. Not only has Onel5969 responded exclusively by repeating himself verbatim (without addressing the many counterpoints that have been raised), but your reply was also a repeat of his pre-addressed talking points. In fact, replying to Talk:Yoichi Asakawa at all has been like talking to a brick wall where no point I make is actually acknowledged. I would be curious to hear your response to this, but I think that ship may have already sailed. Darkknight2149 10:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Multiple editors have pointed out that WP:BURDEN is applicable here. Your attempts to justify ignoring that policy by trying to misapply other policies simply doesn't hold water. --John B123 (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: By "multiple users", you mean just you and Buidhe. And so far, you have done nothing to actually refute or respond to anything in that thread. Your replies indicate that you aren't even reading most of it. Making generalised statements, repeating yourself, and posturing isn't constructive. I'll point out again:
- Nothing in WP:BURDEN has anything to do with Onel5969's template warring at Kayako Saeki at all. Not even a little bit.
- As for the redirects, every one of those is an WP:ALLPLOT fictional character article that's fully cited by WP:PRIMARY sources. The verification concern is fabricated.
- The BURDEN thing is gaslighting anyway. Per his own admission, Onel5969 went on a redirect/template spree because they failed WP:GNG due to the current revisions being poorly sourced (which goes against WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ATD). Onel5969 mass-templating and redirecting with weak rationales is how this all started. He later switched his explanation to BURDEN as an excuse to keep edit warring.
- When it comes to redirects, BURDEN doesn't override deletion criteria or the deletion process anyway and nothing in WP:3RRNO covers his behaviour, as much as you would like to think it does.
- Onel5969 just summarily redirected more articles on the basis of the current revisions being poorly-sourced: [1], [2], [3]. Coupled with this situation, it seems like Onel5969 is just trying to circumvent the deletion process.
- Repeating the same points without actually responding to anything doesn't help Onel5969's case. Wikipedia isn't a vote, it's determined by policy-based discussion and consensus and you're lacking in both departments. Darkknight2149 12:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: By "multiple users", you mean just you and Buidhe. And so far, you have done nothing to actually refute or respond to anything in that thread. Your replies indicate that you aren't even reading most of it. Making generalised statements, repeating yourself, and posturing isn't constructive. I'll point out again:
- @Darkknight2149: Multiple editors have pointed out that WP:BURDEN is applicable here. Your attempts to justify ignoring that policy by trying to misapply other policies simply doesn't hold water. --John B123 (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @John B123: Onel5969's points were not only incorrect in their application of WP:BURDEN, but disenguous and already heavily-refuted in that thread alone. Not only has Onel5969 responded exclusively by repeating himself verbatim (without addressing the many counterpoints that have been raised), but your reply was also a repeat of his pre-addressed talking points. In fact, replying to Talk:Yoichi Asakawa at all has been like talking to a brick wall where no point I make is actually acknowledged. I would be curious to hear your response to this, but I think that ship may have already sailed. Darkknight2149 10:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Repeating your arguments over and over again does nothing to increase their validity. Suggesting people haven't actually read them because they don't accept them isn't logical, nor does it assume good faith.
Wikipedia isn't a vote, it's determined by policy-based discussion and consensus
A strange comment given that you have no support for your position and everybody else who have joined in the discussion have opposed your views. I note you are still going on about ANI, either do it or stop bringing it up. --John B123 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Repeating your arguments over and over again does nothing to increase their validity. Suggesting people haven't actually read them because they don't accept them isn't logical, nor does it assume good faith.
If anyone out of the loop wants to know what this situation is about, you can see the whole thing diff-by-diff at User:Darkknight2149/sandbox. An ANI report will be up soon. I'm done here. Darkknight2149 12:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149, As far as Kayako Saeki is concerned, I added a bunch of pop-culture media sources that should satisfy most anyone on the notability front, and removed the tags. The same I believe could be done for the others. Simply restoring unsourced material isn't the way forward though. It's not hard to find refs for these characters, since the pop-media seems so obsessed with the timelines and whatnot. Just add some sources and restore it and the whole thing will be over with.
- I HIGHLY recommend against going to ANI. As a user who has personally been the recipient of a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban, I feel uniquely qualified to recommend that ANI is the last place you want to go with this. ANI is not a fun place, where things tend to snowball out of control rather quickly. There are plenty of diffs in this psuedo-edit-war where you have restored a lot of unsourced material (not trying to throw blame, just indicating where your ANI report might go terribly wrong).
