Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Requesting you to be my mentor

Dear Rosguill, I was asked by Mgasparin to be as my mentor, I requested for AfC and was denied for not meeting minimum edit requirements, I would like to learn more about the things for AfC or AfD, I have been active on fighting vandalism until November of last month, resumed this year in January and started my fighting in vandalism, after few edits I saw an article which I felt should have not been approved for article of creation so I decided to apply for AfC and awaited for review, after a week I saw that my request was denied and check a message left by Mgasparin to my thread created when I requested for AfC, Mgasparin recommended you as one of the 3 mentors and starting from today I am going to resume my editing here on Wikipedia until Summer. Looking forward to hearing from you.Angus1986 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, I'd be happy to help out, but I'd like a bit more info on what exactly you're looking for. I've actually done very little work at AfC, and have spent most of my volunteering at WP:NPP, which is a similar process, albeit one that actually has a bit of a higher barrier to entry. If you'd like to train to be an NPP reviewer, I'd be happy to help (we desperately need more page reviewers!). Alternatively, if you just want some guidance around AfD, I can also do that. I could try to give a few pointers for AfC as well, but you'd probably be better off asking for help from an editor that already works in that area if that's what your heart's set on. signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, sure I would be happy to work on WP:NPP or anyone which needs a lot more volunteers, AfC was just to decrease the load of the existing reviewers for AfC, but if there are other parts of Wikipedia which need help I am more than happy to volunteer either it be AfC, AfD, WP:NPP, etc. hook me up with the one you are the best and able to mentor. Looking forward to working with you. Angus1986 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Angus1986, ok, I'll set things up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:
  • f you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history
Angus1986, your course page and the first few questions are set up here User:Rosguill/Angus1986 NPPSCHOOL. If you ever feel confused or need help, don't be afraid to ask. signed, Rosguill talk 07:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, I would like to start with the school next week, I am not feeling well. Thank you for understanding. Angus1986 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, I am feeling better now and I am continuing it from today. :) Angus1986 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Angus1986, great! Just in general, feel free to take the course at your own pace, no need to feel bad if you need to step back for a bit here and there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My permissions

So I already have 500 edits to the main space. I would really like to work with someone to help me with patrols. And it seems like you are not working with anyone right now, so would it interest you in maybe helping me? So once I understand patrolling, and come back in a month, I should have more of a chance to have my rights changed? MacySinrich talk 01:15 4 February 2020 (UTC)

MacySinrich, I actually have three students right now, but one of them is about to graduate so I should still be able to help you. I'll set a page up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:
  • If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history
MacySinrich, I've started a course page for you here. Feel free to take things at your own pace, and don't be afraid to ask questions if there's something you're not sure you understand. Wikipedia is large and complicated, and new page reviewing requires an essentially admin-level knowledge of policies relating to content creation and deletion. My general teaching philosophy is to let people keep trying until they get it right, so don't be discouraged if you don't pick stuff up right away. signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to do some needed clerking at MfD?

@Rosguill:

Hope you're doing well...I know you typically spend a lot of your Wikipedia time with the New Pages Patrol (I may join the NPP this spring as I think I have sufficient knowledge with respect to most of our key policies, especially the important ones of notability, verifiability, and neutrality) and RfD, but there is a significant backlog of old business at MfD in needing of some clerking. Some can be closed by experienced editors (doesn't have to be an administrator); just needs someone that's non-involved. The problem is, most of the MfD regulars are involved in them. I've tried requesting closure on the third oldest business at the applicable noticeboard, to no avail. I'm contemplating doing an involved closure of that one as "resolved amicably between the MfD participants and the subject of the MfD" and then actioning the recommended actions as there is no real policy-based reason for deletion, but am concerned that the nom may decide to appeal it to DRV on WP:INVOLVED grounds. Do you think such an involved closure could survive DRV, or would you mind taking a look at that one?

I just see no reason for that editor's userpage to continue have to have an MfD nomination tag on his primary userpage any longer.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 18:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'll take a look in an hour or two when I get the chance. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thank you. No rush. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


Noctivagus

Hi, @Rosguill:, I will not dispute anything, if you change your opinion do yourself a new article. It´s not a problem for me but i will not dispende my time doing another article for free. . Cheers! ,--Grazina12 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grazina12, I'm sorry you feel that way, but your opportunity to comment was while the AfD was still open. At this point, WP:DRV is the way to get the article reinstated. Adding your comments to a closed AfD actually only makes your case look worse, because it makes it seem as if your arguments were considered and ignored in the original closure. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was working and it never crossed my mind that my article could be questioned. all gothic rock lovers knows Noctivagus.--Grazina12 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grazina12, well, if you can find enough sources to meet WP:GNG then you will have no trouble getting the article restored (I'd actually be willing to do it myself). But I and a few other editors really did try to search for sources, including reading through every other language wikipedia's article, and came up far short of meeting that standard. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Boleskine House Foundation

