3752:
who have the autopatrol (or whatever it is called) privilege so that their pages do not have to be patrolled. If my understanding is correct, then that is all right. Second, I don't think that the feed is consistent on what it does to the status of pages that I have marked for speedy deletion. I do see that it consistently doesn't mark pages as patrolled if I PROD'd them, so that I need to mark the page as patrolled after PRODing it. Am I correct that I should, in general, mark a page as patrolled if I have tagged it for any of the deletion processes, to mean that a reviewer has reviewed the page, and it doesn't need further review by reviewers? (If the page has been nominated for deletion, it will get further attention via AFD for seven days.) I also think that there are inconsistencies as to whether a page is watchlisted if I PROD or CSD it. (It isn't watchlisted if I mark it as patrolled, and I don't want to watchlist it then. A page is watchlisted if I accept it via AFC, but that is a physical move, and is a different sort of thing.)
1965:. At this moment in time we have a RfC consensus, that's all, but everyone is getting to hear of PERM and grandfathering, I'm being swamped with rude messages from users from whom the right hasn't even been physically taken away yet. I realise as the one who has pioneered this user right for five years that a lot of the leg work would be left to me anyway - which I fully accepted. I did however make an an appeal for help with the grandmother list which was ignored. Finally, I was told more or less told (by the WMF?) that my work on this project is no longer needed and that the Wiki will now look after itself. My suggestion at this stage is that the PERM page be disactivated again, someone continues working through the grandfather list(s), and then, and only then should everyone be notified personally, and the former 1,400 patrollers - of whom around 50% are trolls and blocked/banned users, and leaving actually only around 300 who
3124:
should be moved, and which I believe BLP supports, are BLPs that while having sourcing sufficient to disallow BLPPRODing nonetheless have no actual reliable sources ie based entirely on personal web pages or PR bios or have a RS but the vast majority of the information is completely unsourced. More controversial would be articles on companies which are sourced to PR and primary material but have some chance of passing NORG and are not quite CSD-G11. Further afield are articles, of any type, which are unsourced - this, I believe, would take an RfC becuase there is consensus is OK because of some hand-wavy interpretation of
2309:
otherwise be impossible to monitor the quality of patrolling which is what this is all about. One thing has recently become evident throughout this process is that the majority of users still mistakenly believe that the sole purpose of New Page Patrol is to tag pages for deletion and that concerns about biting newbies are of minor importance. The Page
Curation tool is designed to encourage an interaction between the patroller and the creator and its New Page Feed provides a lot of clues on possible misuse of Knowledge (XXG) by spammers and paid editors. Twinkle and the old feed no neither.
854:
for CSD-A1 and CSD-A2 - while the user might possible still be logged in, but experienced patrollers will have already noted that if an 'article' receives no further edits after much longer than that, it's most likely the work of a drive-by user who probably won't return. Reviewers with the required skill set (that's why the user right has been introduced) will recognise other articles that might have some potential (e.g. would probably survive an AfD if correctly completed) and explain briefly to the creator what needs to be done, or even move the page to Draft space.
2707:, several users were rejected. The reasons for doing so seem reasonable, however I'm unsure what standard admins should use. Does the "500 undeleted edits to mainspace, and have a registered account for at least 90 days" clause apply there as well, for example? What about the clause "plus appropriate experience of a kind that clearly demonstrates knowledge of article quality control."? At the moment, I'm not confindent in granting/denying requests, and don't know what to say in the AN request for admins to help out. Pinging
3389:
3209:, telling the that they can ask to have it restored and it will be, maybe making it explicit that it was moved because it did not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s content criteria and if it is in main space it would likely be subject to deletion processes but draft space gives more time to make it better etc. These are all things 500/90 editors almost certainly will not know to do on their own and even experienced editors may not think about if new to NPP.
835:- A lot of thought has gone into this over the past weeks and it was discussed at two major RfC. Personally, I don't believe this is the moment to be re-debating what was already achieved, and for adding to something some users have suggested as being already too bureaucratic. The decision whether or not to accord the right rests largely admin discretion - as do most additional user rights - using the powers of judgement we invested in them. The
658:- A lot of thought has gone into this over the past weeks and it was discussed at two major RfC. Personally, I don't believe this is the moment to be re-debating what was already achieved, and for adding to something some users have suggested as being already too bureaucratic. The decision whether or not to accord the right rests largely admin discretion - as do most additional user rights - using the powers of judgement we invested in them. The
477:- A lot of thought has gone into this over the past weeks and it was discussed at two major RfC. Personally, I don't believe this is the moment to be re-debating what was already achieved, and for adding to something some users have suggested as being already too bureaucratic. The decision whether or not to accord the right rests largely admin discretion - as do most additional user rights - using the powers of judgement we invested in them. The
240:- A lot of thought has gone into this over the past weeks and it was discussed at two major RfC. Personally, I don't believe this is the moment to be re-debating what was already achieved, and for adding to something some users have suggested as being already too bureaucratic. The decision whether or not to accord the right rests largely admin discretion - as do most additional user rights - using the powers of judgement we invested in them. The
2891:, that was my obvious intention, but I am not a programmer. The technical issue is that all such cats are automatically populated by a script in the uboxes when an editor places one on their userpage. I am of the opinion that as with the Admin and other user rights uboxen and top icons, only qualified users should feature in the respective category. Others do not appear to agree and my attempts to deprecate the old categories have been reverted.
35:
2845:
years, or users with extremely low edit counts. As anticipated - mainly on an opinion based on the complex NPP survey I designed and ran a few years ago, in which the total list came to 3,937 users having patrolled new pages, excluding blocked editors. Only 1,255 responded to that survey, of which after removing the nonsense responses only 304 usable replies were left, which then cast an erroneous profile of the average New Page
Patroler.
3601:
pages are low-quality editors or whether they need a lot of hand-holding to become good editors. The suggestion was then made that low-quality pages should be moved to Draft space rather than PROD'd, but there were objections that this would further increase the burden on AFC. The result is that there wasn't any consensus. It has always been possible, and there has always been no consensus, in my view.
4159:
patrolled" link is not shown if the Page
Curation tool is open. Click the X on the toolbar to hide it. To those above who would like to use Page Curation, look for the "Curate this page" link in the "toolbox" on the left side. Note also for pages other than articles and user pages, the Page Curation tool is not available and hence you will see the link instead if the page has not been patrolled
1390:(I just created it), should qualify. The only thing again is we're not accounting for contested patrols, but that is bound to happen even when they are perfectly good patrols. Going through this manually seems like the only concrete way to narrow down the users we want. I will go ahead and remove admins I see in the list, and others I know to already have the new pages reviewer permission
2981:(indeed it was the main reason I finally got persuaded to get the admin tools). Will this new right stop people carpet bombing new articles with tags that are just ridiculous and badly tagging pages? If not, can I still advise them to stop it or face a block (I've not blocked anyone yet simply because the warning and a message of advice has always been enough so far).
4279:
be the best place to have the information but currently I do a log search instead and that doesn't work so well. In this case, it draws a blank but maybe I didn't do it right. Is there some convenient link on or around a page which provides its patrol history and status? Would it be possible to add this information to the edit history?
1551:
rights. I don't think that's the intended behavior of that log, but it's what it's been doing. So I, for example, am not on any of the lists you've put together because almost all of my new page patrolling is done via page curation. Whatever you are using to generate the list of people to be grandfathered needs to look at both logs. ~
3565:
documented anywhere? I don't mean to be difficult. I would just like to know when this is intended to be done appropriately. I have seen it done during a deletion discussion, but that is a compromise between Keep and Delete in response to the well-documented AFD process. What are the criteria for moving things to draft space?
1598:. Many of your reviews are for older articles and hence only show up in the page curation log. This is the log we went off of for our first list of grandfathered users, but for some reason there's a lot of missing data in those tables in the replica database. I see only one record of a page curation review by you
4027:
Some editors who I think are suitable for the
Autopatrolled right are: Lewisthejayhawk, Qwe144, Mateusz K, and OceanH (undoubtedly there are a lot more, but I encounter most of these editors routinely as their pages show up in the Newartbot feeds I watchlist). As far as I know, none of them currently
3834:
Only CSD templates mark articles as noindex. There is no reason to noindex an article that is merely PRODed or AfDed. If they show up in Google, that's not a big deal. The things we want to not show up in Google are blatant spam, hoaxes, attack pages, etc. Please mark everything else as reviewed once
3793:
Doesn't the page curation tool automatically mark pages as patrolled if you add a deletion tag to them? I took my lead from that and marked them manually when nominating via
Twinkle, but I agree it seems rather counterintuitive to de-noindex an article that will in all likelihood be deleted shortly.
3102:
I think it is not even a defined process other than "move it and tell the creator". There should probably be a defined process which can be captured and automated. At a minimum, in my view, would be 1)Move page and talk page without redirect for admins and extended-movers or tag the redirects CSD-G6.
853:
I'll just add that this section attempts to address two different issues: the threshold criteria for access to the user right, and a deletion policy/guideline. The fiirst has been adequately discussed. The second is widely recognised as 15 - 20 minutes being an adequate delay before tagging
3600:
While it has always been physically possible to move a page to draft just via the Move function, it has also always been controversial. A few months ago, one reviewer complained about PRODing of low-quality pages by new editors. This resulted in discussion of whether editors who create low-quality
3580:
The only criterion is common sense. I find it amusing that so many people think it's something new. We've been manually userfying new pages or moving them to draft for years. Of course, it's not supposed to be a catch all for pages that patrollers can't make their minds up about, and indeed over the
3385:
and just need some help/guidance from AfC links and an AfC reviewer. I have been doing this for a while and have a full workflow that includes a message for the author's talk page. If a programmer is interested in coding the workflow into either the
Curation Tool or Twinkleâjust let me know and I'll
3004:
This right only removes the ability to mark a page as patrolled and use the curation toolbar - nothing else. It's a quality control to ensure pages don't fly under the radar when poorly reviewed. Tagging from newer editors is still possible, and disruptive editing can be handled as usual, of course.
