Jump to content

User talk:Joe Roe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

[edit]

Hello Joe Roe,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

TFA

[edit]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

[edit]

Hello Joe Roe,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

[edit]

Hello Joe Roe,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Welcome to the drive!

[edit]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Joe Roe! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:38, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

problems with an editor with privileges

[edit]

Jo, I hope you can help. Not knowing the complexities of Wikimedia I have turned to you. There is an editor with privileges called 10mmsocket. He keeps banning me saying I am someone else called Wisdom. I am sure he hunts me out.If I amend an article he will always reverts with no justification. If I revert he then bans. He is clearly a bully abusing and needing his privileges removed. How do I get rid of him? Yours. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Admin, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc. This is a repeat offender who knows *exactly* what the complexities of Wikipedia are. He/she is simply playing games and wasting people's time with block evasion. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: Southern African Music & Sound

[edit]

Hi there, I've left a message for you on the talk page of this archived project. Can you please advise on how to proceed with reinstating this project? Viljowf (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

[edit]
Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at Talk:Desert kite.
Message added 07:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

[edit]

Hello Joe Roe:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on the NPP discord?

[edit]

Just wondering. Hopefully you can guess the reason, because I don't think I can give a summary without being oversighted. And, on a more practical level, because it would be hard for you to verify anything I said because, even if I could post evidence , you'd have no way of confirming it hadn't been altered.

So changing the subject utterly and completely, I find myself to me a person who sometimes crosses the line about discussing other people behind their backs. But if I accuse somebody of specific policy or guideline violations (picking an arbitrary example out of nowhere, say WP:BITE?), I do it to their face, on wiki, with diffs to back it up. And if I did it on an unofficial discord, I'd expect moderators, or any current Wikipedia admins (including, say, very new ones) to call me out and not do a "+1" emoji react. How about you? What are your feelings on this issue? Again, I'm just sharing my thoughts with you on the world for absolutely no reason at all. It has no relation to the above paragraph. A complete non-sequitur. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe and @GreenLipstickLesbian, pretty confident this is about me. As I mentioned, as a part of my comments, everything on the NPP discord is public and everything I've said has been said on wiki by me as well. In the future, you are more than welcome to approach me directly if you feel my behaviour is inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Joe is actually listed as a member of the server and is a green name (Wiki admin) on the server. He's not active there, but the logs are available if he wishes to read through them. After reading this post I further reiterated that all comments on the server are public, as anyone, even non NPPers can join and lurk. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of further transparency, I reached out directly to GLL about this comment. I said "I don't appreciate the post to Joe for what it's worth. Also, yes, Joe IS on Discord and is green named. As mentioned, I say what I say knowing that." What followed was essentially a confirmation that this is about me. So, to clarify further since they're my comments, it was about my strong view on draftification which is opposite to that of Joe's. I don't believe the bite mention is arbitrary, since I specifically mentioned, and have been mentioning on wiki and in discussions on Discord, I believe AfD to be far more bitey than draftifications and a lack of draftifies = more AfDs = worse editor retention since editors may struggle to grasp our notability guidelines within 7 days (AfD tagging). I further stated draftify = work on it, while AfD = delete your work (I understand Joe may say why draftify at all, but that's part of our disagreement). I also discussed why I believed Joe's statement about SL's draftification rate to be misleading (something I directly discussed on Wiki during the RfA) as part of the general discussion on draftification. I also called out that draft space is incredibly useful and valuable, but draftifies need to be done properly and for good reason, and that we need to coach those who's draftifies are not ideal and coach those who write articles which should be draftified in the interest of editor retention. We began a discussion after this post on Discord, but you've since gone off line as of a bit over an hour ago (directed at GLL) and if you wish to continue it then I'd be more than happy to do so. I always want to improve based on criticism given and, based on how much we've communicated directly in Discord direct messages recently, I'm disappointed you went here instead of to me directly. So, to round it out, I believe Joe knows my view and stance, everything I say on Discord I do/can/am absolutely willing to say on Wiki, draft space is very useful when utilized correctly, and I don't believe trying to initiate drama is productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did not confirm that, or state that, and if I implied that they were your comments, it was completely unintentional. Miscommunication, for which I take responsibility for because I typed the message in a hurry. I should have proofread it, and looked for alternative ways it could have been read as.
And, for the Wikipedia archives tape, here was my response to Josh's message:
"Somebody explained to me the backstory. And good to know
[13:35]
FWIW, you say things you don't mind saying publically, and that's okay. People accusing other people of wrong-doing, without giving them the chance to respond, is not something I'm cool will."
By "will", I meant "with". The message. And my spellcheck is informing me I misspelt "publicly" as well. I wish I could blame that on external factors, but I'm just bad at spelling.

And, by "backstory", I meant somebody dm-ed me to say that you (Joe Roe) have historically displayed strong feelings about Discord, which, after reviewing stuff, is actually something I should have known because we talked about off-wiki communication once before, at an RfA. Which, if taken in isolation, would be evidence that this was stirring. But it wasn't, a statement for which I can provide no other evidence than my word. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I'm really meant to be doing something else right now, but to clarify: not about josh's comments or actions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian: That's VERY confusing given you essentially confirmed this was about me in our direct communications which followed this. Especially because I was the one saying it all and mentioning Joe by name. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, even if this is about a different admin, looking back through the discussion, the "+1" mentioned would have been to my comment(s). Hence, directly or indirectly, this does appear to involve me as the person making the statement. I'm also one of the server mods and an admin, so if anybody should be criticized, it's me, not anyone else. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this kind of silliness is exactly why I think Wikipedia Discord channels are a bad idea. – Joe (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So had a quick look at the conversation you're talking about. It reinforces my opinion that Discord is a rather sad place where people with grievances bitch about others behind their backs. @Hey man im josh: We've had productive discussions on- and off-wiki, so I'm disappointed you felt that this was the best way to accuse me of faking statistics (feel free to recalculate them yourself?) and disrupting an RfA to make a point (maybe I just didn't have time to bring the concerns up beforehand?) I think you are a good admin, great NPPer, and I've never seen any problems with your use of draftify – and I believe I've said all of those things publicly before. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and incidentally, since you happened to be included in one of the samples I used in the RfA: you don't actually have a high draftify rate. You draftify half as often as the population mean and twenty times less often than the RfA candidate. – Joe (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

[edit]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Roe&oldid=1248043463"