User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your hard work on the Treaty of Waitangi page for the GA nomination. Your amendments have significantly improved the article's content and shifted it closer to NPOV. Your efforts are very much appreciated. Te Karere (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Casini

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Casini. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

White Ensign F.C.

Hello. I was the person who created the original AfD, as at the time the club did not play at a high enough level. However, they are now playing at the level that makes them eligible for an article. Please could you remove the tag. Cheers, Number 57 21:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: That is still only step 7, and in any case, what criteria do you speak of? Even per your original deletion discussion nomination, they only play at Step 7 at the moment. No additional news coverage has surfaced indicating an increase in notability. I see no reason that the original AfD result is not still valid, perhaps you could explain why? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

They were promoted to Division One of the Eastern Counties League at the end of the season. I wouldn't have recreated the article unless they met the criteria. Number 57 21:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: That is still only step 7, (your original AfD mentioned step 6 or above) and in any case, what criteria do you speak of? WP:NFOOTY makes no mention of any sort of automatic notability criteria, nor does WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. At Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams it says they have to meet the WP:GNG, and nothing has changed since the AfD with regard to coverage in reliable sources (there still isn't enough). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Division One South of the Eastern Counties League is step 6. The Essex Olympian League Premier Division is step 7. The steps are:

1. National League
2. National League South
3. Isthmian League Premier
4. Isthmian League Division One North
5. Eastern Counties League Premier
6. Eastern Counties League Division One South
7. Essex Olympian Premier

The criteria is something that has arisen through the Wikipedia version of case law – ie dozens and dozens of AfDs. You can see it referred to in these ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. (note that step 6 = level 10). Can provide many more examples if required. However, it should now be clear that the original AfD can't be used for G4 as the original rationale no longer applies. Number 57 22:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, there is no such thing as 'case law', per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My reading of our notability guidelines clearly indicates that teams must meet the general notability guideline. This team does not, and the close of the AfD clearly states that it should have more coverage before being recreated; the AfD is therefore still valid. You are free to contest the deletion if you so desire. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

A question

I'm seeking guidance for further NPP. I see you moved the article Colleen Birdnow Brown that I had reviewed with the edit summary (This article reads like a CV or executive profile) to draft. Fair enough, I might think about doing that next time, but I would hardly call it insufficiently sourced. Now I have come across another article I view with disfavour NRW School of Governance. I could nominate it for speedy deletion under G11, but it doesn't really qualify because there is some encyclopedic stuff there even if its hidden among the cruft. Alternatively I could cut out great hunks as being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if I did that, there is nothing to stop the establishment from addoing it back in. I find these types of articles quite difficult to deal with. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Sorry, but that one wasn't me, it was Justlettersandnumbers that moved Colleen Birdnow Brown. As for NRW School of Governance it definitely needs to have a lot of the cruft cut down, I suspect that it would have a reasonable chance at surviving deletion, though might get supported for a WP:TNT. I'd suggest cutting it down to only the material than can be sources reliably to independent sources, and no more, and if restored by others, to take it to WP:RSN. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I will do that. Sorry about muddling you up, its these users "withcleverandlengthynames" that are the problem! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Whereas yours is so very straightforward and easy to pronounce, Cwmhiraeth! I did think of conferring with you over Ms Birdnow Brown, but it was so grossly promotional that I didn't see any great need (I assume it is undisclosed paid editing, an attempt to use our encyclopaedia for advertisement). The move-to-draft script is very handy, but I 've yet to work out how to leave an edit summary other than the default "undersourced"; obviously that was not the right one in this case, and I should at minimum have made a dummy edit to correct it. As for the NRW School of Governance, I agree with ICPH, keep only what is supported by independent sources – there's a mass of self-sourced stuff there that belongs on its website, not here. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been a bit cautious about moving to Draft, but it is rather effective at solving problems. I find you can edit the default statement although I usually leave the second half which explains what the creator needs to do when they have "incubated" it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: there is actually a way to modify the script to have any default message you want. I have a modified default in my common.js, check it out if you want to see how it is done (User:Insertcleverphrasehere/common.js). You will see that I have modified both the default message as well as the default edit summary. See User:Evad37/MoveToDraft for more info. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