Hi Rosguill. I wanted to let you know about my concern with moving an article, Boleskine House Foundation into draft space because of a supposed conflict of interest. I can see the point of moving articles that are undersourced there, or moving articles that have no chance of surviving AfD in their current state. But this one has half a dozen newspaper sources, and is easily notable. Of course, every article should mainly be based on secondary sources, but I feel that the best way to fix that sort of defect is to expose it more editors' eyes, and unfortunately, moving into draft space does exactly the opposite. If there is indeed a CoI, then the original author, by definition, is the least able to edit the article neutrally, but one of the consequences of draft space is that it puts the onus back onto that original author to fix it. Not the most productive means of achieving the goal, if you don't mind me saying so.

Anyway, the draft has been republished and a couple of other editors have done some minor cleanup. It still needs the balance shifting toward more secondary sources and eventually it probably ought to be an article about the house, not the foundation, but that can't happen until it's rebuilt (if it ever is). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, the instructions at WP:DRAFTIFY say pretty clearly that COI is a valid reason to move to draft, and as an inexperienced editor, the initial editor should have been encouraged to submit articles through AfC to begin with. Moreover, when I came across that draft in the new pages feed, it had 10 citations to the subject for every single citation to a reputable newspaper. I think that this is actually an example of draftify working perfectly: the initial editor noted their COI, made improvements, asked for help which led to further improvements, and had an acceptable draft moved back to mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The instructions at DRAFTIFY are merely suggestions; they don't have have the consensus of WP:PAG. It's obvious that the idea of moving to draft because of a suspicion of CoI is insufficient (even DRAFTIFY states "when the author clearly has a conflict of interest". Do you disagree with the proposition that moving to draft space reduces the number of editors who are likely to see it? I should also note that DRAFTIFY has an expectation that the mover "should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors."
I'm afraid that it's an example of draftification working badly: an insufficient reason, moved without tagging for Wikiprojects; and only rescued because the author happened to know an experienced editor who edited it, published it and marked up the relevant Wikiprojects, which only then attracted other editors. Most of the improvements were made quite quickly after the article was returned to mainspace – a telling comment on the draftification process. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I'll concede that I should have tagged the page with project banners, that was a mistake. I nevertheless feel that it's unreasonable to expect new page reviewers to wade through nearly 100 references when the overwhelming majority of them are flatly unacceptable as sources. Some burden of demonstrating notability does need to fall on the article creator, both for the sake of new page reviewers and for the sake of all of the other articles whose reviews are delayed due to cleaning up messes like this. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I most certainly agree that the work of NPP is arduous and of the greatest importance to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there aren't enough new page patrollers and that puts time pressure on those who volunteer for the thankless job. It took me a few minutes to spot the half-dozen independent secondary sources amongst the 93 citations in the version you moved, so you have my sympathy. Nevertheless, the core purpose of AfC is "to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted." Logically, it follows that there's no point in moving an article into draft space if it meets WP:GNG. Personally, I'd have slapped a {{Refimprove}} tag on the article, and marked up the talk page for WikiProject Scotland, along with a quick note on concerns about too many primary sources, but I can see that would be a disproportionate amount of time to spend on one article (which is why I was always so inefficient at NPP). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, thanks for the sympathy. IMO, the benefit of using a procedure like the one described at WP:DRAFTIFY is that it is a weeder for editors who are not here in good faith. An editor who wants to improve the encyclopedia will have plenty of recourse following a draftify, even if they don't personally know an experienced editor, they can contact the editor that performed the drafting, and they can seek help at the teahouse, or failing that, they can follow the instructions resubmit through AfC––if it's still declined at that point, they will receive further guidance on how to improve the draft. We put the burden of proof on contributing editors when they want to add information to an existing article, and I think it's appropriate to treat article creation in a similar manner. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I agree with those sentiments on AfC...I'd also say that even if something may not be notable, please don't (and this isn't directed at you; it's speaking to patrollers generally) immediately nominate it for deletion at MfD (after draftifying). In most cases, if not substantially all, I'm of the view it's best to let it sit in Draft: namespace, with the AfC tag at the top of the draft and wait out the G13 countdown clock. Even copyright violations, I'm reluctant to speedily delete those when we can apply {{copyvio}} and let the copyright violation volunteers suppress the earlier diffs and remove the offending content. (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble

@Rosguill:

I took the liberty of closing the two redirects at the above-captioned RfD as "retarget" and "keep" since there were no objections and there is consensus there to deleting the remaining ones, in case you wanted to action the rest as I see you're non-involved in that discussion.