2802:
At the end of the day, where
Wikilawyering is more important than keeping Knowledge (XXG) free of undesirable content, not biting new users, and a modicum of common sense, the grandfather clause can be enacted, and the right can then be easily revoked on further, immediate review. I'm sure that will
2725:
Anyone who meets the criteria in the RfC for grandfathering must be granted the right, and may not have the right removed except according to the "Criteria for revocation" in RfC 1. To be perfectly clear, administrators may not choose to not grant the right to anyone who "has made 200 uncontested or
1988:
The PERM page should definitely stay open. This is only allowing that many more users to apply and hence reducing the influx of requests we'd get after deploying the second patch. And again, I don't think we should be altering user permissions and not telling them what it is. You could alternatively
1855:
as the es for the rights management log. When I have completed this task, I will add 'done' to all those who were approved and processed, if anyone (admins) wants to help with this they are of course more than welcome to do so. Then a mass mailing list can be made to send he the template message we
758:
as a teahouse host, I think its great to give new users invites, but that's not the point of NPP, NPP is about one thing: Fixing issues, either by tagging and fixing them, or by deletion, while it is great when people go the extra mile, it shouldn't be required, lest we have no NPP's because we made
4278:
as an example. One point was that this page is the #3 hit on google for the topic, even though it isn't very good yet. Given all the recent developments, I was wondering about its patrol status but this is not easy to see. The history for a page doesn't show who patrolled it and when. That would
4042:
Thanks a lot for the suggestions. I flagged Qwe144. The account OceanH is not registered, it must be a spelling error in the name. Mateusz K is one month old, and I am a bit scared to give an autopatroller flag to a month old account, but would definitely not object if someone else does. Concerning
3808:
Well, it is my understanding that the CSD templates transclude
Noindex, so that if a page that has marked for speedy deletion is marked as patrolled, that prevents it from being indexed. That raises two related questions. First, does PROD transclude Noindex? Second, does AFD transclude Noindex?
3774:
I used to mark a page patrolled if I nominated it for deletion so that other people wouldn't see it on the list and bother with it. However, now that we have enabled no index for unpatrolled pages, I hesitate to mark an article nominated for deletion as patrolled because I don't want it indexed. ~
3751:
I have again been working the New Pages feed, after not having been working it for a while. I have a few observations and questions. First, sometimes I see a number of usually longish articles show up at the top of the feed with a check mark. I am assuming that those are new articles by editors
3661:
at AFD, but that don't happen to fall within any of the specific CSD criteria. Articles that are merely low-quality should be tagged, or maybe AFD'd. My real question still is about unilaterally moving articles from article space to draft space. I know that one result of an AFD can be to move an
3139:
is the fact that most editors do not know this and will see it as tantamount to out of process deletion. Having written criteria and a defined process will, I think,the reviewers who are both willing and experienced enough to use this option by giving them some foundation to base their decisions on
2385:
from
Special:NewPages for routinely reviewing new pages, and to get them to use the purpose built Special:NewPagesFeed and its Curation Tool instead so that we can excercise proper control over the process, more accurately delete spam, and actively encourage bona fidae good faith editors to improve
1480:
Speaking as the RfC closer: the RfC does not mandate any sort of delay â the close is deliberately open-ended on timing. No individual part of the qualifications RfC was so important in the sense of the community that there would not be consensus if it was not there, and the "grandfathering" clause
3857:
Actually, the details don't matter. We just need to get the result: the acceptable articles into mainspace, the not yet acceptable but improvable ones improved, and the impossible ones removed; there are multiple valid pathways for doing this. It's better to get the unacceptable ones NOINDESED,
3123:
The criteria for moving an article to draft should be defined as well. There are a lot of articles that I, personally, do not think are ready for main space but I am sure there would be no consensus to move to draft or at the very least would spark "discussion". The primary example of what I think
1960:
I think we've rushed into several phases of this prematurely and/or got the order of the process wrong. IMO the PERM page shouldn't have gone live, categories should not have been created or anything else until the technical aspects - which I have nothing to do with - have been bugged out. It was
1664:
giving it as a criteria for the RFC. It's no one's fault that this isn't practical to retrieve. It is not possible to retrieve manual patrol data before 1 April, when the commit I made (I'm a volunteer, FYI) to use a distinct action for autopatrol was deployed (and therefore allowed to 'patrol the
1413:
Thanks: intuitively that list does feature many account names that I recognise as regularly marking new pages with maintenance tags, CSD, Prod and AfD. Noting the scale, the new list includes 3-4 who more than meet the 200 patrols criterion each month and approx the top 40 of these missed accounts
1184:
Unfortunately the RfC tied that whole "grandfathering" thing in - and I'm not hearing anyone yet say they have confidence in the reports used to fulfill that - I suggest delaying phase 2 of the phab ticket while this is further investigated. Please note, I may be away for the next day or two with
3634:
PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with an AfD, and it may only be placed on an article a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently
3364:
if the WMF still refuses to complete the New
Creator landing page they started in 2012. The WMF CEO has been made aware of these critical issues. However, if you prefer, you are welcome to make the suggestion that patrollers should continue to simply mark all unsuitable pages for deletion even if
3253:
Having the ability to move as part of the tool is likely to increase the number of people doing moves and decrease the experience level of people doing the moves - "It is in the toolbox so it must be OK". Because of that I think there should be some concretes guidance the problem is, for the most
3163:
Add: A big reason for the need for this is because non-admins may be making these decisions. Particularly extended-movers who can do the whole process without admin intervention and therefore no perceived review. Editors are predisposed to accepting admin judgement on deletion processes, and this
2844:
Newsletter sent to just under 1,500 users. The list included around 50 indef blocked users, while the vast majority of the rest were either users whose only edit (or one of their first 5 or so edits) was to add the userbox to their user page never to edit again, users who have not edited for many
1250:
That said, however, I don't think we need to delay anything. AFAICS, the backlog at the feed has already dropped significantly (down 30%). However, I think we still very much need to insist on having a proper log that contains all new page patrolls for each user, irrespective of whether they were
4140:), the 'Mark this page as patrolled' shows as a superb vertical toolbar. Click the 'tick' button to mark as patrolled. If tags are needed, the option to use Twinkle is still open, but the Curation Tool is bursting with additional features and the WMF is working on more features right now . (FYI:
1550:
Y'all do know that patrols made using the page curation toolbar don't show up in the patrol log, right? They only show up in the page curation log. What shows up in the patrol log is patrols made using the "Mark this page as patrolled" and approvals made by people with pending changes reviewer
1357:
If we have to process a few 100 more grandfathered accounts, we can handle that easy enough, and when I've sent the mass message to the other 1,800 former patrollers, there will be quite a few who will apply for the right at PERM, which is what we want - there are former prolific patrollers like
3337:
to produce & improve articles. It should not be used merely because the article needs substantial work to be ready for mainspace, but only in special cases that should be defined and enforced. For most newbie editors it is equivalent to deletion, because they have no clue how to improve the
1763:
that also returns page curation reviews, since they aren't recorded as patrols if the article creation is no longer in recent changes. This should be enough for our purposes - it doesn't include addition of maintenance or deletion tags, but generally when doing so one also patrols. It gives 166
3250:
The tutorial is very well written and informative. I would suggest though that a section dedicated to the move-to-draft tool that provides a) something like the four steps mentioned above that defines the process and b) some description of what move candidates may look like - I suggested three
3204:
I agree with that but I do think there needs to be a defined procedure because there will be editors of varying experience and temperament making more moves, especially if it is part of the 'toolbox'. The fewer conflicts the less controversy. Also, communication with the author is key in this,
4158:
This is a bug of sorts, but I think it's related to the site JavaScript, and not making a page as patrolled. E.g. I've had the same issue lately when adding pages to my watchlist. Does the two step process happen every time you click the link? It is irregular for me.Kudpung, the "Mark page as
4006:
1,000 edits to determine if they're eligible for the autopatrolled right. This is one of those things admins can be doing to help out which requires a low investment of time but has a large payoff for the new page patrollers on the ground. I definitely support this, and I welcome any new page
3188:
I will generally restore anything to draft on request by the creator provided it is not G3, G10 or G12 (or any other speedy criteria where I think even having the article around as draft is an issue). If it gets rejected 6 times at AfC and finally deleted via G13, well we're not short of disk
1347:
that quarry list might be missing an important criterion: My initial rquirement was for users who had made 200 or more New Page Patrolls (from all sources) from 1 January to 6 October. There was method in this - it was designed for a cut-off when the RfCs started, to avoid a rush of very fast
796:
8. The editor should have a record of good judgment regarding the timing and communication for deletion proposals. For example, keeping in mind that hasty deletion nominations can discourage good-faith contributors, the editor requesting the reviewer permission, in general, should not propose
3564:
I see that this is a discussion about Move to Draft. There has long been discussion about whether patrollers or others should be able to move new articles to draft space, and, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a conclusive decision on when that can be done. Are criteria for it
2308:
I think this might possibly not have quite the right effect. The clear leitmotif of this operation over the past four or five years is to wean people away from Twinkle and getting only suitably experience people to do the reviewing of new pages and to be using a standardised system. It would
180:
I propose adding the following items after item 4. These proposals may be added independently, for example if items 6 through 8 get consensus but item 5 does not, then items 6 through 8 may be added to the criteria while item 5 would not, and the numbering of the criteria would be adjusted
1969:
be still active - by newsletter that they can then apply for the right. One thing has become clear through: better communications and a proper structured collaoration, and clearly defined Community/WMF roles, and a proper sharing/delegation of tasks, would have avoided this fiasco of one
510:â this segment reasonably applies to those seeking any/all user rights, I'd say, and not specific to new page reviewer. (That doesn't mean that this statement should be added as criteria for all rights either. Admins already have a good idea who qualifies for the bit and who does not. â
2063:(which is the ~1400 Kudpung speaks of), and filter it down (to ~300 as Kudpung estimates) of active unblocked ungranted users. From what I gather above in Kudpung's messages, this process is not complete until this newsletter goes out, which would further alleviate patrolling drought. (
2726:
unreverted patrols, maintenance, or deletion tags between 1 January 2016 and 06 October 2016 and who have a clean block log since 01 January 2016" â there are no additional requirements to be grandfathered, and no aspect of the grandfathering procedure is subject to admin discretion.
290:, and I think we should trust admins' discretion for evaluating which users qualify for the bit and who does not. It could involve AfD/CSD nominations, but it's CREEPy. I believe the suggestion reads more like a good suggestion for an admin to consider, but I think the current phrase
3975:, and there is nothing wrong with their articles. They're notable, well written, and reliably sourced. There's no reason why such editors shouldn't have autopatrolled rights, and it would hopefully help cut down the backlog so we could spend more time on articles that are a problem.
684:, to the job description which is a far as we can go without re-debating the whole thing. Generally common sense should make it clear that new page reviewers are the most common public face of Knowledge (XXG) and if they don't realise that already, they won't be accorded the right.