NPP awards

I saw a couple days ago you distributed NPP awards for the 20-30 June backlog drive. I'm not sure how you did to calculate the number of reviews for each user or if I was supposed to register somewhere, but you seem to have forgotten me. I made at least 50 successful reviews during the backlog drive.  L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Thanks for the bump, I didn't get around to giving out the rest of the awards the other day (only the upper tiers). I've sent out the 50-100 review barnstars now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I'm contracting Barnstaritis ;) L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's all good, you deserve it. Thanks for helping out. You were actually only just shy of the 100 review mark.[1] — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for all your work coordinating and running NPP and the recent backlog drive! Your hard work is always appreciated! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review

Thanks for the interest and telling me. I am still deciding whether to or whether not. Peace.Koplimek (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sports teams notability

Regarding the Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Sports_Teams_and_'automatic'_notability_criteria thread that you started, the AfD was closed with a strong consensus to "keep". Aside from your nomination, I was they only one who !voted delete or discussed the subject of coverage. As it is, if few outside a WikiProject participate, the "local consensus" becomes the general consensus. Regardless of the outcome, thanks for taking the time to bring this up. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yes, unfortunately, a large number of football fans are active on Wikipedia, and there seems to be an interest in stretching the subject specific notability criteria beyond simply confirming GNG worthy topics to a point where topics are included that don't meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sending out invites again.

You must be joking sending an NPP invite to someone like Tim riley. If anything, he should be an admin, a 'crat, or an Arb, or a steward, but his quality and volume of first class FA work isn't going to leave him much time for maintenance tasks - he's a pure writer of excellent content. This is the other end of the spectrum from where NPP begins with newbies clambouring for user rights. Do try to check out whom you are sending these invites to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers

Would it be possble for you to run a quarry(or whatever) over the last 6 months (say, from 1 Jan) to produce the number of patrols made by all reviewers in a sortable table? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on it... I tried some queries to that effect earlier, but querying from the log also pulls out Admin patrol actions, and the log won't list anyone who has done no patrolling at all (which is pretty important to have). Going to have to ask for some advice at VPT. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I got pretty close on my own with [2], which contains the review counts of all non-admin reviewers, but doesn't contain reviewers with zero reviews. (You'll note there are some 200 reviewers missing from this list). I've asked for help at VPT: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Query_help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:You'll also note this query which contains the non-admin reviewer counts from November 2016; this query contains only 596 reviewers, so there are 55 editors with the NPR flag that have not reviewed any mainspace pages since the NPR flag was implemented. Once I fix the query to include the zero review reviewers, I suggest we send a message out to the editors below a certain cutoff, give them a few weeks, then cull the inactive reviewers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. That's the kind of thing we need - without admins of course, but we'll need to find out who those 0 patrollers are. I don't know if it's possible to include date of user right and date of last patrol? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: It should be, these things are logged, I've asked for help with those things as well at VPT. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Ok, Cryptic helped me out and we have some results. Unfortunately the date of NPR granting is too tricky, but the last review date is listed. Here is the the query from Jan 1st, and here is Query from Nov 2016. They include only NPR right holders, no Admins, and also contains reviewers with null results listed by review count. Also listed is the last review date. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Remember the the nl is only a draft. I know I crafted the NPR policy but I'm not sure how much I can tighten it up without the hat collectors screaming blue murder. It is clear to all admins that a very large number of requests at PERM are from people who consider minor rights as some kind of corporal's stripes, that's why they complain when they are rejected but we're not supposed to say so because of AGF. See this for example today, before it gets archived out of sight. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: In terms of moving forward, I think we should go with the probationary period as you drafted in the next newsletter. As for older, if we deactivate anyone with no reviews in the last six months we should send them a kindly message indicating that they can reapply to have it reactivated in the future at any time (after which they will be subject to the probationary period). Hat collectors might request it be reactivated, but likely will fail the next probation anyway. There is WP:NODEADLINE for cleaning up the NPR list in my opinion, and this method should leave us with minimal drama or fallout. Note however that I recently updated my Invitee stats page and a few editors that I had assumed would never become active suddenly did,[3] including one editor who went from 0 reviews (after months since being granted) to having done over 200. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Well done. That'a 206 with 0 patrols. Perhaps if you isolate those and just run a new quarry to find their birth dates - some of them might have only recently got their 'promotion'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I see there are a lot whose last patrol was in 2017 and 2016. If I had more time I could separate them out with regex. Perhaps you culd do that. We'll get there somehow, but it's just too much to do manually. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