I have checked off which ones are "done."

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, hm, in my UI it doesn't seem that the full 7 days have passed yet so I'm going to hold off for now. I'm also not sure that I agree that there's a clear consensus for keeping White marble. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Hrm, that's weird, it should be 7 days at 2 pm Pacific time because it was listed at 2 pm Pacific time on January 30, 2020. As for White marble, I noticed that, too, but it is explicitly mentioned in the target article, so there's a basis for keeping. I noted the nom even acknowledged more than one potential redirects may not need to be deleted. You can always change the White marble one if you want, or just wait until it shows 7 full days for you. Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Customs and Immigration" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Customs and Immigration. Since you had some involvement with the Customs and Immigration redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Prisencolin (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Customs and Immigration

No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Big Fun Crafty Show vandalism

@Rosguill:

I still had the above redirect on my watchlist from when I closed it, and was surprised to see you marking it was 'reviewed' again in the page curation log. At first, I actually wondered if this was a new redirect for a variant spelling, but it was the same one. It seems like it's had a lot of single-purpose account vandalism by multiple accounts, and blocking doesn't seem to be doing anything. I'd request long-term semi-protection at WP:RFPP, but they tend to be a conservative bunch there. So then I recalled SilkTork indefinitely semi-protecting the Looby Loo redirect when it was up for discussion at RfD.

I'm not necessarily a fan of indefinite protection, but I'm wondering if a long-term semi-protection (call it 9-12 months) would be helpful here? Since you were the most recent admin to review the redirect, I thought I'd reach out to you.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 13:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I opted for three months of semi-protection. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, That sounds good. Hopefully that will direct their attention elsewhere. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
And by elsewhere, I mean away from Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gavaccino

@Rosguill:

Thanks for the ping in your close; it was clear, despite my good-faith, solid, and, as you say, "spirited" arguments, it wasn't going to go in favour of retargeting. Nevertheless, when browsing Special:WhatLinksHere/Gavaccino, I noticed there was a piped link at coffee roasting. So that tells me, there might be something we missed here. Are you able to look in the previous revisions, and see if there's anything in there (i.e., as a former article) that would give us some context into why coffee roasting linked to gavaccino?

If so, I don't think it's necessary to change your close, since consensus can change at any time, including immediately, but I'm wondering if it might be useful to WP:REFUND and retarget it to an article that would have similar content coffee roasting is referring?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, from reading Coffee roasting, I can't piece together what exactly they were trying to get at. My money would be that the piped link itself was some sort of a typo or misnomer. The absence of mentions on the internet leaves us with a bit of a dead end, but of course if we ever find something conclusive it can be easily refunded.

Nilüfer Yanya birth year

Sorry, I did not notice your revert of the specific birthday. I think I have patched it up and there are 3 sources now. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, no worries, I wasn't vigilant enough in that revert to begin with. signed, Rosguill talk 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, specifically White marble