2537:
Does this mean the little "" clicker at the bottom of New Pages is going to disappear for the rest of us? I (very) occasionally "manually" patrol some new articles, and I'm hoping I don't have to sign up for the new Page Patrollers group just to be able to keep doing that... TIA.
3630:
Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles than the articles for deletion process (AfD), and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy
2188:
This is a fantastic query! I couldn't figure out how to query the log_params column, and I figured it probably time out anyway. It seems this data would fill the void the other queries left out, correct? So we have now identified all who meet the grandfathered criteria?
1312:. This list of 121 users I'm quite confident in. That's still not everyone since it's only accounting for patrols since 1 April, but hopefully this uncovers more people that we missed. You can also try say, 100 patrols since 1 April and might get more that qualify:
177:"The above items are guidelines and numerical compliance alone does not constitute a right to the user group. An administrator may also grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent or may request experience above and beyond the above criteria."
4043:
Lewisthejayhawk, there are couple of red flags, such as suspected sockpuppetry (likely unfounded) and a recent article which was AfDed (the discussion is headed to no consensus). I would personally still grant the flag, but I would appreciate a second opinion.--
189:
5. The editor should have basic proficiency with marking articles for merge or deletion. Although patrollers are not expected to be perfect and may have good-faith disagreements about proposed deletions and mergers, editors should have a minimum of 1 successful
4098:
Is there a reason marking a page as patrolled now requires an extra confirmation step? Not once have I clicked that link by mistake. It may seem like a small issue, but it's enough of an extra hassle that I find myself just not bothering with NPP anymore.
533:
as civility in general, rather than over a 90 day period, should be expected for those requesting additional user rights-- and just from users in general-- and admins likely already know whether an editor is suitable for additional rights fron experience.
1366:
need to insist on getting organised with a proper log though, and a permanent tool like Scottywong's because a more efficient system of patrolling the patrollers will still be needed to be done to some extent and is high on the work group's wish list.
1643:
We do need to insist on getting organised with a proper log though, and a permanent tool like Scottywong's because a more efficient system of patrolling the patrollers will still be needed to be done to some extent and is high on the work group's wish
1778:
Just a note. The page curation tool logs a separate "marked page reviewed" for each separate action with the tool So, for instance, if I tag an article for deletion then place a series of maintinance tags there will be two "marked page reviewed".
3107:
explanation/justification for the move. This should be posted to the author's talk page and if possible recorded in the log. 3) a guideline that explains what to do when the move is objected to by the author and/or other editors ie is the mover
3585:
probably something that perhaps only the accredited New Page Reviewers ought to be permitted to do - and that's not technically difficult either.As far as 'when' is concerned, the answer is: as soon as the boss of WMF devs decides to do it.
1258:(now retired) once created an excellent tool for properly analysing page patrol stats and analysing individual users' patrols, but IIRR, the person or persons who undertook to port the tool to Labs either messed it up or went AWOL. Perhaps
3662:
article from article space to draft space. I was asking whether there are any criteria for moving an article unilaterally from article space to draft space, and it appears that this is a matter of judgment, and should be done seldom.
3625:. It is a deletion of inapprpriate content, not a flag for an article that's just a bit below par. Most PRODS end up being deleted. The benchmark is whether it would survive an AfD. Most won't. This is the opening text from the policy:
1055:. I am working on creating a new list of users who have done any patrols since 1 January, then I can loop through and query the API. Again if anyone knows of a better way to do this please go for it! I do not claim to be good at SQLÂ :)
1792:
For this process it would be useful to run a query against the potential grandfathered accounts to check for "unreviewed page" entries not done by the user themself. This would also be useful in the "Reviewing the Reviewers" project.
1051:
Yeah... the pagetraige_log table is supposed to record both kinds of patrols, but evidently it's missing some data, or I did it wrong, maybe both... The API seems the safest way to get the number of reviews by single person, such as
602:
7. Page reviewers are not expected to provide extensive guidance to page creators who need help, but candidates for the page reviewer permission should have a record of civilly providing links to resources such as help pages and the
3060:
What is this tool? Is there a one-click version of this? Because it isn't in the curation toolbar. Or is it just the permission to move articles to draftspace via the normal 'move' mechanism? Should be clearer in the documentation.
2517:
If anyone has any objections to the existing process and believes the second part of the patch needs to be further delayed, please speak up now. This will remove patrol access from all the groups except the new group and admins. â
3970:
Given that the NPP backlog is so huge, I think we could cut it down quite a bit by granting autopatrol rights to more editors who are prolific page creators. I see quite a few editors who habitually create at least a page or two a
3835:
it has been reviewed. There is no sense keeping these in the unreviewed queue after you've already reviewed them. It just creates redundant work and keeps the backlog from being cleared. Hope that helps to clear up the confusion.
3858:
especially the bBLPs, but since we presumably will be speedying the damaging one, it doesn't really matter if we miss a few. We shou.d have a guide for those starting out but everyone will develop their own pattern of work.
1936:. I believe you were going to wait to go through the whole list first. Users receive a notification when their permissions are altered, so following up with the talk page notice shortly thereafter might help avoid confusion
1381:
The issue is there is corrupt data, so I don't think it's easy, if at all possible, to automate a list from 1 January. This is going by my discoveries today, and my tests seem to support the theory. Note also any patrol on
2917:
was sent to them. Vanja is an administrator, and my understanding is that the right is being added as part of the administrator toolset. Make sure we aren't asking administrators to sign up for a right they don't need.
1646:. Also, we need to look into better methods of querying the database - these issues are not specifically user rights related, but they should not be used as reasons for delaying the roll out of new policy. Thanks.
1913:
I have not been working through this list, rather I just created it. I will help, though! I think it's fine to go ahead with part 2. There will likely be an influx of requests but given we are facing the issue of
168:"2. The editor should have made 500 undeleted edits to mainspace that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control. Edits and/or user status on other Foundation projects are not taken into consideration.
425:
6. The editor should have a record of civil behavior toward other editors, particularly within the past 90 days, even when the editor has disagreements with others or nominates others' articles for deletion.
1993:
grant new page reviewer to, then later grant all the rights and issue the talk page notices at once. I certainly would be asking questions if I see I've been given a new permission that I know nothing about
700:. Teahouse assistance should be up to the discretion of the granting administrator. A set of concise requirements has been agreed upon in a previous RfC per Kudpung. Less is more, more could be less here. â
3075:
The manual process I generally use to draft an article is to undelete it, move it without redirect, removing any CSD tags (which are usually the cause of me rescuing a draft in the first place) and adding
127:
as a result of being too detailed. Additionally, administrators already have wide discretion in deciding whether to grant the user right, so the proposed additions may not be necessary. Finally, since the
1348:
patrolling to meet the criteria before the well-anticipated new user right came into effect. The rush of course happened, which is what I expected. And that's why I wanted all those newbies out of it.
3640:
It may give seven days grace, but PROD is not to be confused with 'giving the user time to get his creation up to scratch'. Rewiewers will need to learn and exercise these different paths correctly.
2827:- and any editor can ask at perm or to any admin to enact a missing grandfathered flag. If you disagree and think there is a reason to continue to delay, please raise your concerns at phabricator. â
2565:
Yes it does, but "that it is changing" was already decided by community RfC - the only outstanding issue on patch delay is if the execution of the grandfathering provision has been successful yet. â
4136:, it might be an idea to consider it as a bug that can be addressed rather than give upon patrolling. I am unable to replicate it - from wherever I access a new unreviewed page (the old list or the
1442:
129:
3381:
This has gone off-topic from my question, which was about what "tool" exists to automate the move. I have no issue with trusting someone with this right to only move pages that are below the GNG
1445:
can you look over this and determine if the grandfathering part of the RfC is satisfied and/or if it should hold up part 2 of the technical change (removing patrol access from the old groups). â
1790:
Any curation action, regardless of if the page is marked reviewed or not, makes a reviewed entry. This does not really matter for this but it would be useful for the tool to not do that later.
1235:
I don't understand any of this - I'm just a mere expert in creative writing and workflow, neither of which requires a profound knowledge of IT. I did point out that the search criteria used at
2704:
2598:
1873:
1673:
patrols, which may be manual or automatic, which should be a bit less if one removes admins and those already with the permission. For maintenance, or deletion tags, this looks even harder.
797:
deletion of a newly created article within 4 hours of the article's creation time, so long as the article is not an obviously bad-faith article or has other problems of such magnitude that
1709:
I've checked the queries. This only works for when those actions (patrol, maintenance of deletion tags) were done through page curation, not when they were done manually or with Twinkle.
3135:
be less controversial now that new pages are NOINDEXed until patrolled or for 90 days so it is not like a soft delete which removes the article from search engines. Working against the
2660:, My recommendations are above. Having been told that my shelf life on this project has expired, I have no further comment. Tha's what Knowledge (XXG) does to people who show initative.
1724:
3908:
Deletion tags naturally all make sure an article is noc indexed. I think the varoius deletion tags do it by transclusion. How they do that technically is not my concern but I thought
4057:
Sorry, it's Oceanh. I capitalized the H when it's actually lowercase. I know Mateusz K is new, but their contributions are solid, which is why I felt comfortable reccomending them.
3884:
Thank you. I have already been marking things as reviewed if I PROD or AFD them and will continue to do so. I would prefer that PROD transclude NOINDEX, but it isn't a big deal.
2338:
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I'm not sure if it's me or you. The two userscipts I created don't use Twinkle at all. They simply make it easier to get to either
206:
within the past 180 days. Also, at least 60% of the editor's combined total of merge proposals, AFD proposals, and CSD proposals within the past 90 days must have been successful.
85:
80:
75:
63:
1112:, with the former capturing substantially more patrol activity than the latter. (This distinction was also the basis of my query on the 2nd RfC and at "Comments on draft" above.)
4114:
I don't know, but I'm wondering about it too. It's pretty hard to hit the link by accident even on a touchscreen device, because of its location down at the bottom of the page.
1461:
2803:
work for most admins, and certainly for the benefit of Knowledge (XXG). But why create even more work for admins where this user right is supposed to reduce their workload?
4175:
I also have experienced this irregularly, but it is not a new problem. I think it happens more often when I am patrolling newer pages then when I patrol from the back. --
2164:
1457:
1387:
1170:
1145:. This returns nearly 9,000 users, including some bots. Obviously the data is suffering what appears a bug. The bots have never made manual patrols, rather they have the
3581:
six years or so that I've been closely monitoring NPP I've never seen it abused. Why do we now suddenly need to write a whole set of by-laws to govern it? Of course, it
1149:
user right, yet still are being recorded as manual patrols. That being said I don't know if we can get the list we want efficiently, and it may very well be impossible
2386:
their articles without biting them. Twinkle does none of this, but Special:NewPages - which does not offer all the clues the reviewers need either, leads them to it.
