Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

E sports seasons walled gardens

I have recently come across this article 2017–18 Boston Uprising season for a team that is in a the Overwatch League a franchise created in 2017. I redirected it to the team's main page Boston Uprising but as there are dozens of these pages connected to the franchise I wanted to know if there are any kind of specific guidelines about video gaming leagues and their different seasons. The team itself seems to bearly notable and this looks like a concerted effort by editors involved with this franchise to build a walled garden and flood the project with connected articles. Can anyone advise? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I left those for someone with a better idea about it... this is too new to really be decided in something like WP:NSPORTS, and in fact that page has already come to consensus to not include Esports in their notability guidelines. That's a few years back, and it's gotten bigger since then, but for now I think we can only judge ESports and their related leagues based on regular general notability guidelines. I agree with your decision on that page though, it was definitely not notable from what I saw. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the editor who's created these OWL subarticles. Just want to point out I'm the only editor, aside from one editor who created 2017–18 Los Angeles Gladiators season using my layout. Anyways, figured I would explain my thought process as I'm still newish to Wikipedia so I'm not 100% sure on notability guidelines etc.

Basically, I can't comment on other teams articles, aside from Dallas Fuel as I support them and done the bulk of their main article. When I was making the Dallas Fuel article I was using NBA/Soccer teams as my guide, so when it came to statistics/match logs I initially used their template designs and had them on the Dallas Fuel article. However, I found it started to look pretty large and with further seasons the page would become messy to navigate. So I looked at what other Sports did and split that bulk section into a subarticle. I didn't know I had to think about notability, for the Dallas Fuel I was just splitting a section I deemed too large and figured would be more appropriate as a subarticle. After this, as I had a decent layout for the 17–18 season I decided to do the other teams - hence now 7/12 subarticle exist. I didn't really think about the state of the other teams main articles. I just figured as some of them already had started doing match logs on their page, like I had done with Dallas Fuel, splitting those to an individual season like other sports made sense as the section will become pretty large. As for those who hadn't, might as well skip putting the information on the main article and directly make the subarticle.

For the article I was actually working on: Dallas Fuel, am I not allowed to split sections I deem too large into subarticles?

As for the other teams, is the information in the season subarticles even allowed on the main article? If it isn't what is required for it to be allowed? If it is, I honestly don't see why they can't be split into subarticles if they're allowed on the main article.

Is the crux of the issue the main articles notability? So if the main articles improved the subarticles would be permitted? If that's the case surely the main article shouldn't even exist? I'm just confused, can't the subarticles exist until someone decides to work on the main articles? Wiki nV (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I am the aforementioned creator of 2017–18 Los Angeles Gladiators season and a new page reviewer. I agree that the sourcing on all OWL season subpages could use some improving, but with coverage from publications like ESPN, Forbes and Dot Esports, I believe the improvements shouldn't be that difficult. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, just wanted to mention the 2017–18 Boston Uprising season which was redirected was only the base template - it wasn't actually finished. See: User:Wiki_nV/sandbox for a version with citations added to transaction notes. Which is in-line with the other subarticles which didn't seem to raise any issues: Mayhem, Outlaws, Fuel, Gladiators, Shock, Dynasty, and Dragons. Wiki nV (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Wp:SNGs like WP:NSPORTS are shortcuts not replacements for WP:GNG. So assessing if something passes GNG is never going to be wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the jumbled reply above + not being fully aware of the guidelines. Basically, in hopes to try and fix the problem I had these questions.

• Can the notability of subarticles stem from the main article? If true and the crux of the issue is the main articles notability, considering the main articles are already given time in hope someone will improve their notability standard, can't the subarticles exist until either the improvement or deletion of the main article?
  
• If notability can't stem from the main article, what standard is required for the subarticles to be considered independently notable? As I followed the NBA model, I currently consider my subarticles level to their standard.
  
• If these bulky sections can be placed on the main article without issue, but can't be split into subarticles as they supposedly lack notability, how on earth am I meant to deal with the main article size becoming too large? Wiki nV (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

---

This topic is under discussion at Talk:Overwatch League#Season articles for each team. I recommend centralizing discussion there. czar 12:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol broken?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T198497

I've just noticed that there are articles created by autopatrollers and admins in the queue, e.g Mrs Webb, Peter Wilmot-Sitwell, Joyce McRoberts, Patintero. Does anybody know what's going on? – Joe (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe - see this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's actually a good thing. If it wasn't broken I wouldn't have seen this article that seems not to meet WP:NEVENT. Murder of Mehwish Arshad. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

While autopatrolled users sometimes make mistakes, just like anyone else, most can be trusted reliably. The NPP queue has already spiked again after the drive, probably due to the extra articles being added to the queue even though they are autopatrolled creations. Hope this gets fixed soon. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they are but this particular editor has had quite a lot of articles deleted recently judging by the redlinked afd notifications. Is there any periodical control of the autopatrol right? I am absolutely not suggesting that the creator of the above article is an undeclared paid editor there is no but it got me thinking, if I were a undeclared paid editor I would create an account and create a ton of clean articles that are not company or bio pages and then ask for the right and then I would be under the radar. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you have to report them somewhere for an admin to take notice. Natureium (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I use User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js as well as the new page feed, which creates a scrolling feed on the left side of the page. This includes all new articles, not just unreviewed ones, so autopatrolled articles show up there as well (unhighlighted as they are already reviewed). I commonly check articles that are already marked reviewed on that feed sometimes. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