...Since you are the discussion closer of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, can you explain why White marble was "kept"? Asking since from looking at that discussion, the most plausible closes for that redirect would have been "no consensus" or "delete". In other words, I'm trying to figure out how much consideration was given to my response to the discussion's sole "keep" comment for White marble. Also, per this diff on White marble ... were you even the one who "made" the decision regarding White marble? Asking since I've been seeing a rather problematic patten with the editor referenced in the aforementioned diff and their capabilities of assessing consensus in discussions overall... Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Comment Since it was me that marked the white marble redirect as "keep," to try and be proactive and simplify the close, I took the fact that your nomination statement mentioned that "some" can be kept to mean that you were not opposed to keeping more than one redirect. It can be deleted, but I do think it's a useful redirect, so since consensus can change at any time, I would probably recreate that redirect. Since we're not a bureaucracy, it seemed reasonable to "keep" that one even if there wasn't a specific consensus to keep it; likewise, there was no explicit consensus to delete it either. Doug Mehus T·C 22:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dmehus: "...but I do think it's a useful redirect..." So, what you are saying is that you violated WP:SUPERVOTE. Well, I'll have to wait for Rosguill's response on this before I consider taking this to WP:DRV since they were the one who closed the discussion as a whole. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) @Dmehus: Also, if a discussion for a page is closed to "keep", it can take a considerable amount of tome before new discussions regarding that page aren't by default closed to "speedy keep" stating that the new discussion happened too soon after the previous one. So no, WP:CCC does not help overcome what someone would consider an improper close for an WP:XFD discussion; that has to be done either by the closer changing their close, or the discussion going to WP:DRV if the closer chooses not to change their close after being engaged/requested to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    As I say, Rosguill may have an added rationale; I was just trying to be helpful in assisting; it wasn't a determination of consensus. In hindsight, it probably would've been better for me to leave that one alone. Nevertheless, deletion and recreation may be the best option here. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Steel1943, I didn't make the decision to keep White marble, and the XfD closer plugin didn't even give me the option of changing that decision. Of course, I could have overridden it manually, and I agree with your assessment that it should have been delete or no consensus, but at the time I had been under the impression that since no one had challenged that partial close, people were in agreement with that decision.
At this point, I think that no consensus is the most fair assessment (especially if we were to assess Doug's supervote as a normal vote), and will change the close accordingly. Dmehus, I think you were acting in good faith, but I don't think that it helped. Even if we set aside the issue that it wasn't an accurate reading of the consensus, having a partial closure conducted by another editor generally doesn't make closing the discussion any easier even when it's reflecting a true consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Fair enough. The reason why I tried to help in that way was your reference in another RfD to having redirects batched into smaller, separate discussions, so non-admins can assist with the closures. I took this as a bold assist to try and help out where some could clearly be closed other than delete. Looking back, I erred on white marble, so should've left that alone. In future, I will ask before assisting with any closures so as to ensure that the deleting administrator ultimately views consensus in the same way for all the redirects when multiple outcomes within the RfD are possible. Doug Mehus T·C 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, IMO the helpful part about batching is pre-emptive, in that it makes the discussion more orderly by reducing the number of different sub-discussions in the same section. If the discussion has already been had, a partial close doesn't make it much easier. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Okay, fair enough. I re-read the arguments again, and yes, "no consensus" for white marble since J947 rationalized deletion of all except that one. It was a pretty emphatic argument. Fram only expressed a desire toward retargeting one of the redirects and no opinion on the others. Narky's !vote was to "delete," but not clear on whether all or some. As well, Steel1943 made solid arguments in favour of keeping and deleting white marble. Thus, the only !vote was "delete" it was Narky's, and that's only if we assume that Narky meant "delete all." So, a no consensus on that one is absolutely correct. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting that all out Rosguill. I figured that wasn't you, but I wasn't sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • And since asked, to clarify the quotation, what I was saying was, it can be deleted but that its usefulness, explicit mention, and WP:CCC are reasons why it can be easily re-created. I wasn't saying that that was the reason why it was kept. Doug Mehus T·C 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Note, too, that I have seen similar rationales used in other XfDs (notably MfD and AfD) if an editor or two have asked for draftification or userification despite consensus being to delete, the closing administrator will close as draftify or userify since we're not a bureaucracy and making the requestor go to WP:REFUND would be such. Hope that clarifies. But I'm not opposed to deleting, either, so long as it can be recreated (XfDs are non-precedent setting afterall), but Rosguill may have a similar, or different, rationale for why it was kept. Doug Mehus T·C 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Halo 7

At RfD, when there is no consensus between a retarget and delete, and no one supports the status quo, it's not helpful to close it with no action because then it's closed in favor of no one. I get that you left it open for someone else to tie together the loose ends, so I've done so. That being said, as someone who was strongly advocating for retargeting, it feels too "involved" of me to be the one to make the change, which is why I think the closer should be the one doing it. I think the confusion might have been where you stated "two different redirect proposals", but really there was one proposal, with different targets for Halo 7 and Halo 8: March of the Pigs and Downward Spiral, respectfully. On a more general note, even when I'm closing against two different retarget proposals, I'll usually pick one of them and explain why I felt that one is stronger, or even leave a !vote myself to make it easier for the next closer who comes around. -- Tavix (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, you're right, that was a sloppy close on my part. I'll keep the advice in mind. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I just reread what I wrote and now I feel it comes off as super nitpicky, so my apologies if that's the case. Thanks again for all you do at RfD! -- Tavix (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Tavix, no worries! signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

DRN

Hi Rosguill, could you please explain your decision at DRN? I've got to say that I am deeply disappointed how this was handled. – Ocolon (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ocolon I see your post on the talk page with actual sources and will reverse my closure accordingly. I am skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation, but concede that I misappraised the discussion at the outset due to the insistent chorus that you had not provided any sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. – Ocolon (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of passing mention at ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Mehus T·C 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI
 – Note: you are not the subject of this notice, but rather, you have been mentioned in a passing/tangential way in the notice regarding Not Rosguill, who appears to be impersonating you

FYI: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported

@Rosguill:

