User talk:Cohaf

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Meta!

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Hello, Cohaf. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

--Editor D.S (talk)Meta-Wiki Patroller.png 17:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cohaf

Hi Cohaf, I'm the coordinator of New Page Patrol on en.wiki, and I am interested in learning about other 'New Page Review' teams on other wikis. From your comment at Meta, it seems that you are involved in such a team at the Chinese wiki. Could you point me to the discussion page for your project on the Chinese wiki? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:Thanks for your reply. Indeed I hold patroller flag on zhwiki and zhwikiversity which include the reviewer rights. Unfortunately we don't have a formal page on wiki for coordination. We do engage in discussions about NPP on our village pump at times but are generally ineffective. The main platform as to discuss about a particular page or NPP as a whole is in a social media group which include non patroller to bureaucrats but is not open as well as our Chinese Wikipedia irc channel. I guess if you need info on how we work, do ask here and I will give my best assistance. Thanks a lot.--Cohaf (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Cohaf. A few questions: About how many new pages do you have coming in every day? We have about 700 or so, though about half of those are autopatrolled. About how many people have reviewer rights and how do you guys go about recruiting and training new members? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere:I just answer in short now and will give a more detailed answer as I am short of time. We have a total of 157 NPP including the 78 sysops we have a total of 235 users have that right and sysops often do new page patrolling also. For how many new pages that come in a day, for mainspace excluding redirects, we have around 150. The backlog is never exceed 50. However, all other namespaces need to be patrolled, e.g.file talk, talk pages and etc, so total workload is around 400 per day. For recruitment, better to state the requirements, 250 edits, 1 month of account registration as well as 1 edit per day on average for the past 30 days. No block in any kind for past 3 months. These are requirements to screen off obviously unsuitable candidates. For spotting potential reviewers, we often notice users who consistently do a good job in patrolling and ask them whether they would like to join us. For training, we typically do in the social media group and often before they apply for the rights. We mentor them first and when they are ready we ask them to apply. Often those who go through this route is more successful in obtaining the rights than those who don't. The granting of the rights is based on admin discretion but community inputs are valued, so mentors can be useful in such an application. In addition, patroller holds +reviewer/+autopatrol/+filemover/+suppress redirect flags, hence, obviously users with a need for other flags may also apply. In addition, holding the flag for 3 months will make a user eligible for RFA and patrol counts very favourably in one RFA, it's often used as a reason to support or against a candidate, thus many will like to apply for the flag. I hope this answers and feel free to ask anymore. --Cohaf (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Cohaf "the backlog never exceeds 50": I wish I could say the same on en-wiki. Currently about 4000 unreviewed mainspace pages (though worked down from nearly 25,000 middle of last year and we were as low as 500 as recently as July). Our requirements are roughly double what yours are, though it is frequent that users are turned down even when they meet the base requirements. NPP on en-wiki has become somewhat difficult as increasingly the articles being submitted are borderline judgement calls that require significant experience to review properly. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere:For our new page patrol is a little different as per enwiki one, I read through the process already. Firstly, IP and non autoconfirmed users (7 days / 50 edits) may submit mainspace articles and we do have a lot of Long Time Abusers which partollers need to know what kind of articles they will create and how to handle (like hoaxs are very commonplace). In addition, we do have a need to explain to new users and guide them how to improve their articles (often may take hours - or days especially if it is a copyvio as we have 7 days of AFD discussion for copyvio rather than a G12 process on enwiki). For us, we hope to improve the article as we do partolling (i.e. something similar to SOFIXIT), when we see patrollers who tag uncategorized, dead end, orphan, we are quite disturbed. Why tag these where simply one category, several internal links as well as adding an internal link to another article will solve it. In addition, if there is a possiblity to improve an article from A1 to a stub, it should be done rather than tagging as A1. ATD is preferred. So personally unless I have time I avoid patrolling new articles but when I see the number at "50", I will do one or two just to clear the backlog. This is due to most of the partollers being active and those who are inactive often asked their flag to be removed, self - removed (zhwiki this is possible) or after 6 months without any activities (similar to admin inactivity). Although the requirements are somewhat lax in Chinese Wikipedia, we also see many do turn down (since patrollers had autopartol flag - those who have created articles which are deleted especially due to copyvio/advertisement - G11/notablity - we don't have A7 but an AFD process - typically don't get approved). For marginal cases, we give out 1 week - 3 months temporary rights (normally when community disagree but admins feel it's alright). Yes, NPP is also getting more difficult in zhwiki with many challenging articles, but I am thankful that unlike enwiki, you will not need to worry your CSD tag being removed by the author (an AF prevents it) or when a CSD may be better for AFD, the admins will do the transfer. I appreciate the ease of access of our admins which we often consult on what to do - in borderline cases - and they will give advice on how to proceed which will ease some of the load off our shoulders. I hope this shares our experience but obviously I will appreciate the Page Curation toolbar to be available on zhwiki as that will enable us to patrol redirects as well as mark as unreviewed more easily. Hope to exchange more ideas with you soon. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ed.Vallejo

At this time their ability to damage is to themself; let them dig their own hole, they are just digging deeper. There is also a pending lock request, and they are appealling a block with no evidence about why they should be unblocked. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Billinghurst:Noted and the hole seems deeper indeed and soon it will be covered (by a global lock). Such unblock requests are actually pretty common at my homewiki also. A sheer waste of volunteer time.<sigh>--Cohaf (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please help rather than block