AfC as it relates to NPP

When I find articles in the NPP feed that were approved at AfC, I expect to find minimal problems because they were reviewed by an experienced editor. Is the purpose of AfC just to make sure that articles wont be CSD'd, or are they supposed to be free of issues as well. I assume that the AfC approved copyvios and non-notable articles I occasionally find are in error, but I just found this strangely formatted article, which prompted me to ask this question (Karaikudi Kaalai). Natureium (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To my understanding, AfC reviewers are supposed not to make an accept/decline issue of mere formatting problems, nor are they expected to fix these themselves - like us, they are principally a triage stage. The aim is to sieve out articles that will be deleted, and let through those that won't (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). I guess if the article still has formatting warts but looks unlikely to be a candidate for deletion or draftification, they've done their job. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The rule of thumb at AfC is supposed to be that they'll approve any article that is "likely to survive an AfD." In practice, individual reviewers' standards vary a lot. I would review articles that have been through AfC in the same way you review any other, just to be on the safe side. – Joe (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Elmidae, and Roe the Joe. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There is what I'd consider an undesirable 'artifact' (a bug really): Editors with the autopatrolled user right (and administrators) who accept an AfC draft automatically patrol that article, even though all they do was agree that it was likely that the article would survive an AfD. That is not the scope of an NPP review, and I think that autopatrolled should apply only to articles that were written by autopatrolled users. and be ignored when accepting AfC drafts. Vexations (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely worth considering. ∯WBG^converse 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeesh yes. As an autopatrolled user, I wish it didn't do this (and I didn't realize it did): basically the upshot is either 1, you have to improve a creation enough yourself (not a viable model for AfC reviewing), 2, you skip over or reject anything that isn't up to your standards for your own creation (leaving plenty of improvable entries wrongly languishing in draftspace), or 3, you have to (remember to) be both AfC and NPP reviewer for any draft you accept, first going through AfC protocol and doing a kind of Twinkle-substitute version of NPP reviewing since Page Curation won't be available (right?). That last really is a good argument for combining the projects... But in the meantime, yes if it's possible just to turn off the function that autopatrols any AfC-accepted draft, I think that'd be good. This past month I've seen a bunch of stuff come through AfC that still needed NPP eyes on (IMO). Innisfree987 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• AfC is well noted for its low and inconsistent standard or reviewing. The bright line is that articles should be accepted if they stand a fair chance of survival at AfD. If low standard AfC passes appear at NPP, they should be treated as any other new article and either tagged for deletion if necessary or moved back to draft. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no question of moving back to draft, sans exception(s).∯WBG^converse 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I also don't get K's point about low standard of reviewing (the one which supposedly led the nominator to start this thread isn't anywhere close to being draftifiable either.If you're interested in deletion, start an AfD but umm....... ), if he is specific about the discussed case. If that's a part of general bitching about the project, that's some other issue.∯WBG^converse 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• The main aim of AFC reviewers is to accept minimum-suistainable articles on notable subjects that ain't spam and/or copyvio.Anybody who declines a draft on formatting issues, is plainly not abiding by the guidelines, unless that causes the article to be too horrible to make heads or tails of.∯WBG^converse 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

See a pattern?

Do the contributions of new editor Barbare-asie look like those of an undisclosed paid editor and sockpuppet to other reviewers here? Vexations (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Very suspicious indeed, but points more towards paid editor than sock. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree undeclared paid editor I think. Needs a pruen especially the awards section which are not real awards are are mostly obtained through user reviews so unacceptable. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Most hotels/resorts this side of Y2K are paid or promotional, as they are fairly boring subjects most new editors would not find interesting enough to try and attempt to write an article about. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked out the "awards" and without exception they are all "user" votes so open to fraud. Also the information was factually incorrect and/or misleading as for one of the awards they "won" the country award and not the global award. Also they are paid for awards, $890 to enter the 2 categories they "won". Dom from Paris (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Barbare-asie has not been welcomed yet, what message would be best to post? A standard welcome-list? or some COI notice.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd use {{subst:welcome-COI|Discovery Shores}}. Twinkle has it too. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will do here soon. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1, Domdeparis, and Vexations: promotional and almost certainly UPE. Things that stand out are the purely promotional travel sites, and the fact that they patiently waited for their account to be confirmed so they didn't have to go through AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that Un Barbare en Asie is a travellog (in French) written in 1933 by Henri Michaux during his voyages around that region. It's still a popular read. It has been reprinted many times and is still in print. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

question

Ring finger protein 157 is being identified as 77% copyvio per[1] which is just this search page[2] on PubMed... suggestion?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just the references. That's not copyvio, it's citing the source. Natureium (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not an issue :) You need to check which part of the text is identified as a match; if it's material that needs to be represented verbatim (references, suitable quotes etc.) it should be discounted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks(BTW,Admiralty Central Metallurgical Laboratory had initially given no copyvio on [3] however when I noticed later it didn't appear on a regular Google search I check again for copyvio and the second time it did return a result[4])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The copyright tool, much like CU results, is not {{Pixiedust}} - sometimes a high % isn't a copyvio and sometimes a 0% is actually 100% but the search can't parse the page from whence it came. If something sounds like it's copied from somewhere, but you're not getting any hits, a GSearch as you've done is a great way to double-check. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quality