You seem to have acquired a new "fan," to the extent we can call the editor that, in Not Rosguill, which I highly suspect is not an alias account of you given that (a) it's not listed on your userpage, (b) it was created today and its only contributions have been at RfD and AfD, and (c) Hog Farm also recently had an unwanted impersonator in Not Hog Farm. Thus, I've requested the user be warned and globally renamed at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 15:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, well that's a bit unsettling. Thanks for helping take care of this. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, No problem. Yeah, it's bizarre that both you and Hog Farm, who are both RfD and AfD regulars, have been impersonation targets. Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about soft redirects as they relate to the redirect whitelist

@Rosguill:

Since you seem to be the primary maintainer and coordinator of the redirect whitelist pseudo-user right, I had a question regarding soft redirects to related Wikimedia projects, primarily Wiktionary and others as well. Where there exists an exact match to a term on Wiktionary and we don't already have an article for it on English Wikipedia, we can create a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Since Soft redirect#Deletion specifies that soft redirects are within the scope of RfD for the purposes of deletion handling, I'm wondering if DannyS712's DannyS712 bot III that is approved to handle the autopatrolling of whitelisted users' redirects also autopatrols soft redirects? Since the pages are still effectively redirects but not created as hardcoded redirects, I wondered if the bot also handles these type of redirects. I'm not sure how broadly or narrowly the bot's terms of reference were written, but I wonder on the feasibility of implementing such an autopatrol (suspect not much, given Danny's apparent coding skills) and whether the RfC that approved the redirect whitelist could be broadly construed as authorizing the whitelisting of soft redirects? What do you both think?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: It doesn't currently patrol them. There was a concern that redirects that the bot patrols that are then converted to articles would bypass normal patrolling. Normal redirects that are converted to articles are added back to the queue, but soft redirects are not, so this would create such a loophole. DannyS712 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712, yeah, that makes sense, although I note much of the adopted proposal was modeled after the "autopatrolled" user right. Granted, though, there's not necessarily the same requirement with respect to experience to clean article creation, so I understand the loophole. It's probably not viable.
Separately, since you're such a long-time editor with autopatrolled rights, assuming they are valid soft redirects to exact matches on the related projects and not otherwise eligible for R2-R4 speedy deletion, are there any other concerns with Wiktionary soft redirects?
The reason I ask is because I seem them as a valuable way to promote under-participated Wikimedia projects since English Wikipedia gets substantially all of the web traffic. Doug Mehus T·C 19:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: ...I'm not autopatrolled :( - I'm not very familiar with wiktionary soft redirects, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712, Oh, wow, that surprises me, but I guess not, since you tend to be a WikiGnome. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, DannyS712, actually, I'm not sure that soft redirects are even added to the new page queue at all...I can't remember ever having come across one, and I've been patrolling the back end of the redirect queue for several months now. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Interesting. Since you're autopatrolled as an administrator, can I try creating a valid one, and you can see if it shows up in the curation log? Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, not sure what me being autopatrolled has to do with it, but we can try that out. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Well, as administrator, the thinking was that if they do go into the curation log(s), yours would be autopatrolled. That said, I see what you're saying; they would show up as "reviewed" automatically. Nevermind. Doug Mehus T·C 19:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, looks like it shows up as an "all others", but not as a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. What are the classifications? Is that how new article pages show up? Doug Mehus T·C 19:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, the categories are "Redirect (not RfD)", "Nominated for Deletion", and "All others", so yes soft redirects and articles are apparently in the same "all others" category. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Thanks, so I guess there's really nothing then to do for soft redirects, other than to check that the editor added it to the Category:Monitored short pages hidden category? Doug Mehus T·C 19:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, well, presumably they'll be reviewed alongside articles. It's usually pretty obvious whether they're acceptable or not, so I'm not too surprised that I never run into them when reviewing from the back of the queue. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Very useful, thanks again. Doug Mehus T·C 19:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Wiktionary soft redirect I added was wikt:$DEITY. Doug Mehus T·C 19:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Jyoti Yadav (journalist)

Hi Rosguill, I am new to Wikipedia. I just noticed this draft page and I have added a reference to it from a third party website. The article is pending since 10 days, I suggest that it should be moved to mainspace and left for upcoming expansion to the creator of page. Regards: Uzma Aafi Shaikh (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

UzmaAafi, the article has already been submitted to the AfC process, which usually takes a few months. Please be patient while a reviewer gets around to assessing the article. signed, Rosguill talk 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Soft redirects to Wiktionary I created