From what Cryptic said, obtaining user right granting date isn't really possible via Quarry: "getting the date patroller was granted isn't going to be feasible by any method I can imagine: it's only stored in the enormous logging table, and which groups were added or removed are stored in its hard-to-parse log_params column." I've pinged him here if he has anything additional to add. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

quarry:query/16640 can do it (and I just reran it, so the results are up-to-date), but it's not reliably correct (that ugly log_params column) and getting it into a single query would be nightmarish. Shouldn't be too rough to patch it together manually, though, with only 767 rows. —Cryptic 07:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Cryptic, an idea that I had, instead of looking in the logs, perhaps the query could simply look for the last date on which each of the reviewers in the list edited the PERM request page (Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer)? Editors who haven't ever edited that page will have been grandfathered it, so any kind of Null result will indicate that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The idea makes me cringe. Does nobody ever edit it except for admins and people who don't have the bit yet? I can't see the data being any more reliable than parsing the rights log like in that query. Also, there's the occasional promotion that doesn't go through that page, looks like - the comment for MargaretRDonald's log on 2018-05-27 is just "sensible contributor I have met IRL", for example.

BTW - you'll probably get better results asking about this sort of thing at WP:RAQ than WP:VPT. It's low-volume, and people who actually know what they're doing in sql watch it. (Still mostly me who answers stuff there, but at least I sometimes get some backup.) I've never been much into the data side of things; the only projects I've been involved in that needed more than the very basics, we had a dedicated dba on the team. —Cryptic 08:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "if we 'deactivate' anyone with no reviews in the last six months..." may be a problematic statement, depending on what you mean by review. I often patrol pages but do not often review pages (the most recent backlog drive aside); the user right has applications outside of Special:NewPagesFeed. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: The queries in question check both the patrol log as well as the review log and combine them. You are listed as having 477 reivews/patrols since Nov 2016, and 331 since Jan 1st. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, just wanted to make sure. Best regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Kudpung:, Hey mate is there anything else you need from me regarding this or are the three queries below good for what we need?
  • the NPR list with counts from Jan 1st;
  • the NPR list with counts from Nov 2016;
  • The list of all promotions to NPR with dates.

Do you want me to prepare a list of inactive editors based on a set of criteria? If so, what criteria do you recommend? (obviously zero reviews in 6 months, but what about reviewers who only ever made a few reviews?) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on my original post, what I was hoping for was a sortable table, excluding admins, of all the users who hold the New Page Reviewer flag. My obvious intention is to see if we can bring this in line with Primefac's reasoning for the way he manages the AfC users, which I'm very much in favour of. Constantly announcing that we have 650 revieweres gives an extremely warped impression of competency and professionalism of new page patrolling and is counter productive. As we now have the time limit feature when according user rights at PERM, I will be making greater use of it and according some new rights on probation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO the list of inactive users would certaily be those who have been rights holders for at least 6 months,

who have

• never made any reviews
• made only 1 - 10 reviews or fewer

We would need to keep an eye open for users who have requested the tools but have never used them or used them less than 10 times since reaching 6 months.

We can decide later what to do with the lists . BTW,On another note, Koplimek is an excelent content contributor but has almost no experience in maintenance areas whatsoever. I think a bit more manual checking is required (X Tools) before inviting people. .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:, The result of the queries above are sortable lists of all NPR rights holders (excluding admins) and their review counts. In terms of the time period for the review counts, the first query counts all reviews since Jan 1st 2018, and the second one is since the NPR flag was created (Nov 2016). The 3rd query checks the date when NPR rights were given to each user, and is sort-able by user.