2121:
1247:
are the kind of thing that would have more accurately reported the results we were needing. But I don't know the first thing about consulting Knowledge (XXG)'s SQL.
1759:
Good idea to have used a NOT LIKE on log_params, I would have expected a timeout (yes, autopatrols always get "auto" there). I've made a new query based on yours at
1603:. I know you've made significantly more reviews than this, but how to effectively query for the data amongst all users is something we're still trying to figure out
2823:- most of the concerns were addressed and information was sent out. The "grandfathering" will never be perfect, but applications have been swiftly processed at
678:
New Page Review is a vital function as the front line of interaction between new authors and community members devoted to policing the quality of the project
21:
1918:, it's going to be a while before we can get a concrete list of all grandfathered users. Having them come to us at their leisure might be the easiest way.
1814:
a query counting only one review per page, this narrows down the list to 159 users. As for non-self unreview actions, I don't see how this could be done.
4312:
I believe it was created before the noindex thing started. It was created in September and the noindexing new pages started on or about October 20th. ~
292:
an administrator may also grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent or may request experience above and beyond the above criteria
3657:
Okay. We may need a clarification. I understand that PROD is for articles that were crud, usually one or two sentences of crud, that wouldn't have a
1739:, which queried the patrol log instead of pagetriage-curation and filter out the autopatrols with an unindexed text match on log_params. (Autopatrols
4271:
2703:: from the RFC, there were no added conditions, as far as I can see, to be grandfathered, beyond 200 uncontested patrols and not blocked, however in
4031:
It's good to know you can nominate others for rights, I didn't know that! I thought if an editor wanted a right, they had to request it themselves.
1275:
1028:
is a bit busy and this is NPR specific, please discuss here. If there are additional lists we certainly can process them after they are vetted. â
2030:
3254:
part, sending an article to draft is an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing so maybe the criteria are not really quantifiable/documentable.
4251:
Just came here to say that this newsletter is helping to motivate me to get out and review pages after a period of inactivity, so thank you! --
3987:
Absolutely. Could you please list these editors here (you do not need to link to their pages in order to not trigger automatic notification).--
1414:
amount to a total weekly patrol throughput. To avoid detriment to NPP it is important to get this right (and in line with the RfC definition).
965:
744:
547:
374:
3388:
1362:, for example, who are already requesting, and I'll go through a few lists I have and accord a few more without waiting for them to apply. We
4191:
This is with javascript disallowed. Attempting to mark a page as patrolled nets you a confirmation page with "Mark revision as patrolled?".
1207:
fixed it. So anyway, it may be that there's no way to get around the bad data, and we can only reliably go off of data since April Fools Day
132:
closed just 5 days before this RfC was initiated (24 October), it may be too soon to reopen debate on this topic at this time. Respectfully,
3404:
Please do write out the workflow. Whether it is coded in the near future or not having a set of documented procedures will be worthwhile.
2958:
is to be sent to more people, though, it might be a good idea to change the word "exiting" to "exciting", to make the meaning more clear.â
4294:
It wasn't patrolled, which I guess is why it didn't show up in the logs! I've just marked it as patrolled now, and that shows up in the
3033:
also more came up with some conclusive evidence today that New Page Reviewing is just as bad as it ever was - even with the user right.
2347:
2245:
3349:
3328:
3069:
2057:
1930:
676:
This appears to largely duplicate No.6 above.It's already clearly stated in a manner comprehensible for most native Englisg speakers:
51:
17:
2047:
2037:
102:
3197:
3088:
2989:
1537:- pending the community discussion and activities. Once completed, please remove the community consensus tag from the patch. â
3356:
The Foundation devs are already looking at these issues (or they say they are). From our end , the project is being managed at
2260:, depending on which one you install. They can both be active at the same time. And, yes, I gave credit where credit is due.
1386:
pages (less than 90 days old) using Page Curation will also show up in the normal patrol log, so all the users you see here at
4028:
have the right, but all have created over 25 articles which meet the guidelines for inclusion and don't seem to have issues.
3533:
Suppress the categories rather than removing them saves the need to re-add them from scratch when the article passes review.
2346:
by making a direct link appear up at the top of every Knowledge (XXG) page between "Sandbox" and "Preferences", the same as
2097:
I'm not sure of the purpose of sending out those messages, can't the objective be reached more simply by adding a notice to
1078:
Thanks for the note - if this will take more than a day we should postpone the 2nd half of the change for up to a week. â
4180:
2878:
2777:
2276:
1015:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
990:
770:
576:
399:
1460:. Everyone listed there has not applied for NPR nor were they already notified that they qualify (cross referencing with
902:(policy), I cannot find the "4 hour" suggestion. A set of concise requirements has been agreed upon in a previous RfC. â
2544:
4298:. Although that raises the question of why it showed up on Google when unpatrolled pages are supposed to be noindexed?
929:
to wait four hours to move towards disposing of encyclopedic garbage that for some reason did not make it through CSD.
2936:
As admins they shuold be aware of new developments so they will probably know that the message wasn't meant for them.
326:
3232:
before being granted the right. If the tutorial is still not sufficiently explicit on this point, please let me or
2167:
that includes all users with more than 200 patrols in 2016, excluding those blocked in 2016, sysops and patrollers.
1895:
are you still working through these - we need to decide to move forward or continue to delay part 2 of the patch. â
1251:
made with the Page Curation toolbar, or through Twinkle (which is the source of most of the confusion of course).
4236:
The current backlog is displayed and updates every time you load or refresh the feed when you do any patrolling. --
2748:
1503:
959:
738:
541:
368:
42:
4325:
4307:
4288:
4260:
4245:
4227:
4200:
4184:
4170:
4153:
4120:
4108:
4077:
4063:
4052:
4037:
4022:
3996:
3981:
3957:
3921:
3893:
3869:
3844:
3818:
3803:
3788:
3761:
3741:
3706:
3689:
3671:
3649:
3610:
3595:
3574:
3549:
3415:
3399:
3374:
3245:
3220:
3199:
3183:
3151:
3090:
3042:
3016:
2991:
2967:
2945:
2927:
2900:
2883:
2854:
2833:
2812:
2795:
2782:
2752:
2720:
2695:
2669:
2652:
2634:
2616:
2571:
2553:
2524:
2496:
2438:
2395:
2372:
2318:
2297:
2229:
2200:
2176:
2143:
2114:
2082:
2005:
1983:
1947:
1901:
1885:
1865:
1823:
1804:
1773:
1747:
1718:
1704:
1682:
1655:
1632:
1614:
1564:
1543:
1507:
1475:
1451:
1423:
1401:
1376:
1327:
1287:
1218:
1191:
1179:
1160:
1121:
1084:
1066:
1046:
1034:
995:
971:
940:
917:
886:
863:
848:
820:
775:
750:
715:
671:
643:
626:
581:
553:
525:
490:
462:
445:
404:
380:
353:
334:
309:
274:
253:
225:
157:
141:
4284:
3889:
3814:
3757:
3702:
3667:
3606:
3570:
3344:
1200:
and the "automatic" patrols stopped on 31 March. Sure enough, when I check my own log for March I see the same:
4176:
4131:
4115:
4058:
4032:
3976:
2268:
2789:
OK, it appears the community is not yet satisfied this is complete, asking for additional delay on part 2. â
1961:
therefore deliberate on my part not to inform the grandfathered list yet because in the normal run of things
935:
508:
The editor should have a record of civil behavior toward other editors, particularly within the past 90 days
348:
174:"4. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying.
3251:
criteria above - be added. I think the BLP one would be supported by policy, the other two are more iffy.
2610:
2351:
2137:
2125:
2076:
1101:
911:
709:
519:
303:
147:
Requesting comment on proposed additions to the criteria for granting the New page reviewer permission. --
1025:
3333:
I have strong concerns about this option; it seems to go counter to the fundamental notion that editors
2963:
2951:
2910:
1024:
A few users have contacted me regarding possible problems with the initial NPR grandfathering list. As
953:
732:
535:
362:
604:
3029:
and me, nobody much else is doing it, and what we are able to do is only a drop in the ocean. Except
2766:
I presume this means that admins must give grandfathered, but can decide for non grandfathered right?
4280:
4137:
4002:
3885:
3825:
3810:
3769:
3753:
3698:
3677:
3663:
3618:
3602:
3566:
3339:
3233:
3195:
3086:
2987:
2343:
2272:
2257:
2217:
2102:
1971:
565:
to be civil, or else get blocked, so this opens rooms for problems where there currently aren't any.
4011:. Keep in mind that the editors don't have to nominate themselves for this particular user right. ~
4008:
3361:
1785:
1743:
get "auto" in there, right?) The horrific manual subqueries were to work around quarry's timeouts. â
453:
This one makes sense. Civility is important. Can we drop the 90 days thing? It sounds too detailed.
4219:
goes on about a backlog somewhere. Might of been useful to maybe link to that in someway. Oh well.
4073:
4048:
3992:
4321:
3784:
3365:
they may have potential if the creators were to better understand the principles of page creation.
3357:
3317:
I am sure someone can write better instructions than I but I think that those are the essentials.
2950:
Don't worry, admins have also received a message explaining that they are automatically included (
2220:
has finished assigning the rights, so the grandfathering clause is complete as far as I can tell.
1560:
3949:
3413:
3326:
3218:
3181:
3149:
3097:
2716:
2691:
2225:
2172:
2110:
1819:
1802:
1769:
1714:
1678:
1628:
1263:
1230:
1204:
931:
344:
94:
Request for comment on proposed additions to guidelines for granting New page reviewer permission
3022:
1481:
was no exception. Speaking as not-RfC-closer, it would definitely be prudent to hold off a bit.