Hi Rosguill,

The soft redirects to Wiktionary I created have been nominated for deletion, but at MfD. I'm fine with having a discussion, but per WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion, the correct venue, I believe, is RfD. As a non-involved admin, would you mind clerking at MfD and procedurally closing as wrong venue or, since we're not a bureaucracy, procedurally transferring over to RfD?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

AfC vs. NPP

@Rosguill: Hello, I came across is AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z: The World of Dragon Ball Z watching one of the nomiation category pages. I figured asking my question was more appropriate here than the wider discussion. I actually find the AfD nomination sound, but I checked the history, and it looks like you nomiated it shortly after it was accepted through AfC. I just wanted to ask if it is common practice for NPP to... oversee the articles that come through AfC as well, or had you happened to know of the draft already and found it surprising that it was accepted? I was under the impression that going through AfC would mark a page reviewed, preventing it from showing up on the NPP feed. Is that incorrect? I have been curious about the two article creation avenues now, and now I wonder if things even need to go through AfC unless a drafter wants a review and feedback. It seems that going through AfC would just waste time if NPP feed still tags those articles. When I looked at the AfC WikiProject page, it looks like it is not unheard of to see AfD's come through those projects. I hope none of this sounds like I'm questioning you, AfC, or NPP; I'm really just curious how this works in theory. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've also asked similar questions when a history merge from a draftspace move performed by new page reviwers comes to AfD later as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Denbrough (2nd nomination), but nobody seemed to know the answer. 2pou (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
2pou, I'm not 100% sure I understand the question here, but any time a page is converted from article to redirect (or vice versa) it gets added back to the NPP queue, indexed by the date that the page was originally created. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
2pou, the permissions for AfC and NPP are separate. Articles accepted by AfC reviewers who are not also NPP reviewers still have to get checked off by NPP reviewers, and sometimes even editors with both permissions will intentionally avoid checking off an article accepted at AfC so that it gets a second pair of eyes on it. Because of this redundancy, we can also be a bit more permissive handing out AfC reviewer rights, since mistakes or abuse will be caught by the NPP reviewer that eventually looks at the article. That having been said, NPP reviewers are encouraged to be less strict with articles coming out of AfC, since at least one editor other than the article's creator has already signed off on it.
AfC as a process is intended for newer editors, as AfC reviewers are expected to provide more ongoing feedback, and the format also makes it easier for reviewers to request specific changes from editors. In NPP, on the other hand, there isn't really space for "revise and resubmit" type actions (and the closest thing we have to that, draftifying, literally adds the article to the AfC system), and substandard articles will be nominated for deletion.
There's been proposals in the past to try to merge the two processes, but they've failed to win a community consensus (in part because of the infrastructural headache of integrating the processes).
Luckily, one way in which the systems (mostly unintentionally) work together in a harmonious manner is that articles in the NPP queue are indexed based on their original creation date, not based on the date that they're added to the queue. Thus, articles that were accepted at AfC after a long waiting period will be among the oldest articles in the New Page Queue, and thus will usually be reviewed very quickly, so we generally avoid situations where an editor needs to wait 3+ months, and then another three months to get their article through the two processes. signed, Rosguill talk 01:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Good, thorough answer to an in-depth question. It's interesting the captioned article was accepted through AfC, but I'm not seeing the AfC talk page header on its talk page? I agree that it probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines, so we should merge/redirect it somewhere. Having said that, one other possibility would just be to have draftified it and let it wait out the WP:CSD#G13, maybe? The reason I sometimes like that approach for these sort of things is at least WP:REFUND can apply.
But yeah, it's an interesting question...AfC generally does a good job at reviewing articles, and so does NPP, but neither is perfect hence why, in either case, we have editors like me who patrol the categories looking for articles which probably don't meet WP:GNG. Most of my nominated articles have been found in this method. Doug Mehus T·C (talk page stalker) 03:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, I don't remember if this was something that's actually in the NPP tutorial or just something I learned from more experienced editors, but having an article get G13'd is generally seen as the worst-case-scenario for draftification. If an article's going to be deleted, it should receive a proper hearing at AfD. Draftify is in theory supposed to be for cases where there's a very high chance of an editor putting in the work to improve the article. signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying regarding when draftify is to be used. I have G13'ed a number of stale drafts when going through the stale drafts category, but I think a bot maybe does that so it doesn't need human intervention? I wonder if it would be worth, though, about maybe trying to tie in NPP and AfC through draftification...that is, if the editor contests the speedy deletion nomination or otherwise responds, then that shows a willingness to try and improve the article, so the speedy deletion can be withdrawn and the article draftified, and then it'll go through AfC, which adds another set of eyes? Or is that what you guys already do? The trouble is...the speedy deletion nominations for good-faith articles are so startling and it doesn't really set a nice tone for the creating editor to want to improve it. Anyway, these are just some general philosophical-type questions I had. Doug Mehus T·C 14:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, which speedy deletions are you thinking about when you say editor contests the speedy deletion. If it's G13, then the suggestion is moot because G13 only applies to draftspace. For other issues, AfD is usually a more appropriate next step, unless the editor specifically requests draftification. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No, wasn't meaning G13, but was thinking more along the lines of A7 or G11. Presumably, the New Pages Patrol process involves checking not only the sourcing within the article but through Google as well, right? If it seems like potential sources may exist and the article is not written in an obviously promotional manner consisting primarily of primary sources, then A7 and G11 would be declined, right? In other words, in such a scenario, would the preferred outcome be for the patroller to draftify, with an AfC template, or send it to AfD? Doug Mehus T·C 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, generally the appropriate thing to do is to proceed to AfD at that point. Honestly, draftify, even when used correctly, usually results in getting yelled at. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow, really? That's too bad...draftify really seems like a good-faith, rational outcome. Doug Mehus T·C 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill and Dmehus:Thank you both for your clear and quick responses! This definitely helps my understanding of the process and answers my questions. As to the second link I provided, I apologize for not really provided clear context to why I even included that link—more so since I forgot how long discussion was (should've used a diff). Really, I just added that to further illustrate that my inquiry was not specific to the original DBZ nomination I posted.  