As for Invitees, the list I invite from is right here, including the list of manual checks, and Koplimek passed all of the checks including manual ones. I do check with Xtools, though lack of project space contributions is not currently one of the failure criteria. I'm happy inviting prolific content creators that have a good understanding of notability (as evidenced by a a good page creation record with no pages deleted in the last 12 months--one of my manual criteria). While Koplimek likely won't have any interest in becoming a reviewer, there is every possibility that they also might want to try it out and then enjoy it and stick around. Would you turn him down if he applied for NPR with a comment of something like: "I have decided to help out with reviewing new pages, particularly film articles. I am very familiar with the guidelines on inclusion and have the autopatrolled user-right already. I have read WP:NPP carefully."? I feel like encouraging these kinds of editors to help out in maintenance areas can't do any harm, even if nothing comes from it. I'm open to having my mind changed and to add an additional check for "at least some project space contributions" if you think it should be required. However, I am already including Xtool checks to ensure that they have a good idea of notability based on page creation record. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rescheduled

I have rescheduled the next newsletter until at least 25 July. I want to be sure first of what we are going to do about pruning the bloated membership of the NPR user group, I also need to get the pages ready for the election, and I'm worried about the new sharp increase in the backlog since the drive ended. If we can leave it until the end of the month I can accord more attention to these things in the next issue of Signpost. As always, and based on well documented research, I am convinced that sending out newsletters too often only dilutes their impact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:. Yeah I noticed that. All good on delaying it a bit, I didn't think it was ready to send out either. As you might have seen I have prepared a chart that will keep itself up to date and display the backlog in the newsletter, to help notify reviewers of spikes in the backlog. I approve of pruning inactive reviewers as well. The 'spike' in the backlog isn't really a concern yet, its really only a few hundred pages above the lowest level that it was at the end of the month. If it starts raising more then It might be cause for concern though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Somethiing for you to check out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I don't like how you have changed this. An earlier draft of the newsletter indicated that users who had made very few reviews in the 6 months after being granted the user right would have it removed. Now it says less than 10 in the last 6 months for any reviewer, seemingly regardless of previous activity. Why are the goalposts moving? I agreed with the older criteria; probationary for new users, and to remove from users who have done less than ten reviews since being granted the user right longer than 6 months ago. I don't agree with the current criteria you have chosen; experienced reviewers who have just been off doing other stuff for a while should not have user rights taken away. It just becomes a mess and smacks of assuming bad faith and incompetence of our reviewers. Competent reviewers who have done a lot of reviewing in the past should be trusted to get themselves up to speed again on any policy changes they might have missed since the last time they reviewed, and in any case would still probably be a lot more knowledgeable than any new reviewer learning the ropes for the first time. There are a lot of flaws with this change of yours and I just don't like it. I think it should be changed back to <10 edits since being granted (so long as granting was >6 mo ago). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well then, I suggest you just take the whole NPR project back to drawing board and do what you 'want' because this isn't a discussion, is it? You might even end up reaping the kudos for my 7 years work getting the whole thing going, as well as ACTRIAL. Why not? But before you throw ABF at me, please do what I asked and see who made the edits - along with some poor grammar to boot. I'll leave you to explain either why we don't need an RfC, or to start the RfC. I now have better things to do at home for the rest of the week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You changed the wording of the revocation criteria with this edit, and that was the change I was referring to. I supported the wording before this edit, I don't support the wording afterwards. There is a huge difference between removing the flag from users who never used it in the first place, and removing it from everyone who hasn't used it recently, regardless of previous activity levels. Your change in this edit is a significant goalpost shift. You've accused me multiple times in the last few days of having some agenda with regards to NPP, and it is getting tiresome. Multiple people disagreeing on aspects of what should be sent out in the newsletter is just a sign that we need to have the coordinator election so that we officially have a couple coordinators. As far as the disagreement over the usage of moving to draft, this is a longstanding disagreement, and I think that we should just remove this section from the newsletter entirely, along with the editathon bit, as it is getting too bloated anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(Since I'm skewly invoked here):--Either of you may feel free to improve my grammar but I seem to be having some comprehension problems. IMO, ICPH was throughout talking about your newly-thought-out criterion of flag-revocation and shall you choose to pay a close look at my edits to the draft, you will have the pleasure of observing that I hadn't slightly altered that particular paragraph.I will be happy to be proved wrong, shall ICPH's starting line indicate problems as to my editing of other parts of the draft.∯WBG^converse 17:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't the elections going to happen?