It's becoming increasingly rare for me to do any regular patrolling myself, but a stint today has revealed some poor standards of reviewing. I hope that the backlog drive has not caused partrollers to forget that quality rather than speed ids quintessential to good reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What problems are you seeing exactly? I occasionally will go through someone else's patrol log if I come across a series of pages or redirects that I'm unsure about - to see if anyone else has marked similar pages as reviewed or not - but for the most part I haven't seen many issues and would like to know where to be extra vigilant if you're noticing a problem. One thing I just noticed recently is that marking a page under CSD actually puts it in your patrol log. I was worried when I saw a couple redlinks recently on my log but then realized it was all the pages I had marked for deletion and were since gone. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Normally any action on the pages using the curation tool will mark the page as patrolled which means other patrollers don't have to look at it as it won't be in the feed. So totally normal that you find redlinked pages in your log. I think if someone doesn't have redlinked pages it means they are only patrolling the easy pages that don't even need tagging. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would red links worry you? Do you not often nominate pages for deletion? Natureium (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I chose my words wrong. I forget which pages I mark for CSD so when I see a redlink I just hope it's not a page I marked reviewed in error. That's all! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Poor reviewing doesn't have to be related to deletion tagging alone. It's a shame that so many reviewers still consider NPP to be a leisure park shooting booth. I see low standards of reviews of all kinds, the insidious problem being quickly passing articles without fully investigating a trashload of worthless sources, and a user who is serially spamming the encyclopedia with dozens of poor machine translations, unattributed, from other Wikis. Don't ask me for links - I'm not (or no longer) the NPP nanny. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, but usually when someone has a criticism they explain or show what's going on rather than saying "there's a problem" but offering no evidence or ideas to fix it. If I or anyone was doing something wrong I'd like to know, that's all. Also, NPP was not built to be a thorough investigation of all pages. It's described as "a place to broadly accept articles that may not be perfect but do not need to be deleted." You look for red flags, copyvios, garbage refs, COI, etc, but overall if the page would pass AfD it gets the O-K. The flowchart on our front page is pretty succinct and quick to memorize and apply to a page being reviewed. Perhaps I'm unaware of all these slackers you're talking about, I just don't see it. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, Semmendinger, don't ask me for links - I'm not (or no longer) the NPP nanny. I spent many years fixing NPP and slowly creating the very process (as it is today) that you're writing about. I believe I've earned the right to both criticise it and praise it. Depends which flowchart on our front page; who made them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing hoaxes

Yesterday, a hoax was reviewed. A vandalism-only account (still unblocked) has replaced a text of an article about a real person unrelated to sports with a text of an alleged 2014 Olympic champion, claiming that the Olympic champion is the principal meaning. A good-faith user reverted but decided to make the revision a separate article (I already discussed with the user, and they were responsive and recognized what the issue was), and a patroller added the no sources tag (the text indeed had no sources) and reviewed the hoax. (I unreviewed the hoax and subsequently nominated it for speedy, but the patroller duly reverted my notification at their talk page). The point is however that the new page patroller does not have to be an expert in sports and does not know that all Olympic champions get their own articles within five minutes after the announcement of their win (assuming they did not have an article before that), and finding a new article about a champion of Olympics which happened four years ago should raise an immediate red flag, similarly to finding an article about a president of a UN Member country elected a year ago, or an article about a new planet of the Solar system. I am not quite sure what would be the best way to address this, but would writing an essay giving some examples of such articles help?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've found a number of reviews over the past few months that shouldn't have been approved, and it wasn't all by the same person. I think more care in general could be exercised by most, and I'm sure I've made mistakes at some point as well. Someone mentioned yesterday on the wikipedia IRC channel that NPR requires a lot of wikipedia knowledge and should be given out with more stringency. Currently, it seems like NPR is given to almost anyone who doesn't have major red flags. The problem is that we need more reviewers, so we can't be too restrictive. Still, I cringe when I come across a recently reviewed article that is a copyvio or has major issues with no tags. Natureium (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, a copyvio check must be on the workflow of every reviewer, and I would say if someone systematically fails to implement this check they should not have the flag. Hoaxes are more difficult to detect, though of course the fact that the article did not have sources should have alarmed the reviewer.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I usually leave a note on the talk page of a reviewer that doesn't catch a copyvio, which I hope will encourage them to check in the future, whether it's seen as a kind reminder or an embarrassment. Natureium (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

One clue is that if reviewers are reviewing articles of a rate higher than 2 or 3 per minute, they probably aren't checking for copyvio, because that tool takes forever. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am checking using Google, and I probably review faster than one article in 3 minutes.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

2 or 3 articles per one minute, not one article per 2 or 3 minutes. Natureium (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