895:
697:
287:
195:
124:
3164:
will be seen as many as a 'deletion'. An analogue would be an extended-mover closing an AFD as
4303:
4256:
4241:
4216:
4196:
4149:
4104:
3917:
3840:
3799:
3685:
3645:
3591:
3370:
3257:
Even if the criteria can not be written, the procedures can be. I would suggest something like
3241:
3038:
2941:
2896:
2873:
2850:
2808:
2772:
2665:
2630:
2602:
2489:
2431:
2391:
2365:
2314:
2290:
2129:
2092:
2068:
1979:
1881:
1861:
1700:
1651:
1372:
1283:
1271:
985:
903:
859:
844:
765:
724:
701:
667:
571:
511:
486:
394:
295:
249:
3658:
3622:
3488:
If the author objects move it back and see what the author does. Depending on the situation:
3298:
If the author objects move it back and see what the author does. Depending on the situation:
2824:
1695:
was able to pull any data out the hat I asked him for. I listed the Quarrys he used above. --
949:
899:
191:
4163:
4141:
4001:
This is a campaign I've (slowly) been waging for a while. Every week or so, I try to hit up
3934:
3545:
2959:
2588:
2548:
2471:
2417:
2339:
2264:
2253:
2252:
created. The scripts I created add a link at the top of any Knowledge (XXG) page to either
2249:
2207:
2193:
2098:
2016:
1998:
1940:
1892:
1848:
1607:
1576:
It appears pending changes reviews do show up in the patrol log, but as an automatic patrol
1468:
1408:
1394:
1334:
1320:
1211:
1153:
1091:
1073:
1059:
882:
639:
458:
270:
3455:
3277:
3229:
836:
798:
659:
478:
241:
203:
199:
3190:
3081:
2999:
2982:
1419:
1255:
1117:
2683:
2475:
1974:
who spent several hours adding to and improving the tutorial I also completely re-wrote.
1523:
4314:
4069:
4044:
3988:
3777:
3739:
3393:
3063:
2742:
1571:
1553:
1497:
1359:
817:
623:
442:
222:
171:"3. The editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines.
154:
3125:
898:. Is the candidate not qualified if PROD is placed 3 hours after creation? Looking at
388:
all other measures were good for weeding out those unfit, this one is just arbitrary.
4012:
3942:
3865:
3429:
3405:
3318:
3225:
3210:
3173:
3141:
3006:
2923:
2828:
2790:
2712:
2687:
2657:
2647:
2580:
2566:
2532:
2519:
2221:
2216:'s idea. Yes, I think we've found all users meeting the grandfathering criteria, and
2183:
2168:
2106:
2065:
Just an observation, not trying to advocate any particular way to get this newsletter
2024:
2012:
1908:
1896:
1815:
1811:
1794:
1765:
1760:
1710:
1674:
1624:
1538:
1446:
1338:
1313:
1309:
1299:
1186:
1174:
1142:
1128:
1079:
1041:
1029:
137:
4299:
4252:
4237:
4233:
4221:
4192:
4145:
4127:
4100:
3913:
3909:
3836:
3829:
3795:
3694:
3681:
3641:
3587:
3366:
3270:
When you move an article to draft space ensure you have done all of the following:
3237:
3034:
2937:
2892:
2888:
2868:
2862:
2846:
2804:
2767:
2661:
2639:
2626:
2584:
2483:
2465:
2425:
2387:
2378:
2359:
2333:
2310:
2305:
2284:
2213:
2020:
1975:
1921:
1877:
1857:
1754:
1744:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1696:
1692:
1647:
1368:
1295:
1279:
1267:
1244:
1240:
1236:
980:
874:
855:
840:
760:
693:
663:
566:
499:
482:
389:
283:
262:
245:
3436:
When you move an article to draft space ensure you have done all of the following:
2820:
2594:
1915:
1620:
1534:
1138:
3523:
Patrol before move prevents the draft appearing on SNP but not being patrol-able.
2642:
Seen - but as far as the specific question at hand for tomorrow - do you want to
165:"1. The editor should be a registered Knowledge (XXG) user for at least 90 days.
4275:
3541:
3228:, new, New Page Reviewers are committed to having read and fully understood the
3080:. Once you've done a couple, it doesn't become particularly onerous in my view.
3030:
2867:
is it possible to restrict the adding of the category to people with the right?
2560:
2539:
1810:
Shouldn't several curation actions count as a single patrol then? Just in case,
1259:
878:
635:
454:
266:
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1104:
as in your above example) noted the distinction between event capture based on
801:
is appropriate without waiting for the article creator to improve the article.
1415:
1342:
1303:
1132:
1113:
320:
3940:, but not all do. Of two I clicked randomly, db-g6 does not but db-g10 does.
2043:
no longer populates it. Probably need to count the userpage transclusions of
696:. It looks like a good suggestion for an admin to consider for granting, but
3732:
3526:] is a stylistic thing I've noticed among Page Movers to justify the use of
2761:
2736:
2728:
2708:
1491:
1483:
1436:
812:
618:
437:
217:
149:
1518:
119:
Closing this early as comments seem to have slowed. All four proposals are
3860:
3026:
2955:
2919:
1670:
1601:
1599:
1593:
the article was under 90 days old (since older pages can't be patrolled)
1141:. I asked for help on IRC and they suggested the same query I attempted:
133:
2978:
1853:
Grandfathered per Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3
1196:
The bad data appears to exist prior to 31 March 2016, for instance try
2682:
I've no objection per se, but we should then quickly post a notice to
948:
as being too much of a specific requirement: there is also nothing at
839:
provide admins with sufficient additional background if they need it.
662:
provide admins with sufficient additional background if they need it.
481:
provide admins with sufficient additional background if they need it.
244:
provide admins with sufficient additional background if they need it.
317:- Unreasonable. Pages outside the article namespace may be patrolled.
3465:
suppress the categories by adding leading colons ([[Category: -: -->
1619:
That PC autoreviews are logged as autopatrolled is a bug, I've made
1040:
Reports are that up to 60% of valid editors may have been missed. â
3728:
1970:
postponement after another. The only real help (for me) came from
873:
Too much bureaucracy, and these requirements are too detailed. As
682:...and able to communicate in an appropriate manner with new users
607:
that may assist good-faith page creators with resolving problems.
261:
Too much bureaucracy, and these requirements are too detailed. As
123:. Some editors felt that the proposed additions would suffer from
2646:
removing patrol access from the (auto)confirmed users for now? â
2029:
The newsletter that Kudpung speaks of cannot be constructed from
727:
states, this is a good thing for a user to do, but should not be
3680:, seldom, but often enough to to need a helper script to do it.
894:
per above. "4 hours" appears to be only a suggestion, and seems
3449:, including ] in the edit summary if the redirect is suppressed
3273:
Moved both the page and its talk page, if one exists, to DRAFT
2952:
User talk:Anne Delong#A new user right for New Page Patrollers
2705:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded
2599:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded
1874:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded
29:
3446:
Move both the page and its talk page, if one exists, to DRAFT
2381:- the whole purpose of this new user right is to get people
1274:) 01:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC) PS: for more information see
294:
does not suggest that more criteria added is a good idea. â
1725:
Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/patrollers/Apr2014-Mar2016
1723:
I'm somewhat more confident in the ones I used to generate
1641:
I'll just repeat what I said above lest it be overlooked:
1169:
Another list that was generated from log files is now here
3140:
and a criteria for others to judge their actions against.
1053:
2977:
As you probably know, I spend a lot of my time reviewing
2416:
Ok, I see what you mean. Feel free, then, to delete the
1020:
Reported issues with the initial NPR grand-fathering list
2354:. Again, it depends on which one(s) the user installs.
1660:
That the data can be retrieved should have been checked
1462:
Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/Reviewers/grandfathered
4295:
2914:
1782:
1596:
1594:
1582:
1579:
1577:
1201:
1197:
1097:
3483:
to them why it was moved and what needs to be improved
3295:
to them why it was moved and what needs to be improved
3966:
Giving Autopatrolled to more prolific article writers
2513:
Call for any objections to allow phase 2 of the patch
2165:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4
1458:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3
1388:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3
1171:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List2
1665:
patrollers'). The only way is to manually check the
101:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
2122:
Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/Reviewers/Mailing2
1146:
111:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2686:to get the list finished. I'll look into it also.
3360:and includes the possibility of locally enacting
3025:, you actually mean 'not at all', because except
2263:The installation instructions for the script for
2244:I just created a couple userscripts based off of
3338:article or even how to submit it for re-review.
1856:have been using tothose who have been accorded.
3719:Patrolling the Mass Message about the new group
4007:reviewers to nominate potential candidates at
3116:{{subst:AFC draft|username}} to the article.
3103:2) a standard notice with an input box for a
3054:
634:This one makes sense. Civility is important.
114:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
2954:). If that other mass message mentioned by
2271:, while the instructions for the script for
3794:Maybe the functionality should be changed.
1276:Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/patrollers
506:with the motivation behind this point, but
4094:"Mark this page as patrolled" confirmation
2597:. I believe the remaining users listed at
3508:Improve it to minimum standards yourself.
3310:Improve it to minimum standards yourself.
759:requirements so stringent and arbitrary.
4068:Thanks again. Oceanh is autopatrolled.--
4005:and look through contributors with : -->
194:, 1 successful proposed article or list
3635:cancels the proposed deletion via PROD.
3112:to undo the move if it is objected to.
2031:Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers
1926:I noticed you haven't been sending out
361:: appears to be too heavily regulated.
130:RfC for adopting the current guidelines
3724:
507:
291:
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1585:. Additionally page curation reviews
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol
7:
3912:had made that clear several times.
1781:(See 27 Oct 2016 in my curation log
952:suggesting that this is preferable.
680:, but as a concession, I have added
1788:shows 3 "marked reviewed" entries.)
3493:If the author fixes it - leave it.
3301:If the author fixes it - leave it.
2601:can be evaluated independently. â
2124:. This is moot, looks like it was
1100:(a discussion which also involved
28:
3697:- What and where is the script?
3050:
2819:This is set to go out this week,
1254:I also mentioned many times that
1096:I don't know if this might help:
3454:If redirects were left tag them
3387:
3276:If redirects were left tag them
2348:Omni Flames' original userscript
1011:The discussion above is closed.