I was surprised to see the upcoming election announcement struck from the newsletter. Can you share the reason for the change? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't know either—but if I had to guess, I'd say this and the section above are not unrelated events  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There's actually discussion on the NPP discussion page I'd missed before posting this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it has more to do with this discussion and others' comments than anything else. Also emails with Kudpung. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Jody Gilbert

Hi! I noticed that for the Jody Gilbert page on your CSD log, you added a comment "This is a bit odd, as there is no deletion log for this article, but I am not listed in the contributions as CSD tagging the current incarnation. It must have been deleted." What had happened, is you tagged the page for speedy deletion per A7. However, the author of the page requested that the page not be deleted, so Huon moved the page to their userspace without leaving a redirect and Primefac removed the A7 tag. I know this isn't important or anything, but just in case you were curious.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Where was the removal of the flag from those who haven't used the permission in six months approved by the community? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: There are about 100 people with the NPR flag that have never used it since granted to their account (mostly editors who were grandfathered it at the beginning). It won't be removed from anyone who has not used it in 6 months, only editors who have never used it at all and have also had the flag for longer than 6 months. There has been talk of cleaning up the NPR user list for some time, and this was decided as a very low threshold. This is essentially just a cleanup, and if any of those users do decide to join NPR in the future, they can easily request that it be turned back on. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I was just asking where it was decided. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:It was discussed between the NPR coordinators at various times over the last 6 months. I recently worked on some queries to be able to get the stats necessary to identify which users have never used the user-right. See this section above on my talk page. Kudpung wanted more stringent criteria (no reviews in the last 6 months, regardless of previous activity), but I don't think that was going to fly without a community discussion (or even with one), and I didn't want to start an argument about it, so I went with the lowest bar possible to make sure that we didn't have any backlash. I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with cleaning up user permissions for users that have never used the rights at all. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Test case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

And another. You'll have your work cut out whittling this list of hat collectors down, but it's got to be done. What they do at AfC can be done at NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In another 2 weeks or so the backlog will be back up to pre-drive levels. You're going to have to think of something because you can't keep organising backlog drives. Further bloating the number of reviewers isn't the solution. People see this fake number of 650 and simply think: "Aw, that's more than enough". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Getting more reviewers who are active might help. Inviting users results in a bit of a pick and mix (and I don't get to pick), but it gets results. Two of the current top 10 reviewers (365 day) are editors that I invited to the project near the end of last year. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Blank chart

I'm sure you may have already noticed, but the chart in the NPR newsletter appears to be blank. At least to me? Home Lander (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Hmm, not to me. Might be a bug with certain browsers? Try purging it? Does the chart appear blank at the top of WT:NPP/R? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've refreshed a couple times now. Both on the newsletter, and on that page, it briefly flashes up upon refresh then disppears. WP:VPT perhaps? Home Lander (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Hmm, it shows up here and at your talk page for me on Chrome, Edge and IE. Are you using any special skins for Wikipedia? I just use the default Vector. I guess asking at VPT might be a good idea if it persists, as it is likely a bug with Template:Graph:Chart (the chart is transcluded). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm just using whatever the default is (is it bad that I don't even know? ). I will ask at the village pump and see if anyone else is having the issue. Home Lander (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Have you tried clearing the cache on your browser? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, did that, and sure enough it displays correctly logged out. The second I log in, it flashes and disappears again. Home Lander (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander:. Logging out fixing it gave me the clue that it must be your common.js. I replaced mine with yours, and got the error you were describing, then started cutting suspect scripts until the error disappeared. It is this script: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js'); that is causing the error. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well by golly, you are correct. Thanks for investigating while I've been offline today! That script wasn't doing what it was intended to anyway, so good-bye to that. Home Lander (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There's now an easier way to fix a failed ping