After seeing the suggestion made by an AfC reviewer I will sometimes queue up several articles in a row through Earwig which then lets me check for copyvio quickly and can lead to bursts of faster than 2 or 3 a minute. Of course, hopefully with the work under way copyvio likelihood will become more transparent and thus something more actively considered by reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I do that too, which is extra fun when I've already applied tags and when the tool finally loads it turns out to be a copyvio. Natureium (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The initial concept of the reviewer permission envisioned it being limited to editors who had knowledge of WP's inclusion criteria and content policies which would be essentially the same as an admin. The community wide discusssions showed consensus was more that a reviewer should simply have a reasonable level of clue but closer to +autopatrolled rather than +sysop. It was, however, made easy to remove the flag for cause or, I think, inactivity. That means we should be checking the work of new (and old) reviewers to make sure they are doing things properly. Peer review helps us all keep our skills sharp and helps us improve. It can suck to have someone say hey you missed that or you are not doing X right but it is better to have the feedback and adjust if needed than not.

There is also some disagreement, even among reviewers, as to what a proper review should consist of. Personally, I think the flowchart should be SOP. It is great and I learned about the Rater script from it. Also, again in my opinion, when a review is finished the article should be in a state which is usable to our readers, including some minimal sourcing. If one does this and in the process can not verify/source at least something then, with few exceptions, it should be moved to draft. This will generally catch hoaxes. A good rule of thumb, although not a community endorsed one, is if an article can not be sourced (can not not is not) then it is probably a hoax or otherwise fails some criteria and probably should not be in main space. Jbh ^Talk 15:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

100% agree on the flow chart part... It's also how I learned about rater! No page is complete if the talk is still red. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh. The flowchart is useful, but shouldn't be taken as gospel. A few quick examples: I haven't found anything authoritative that says that all new pages must have a talk page; and I don't think wikiprojects want drafts added to their list of articles (and drafts aren't supposed to have categories anyway).

And the rater tool is also on the New Page Tutorial which everyone should have read. Natureium (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That contrasts with AFC where the flowchart (considerably simpler than the one here) is the standard reviewers are supposed to work to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That's true. We aren't AfC. I also think the flow chart can be very confusing and probably intimidating for new patrollers. Natureium (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to come up with a more linear checklist, which is more along the lines of how I review pages. Anyone is welcome to add to it if there's something obvious I'm missing. Natureium (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is a significant step forward. I added a couple of things and might add later a couple of lines on how to recognze a hoax and that it is best to skip the page or come here if there are serious doubts and the page is outside the competence of the patroller.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Natureium:, @Ymblanter:, @Semmendinger: I never intended for the flowchart to represent the only way to review an article, in fact I designed it primarily with new reviewers in mind that have little idea what they are doing in the hope that we would end up with less 'borderline judgement calls' that only experienced reviewers would complete, as well as to help them learn all the fiddly bits that you need to remember to check. I think the flowchart has been successful at this, based on a lot of feedback I have received, but I've clarified the caption on the main NPR page for the flowchart to state that its primary purpose is for new reviewers and reviewing difficult calls, and to state that it is 'a' process to review an article, rather than 'the' process. I'm open to any suggestions for improvements if you have any ideas. In terms of adding wiki-projects to drafts, some WPs support it, others don't care, and if it results in more eyes, I don't see the harm (I've never had anyone come back and complain to me). I would generally do this with promising drafts, and it gives the AFCH reviewer a head start on picking WPs when closing if it is ever accepted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A little detective work

I have been investigating the edit history of new editor NathGazer which you can see here. First he template welcomed a new user, then he made 3 random edits, with edit summaries. Then he demonstrated knowledge of the "recent changes" page and reverted several incidents of vandalism, each with edit summaries, templating a warning message to one editor and welcoming another, all in the course of less than an hour. Clearly not really a new editor.

Having created a brief stub Mariya Barabanova six minutes later, he got down to business and eight minutes afterwards created INVIDI, a technology company. This was added in several chunks, but was ready prepared off wiki. This is demonstrated by the fact that the references for all of the sections were dated four days earlier and by the fact that it took about two minutes to add each chunk. So that was two articles created in just over half an hour by an apparently new and inexperienced editor. No edits in the subsequent ten days, I guess he is just waiting for his next commission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth see the thread above See a pattern? This is another typical UPE. No doubt about it whatsoever. The article is totally promotional. It's so blatant that detective work is not really necessary, but a good catch nevertheless. Do what you have to. We don't want people like this or their articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to add a CoI template to the user's talk page, but less happy to propose the article for speedy deletion. The G11 criteria state "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." In this case, the company may be notable as the article mentions an Emmy award, and the text could be replaced by something neutral. Some admins would probably delete it while at least one, would probably not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

INVIDI, which was clearly a comissioned work, is now red thanks to RHaworth who doesn't stand any nonsense from spammers. The effort should be to squeeze out UPE, either by forcing them to declare according to policy, or by making it harder for them to earn money some other way. We need to start evaluating whether or not the Wikipedia would be poorer by not having the kind articles that are simply created to make money. The time is over for the claims that Wikipedia needs more new articles irrespective of quality, relevance, or purpose. So, you can feel free to make use of the 'paid' warning templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see something that would compel undisclosed paid editors to disclose their CoI. What I'm thinking of is something along the lines of "A qualified reviewer has identified a potential conflict of interest that must be managed. Failure to respond to the request to clarify a potential CoI will result in a block". A bit like PROD, it should be easy to resolve, and all it takes is a response. Vexations (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What kind of response are you wanting from them? They can just say "No", because anyone can say that, whether or not they're a paid editor. Natureium (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

