New pages patrol invitation[edit]

Hello, A7V2.
  • The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Thanks, but no thanks. While I agree in principle with the mission of the NPP, it seems to be designed in such a way as to maximise its own workload, and discourage participation. Far too many hoops to jump through I think. Best of luck with your recruitment efforts. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A7V2, fair enough, I appreciate the response. I'd love to pick your brain though, as I do try to help improve NPP processes alongside other members of the team. If things can be improved upon I'd love to hear how. Totally understand if you don't want to get into it, but I'd love to hear from you, even if privately. Please feel free to reach out. Thank you for your time and contributions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hey man im josh I will get back to you in a day or two on this. No need to ping me on my own talkpage, I get a ping regardless! A7V2 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Hey man im josh. Some thoughts (in no particular order) on why someone (in particular me but presumably applicable to others) do not wish to be a part of NPP (at least in the form it exists today). Some of what I say may be incorrect but is based on my impressions having read some of the documentation and having had some interactions with reviewers. Some of what I write may appear petty/minor, but note that you did specifically ask me and I would be unlikely to raise these on any other occasion. I am definitely not going to give specific examples of users or incidents as I don't think it's necessary or helpful:
  1. The system and process is extremely bloated/complicated: the process by which pages are reviewed is very long and complicated. It also seems that a reviewer must perform all aspects when they might only want to do part of it (I can understand this might lend itself to efficiency but it doesn't suit everyone). There is also a requirement to use tools which I (and perhaps others) don't want to use, and I feel shouldn't be required (or indeed necessary) for any aspect of editing Wikipedia
  2. Compared with almost any other area, the barrier to entry is very high. One must first apply which is not something I'm willing to do (I feel that roles on Wikipedia requiring someone to apply should be kept to an absolute minimum, and do not myself want to take part in any, I will elaborate on this a bit below). Even with that aside,and given the complicated process, there seems to be an expectation that new patrollers will spend a great deal of time learning the process, possibly with one of the trainers. Further there seems to be expectations on the amount one will actually contribute to the project which to me flies in the face of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY
  3. I have personally had some less than ideal interactions with some NPPers. A particular "point of difference" has been where articles were BLARed to unsuitable targets. Frankly, most disagreements I've had with anyone (some of which may be enough to disqualify me from NPP per "Have a solid track record of interacting with other editors, especially new editors, in a civil and constructive manner") were due to my impression (rightly or wrongly) that other users are putting factors such as their reading of policies ahead of Wikipedia's primary purpose of providing an encyclopaedia for readers. I do of course try my best when it comes to new editors, though I don't encounter them as often as others do, no doubt. I note that near the top of the NPP page it states the importance of not biting the newcomers but my experience with some patrolers is that is often not the case. Retaining new editors should be a top priority, even if their first article was about a company mostly sourced to official sources, for example
  4. While I at least agree in principle with the mission of NPP, I can't help but see it as being associated with WP:AFC which I very much feel is completely antithetical to the ethos of Wikipedia
  5. As to why I dislike the requirement to apply: I think it is against the "collegial atmosphere" of editing Wikipedia to have an overly hierarchical structure. People can say that being in a particular user group doesn't affect the way they are treated or act, but that is clearly not the case, and I have no interest in contributing to that issue. I would wonder what, if any, issue would be caused by allowing, for example, any Extended Confirmed (or perhaps some longer tenure, perhaps 2 years and 2000 edits) from reviewing anything but their own work for everything except copyright?
Appologies if this was too rambly! A7V2 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A7V2: Absolutely not too rambly! I very much appreciate you taking the time to provide this feedback. I'm going to take some time to process it and then respond to a few of the points tomorrow, not to try to convince you or anything, but just to clarify a few points. I agree with parts of what you've said and I plan on having discussions with members of the team in order to see what we may be able to do better. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to disagree with some or all of what I've written, I am frequently wrong! A7V2 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have also changed it to a numbered list to save you some clutter if/when you respond. A7V2 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, some pre-emptive clarifications myself, and something I missed: for point 3, the third sentence is mostly me just getting annoyed and rambling, and isn't relevant (though see point 6 below) so I have struck it, but don't feel like you must ignore it/not respond in any way to it. For point 5, I am of course aware that some areas require special permissions/etc (I don't have an issue with the general gist of the way administrators or arbs are chosen, for example), but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
Something I forgot to mention (call this point 6): I know I may edit/respond in certain ways that others do not like. With the full understanding that I can and do make mistakes, and of course do make some changes based on norms, policies, etc, ultimately I don't care if people don't like the way I act. Of course this attitude could lead to problems down the line but if my behaviour were so out step with requirements/etc then I'd happily spend my time elsewhere. (For clarity, I don't expect this to be an issue any time in the future!) A7V2 (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further further clarification: in point 6 it may sound overly dramatic, but what I was getting at was not wishing to be assessed, either in the sense of being approved (or not) for NPP/etc, or by a trainer. I certainly don't have an issue with anyone telling me here or elsewhere that I did something wrong, can improve, etc, but that I reserve the right to disregard that advice, as anyone is free to do with my advice. A7V2 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More