See Help talk:Fixing failed pings#An easier way to fix a failed ping: using mention in the edit summary. --Pipetricker (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Pipetricker Thanks, so I just need to fix their name and then mention them in the edit summary? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and yes I did get an alert for your mention of me in your edit summary. --Pipetricker (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Garden Guns

Your welcome. Mate--RAF910 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

lists of police deaths

I have records for 81 in May, 82 in June, and 68 in July. I am working my way through the news citations for the April records, writing descriptions; I've committed myself to get caught up by our Labor Day holiday (3 September)! So please leave August there, as I will create an initial record for it as soon as we have news. --PeteGaughan

@PeteGaughan: Don't worry, I wasn't intending to do anything with regards to removing it or anything like that (I marked it as reviewed). There would be no point, as it is likely that in the next few days there will be listings to fill out (sadly). Thanks for your work in this area. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Alkaline diets

You might consider taking your own advice. I'm trying to improve the article and discussing at talk; you have made a blind revert with a long and confused edit summary, but not contributed to the discussion. There's a reason "however" is considered as a word to watch. --John (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. "However" may be a word to watch, but it was used appropriately in many of the cases here. Your edit introduced factual inaccuracies into the article, which I pointed out in my revert summary. As the person proposing controversial changes to an article that has a history of extensive battlegroud edit wars, it is your job to establish consensus before making controversial edits, not just calling other people lazy. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Which factual inaccuracies did my edit introduce? --John (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered your question in the edit summary of my revert. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful way. --John (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Question re: Racquetball at Central American and Caribbean Games article

Thanks for reviewing Racquetball at the Central American and Caribbean Games. It's a summary of information that is in other wiki articles (well, the recent years are; the earlier year I still need to create, although I have found the results), so it seems redundant to list the references in this article. Is that not so? Trb333 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Trb333: If there is a source that contains an overview for each year, it would be good to have one of those for each table. Its generally not a good idea to rely on sources being in other articles if it can be helped. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Trb333 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow up question. Sometimes sporting events publish pdfs of the results, but then the website goes off line after the event is over, so the pdfs may be unavailable at that point (Archive.org aside). Is it possible to upload those pdfs to Wikipedia somehow so as to use them as a permanent reference for the event? Trb333 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Trb333: I don't think so, we wouldn't be allowed due to copyright issues. I think there is a way to make sure it gets archived by Archive.org, but I'm not sure how to do it personally. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've put in the references on Racquetball at the Central American and Caribbean Games. Check it out. Trb333 (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Trb333: Great work. I formatted the reflist for it as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Seddon Park updation

I have added some more history in Seddon Park article in Hamilton with regards to the 2015 Cricket World Cup. However, I am not sure how to expand it in a way that is really fitting for the article. And I am 100% sure that the added bit of history is relevant to the article, because it's quite significant, as we don't always see worldwide tournaments being seen in Seddon Park. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Backlog

The backlog is rising at a steep, steady, and very specific rate. As someone who understands graphs, what does this tell us? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It means that most active patrollers don't consider it an urgent job yet. Aside from a few stragglers, the oldest articles are currently from July 20th, meaning that we only have 18 days worth of backlog (up from 15 days worth a week ago), which at least gives us a bit of a buffer. Its summer in the northern hemisphere, so more people might be on holiday, like I currently am. I'm on holiday this week in Canada, but when I get back to NZ I'll post some notices around to help motivate some people. There is always going to be a bit of a feeling of "the backlog is way lower than it used to be, why stress?" which demotivates reviewers that need that kick of urgency to get lot of reviewing done. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. It's just a shame that in a routine task like page reviewing, nobody does anything until there is urgency. A bit like RfA - no one is going to improve the behaviour of the voters until we're actually desperately short of admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)