And that's the problem however blatantly obvious it is to us. All we can do is delete what we can as promotional and/or not meeting notability critera. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a user who created an account 5 days ago, made a few consecutive edits to their userpage after 5 days, and then published an article within one edit. All this happened in less than three minutes. The article has default sort, and authority control, and everything. We clearly had an experienced, and paid user. But there is no way to find that out. CU is not for "fishing", and shouldnt be requested if one cant show enough evidence between more than accounts. That leaves us with only the option of deleting stuff. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you link to the user that you intended to link to, a CoI editor who created their account in May and who does not seem to have edited since their "businessman" article was deleted? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:-?? ∯WBG^converse 05:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Sorry for a delayed reply. I thought i already posted a reply till I got WBG's ping. Yes, I intended to link that particular user. I have seen a few editors like that recently. Most of them have names of girls. Ruby was not an indian name though. The user created account. Did not edit for 5 days. Then edited their own userpage in rapid succession with single word in each edit: "Hi - I am a regular and active editor here. Thanks for your help." And valla! They are now A-Con (pun intended lol). There next edit is publishing of an article prepared offline. After that no edits whatsoever. Ruby showed thorough knowledge of wiki coding. I didnt know about def sort, and list as for a long time. Authority control was long after that. And one of my first 100 edits was an article creation, a so-so on content, but very sloppy on wiki coding. —usernamekiran(talk)

What I am trying to say here is, the UPeditors must have realised we cant perform a CU unless there is evidence. There are few more things, but i wouldnt mention them here for WP:BEANS. But in these cases, there is a pattern, create a fresh account: one at a time (no sleepers). Create an article as soon as the account is ACON, and abondon that account. With this, all we can do is to take the article to AfD, as most of the articles from UPeditors now a days are not A7, or blatantly promotional. And or doesnt matter if we slap CoI notice, or CoI tag to the article as the account mostly doesnt edit again. UPeditors are evolving. There is a little chance for SPI, and salting is an option if created repeatedly; but not much else. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Your remarks largely mirror my views. As long as a "new" editor is permitted to create a well-referenced, perfectly formatted article after a few preparatory edits, there is every incentive to abandon one CoI account and create another. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I totally agree. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing

I asked user Jbaysinger whether he is a paid editor and he denies it. However, if you care to look at the article he created Candace M. Smith, the sultry image was taken by him, which suggests a CoI at the very least. What should I do next? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

May be copyvio: no metadata, it looks cropped, and [5] pre-dates the declared date for [6] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 21:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Image may have been copied from [7] Vexations (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. What I was really wondering was what to do if I considered an editor was a CoI/paid editor and they denied it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Who wrote this article?

I'm looking into the history of Steve Egboro and found by looking at the logs that:

• 2017-04-18T22:20:39 User account Delords (talk | contribs) was created
• 2018-06-04T11:42:01 User account Steve Egboro (talk | contribs) was created
• 2018-06-22T17:43:04 Delords (talk | contribs) moved page User:Steve Egboro/sandbox to Steve Egboro/sandbox (Moving from User page to Article page) (revert) (Tag: a new user moving a page out of the userspace) (thank)
• 2018-06-22T22:09:35 Natureium (talk | contribs) marked Steve Egboro/sandbox for deletion with db-person tag
• 2018-06-23T02:25:58 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Steve Egboro/sandbox (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (thank)
• 2018-07-14T14:44:56 Delords (talk | contribs) created page Steve Egboro/sandbox (←Created page with '..') (Tag: Visual edit: Switched)
• 2018-07-14T14:48:08 Home Lander (talk | contribs) moved page Steve Egboro/sandbox to Steve Egboro without leaving a redirect (rm errant sandbox title) (revert) (thank)
• 2018-06-23T02:25:58 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Steve Egboro/sandbox (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (thank)
• 2018-07-14T16:22:57 Vexations (talk | contribs) marked Steve Egboro for deletion with speedy deletion-advertising tag
• 2018-07-14T17:12:21‎ C.Fred (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,809 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (decline speedy - I don't see the spam) (undo | thank)

What I can't quite figure out is who created the first version. Was it User:Steve Egboro, on 2018-06-04 13:05 per https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Steve%20Egboro ? Vexations (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's rather confusing. Did Delords create the sandbox article, with an edit shortly before his edit of 17:43 on 22 June 2018, in error. I find that as a non-admin, when an article is deleted, the evidence for its creation disappears from my view. I know this is the case because I created an article on March 17 2018 which was promptly deleted by another editor, and when I wanted to refer to the events on a talk page, I was unable to establish at what precise time I had created it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Too bad the creation log wasn't up and running yet in June. The two July actions are logged [8], but that doesn't tell us about anything prior. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Friendly reminder…