33:
2622:
1137:I believe this is our problem:
561:Per concerns above, all people
4274:, I was using the new article
3282:Remove all tags and categories
1:
4326:15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
4308:14:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
4289:11:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
4261:22:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
4246:20:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
4228:18:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
4201:00:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
4185:21:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
4171:15:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
4154:08:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
4121:19:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
4109:15:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
4078:17:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4064:16:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4053:16:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4038:15:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4023:14:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
3997:14:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
3982:00:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
3958:02:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
3922:22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3894:00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
3870:22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3845:22:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3819:18:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3804:17:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3789:16:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3762:19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3742:18:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3707:18:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3690:17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3676:THat's a fairly god summary,
3672:15:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
3650:08:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
3611:19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3596:17:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3575:16:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3550:16:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3416:16:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3400:16:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3375:02:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
3350:01:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
3329:04:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
3246:02:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
3221:16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3205:explaining that it was moved
3200:16:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3184:16:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3158:16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3152:16:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3091:15:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3070:15:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
3043:17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
3017:16:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2992:15:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2968:14:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2946:13:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2928:15:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2901:06:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2884:05:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2855:05:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2834:22:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2813:03:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
2497:04:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
2439:16:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
2396:09:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
2373:08:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
2277:User:Gestrid/NewPagesFeedLink
2230:00:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2201:04:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
2144:07:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2115:00:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
1533:A hold has been asked for on
142:22:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
3725:User group: New Page Reviewr
3473:{{subst:AFC draft|username}}
3287:{{subst:AFC draft|username}}
3078:{{subst:AFC draft|username}}
2796:17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2783:15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2753:14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2721:10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2696:07:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2670:02:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2653:02:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2635:01:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2617:01:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2572:00:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2554:00:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2525:23:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
2319:02:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2298:01:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
2177:10:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2086:19:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2083:19:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
2006:17:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
1989:simply mark which users you
1984:01:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
1948:00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
1902:04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
1886:21:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1866:20:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1824:13:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1805:01:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1774:23:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1748:18:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1719:18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1705:15:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1683:14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1656:20:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1633:14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1615:21:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1565:14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1544:12:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1508:03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1476:01:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1452:01:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1424:08:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1402:01:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1377:01:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1328:01:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1288:01:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1219:01:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1192:00:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1180:00:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1161:23:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1122:19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1085:19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1067:19:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1047:18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1035:18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
996:04:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
972:14:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
941:20:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
918:20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
887:23:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
864:02:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
849:16:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
821:23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
776:04:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
751:14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
716:20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
672:16:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
644:23:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
627:23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
582:04:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
554:14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
526:20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
491:16:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
463:23:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
446:23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
405:04:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
381:14:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
354:20:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
335:01:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
310:20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
275:23:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
254:16:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
226:23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
202:, and 1 successful proposed
162:The current guidelines are:
158:23:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
3518:for the following reasons:
3432:'s workflow I'd suggest...
1589:show up in the patrol log,
4344:
3441:Mark the page as patrolled
1516:
837:user right tutorial should
660:user right tutorial should
479:user right tutorial should
242:user right tutorial should
4217:newsletter on my talkpage
3056:This 'Move to Draft' tool
2701:Request for clarification
2269:User:Gestrid/NewPagesLink
2058:User wikipedia/NP Patrol2
1931:New Page Reviewer granted
1098:this point on the 1st RfC
1007:Discussion on criterion 8
787:Discussion on criterion 7
593:Discussion on criterion 6
502:. There's nothing really
416:Discussion on criterion 5
2048:User wikipedia/NP Patrol
2038:User wikipedia/NP Patrol
1963:nobody needs to know yet
1691:This baffles me because
1110:type=pagetriage-curation
1013:Please do not modify it.
877:says, trust the admins.
265:says, trust the admins.
198:, 1 successful proposed
108:Please do not modify it.
3621:, let's be clear about
3119:(per Ritchie333 above.)
2474:has been deleted under
979:too much bureaucracy.
810:Support as proposer. --
616:Support as proposer. --
435:Support as proposer. --
215:Support as proposer. --
3747:Comments and Questions
3638:
3479:Notify the author and
3386:write it out for you.
3291:Notify the author and
3058:
3021:By 'handled as usual'
2352:Special:PendingChanges
1581:. We've been going by
1266:could comment on this.
1102:User:Timothyjosephwood
1002:Neutral on criterion 8
782:Neutral on criterion 7
698:doesn't seem necessary
588:Neutral on criterion 6
411:Neutral on criterion 5
3627:
3471:Tag the article with
3285:Tag the article with
2911:User talk:Vanjagenije
2595:November 10 19:00 UTC
2240:A couple user scripts
2212:Using log_params was
2163:I made a new list at
1847:I am working through
46:of past discussions.
4138:Special:NewPagesFeed
4003:Special:NewPagesFeed
3462:Remove all tags and
3051:'Move to draft' tool
2621:SEe my long post at
2344:Special:NewPagesFeed
2273:Special:NewPagesFeed
2258:Special:NewPagesFeed
2103:Special:NewPagesFeed
1872:The work list is at
792:Proposed criterion 8
598:Proposed criterion 7
421:Proposed criterion 6
185:Proposed criterion 5
4177:AntiCompositeNumber
4132:White Arabian Filly
4117:White Arabian Filly
4060:White Arabian Filly
4034:White Arabian Filly
3978:White Arabian Filly
3560:Question About When
1851:'s new list, using
1185:family business. â
967:I dropped the bass?
805:Support criterion 8
746:I dropped the bass?
611:Support criterion 7
549:I dropped the bass?
430:Support criterion 6
376:I dropped the bass?
210:Support criterion 5
103:request for comment
1761:quarry:query/13869
1314:quarry:query/13796
1310:quarry:query/13795
1143:quarry:query/13787
827:Oppose criterion 8
650:Oppose criterion 7
469:Oppose criterion 6
232:Oppose criterion 5
4324:
4020:
3930:They seem to use
3787:
3659:snowball's chance
3348:
3159:
3120:
3101:
3014:
2735:
2593:Full support for
2552:
2146:
1789:
1737:quarry:query/8803
1733:quarry:query/8802
1729:quarry:query/8767
1563:
1490:
1245:quarry:query/8639
1241:quarry:query/2093
1237:quarry:query/2042
1234:
342:: Too arbitrary.
333:
288:instruction creep
125:instruction creep
91:
90:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
4335:
4320:
4317:
4224:
4169:
4168:
4166:
4135:
4118:
4061:
4035:
4016:
3979:
3954:
3953:
3947:
3946:
3939:
3933:
3833:
3783:
3780:
3773:
3737:
3529:
3528:suppressredirect
3509:
3504:
3499:
3494:
3489:
3484:
3475:
3474:
3467:
3463:
3458:
3450:
3447:
3442:
3437:
3411:
3408:
3398:
3396:
3391:
3342:
3324:
3321:
3288:
3216:
3213:
3179:
3176:
3154:
3147:
3144:
3131:Moving to draft
3118:
3117:
3095:
3079:
3068:
3066:
3010:
3003:
2881:
2876:
2871:
2866:
2831:
2793:
2780:
2775:
2770:
2765:
2733:
2650:
2613:
2592:
2569:
2564:
2542:
2536:
2522:
2492:
2486:
2482:
2472:Special:NewPages
2469:
2434:
2428:
2424:
2418:Special:NewPages
2368:
2362:
2358:
2340:Special:NewPages
2337:
2293:
2287:
2283:
2275:can be found at
2267:can be found at
2265:Special:NewPages
2254:Special:NewPages
2211:
2199:
2198:
2196:
2187:
2140:
2119:
2099:Special:NewPages
2096:
2079:
2062:
2056:
2052:
2046:
2042:
2036:
2028:
2004:
2003:
2001:
1946:
1945:
1943:
1935:
1929:
1925:
1912:
1899:
1800:
1797:
1780:
1758:
1645:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1575:
1559:
1556:
1541:
1528:
1526:
1488:
1474:
1473:
1471:
1456:I've cleaned up
1449:
1440:
1412:
1400:
1399:
1397:
1346:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1307:
1228:
1217:
1216:
1214:
1189:
1177:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1148:
1136:
1095:
1082:
1077:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1044:
1032:
993:
988:
983:
955:Rubbish computer
939:
914:
819:
773:
768:
763:
734:Rubbish computer
712:
683:
679:
625:
579:
574:
569:
537:Rubbish computer
522:
444:
402:
397:
392:
364:Rubbish computer
352:
329:
323:
318:
306:
286:. It looks like
224:
156:
110:
72:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
4343:
4342:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4334:
4333:
4332:
4322:problem solving
4315:
4268:
4238:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
4222:
4213:
4181:Leave a message
4164:
4162:
4160:
4146:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
4125:
4116:
4096:
4059:
4033:
4019:
3977:
3968:
3951:
3950:
3944:
3943:
3937:
3931:
3914:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3886:Robert McClenon
3826:Robert McClenon
3823:
3811:Robert McClenon
3785:problem solving
3778:
3770:Robert McClenon
3767:
3754:Robert McClenon
3749:
3733:
3721:
3699:Robert McClenon
3682:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3664:Robert McClenon
3642:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3603:Robert McClenon
3588:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3567:Robert McClenon
3562:
3527:
3507:
3502:
3497:
3492:
3487:
3478:
3472:
3470:
3464:
3461:
3453:
3448:
3445:
3440:
3435:
3409:
3406:
3394:
3392:
3367:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3340:Espresso Addict
3322:
3319:
3315:
3286:
3238:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3234:Fuhghettaboutit
3214:
3211:
3177:
3174:
3145:
3142:
3115:
3077:
3064:
3062:
3053:
3035:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
3013:
2997:
2938:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2913:, and it seems
2909:I was stalking
2893:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2879:
2874:
2869:
2860:
2847:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2842:
2840:Newsletter sent
2829:
2805:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2791:
2778:
2773:
2768:
2759:
2711:as RFC closer.