Dmehus, I believe that the missing AfC banner you spoke of was regarding the Ben Hascom case, no? Again, I didn't give the proper context, but that wasn't an AfC case, but one that followed this path:

New Page (main space)→NPP→Prod→AfD→Redirect and Draft→(Updates made)→Move to Main space→History Merge (by a New Page Reviewer)→NPP (I think)→Redirect→Removed Redirect→NPP→AfD#2

And the bold parts are what I was not understanding. Based on Rosguill's initial answer, I believe that this was probably a similar case to having a AfC page not being marked as reviewed. Carrying out the history merge did not equal a page review. I assumed that AfC or a history merge would automatically satisfy a new page review, but based on your answers, this is not the case. Thanks again! Regards, 2pou (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2pou, Regarding the missing banner, normally there's a header on the talk page of the article that says the article was submitted through and reviewed by AfC. Hope that clarifies? Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
2pou, History merges, if it involves updating the page creator and restoring deleted revisions, can only be done by an administrator, who may or may not be a member of NPP. I suspect if a history merge was required, the patrolling editor would reach out to an administrator to assist with that?
Thanks, though, for clarifying the process. That's good to know that if it's not unduly promotional per G11, it would be first PRODed and then go to AfD as necessary. Doug Mehus T·C 18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
2pou, Doug is correct about history merges being an admin-only permission. While all administrators have new page reviewing as part of their permissions, most do not actively participate in page reviewing. History merging does not imply a review, and in a sense can be performed almost without even looking at the article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Rosguill,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject banners

Is there a tool or some sort of resource for adding wikiproject banners? I've always just relied on what's built in to the AfC tool, but that is kind of useless if the page is already in the mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I use User:Evad37/rater. It's been a little glitchy the last few weeks because it got a UI update, but it's generally quite easy to use. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Squirrly

Hi. Please take a look at Squirrly when you're free. Over 70 references but seems like UPE work. Csgir (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A very fine page for an editor with just 20 edits. Just an observation. Csgir (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Csgir, yeah that looks suspicious. I don't have time to look through the sources now, but I've gone ahead and placed a COI notice on the editor's talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 08:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, I checked and removed about 23 sources from the page. Too many references. Csgir (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernice Kentner

Hi Rosguill! I got a notification that you approved my redirect for Seasonal color analysis. It's actually connected to a larger article I wrote called Bernice Kentner. Would you be willing to review it? I asked my friend to review it but then we realized she doesn't have new page reviewer status (which is why she deleted her initial rating from the talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaskManager (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

TaskManager, done, the article looks to be in good shape. signed, Rosguill talk 03:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! TaskManager (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User Fwaff again

Hi Rosguill, Could you please have a look at recent edits by an infrequent editor account [1] that you previously warned for "making unconstructive edits?"[2]. I believe a sanction would be appropriate as they are doing similar again. An edit at Librem 5 has already been reverted, [3] but their removal of Comparison info at PinePhone has not yet been reverted[4] (but should be). This edit summary "STOP VANDALIZING" was inappropriate, [5] and this edit made the list LESS accurate.[6] In fact Pine Phone is currently showing "Braveheart" version as "sold out" on their site. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, I agree that the above diffs are concerning. However, these diffs alone aren't enough to justify blocking without first conducting a more thorough investigation, and I don't have time to do that myself right now. If you want this acted on, I'm afraid that ANI may be the best option. Failing that, you should warn the user, if for no other reason than that continuing problematic behavior after receiving high level warnings is a much more clearly block-worthy offense. signed, Rosguill talk 03:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Small dick syndrome close

Hi Rosguill,

Others have pointed out to me that it is redundant to ping someone on their own talk page, so skipping the {{yo}} template this time.