Please, mark patrolled any page set up for AfD, PROD, or CSD, so they don't show up in the regular queue. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, L3X1, those tags automatically mark a page as 'patrolled'. And if they don't, please file a bug at Phab. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung Twinkle or Curation Toolbar tags? ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think L3X1 is right that if someone marks them for AfD, MfD, CSD, or PROD in a way other than the curation toolbar they're not marked as reviewed. Curious what others think, but my practice has been to only mark CSD or PROD as reviewed if I also watch the page - if the deletion tag is removed the review might need to be re-examined. Given our gatekeeper responsibilities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I use my CSD log to keep tabs on article in case they get declined or removed. Same with AFD. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If an editor uses the curate tool to nominate for deletion, it usually (but not always), marks the article as reviewed. While it rarely happens, there have been several times when I've tagged an article for deletion (either AfD, or prodded - never happened when I've speedied), when I've noticed that I still have had to click "reviewed". But using Twinkle does not mark it reviewed. Take a look at Laura Ikeji. AfD'd using Twinkle, and still appeared as unreviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've requested it as a Twinkle option - WT:TW#Mark as patrolled should anyone care to register their interest in that request. Cabayi (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC).

It's already an option in Twinkle for CSD, AfD, and tagging. It's the default behaviour, in fact.

I have to say, though, I don't mark them as patrolled and I don't intend to start. I don't like relying on a single editor to follow up on declined CSDs/PRODs. Especially if it's me, because I'm rubbish at remembering to do that. And if the WMF would just fix the bugged "nominated for deletion" filter in the new pages feed we wouldn't have to. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Joe Roe here. I would prefer they stay in the queue if they haven't been fully reviewed, because some people will helpfully mark them as unreviewed if they decline a speedy/PROD, but many people don't. I watchlist them, but I have almost 8,000 pages on my watchlist, so there's a good chance I'm going to miss an article that needs to be reviewed after untagging. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to say that if you nominate for deletion or prod or csd you have done a full review otherwise you wouldn't have come to the conclusion that they do not meet the necessary standards. Anyone can remove a prod or csd but only those that have access to the curation bar can mark them as unreviewed. I don't see why an article that is nominated for deletion should stay in the queue any more than one that has been tagged or simply marked as reviewed. If a reviewer decides that an article does not meet CSD or PROD and removes these then why would they uncheck and leave unchecked the review button? They have carried out a review by removing these tags so should check again reviewed. If we don't do this then an article that is tagged for deletion is reviewed at least 3 times and this is a monumental waste of time. What would be useful would be to have a script that unchecks reviewed if it is anyone other than a reviewer who removes the prod of csd. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If I think something should be speedily deleted, I'm not going to bother going through the rest of what needs to be checked. If someone declines the speedy, it will still be marked as patrolled but hasn't been thoroughly checked. Natureium (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand how thinking that an article meets CSD doesn't mean it has been reviewed. When I CSD an article it is because I am sure it meets the criteria but other editors may not agree with me. In that case I always go back to check that it was not the creator that removed the tag and to see what the explanation was in the edit summary. And then I look at it more closely but I do not leave it up to other editors to clean up after me. I don't do drive-by CSD tagging once I have started a review I go through with it. I think the minimum would be to tag it according to the CSD I had chosen or nominate for AFD. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe Roe that this should be fixed and think that once the New Page Feed has been fixed we will have more options. Those who watch CSD logs and or watch each page they nominate can mark them reviewed if they want, and those who don't watch their page can leave them unreviewed. The rest of us can untick 'nominated for deletion' in the preferences if we find that they get in our way. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages

I often create user talk pages to welcome or warn editors when I patrol recent changes (and sometimes new pages). I suspect that all those pages must then be marked patrolled by someone else with the same right. Is it common for reviewers to also request the autopatrol right for this reason? It seems to me that it is more for users who create many article-space pages, if so, I don't need it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Erm. Do talk pages need reviewing/patrolling? That's news to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever reviewed a user talk page. Natureium (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn't think they did. Same with AfD pages, when I go there, there's that little "marked patrolled" reminder in the lower right... but that simply seems senseless. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that is a different patrol then what NPP and AutoPatrol covers. It's a diff patrol thing, not page.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I also see those and it disappears once marked. Example of unpatrolled user talk pages: [9] and of project space: [10] —PaleoNeonate – 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed sandboxes, talk pages, user pages, etc with "Marked as Patrolled" in the bottom right corner. However, these do not show up on the NPP feed - that's the difference. So while they can be technically patrolled, they don't need to be. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• We should ask the WMF or whoever runs it to reform the use of terms Patrol and Review.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

More disappointed than euphoric

Not to belittle the extraordinary efforts of those few who did work overtime, in the same way as staying late at the office to discuss shorter working hours rather defeats the object of the exercise, to relax completely after a backlog drive and allow the backlog to grow again rapidly is counter productive. Once down to less than 500 I would have hoped to see enthusiasm prevail and go the extra mile to get that monumental backlog right down to 0. It's not to be however, and within six months it will be back up to 12,000. That rather makes a damp squib of NPR which as a process is involves far more than giving a new page a cursory look and saying "Yeah, well, it'll probably survive AfD (or not)." No, that's the job of the AfC - after NPP there there are no further checks, and that's why it must take longer than 20 seconds to review a page even during a backlog drive for coveted barnstars.