2662:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2648:
2627:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2611:
2578:
2567:
2558:
2530:
2520:
2515:
2490:
2484:
2480:
2466:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2463:
2432:
2426:
2422:
2388:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2366:
2360:
2356:
2334:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2331:
2311:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
2291:
2285:
2281:
2242:
2218:Graeme Bartlett
2205:
2194:
2192:
2190:
2181:
2138:
2090:
2077:
2060:
2054:
2050:
2044:
2040:
2034:
2010:
1999:
1997:
1995:
1976:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1972:Fuhghettaboutit
1941:
1939:
1937:
1933:
1927:
1919:
1906:
1897:
1878:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1858:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1844:
1798:
1795:
1752:
1697:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1669:284 users with
1648:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1642:
1608:
1606:
1604:
1569:
1561:problem solving
1554:
1539:
1530:
1524:
1522:
1469:
1467:
1465:
1447:
1434:
1406:
1395:
1393:
1391:
1369:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1332:
1321:
1319:
1317:
1293:
1280:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1268:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
1212:
1210:
1208:
1187:
1175:
1154:
1152:
1150:
1126:
1089:
1080:
1071:
1060:
1058:
1056:
1042:
1030:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1009:
1004:
991:
986:
981:
930:
912:
856:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
841:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
829:
811:
807:
799:speedy deletion
794:
789:
784:
771:
766:
761:
710:
681:
677:
664:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
652:
617:
613:
600:
595:
590:
577:
572:
567:
520:
483:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
471:
436:
432:
423:
418:
413:
400:
395:
390:
343:
332:
327:
321:
304:
246:Kudpung āļāļļāļāļāļķāđāļ
234:
216:
212:
187:
148:
144:
106:
96:
68:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
4341:
4339:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4267:
4264:
4249:
4248:
4212:
4209:
4208:
4207:
4206:
4205:
4204:
4203:
4189:
4188:
4187:
4095:
4092:
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4084:
4083:
4082:
4081:
4080:
4029:
4017:
3967:
3964:
3963:
3962:
3961:
3960:
3925:
3924:
3905:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3901:
3900:
3899:
3898:
3897:
3896:
3873:
3872:
3854:
3853:
3852:
3851:
3850:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3748:
3745:
3720:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3709:
3616:
3615:
3614:
3613:
3561:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3552:
3538:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3534:
3531:
3524:
3516:
3515:
3514:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3505:
3500:
3495:
3485:
3476:
3468:
3459:
3451:
3443:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3378:
3377:
3314:
3313:
3312:
3311:
3308:
3305:
3302:
3296:
3289:
3283:
3280:
3274:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3161:
3093:
3052:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3046:
3045:
3011:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2970:
2931:
2930:
2915:a mass message
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2841:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2816:
2815:
2799:
2798:
2786:
2785:
2756:
2755:
2723:
2698:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2514:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2377:That's right,
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2241:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1889:
1888:
1869:
1868:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1786:Joseph Allgood
1686:
1685:
1658:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1583:manual patrols
1547:
1546:
1529:
1521:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1087:
1069:
1021:
1018:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
999:
998:
974:
943:
920:
889:
868:
867:
866:
828:
825:
824:
823:
806:
803:
793:
790:
788:
785:
783:
780:
779:
778:
753:
718:
687:
686:
685:
651:
648:
647:
646:
629:
612:
609:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
585:
584:
556:
528:
493:
470:
467:
466:
465:
448:
431:
428:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
408:
407:
383:
356:
337:
325:
312:
277:
256:
233:
230:
229:
228:
211:
208:
204:CSD nomination
200:AFD nomination
186:
183:
145:
118:
117:
116:
97:
95:
92:
89:
88:
83:
78:
73:
66:
56:
55:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4340:
4327:
4323:
4319:
4318:
4311:
4310:
4309:
4305:
4301:
4297:
4293:
4292:
4291:
4290:
4286:
4282:
4277:
4273:
4270:At a current
4265:
4263:
4262:
4258:
4254:
4247:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4232:
4231:
4230:
4229:
4226:
4225:
4218:
4210:
4202:
4198:
4194:
4190:
4186:
4182:
4178:
4174:
4173:
4172:
4167:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4151:
4147:
4143:
4139:
4133:
4129:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4119:
4113:
4112:
4111:
4110:
4106:
4102:
4093:
4079:
4075:
4071:
4067:
4066:
4065:
4062:
4056:
4055:
4054:
4050:
4046:
4041:
4040:
4039:
4036:
4030:
4026:
4025:
4024:
4021:
4015:
4010:
4004:
4000:
3999:
3998:
3994:
3990:
3986:
3985:
3984:
3983:
3980:
3974:
3965:
3959:
3956:
3955:
3948:
3936:
3929:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3923:
3919:
3915:
3911:
3907:
3906:
3895:
3891:
3887:
3883:
3882:
3881:
3880:
3879:
3878:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3874:
3871:
3867:
3863:
3862:
3856:
3855:
3846:
3842:
3838:
3831:
3827:
3822:
3821:
3820:
3816:
3812:
3807:
3806:
3805:
3801:
3797:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3786:
3782:
3781:
3771:
3766:
3765:
3764:
3763:
3759:
3755:
3746:
3744:
3743:
3740:
3738:
3736:
3730:
3726:
3718:
3708:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3693:
3692:
3691:
3687:
3683:
3679:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3669:
3665:
3660:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3647:
3643:
3637:
3636:
3632:
3626:
3624:
3620:
3612:
3608:
3604:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3593:
3589:
3584:
3579:
3578:
3577:
3576:
3572:
3568:
3559:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3532:
3525:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3517:
3506:
3501:
3496:
3491:
3490:
3486:
3482:
3477:
3469:
3460:
3457:
3452:
3444:
3439:
3438:
3434:
3433:
3431:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3417:
3414:
3412:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3397:
3390:
3384:
3380:
3379:
3376:
3372:
3368:
3363:
3359:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3351:
3346:
3341:
3336:
3331:
3330:
3327:
3325:
3309:
3306:
3303:
3300:
3299:
3297:
3294:
3290:
3284:
3281:
3279:
3275:
3272:
3271:
3258:
3255:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3219:
3217:
3208:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3198:
3196:
3194:
3193:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3182:
3180:
3171:
3170:move to draft
3167:
3162:
3160:
3157:
3153:
3150:
3148:
3138:
3134:
3129:
3127:
3121:
3111:
3106:
3099:
3098:edit conflict
3094:
3092:
3089:
3087:
3085:
3084:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3071:
3067:
3057:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3015:
3009:
3001:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2993:
2990:
2988:
2986:
2985:
2980:
2969:
2965:
2961:
2957:
2953:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2916:
2912:
2908:
2907:
2902:
2898:
2894:
2890:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2882:
2877:
2872:
2864:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2839:
2835:
2832:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2817:
2814:
2810:
2806:
2801:
2800:
2797:
2794:
2788:
2787:
2784:
2781:
2776:
2771:
2763:
2758:
2757:
2754:
2750:
2747:
2744:
2741:
2738:
2731:
2730:
2724:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2699:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2680:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2651:
2645:
2641:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2614:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2600:
2596:
2590:
2586:
2582:
2577:
2573:
2570:
2562:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2550:
2546:
2541:
2534:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2523:
2512:
2498:
2495:
2493:
2487:
2477:
2473:
2467:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2440:
2437:
2435:
2429:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2363:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2335:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2307:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2294:
2288:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2261:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2239:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2209:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2197:
2185:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2161:
2145:
2141:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2127:
2123:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2094:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2084:
2080:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2066:
2059:
2049:
2039:
2032:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2002:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1964:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1949:
1944:
1932:
1923:
1917:
1910:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1900:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1787:
1783:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:more than 200
1668:
1663:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1640:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1611:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1578:
1573:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1549:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1520:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1486:
1485:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1472:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1444:
1438:
1433:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1410:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1389:
1385:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1324:
1315:
1311:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1264:cyberpower678
1261:
1257:
1252:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1232:
1231:edit conflict
1220:
1215:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1172:
1168:
1162:
1157:
1144:
1140:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1093:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1075:
1070:
1068:
1063:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1027:
1019:
1014:
1006:
1001:
997:
994:
989:
984:
978:
975:
973:
969:
968:
963:
962:
957:
956:
951:
947:
944:
942:
937:
933:
932:Esquivalience
928:
924:
921:
919:
915:
909:
908:
907:
901:
897:
893:
890:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
869:
865:
861:
857:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
826:
822:
818:
816:
815:
809:
808:
804:
802:
800:
791:
786:
781:
777:
774:
769:
764:
757:
754:
752:
748:
747:
742:
741:
736:
735:
730:
726:
722:
719:
717:
713:
707:
706:
705:
699:
695:
691:
688:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
654:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
628:
624:
622:
621:
615:
614:
610:
608:
606:
597:
592:
587:
583:
580:
575:
570:
564:
560:
557:
555:
551:
550:
545:
544:
539:
538:
532:
529:
527:
523:
517:
516:
515:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
447:
443:
441:
440:
434:
433:
429:
427:
420:
415:
410:
406:
403:
398:
393:
387:
384:
382:
378:
377:
372:
371:
366:
365:
360:
357:
355:
350:
346:
345:Esquivalience
341:
338:
336:
330:
324:
316:
313:
311:
307:
301:
300:
299:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
221:
220:
214:
213:
209:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
184:
182:
181:accordingly.
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
159:
155:
153:
152:
143:
139:
135:
131:
126:
122:
115:
112:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
71:
67:
65:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
19:
4313:
4269:
4250:
4220:
4214:
4097:
4013:
3972:
3969:
3941:
3859:
3776:
3750:
3734:
3729:Missing an e
3722:
3695:User:Kudpung
3639:
3633:
3629:
3628:
3617:
3582:
3563:
3480:
3466:[[:Category)
3428:Building on
3382:
3334:
3332:
3316:
3292:
3256:
3252:
3206:
3191:
3169:
3165:
3156:Last edited:
3155:
3136:
3132:
3130:
3122:
3113:
3109:
3104:
3082:
3059:
3055:
3007:
2983:
2976:
2843:
2821:phab:T149019
2745:
2739:
2727:
2700:
2643:
2604:
2603:
2516:
2479:
2470:The one for
2421:
2420:userscript.
2382:
2355:
2280:
2262:
2243:
2131:
2130:
2120:Ahh, missed
2093:Andy M. Wang
2085:
2070:
2069:
2064:
1990:
1966:
1962:
1916:phab:T136493
1852:
1791:
1740:
1666:
1661:
1621:phab:T150086
1590:
1586:
1552:
1535:phab:T149019
1525:Task T149019
1500:
1494:
1482:
1383:
1363:
1253:
1249:
1227:
1139:phab:T149756
1109:
1105:
1023:
1012:
976:
966:
960:
954:
945:
927:bad judgment
926:
922:
905:
904:
891:
875:User:Kudpung
870:
832:
813:
795:
755:
745:
739:
733:
728:
725:Andy M. Wang
720:
703:
702:
689:
655:
631:
619:
601:
562:
558:
548:
542:
536:
530:
513:
512:
503:
495:
474:
450:
438:
424:
385:
375:
369:
363:
358:
339:
314:
297:
296:
279:
263:User:Kudpung
258:
237:
218:
188:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
150:
146:
121:unsuccessful
120:
113:
107:
100:
69:
47:
41:
4276:grease fire
4165:MusikAnimal
3335:collaborate
2960:Anne Delong
2875:Consermonor
2774:Consermonor
2623:#In process
2589:MusikAnimal
2250:Omni Flames
2208:MusikAnimal
2195:MusikAnimal
2017:MusikAnimal
2000:MusikAnimal
1942:MusikAnimal
1893:MusikAnimal
1849:MusikAnimal
1609:MusikAnimal
1519:Phabricator
1517:Tracked in
1470:MusikAnimal
1409:MusikAnimal
1396:MusikAnimal
1335:MusikAnimal
1322:MusikAnimal
1213:MusikAnimal
1205:this commit
1155:MusikAnimal
1106:type=patrol
1092:MusikAnimal
1074:MusikAnimal
1061:MusikAnimal
987:Consermonor
767:Consermonor
573:Consermonor
396:Consermonor
40:This is an
4266:Visibility
4211:Newsletter
4009:WP:PERM/AP
3383:as drafted
3362:WP:ACTRIAL
3192:Ritchie333
3189:space....