Anyway, regarding the above close, I noticed you retargeted to human penis size, but consensus was unanimous in retargeting to Small Penis Syndrome as {{R from synonym}}. I assume this was an unintentional error on your part, likely attributed to copying and pasting the wrong target (human penis size was suggested by one editor in the RfD above it), but maybe you had a specific reason? I can retarget boldly, but feel that it would be better if you amended your close.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 15:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I think you may have misread that discussion. You suggested Human penis size, two other editors agreed, and a third voted delete. Small Penis Syndrome is itself a redirect to Human penis size, and thus is not a suitable target for a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Doh! You're right, I even acknowledged that. Oh my gosh, so sorry. Facepalm Facepalm or trout Self-trout Doug Mehus T·C 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirects to non-English albums and singles charts

I am pleased to finally see the back of all these at WP:RFD. It's mildly laborious work, but satisfying if it results in a good retarget. I disagree with your no-consensus closures, but see no point whatsoever in relitigating them; that's a trivial issue compared with improved redirects. I imagine we won't be seeing any more such nominations from Agenzmale anytime soon... Narky Blert (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, yeah, I'm glad to be done with them, and I'm sorry for essentially overruling a lot of your good faith contributions there. I felt that it would be inappropriate to delete on the basis of a single good-faith vote in a bad-faith discussion, but that it would be even less appropriate to relist discussions that were apparently started as a form of harassment. signed, Rosguill talk 23:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I, too, thought Rosguill's "no consensus" closes for these was the best outcome. In turn, that provided for Rosguill to easily retarget those that needed retargeting boldly. (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No consensus =/= overrule. The history is there should anyone choose to revisit those redirects. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I wonder if it's worth renominating those that need deletion? Though, I suspect, it may be best to not bombard the creator with a flurry of Twinkle notifications, what do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 00:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
In fact, it may be best to manually renominate them manually, in a batch. Doug Mehus T·C 00:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Give it at least a month and possibly more. This is mere housekeeping. Narky Blert (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I concur. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Me three. Yeah, we don't need to redo anything so soon. I might mark that RfD page in my bookmarks, and maybe raise it in a year's time or something, or not. Doug Mehus T·C 01:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Signifyd

Hi Rosguill,

Can you have a look at User talk:CatcherStorm#Signifyd when you get a chance? I'm not normally going to do any article page reviewing until I complete the NPP School, but when I was clicking through the redirects and pages to review, I came across Signifyd, which CatcherStorm tagged as A7. My understanding is A7 is a very low bar that has to be met; essentially, the company would have to have had no independent source coverage at all. I have my doubts that this company would pass AfD, and it may well not even survive a PROD, but just wanted to make sure that I was right to remove the A7 tag. I double-checked with Utopes as I did it, who concurred. CatcherStorm, in good-faith, retagged it as A7 and G11, so I've removed that as well. It may qualify for G11, but honestly, I have my doubts to that as well. It's somewhat promotional in terms of the scope of the article, but as it's written, it's no more promotional than many of our other articles for corporations.

If you get a chance and can just stop by to CatcherStorm's talk page and add any additional commentary as may be helpful, it'd be appreciated.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 05:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Page stalker comment. You may want to consider tagging a page for notability concerns when removing CSDs in the future. I've gone ahead and done this, as I agree that the notability of this company is questionable (at least in terms of the sources provided). Sulfurboy (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Sulfurboy, Thanks, I was going to do that next, but wanted to give CatcherStorm a chance to reply first since he was handling it. Nevertheless, it's now at AfD, so, to my earlier comment, Rosguill, you may not need to do anything. Doug Mehus T·C 06:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Equivocal Redirect

Thanks for your time user- Rosguill. On this - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Omkar_Rai - I too go along with subject coverage which seems spokesman but checked and found other references contradicting this. Though article was redirected to current serving organisation but both serve different purpose. Both stands true but stand apart. Subject is an individual and redirect is an organisation. Added other citation to keep it separate. You can have a look now and share insight around. Also subject reference found as Dr. so should this be included in article name. Great to learn and contribute.cheers..RufinaSmith (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_10&oldid=1079145069"