NPR is the last and final hurdle for a new article before it is released into that brightly lit and beautiful land called mainspace, and contrary to what my good friend Jorm who developed Curation said many years ago, New Page Reviewers are a 'whole priesthood of gatekeepers', and that's a big burden to shoulder, especially when fewer than 10% of the now ridiculous number of 650 reviewers are doing 95% of the work. A user right is not a privilege or a promotion, it is simply an access to special tools for those who have demonstrated they have the interest, can be trusted with them, and will use them. The long awaited election for coordinators is coming soon, and there might be some changes after that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, to me it looks like since the backdrive ended the bulk of NPP users have went back to reviewing the amount of pages they typically complete in a week. There's nothing wrong with that either. The backlog (at least for me) was scheduled over my summer break, so some of us had a little extra time to work on reviewing articles. Now, school is back in session, along with work, and I imagine this is the case for most of our users in general. So I don't think this is a case of everyone relaxing, I think it's more a problem with the amount of buckets we have bailing out an ever-rising ocean. With hundreds of new articles made per day it's amazing we've been able to keep the backlog as reasonably stable as it has been. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semmendinger, I can assure you that formal research has established that academics and students are certainly not the majority of Wikipedia editors. And then again, the US is not the only country Wikipedia editors come from - across the globe English speaking countries have very different academic calendars. It would be interesting however to ascertain what level of education the majority of our active New Page Reviewers have - at a rough guess, it might in fact be be quite high but we should never base our opinions on assumptions. My main concern for the backlog is that where it was down to 350, it would have been at a level where a normal day's intake would have been covered by a normal day's patrolling by a massive corps of 'so called' 650 users. It isn't. And that's why we need to sort out the wheat from the chaff so that we know where we're really at. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way of knowing how many of the pages are redirects and filtering those out? I don't know if it is just me but I get the impression that there are more and more redirects popping up now. I think we should really be concentrating on the articles but attacking redirects are an easy win. There are a lot that without even going onto the article itself could be reviewed en masse because they are simply capitalisation variations or spelling variations. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: you can filter the New Page Feed, but It currently only lets you filter articles or redirects+articles. If you want just redirects, I suggest ticking 'have no categories' as this excludes most articles and will show mostly redirects. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can filter it to only show redirects, "√unreviewed √redirects Өarticle √show all" ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

But it won't let you select only redirects. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ lets you select only redirects Vexations (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was using the feed by filtering redirects and no categories you just get mostly redirects, but God is it boring and you don't even see your edit count move! I've just done 125 and I've now got mouse cramp ! Dom from Paris (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Chime in any time :)^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• you don't even see your edit count move! nor does it when you spend hours unravelling a complex SPI , or writing code for a bot, or or spending 1,000s of $$ travelling to Wikimania for a week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

How true but it's always nice to see the counter go up. It's an easy way of recognising a volume of work. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers

I have come across three new Newspaper articles today. They appear to be unrelated to each other but through my exploration I have learned that WP:WikiProject Newspapers has a drive under way to get 1000 new articles on newspapers. The sourcing behind the drive seems to be an out of date database of newspapers combined with a script. I've been using GNG (with a little bit of common sense if the paper is regularly quoted by major RS, like the Washington Post) but thought I would give the heads-up to others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious pattern?

Hoping for some input as I noticed a new user making unnecessary minor edits to items on my watchlist and then lo and behold, shortly after becoming autoconfirmed, the user posted a pair of questionably notable entries that look an awful lot like the pattern of sock/paid editing. I don't want to bite a good-faith newbie, least of all a female editor in short supply...but then again, it seems a bit unusual to have someone brand-new not only nearly immediately blue-link their userpage but also find userbox templates so quickly--not at all impossible but still a little unusual, and whew, I would not take kindly to anyone trying to use efforts to improve gender balance as a means to evade policy on sock puppetry or paid editing.
I'd be grateful if an independent set of eyes were willing to look over the user's contributions to see what you might make of it. The best way forward may just be to apply thorough NPR scrutiny to the two new entries, but, just in case anyone has a strong sense of whether this indicates a problem or is best handled by AGF. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that is actually fairly suspicious looking. But I feel like there's nothing to go off so let's just assume good faith for now and perhaps monitor going forth? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