3083:Ritchie333
3000:Ritchie333
2984:Ritchie333
1842:In process
1784:for where
1443:RfC Closer
1256:Scottywong
1203:. I think
1198:ClueBot NG
1147:autopatrol
4316:ONUnicorn
4281:Andrew D.
4223:Lugnuts}}
4070:Ymblanter
4045:Ymblanter
3989:Ymblanter
3779:ONUnicorn
3631:deletion.
3498:Stub it.
3456:WP:CSD#G6
3358:WP:NPPAFC
3278:WP:CSD#G6
2880:Opus meum
2779:Opus meum
2350:links to
2126:just sent
1572:ONUnicorn
1555:ONUnicorn
1360:Montanabw
992:Opus meum
896:WP:CREEPy
772:Opus meum
578:Opus meum
401:Opus meum
86:Archive 5
81:Archive 4
76:Archive 3
70:Archive 2
64:Archive 1
22:Reviewers
4296:page log
3945:Pinguinn
3503:AfD it.
3430:Jbhunley
3304:Stub it.
3236:know. --
3230:tutorial
3226:Jbhunley
3137:"should"
3110:required
3105:required
2830:xaosflux
2792:xaosflux
2713:Cenarium
2688:Cenarium
2658:Xaosflux
2649:xaosflux
2644:postpone
2581:Xaosflux
2568:xaosflux
2545:contribs
2533:Xaosflux
2521:xaosflux
2222:Cenarium
2184:Cenarium
2169:Cenarium
2107:Cenarium
2025:Cenarium
2013:Xaosflux
1909:Xaosflux
1898:xaosflux
1816:Cenarium
1766:Cenarium
1711:Cenarium
1675:Cenarium
1625:Cenarium
1540:xaosflux
1448:xaosflux
1339:Xaosflux
1300:Xaosflux
1188:xaosflux
1176:xaosflux
1129:Xaosflux
1081:xaosflux
1043:xaosflux
1031:xaosflux
925:: It is
729:required
605:Teahouse
20: |
4300:Joe Roe
4253:Slashme
4234:Lugnuts
4193:Kolbasz
4142:Kaldari
4128:Kolbasz
4101:Kolbasz
3935:NOINDEX
3910:Kaldari
3837:Kaldari
3830:Joe Roe
3796:Joe Roe
3623:WP:PROD
3481:explain
3307:AfD it.
3293:explain
3207:and why
2979:CAT:CSD
2889:Iazyges
2870:Iazyges
2863:Kudpung
2825:WP:PERM
2769:Iazyges
2640:Kudpung
2625:above.
2605:Andy W.
2587:, and
2585:Kudpung
2485:Gestrid
2427:Gestrid
2379:Gestrid
2361:Gestrid
2306:Gestrid
2286:Gestrid
2214:Cryptic
2132:Andy W.
2071:Andy W.
2023:, and
2021:Kudpung
1922:Kudpung
1764:users.
1755:Cryptic
1745:Cryptic
1693:Cryptic
1441:As the
1341:, and
1316:. Best
1302:, and
1296:Kudpung
1108:versus
1026:WT:PERM
982:Iazyges
950:WP:PROD
906:Andy W.
900:WP:PROD
762:Iazyges
704:Andy W.
694:Kudpung
632:Support
568:Iazyges
514:Andy W.
500:Kudpung
451:Support
391:Iazyges
298:Andy W.
284:Kudpung
43:archive
3723:Typo:
3542:Cabayi
3166:userfy
3133:should
3114:4)Add
3031:GB fan
2561:IJBall
2540:IJBall
1812:here's
1735:, and
1662:before
1308:Boom:
1260:TParis
977:Oppose
946:Oppose
923:Oppose
892:Oppose
879:Tamwin
871:Oppose
833:Oppose
756:Oppose
721:Oppose
690:Oppose
656:Oppose
636:Tamwin
559:Oppose
531:Oppose
496:Oppose
475:Oppose
455:Tamwin
386:Oppose
359:Oppose
340:Oppose
315:Oppose
280:Oppose
267:Tamwin
259:Oppose
238:Oppose
3866:talk
2729:Kevin
2684:WP:AN
2476:WP:U1
2248:that
2033:, as
1991:would
1967:might
1484:Kevin
1416:AllyD
1343:AllyD
1304:AllyD
1133:AllyD
1114:AllyD
961:HALP!
740:HALP!
723:: as
543:HALP!
504:wrong
370:HALP!
322:Godsy
196:merge
16:<
4304:talk
4285:talk
4257:talk
4242:talk
4215:The
4197:talk
4150:talk
4130:and
4105:talk
4074:talk
4049:talk
3993:talk
3918:talk
3890:talk
3841:talk
3828:and
3815:talk
3800:talk
3758:talk
3735:Crow
3703:talk
3686:talk
3668:talk
3646:talk
3607:talk
3592:talk
3571:talk
3546:talk
3395:czar
3371:talk
3345:talk
3242:talk
3126:WP:V
3065:czar
3039:talk
2964:talk
2942:talk
2924:talk
2897:talk
2851:talk
2809:talk
2762:L235
2737:L235
2717:talk
2709:L235
2692:talk
2666:talk
2631:talk
2612:talk
2549:talk
2491:talk
2433:talk
2392:talk
2383:away
2367:talk
2315:talk
2292:talk
2226:talk
2173:talk
2139:talk
2111:talk
2101:and
2078:talk
2067:) â
2053:and
1980:talk
1882:talk
1876:. --
1862:talk
1820:talk
1770:talk
1715:talk
1701:talk
1679:talk
1652:talk
1644:list
1629:talk
1492:L235
1437:L235
1420:talk
1373:talk
1284:talk
1272:talk
1173:. â
1131:and
1118:talk
936:talk
913:talk
883:talk
860:talk
845:talk
814:Pine
711:talk
692:per
668:talk
640:talk
620:Pine
563:have
521:talk
498:per
487:talk
459:talk
439:Pine
349:talk
328:CONT
305:talk
282:per
271:talk
250:talk
219:Pine
192:PROD
151:Pine
138:talk
4272:RfA
4144:) .
4014:Rob
3973:day
3861:DGG
3678:Rob
3619:Rob
3168:or
3027:DGG
3023:Rob
3008:Rob
2956:Mz7
2920:Mz7
2734:aka
2342:or
2256:or
2246:one
1667:507
1489:aka
1384:new
1262:or
134:Mz7
4306:)
4287:)
4259:)
4244:)
4199:)
4183:)
4161:â
4152:)
4107:)
4076:)
4051:)
4018:13
3995:)
3952:ð§
3938:}}
3932:{{
3920:)
3892:)
3868:)
3843:)
3817:)
3802:)
3760:)
3731:.
3727:.
3705:)
3688:)
3670:)
3648:)
3609:)
3594:)
3583:is
3573:)
3548:)
3540:--
3410:bh
3373:)
3352:e
3323:bh
3244:)
3215:bh
3178:bh
3172:.
3146:bh
3128:.
3041:)
3012:13
3005:~
2966:)
2944:)
2926:)
2899:)
2853:)
2811:)
2751:)
2719:)
2694:)
2668:)
2633:)
2615:)
2583:,
2547:âĒ
2538:--
2478:.
2394:)
2317:)
2279:.
2228:)
2191:â
2175:)
2142:)
2128:â
2113:)
2105:?
2081:)
2061:}}
2055:{{
2051:}}
2045:{{
2041:}}
2035:{{
2019:,
2015:,
1996:â
1982:)
1938:â
1934:}}
1928:{{
1884:)
1864:)
1822:)
1799:bh
1772:)
1741:do
1731:,
1727::
1717:)
1703:)
1681:)
1654:)
1631:)
1623:.
1605:â
1591:if
1587:do
1506:)
1466:â
1464:)
1422:)
1392:â
1375:)
1364:do
1337:,
1318:â
1298:,
1286:)
1278:.
1243:,
1239:,
1209:â
1151:â
1120:)
1057:â
970:)
964::
916:)
885:)
862:)
847:)
749:)
743::
731:.
714:)
670:)
642:)
552:)
546::
524:)
489:)
461:)
379:)
373::
319:â
308:)
273:)
252:)
140:)
105:.
4302:(
4283:(
4255:(
4240:(
4195:(
4179:(
4148:(
4134::
4126:@
4103:(
4072:(
4047:(
3991:(
3916:(
3888:(
3864:(
3839:(
3832::
3824:@
3813:(
3798:(
3772::
3768:@
3756:(
3701:(
3684:(
3666:(
3644:(
3605:(
3590:(
3569:(
3544:(
3530:.
3407:J
3369:(
3347:)
3343:(
3320:J
3240:(
3212:J
3175:J
3143:J
3100:)
3096:(
3037:(
3002::
2998:@
2962:(
2940:(
2922:(
2895:(
2865::
2861:@
2849:(
2807:(
2764::
2760:@
2749:c
2746:·
2743:t
2740:·
2732:(
2715:(
2690:(
2664:(
2629:(
2609:(
2591::
2579:@
2563::
2559:@
2551:)
2543:(
2535::
2531:@
2494:)
2488:(
2481:â
2468::
2464:@
2436:)
2430:(
2423:â
2390:(
2370:)
2364:(
2357:â
2336::
2332:@
2313:(
2295:)
2289:(
2282:â
2224:(
2210::
2206:@
2186::
2182:@
2171:(
2136:(
2109:(
2095::
2091:@
2075:(
2027::
2011:@
1978:(
1924::
1920:@
1911::
1907:@
1880:(
1860:(
1818:(
1796:J
1768:(
1757::
1753:@
1713:(
1699:(
1677:(
1650:(
1627:(
1574::
1570:@
1504:c
1501:·
1498:t
1495:·
1487:(
1439::
1435:@
1418:(
1411::
1407:@
1371:(
1345::
1333:@
1306::
1294:@
1282:(
1270:(
1233:)
1229:(
1135::
1127:@
1116:(
1094::
1090:@
1076::
1072:@
958:(
938:)
934:(
910:(
881:(
858:(
843:(
737:(
708:(
666:(
638:(
540:(
518:(
485:(
457:(
367:(
351:)
347:(
331:)
302:(
269:(
248:(
136:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.