Cohaf I made one mistake here. It is impossible to know all the rules when I hadn't edited in such a long time. i made the mistake because i wnated my conflict of interest to be clear. All the other wikis are happy to have me apart from English at the moment - and Russian blocked me because I told them, as I did all the other wikis. I also comment that when Russian Freedom of Panaroma consensus was wrong back in 2015, I gave up on Wikipedia. Why are some editors so thoroughly unwelcoming to new editors that have good contributions to make, want to help, but cannot possibly understand all your rules? Why has no one even discussed this with me???? E.3 (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

user account: Cohaf-public

Is the account "Cohaf-public", created today, your account? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Billinghurst:.Yes. I publicly linked it on my homewiki w:zh:User:Cohaf-public on 8 Oct. I used it today to help in the test of the filter as in SN. I'll publicly link it on meta now.--Cohaf (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Bitcointalk

I'd tend to side with AGF-ing and not immediately tagging their userpage (which isn't spam, and simply states a lack of affiliation with an organization) for deletion. It also isn't promotional content. It is likely a violation of most local username policies, yet on meta should probably be resolved by a talk page message, not a warning template. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont:. I tagged as per G7 out of scope, and not spam. A lack of COI IMO shouldn't be declared in such a manner and it's sort of promotional in a benign manner. I also noted they add a external link which may potentially be globally blacklisted, hence the {{spam}} warning. This is my approach on this issue. Open to more advices from you. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a user page; it isn't out of scope. If you want them to declare they aren't affiliated with that company elsewhere, then inform them on their talk page where you would prefer they do so. Although, in my opinion, one's userpage is the best place. In regard to the external link, they added a link to the English Wikipedia article for Bitcointalk, which is not an issue. There is a chance they are not here to contribute, but we must assume good faith. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont:. I got your point for first one. Hope they can engage here since you wikilink them here. For the external link, I'm not stating the enwiki link, that's perfectly acceptable, but it is this that is a little troubling "bitcointalk.org ".--Cohaf (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That's the name of the company. Vermont (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont:and also the official website of the company.--Cohaf (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct, but it was said in such a way that is not for promotional or spam purposes. I'm contesting the speedy deletion, and have removed the template. We must assume good faith. Vermont (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont:.Thanks for guidance, much appreciated! That said, will still monitor the editor xwiki. Will try to AGF more.--Cohaf (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Of course. I'll keep a tab open of their CentralAuth. Based on the username, I doubt they're here to contribute constructively, although until that is certain good faith is assumed. Thanks, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont:. You too! I guess my AGF juices are used up after this. Will refill them ASAP.--Cohaf (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't read that but...wow that's a lot of warnings. Vermont (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont:.Basically this user is spamming copyvios as part of edits or as new articles. I basically given them lots of advice personally over at IRC on how to avoid close paraphrasing and around 7 warnings. I then proceeded to give a short 5 days block and what happened after is they immediately came back with a sock and continued the behaviour. Up the block to 1 month for the master and sock indeffed. In the process of copyvio cleanup, I did almost 30 RD1 as well as deleted close to 20 pages. Sigh. And now they are doing the same at enwiki.--Cohaf (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully it doesn't spread further. You may want to inform enwiki admins that they did the same on zhwikiversity. Most enwiki admins I have experience with don't usually check CentralAuth for recurring issues. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont:Will monitor but as of what I see, it's managed already. I don't meddle with enwiki stuffs as smaller wikis are more of my concerns. Will contact them if needed, I knew some of them when dealing with crosswiki issues. In addition, I left a personalised message on this Bitcoin user talkpage, do have a look and hope it's fine and not bitey, although I bitten them already.--Cohaf (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks great! I'm about to go AFK and will check back later. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I would suggest a username change as a minimum Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Some will shoot first and ask questions after, and with a less provocative username, that isn't likely to happen.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Billinghurst:I did include a link in my message to the user to rename themselves. Did it seems less obvious and I need to make it even clearer? Advice needed.--Cohaf (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

v:zh:Mediawiki:Sidebar

As mentioned elsewhere the general components in your Sidebar are utilising the defaults in MW. If you are looking to make it more global in presenting to user language preference, then we can do that, though I would need the guidance, or I can provide guidance. My fee is twice for general fixes. ;-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I cheekily have made one edit at v:zh:special:permalink/101807 to show the simple means to add English where the page is non-standard in the MW message store. I would have to search and drill down on the other messages to see if there are some defaults.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Here are a few you can look at about, sandbox and contact that you could utilise, though may need a little jiggling.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:Wow, that's very useful and there's so much for me to digest now. I'll look through it thoroughly and try to understand what is happening. Thanks for your guidance and will seek your advice further on this. However, as a poor wiki, we can't afford high fee and hence, we ask for pro bono work. =P Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Billinghurst revert

No worries. That IP has been trolling around but I can see your concerns. Hiàn (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hiàn:. I seen the stalktoy results, 3 months on en, ru Wikipedias, Wikivoyage. However, I'm not that sure what this post is, so to the best of my AGF I think just let it remain, and if its annoying enough, I think he will just revert himself. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks again for help

I just made the page to try and get volunteer translators. Did I do anything wrong? Please let me know exactly what so I dont do it again, I'm just trying to follow babel guidelines. E.3 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @E.3:. 2 things to note, one is please put the proposed deletion on the request for deletion page. Second is scope. Best wishes.--Cohaf (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thankyou. I'm considering it scope because of Multilingual cooperation of Wikimedia projects - there is currently a few wiki pages that I have made that are bad, incomprehensible or not up to scratch on what English wiki is considering to be of high importance presently. Thats why scope, does that make sense? E.3 (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @E.3: no comment on the scope personally. I think the RFD will sort this out. I had filled it for you and ping the user who given the speedy. Let's discuss there, shall we? --Cohaf (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)