In terms of the User Box, she could be an editathon participant, and the box could have been recommended by another user. On the other hand paid editors sometimes pretend to be female because of a perception that it leads to more favourable treatment (not saying that is the case here, just that I've seen it before). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the replies--good point about the possible editathon, and it's also helpful to hear others have a similar "Hm, could be a thing, but not for certain" read on it. Watch and wait does seem like the right approach. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There are too many errors that this could be the work of a professional. If Charles Webb had hired someone to create a vanity page for him, he wouldn't have let them write "Noms in Copenhagen" (or he'd ask for his money back). It's Noma, not Noms. Why a total beginner would try to write an article about a small bank is beyond me. Maybe you can ask? 23:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Asking runs afoul of WP:BEANS (they will deny it no matter what, and if they are a paid editor, they will modify their behavior, or dump the current account for a new one). I think the best approach is to assume good faith and monitor for any suspicious activity. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to mean spilling the beans. I've gotten some surprising responses from users that I had not anticipated, including from editors who honestly thought that it was OK for for a student to make a bit of money on the side by offering their services on well, you know where. It's not all malice, sometimes Hanlon's razor applies. I fail to see any downside to collaborating on article content by talking to other editors, including those that we find suspicious. Especially the ones we find suspicious. Vexations (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: That is fair. Honestly it is up to editor discretion, and there isn't any 'right' way to go about things. If you want to chat with the editor, that's not necessarily the way I'd normally go about it if suspicion has been raised, I like to watch for a bit first, but it is also totally fine. Asking about COI is generally something that we do anyway (which does spill the beans, but it is unavoidable in most cases anyway). Hanlon's Razor is also a favourite of mine, and you'll find reference to it on my user page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: I'm curious what you would say to such a user, given what's on the table? I actually came here less for BEANS reasons than because, while it pinged my antenna, I didn't see anything directly problematic enough that I'd hassle a good-faith new user about it; I just wanted to be sure there wasn't more to it than I was noticing. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Vexations but I would use a non-template message along the lines of "Hey I noticed you're new here and saw your edits through new page patrol of Article(s) X (Y, and Z). Do you have a connection to that topic (person)? Are there questions I can help answer for you?" Having spent some time in the Wikipedia IRC help channel I found more times than not that group is willing to disclose COI (but of course they've already decided to seek out help). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol broken again!!!

Just come across a couple of articles that should not have been in the feed Like I Used To (Tinashe song) and Latins (Middle Ages). this may account for the numbers going back up. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Did you do a phabricator report? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I just had occasion to create a redirect and it was correctly auto-patrolled. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure those aren't just leftover? Natureium (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The articles were created by MunRis and Krakkos, respectively, and neither are autopatrollers. The original pages (redirects) were autopatrolled. When a redirect is replaced with an article it needs to be reviewed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Great thanks for the reply. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hashtags as A7?

I was about to mark ShameOnYouJokowi for A7 and stopped myself: is a hashtag "Web content" that can be speedied if no credible assertion of notability is made? I'd argue that it is, since a hashtag is kind of the equivalent of creating a forum or subpage on Twitter, but I can see reasonable arguments to the contrary. (Corollary: Does this forum have subject-matter jurisdiction to address this question? If not, any suggestions as to a better venue [perhaps one that has already addressed it and I just didn't know and can't find it]?) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Hi. If the subject is definitely not noteworthy for encyclopaedia but the subject is not covered under "a real person, individual animal(s), group, company, or web content", but is a borderline case like this one, then a plain {{db-a7}} can be used. (previously missed out content added later; underlined.) But if you have a doubt/dilemma about the notability; then you can either ProD it, or add notability tag and take it to AfD after a week or two. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not how A7 works. It has to fit within the criteria. @Julietdeltalima: I would say a hashtag counts as web content, but sometimes admins make unpredictable calls. Sometimes I've had memes deleted as web content and sometimes denied. Natureium (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the subject is definitely not noteworthy for encyclopaedia but the subject is not covered under "a real person, individual animal(s), group, company, or web content" then a plain {{db-a7}} can be used. No it can't actually. If the subject is not a real person, individual animal, group, organisation, organised event, or web content, then A7 cannot be used at all. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

While what you say is true I would say a hashtag is web content for purposes of applying A7. A hashtag has the effect of creating a distributed forum on one or several web platforms. It is analogous to a blog, FaceBook page or other web centered social media. While it is possible for a hashtag to make the jump into the real world, like #MeToo, noting that that has happened would be a 'credible claim of significance'. Jbh ^Talk 23:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I apologise for my previous mistake. One accidental omission changed the entire meaning. I have updated my comment above. What I was trying to say was, if the subject is under borderline categorisation, then the plain tag can be used. But as Natureium said, sometimes it is considered under A7, and sometimes not. Thats why AfD is better. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Even though you added "but is a borderline case like this one" after people disagreed with you, I still don't think that's true. CSD is meant for clear cut cases. You don't get extra leeway by not being specific about which criteria you're using. Natureium (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • yup, CSD is for clear cut cases only. Assuming subject X fails all the notability criteria, and is not notable at all, then CSD applies. But what if the X is a borderline case regarding categorisation? Like this one, or like you said memes. If we come across a meme which is not notable at all, then i think plain A7 should be accepted. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
      • No. For A7 to apply, it is not enough for something to not be notable. It has to have no indication of importance and be a "real person, individual animal, organization, Web content, or organized event", or A7 does not apply. It applies to memes because memes are web content. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• It could be WP:A11 if the article's author and the twitter user who coined the hashtag were obviously connected. On the other hand, digging too much into their identities would bump into WP:OUTING issues. AfD is the safer option. On the other other hand, if the hashtag is already widespread A11 would not be viable. Using the wikidata link to get to id:ShameOnYouJokowi shows (even though I have no skills in Indonesian) that it's well sourced and a real "thing". I think it's a "keep". Cabayi (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing and removing autopatrolled

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#Reviewing and removing autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)