- I recommend doing the tough work of adding sources to the articles before restoring the material, and de-escalating the whole thing. You seem to be wanting to do good work, and your main goal seems to be to expand Wikipedia's coverage on this topic. Getting yourself Topic banned won't help that situation, and even if you were successful, getting Onel in trouble also won't help the articles. Adding sources will. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
AFC and NPP - is there a "rights conflict"?
I am trying to work out in my head what benefit there is to editors (eg me) and to the project to be an AFC reviewer and have the NPP right.
- For an editor like me who concentrates on AFC, what "more" does the NPP reviewer right add to my ability to provide benefit to the project as a whole?
- Are there times when I will "pass" an article because I have the NPP right without knowing it? I seem to think I have been surprised that article have been marked as patrolled by me sometimes, when I took no direct action to do so
- Is it possible when accessing at AFC to mark a new article as patrolled "by default" because I have the right?
I'm aware that NPP/NPR is a user rights group and AFC is a permission list. Both are privileges after showing some form of competence. Is there some sort of "rights conflict" or clash? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- The AFC articles that you accept are marked "patrolled" because you have the autopatrolled right, not because of NPR. DanCherek (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @DanCherek Now that is interesting. I have learned something from you that I had probably known and forgotten, thank you. Does that then skip the NPP validation process? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what autopatrolled does. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is an issue which has been discussed before - don't have time now to dig through the archives, but I remember talking to Barkeep49 and some others maybe 12 or 18 months ago about it. Autopatrolled users need to be aware that if they move an AfC article from draft space into article space, it will be marked as reviewed. If you want an NPP reviewer to give it a second pass, unreview. Girth Summit (blether) 18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit You say "unreview" which must be a 'thing', but I am not sure exactly what you mean. This may be because I don't use the NPR toolkit (or have not for a very long time)? I'm sure Otis obvious, but would you mind spoon feeding me, please? When I accept a borderline draft I would often appreciate a checks and balances opinion. I try to accept those where there is obvious scope for community improvement, but I am certain I am susceptible to making errors. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Fiddle, all you have to do is click the green checkmark on the NPP sidebar. That will put the article back in the NPP queue. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- And to unreview older articles where there is no NPP sidebar displayed, in the left menu, in the tools submenu, you can click "Add to the New Pages Feed". –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you to all of you. I am now (back?) up to speed FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- To further clarify, "reviewed" in an NPR sense essentially means that it is findable by external search engines which is obviously an important way many users find articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is information I had forgotten. Thank you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- To further clarify, "reviewed" in an NPR sense essentially means that it is findable by external search engines which is obviously an important way many users find articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you to all of you. I am now (back?) up to speed FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- And to unreview older articles where there is no NPP sidebar displayed, in the left menu, in the tools submenu, you can click "Add to the New Pages Feed". –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Fiddle, all you have to do is click the green checkmark on the NPP sidebar. That will put the article back in the NPP queue. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit You say "unreview" which must be a 'thing', but I am not sure exactly what you mean. This may be because I don't use the NPR toolkit (or have not for a very long time)? I'm sure Otis obvious, but would you mind spoon feeding me, please? When I accept a borderline draft I would often appreciate a checks and balances opinion. I try to accept those where there is obvious scope for community improvement, but I am certain I am susceptible to making errors. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @DanCherek Now that is interesting. I have learned something from you that I had probably known and forgotten, thank you. Does that then skip the NPP validation process? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- In your case, I would say that having NPR is good, because of the AfC/autopatrolled interaction that others have mentioned. Given that you are trusted with NPR, I don't have a problem with the AfC articles that you move to mainspace skipping the queue. An AfC reviewer who had autopatrolled only would be less obvious that they knew what was acceptable (being trusted with writing good articles is a little different than being trusted to know what drafts should pass without scrutiny). In any case, there's no harm in it, you seem to know what you are doing, and that's the important thing. If you get bored with AfC, NPP can be a new avenue for you to try out. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Insertcleverphrasehere Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it. I had not looked at it that way. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Novem Linguae word's; "And to unreview older articles where there is no NPP sidebar displayed, in the left menu, in the tools submenu, you can click "Add to the New Pages Feed"." This is exactly what I was looking for. But, my question is what rules we have to keep in mind before using the "Add to the New Pages Feed"? -Hatchens (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hatchens, I’m not so sure un-reviewing older articles is a good idea, if you find older articles which you believe are not mainspace worthy I’d suggest using a deletion process. I’m not so sure about the process of adding pages back to new pages feed, although this is usually done when an editor has compromised, depending on context, the articles they create if they have auto patrol or mark as reviewed if they have npr rights are added back to the new pages feed. If you trust in your judgment it is my thinking that you may to a degree decide on what course of action to follow. For example, I am familiar with policy to the point that I can perform certain actions and defend them if required of me. For example, I have unilaterally added back to new pages feed certain new articles I considered sketchy looking which had being marked as reviewed or created by one with Autopatrol, if you can not thoroughly defend your actions it is best not to do that. Timtrent, as stated by Barkeep49 & Girth Summit & others it is your Autopatrol rights that causes the article accepted at AFC to automatically be marked as reviewed. Autopatrol is also responsible for auto google indexing. Furthermore, As Girth mentioned (Perhaps a different discussion) but there was indeed a discussion wherein it was debated if or not Afc reviewers with Autopatrol rights should manually uncheck the article accepted at AFC & mark as un-reviewed. I mention this in WP:TRIO, and suggest it’s a bad idea for new editors to have Autopatrol, AFC pseudo perm and NPR rights but since you are beyond a trusted editor, I’m happy and comfortable to see you wield all three. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think there must be an acceptable elapsed time boundary that suggests that adding back to the queue is reasonable, otherwise that some other process be used. Do folk have an opinion on this, please?
- @Celestina007 Thanks for the reinforcement of the information, I am now up to speed on that issue. I was very confuzzled before. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hatchens, I’m not so sure un-reviewing older articles is a good idea, if you find older articles which you believe are not mainspace worthy I’d suggest using a deletion process. I’m not so sure about the process of adding pages back to new pages feed, although this is usually done when an editor has compromised, depending on context, the articles they create if they have auto patrol or mark as reviewed if they have npr rights are added back to the new pages feed. If you trust in your judgment it is my thinking that you may to a degree decide on what course of action to follow. For example, I am familiar with policy to the point that I can perform certain actions and defend them if required of me. For example, I have unilaterally added back to new pages feed certain new articles I considered sketchy looking which had being marked as reviewed or created by one with Autopatrol, if you can not thoroughly defend your actions it is best not to do that. Timtrent, as stated by Barkeep49 & Girth Summit & others it is your Autopatrol rights that causes the article accepted at AFC to automatically be marked as reviewed. Autopatrol is also responsible for auto google indexing. Furthermore, As Girth mentioned (Perhaps a different discussion) but there was indeed a discussion wherein it was debated if or not Afc reviewers with Autopatrol rights should manually uncheck the article accepted at AFC & mark as un-reviewed. I mention this in WP:TRIO, and suggest it’s a bad idea for new editors to have Autopatrol, AFC pseudo perm and NPR rights but since you are beyond a trusted editor, I’m happy and comfortable to see you wield all three. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there is an elapsed time boundary that one could put a number on and use as a hard rule - there are other factors to consider aside from its age, like how many other people have edited, why it's no longer in the queue, etc. Example 1: an article that was reviewed by a user who was later blocked for UPE, where there is reasonable suspicion that they were abusing their reviewer permission to pass dodgy articles for a fee. Stuff like that should be unreviewed regardless of age, unless experienced users have done substantial work to it later. Example 2: an article which was never reviewed, but just 'timed out' of the queue after six months, and has had no substantial edits since that point. If a reviewer came across it and had concerns, but didn't have time to perform a full review on the spot, I think they would be justified in unreviewing regardless of age so that it would get some eyes on it. I think the more important question is 'why are you unreviewing it, rather than performing a review?'. In Example 1 above, there might be lots of articles affected - in that case, a mass unreview seems appropriate, to give reviewers some time to go through the list and decide what to do in each case. With an isolated article, such as Example 2, I guess it would be a reasonable choice if you were in a hurry, but a better option would be to do a review and take whatever action you would as if it were still in the queue. Girth Summit (blether) 14:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- May I suggest that this discussion is linked to at WT:AFC? It directly affects the duties of AfC reviewers—are they now also acting as new page patrollers?—yet I could see no mention on that page. Cheers! SN54129 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)