User:Rosguill/AaqibAnjum NPP tutoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

AaqibAnjum, feel free to begin and take questions at whatever pace you're comfortable with. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

1. First, a general policy question: what is the difference between policies, guidelines, essays and supplements? (Relevant reading: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)
The difference is that all differ in use. Policies are normally to be followed by all editors and they define standards. Guidelines are practices supported by consensus and Essays are normally opinions of editors for which there isn't any consensus. I do not understand what a supplements are? -Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Orange tickY Policies and guidelines are both established by consensus. The difference between a policy and a guideline is that a policy is expected to apply in virtually all scenarios (e.g. copyright violation, civility), whereas guidelines acknowledge that their scope may be limited and that there may be situations where following them is inappropriate (e.g. notability, the manual of style). It's a common misconception that policies represent a higher level of consensus, but this is not the case: both are approved through the same process, a policy simply has a consensus for a wider scope than a guideline. Your definition of an essay is correct. Supplements also lack formal approval or consensus, but typically are written to explain common applications of policies and guidelines, and thus may represent fairly strong consensuses, even if the supplement itself carries no weight (e.g. WP:OUTCOMES, WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG). signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

2. What is the appropriate course of action if a subject meets GNG but not a relevant SNG? (Relevant reading: Wikipedia:Notability)

Appropriate course for it would a PROD, and if it is contested then maybe AfD? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Red XN, we probably shouldn't be deleting this article at all. SNG criteria are primarily intended to be shortcuts that guarantee that GNG is met. If GNG is met, then the SNG criteria don't matter. In some cases, SNGs may stipulate a higher standard for evaluating a subject (e.g. WP:NCORP), but this is something that we should be taking into account while evaluating GNG, not after we've determined that GNG has been met. The one example off the top of my head of a restrictive criterion in an SNG that isn't referencing related is WP:NFF, but for that one edge case draftify is more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

3. What is the appropriate course of action if a subject meets an SNG but not GNG? (Relevant reading: Wikipedia:Notability)

We normally mark it as patrolled keeping in the view that SNG may be helpful towards GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Orange tickY Depends on the SNG. Virtually all SNGs say that they may be an indication that a subject is notable; they are not guarantees. In cases where the claim to the SNG is particularly weak and/or suitable secondary sources are totally absent, you may want to consider initiating a deletion process anyway. That having been said, in most cases it's appropriate to mark them as approved and move on. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances should we not accept an article, despite it meeting notability guidelines?

When such articles are copyright violations, copy pastes, attack pages - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY also, for articles about abstract concepts, an article may have an insufficiently distinct scope from another, existing article, and may be better merged into that article rather than having a separate one. Such decisions should be made based on how the subjects are framed in reliable sources. For example, we probably don't need Immigration to the United States from Europe if Immigration to the United States exists and isn't already super long. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

5. Is there ever a situation where we should accept an article that doesn't meet notability guidelines?

No idea. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
In some cases, if an article has verifiable, useful information, is neutrally written, and there is zero possibility of someone having an ulterior motive to promote the article's subject, it's ok to accept an article even if it doesn't meet guidelines. Common examples of this are articles about roads, episode lists for notable series, and historical sports seasons. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines[edit]

1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into the following three categories

Looks like you listed NFILM twice, but at least one of them was right. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

AaqibAnjum, on my talk page you identified business people, sportspeople, and influencers as cases that you want help with. Business people and influencers are generally just evaluated on the basis of GNG; while some may meet an NBIO criteria, most will not. COI is also a frequent problem for these articles, so being able to identify that is important when reviewing such articles. Sportspeople articles follow a relatively simple method: look up the relevant SNG for the sport they play, assess whether they meet it, and if not check for GNG. A few sports have guidelines that are difficult (or in a few rare cases, impossible) to understand if you're not familiar with the sport, so don't feel like you have to review those (although you may want to add them to your watchlist to find out what happens to the article and build up your ability to review similar articles in the future.

So, with all that said, we could do some more practice for sportspeople or other SNGs if you want. Otherwise, we can move on to assessing COI and then do some practice reviewing biographies in general. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay I get it. Let's move to COI. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest[edit]

Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question
11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer: That's a difficult question for me. But, I understood the image part. The image looks like a professional photoshoot but is uploaded as "own work". But I personally understand articles which are promotional, advertising, and have so many Citations which mostly come from press releases, reliable but yet puffery/promotional type sketches etc. may be COI/PAID. Also there would be articles written good, cited well and neutral but the creator would be having very few edits. . - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY


12. What should you do when you review a new article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer: These articles are promotional for the most times, then we opt CSD. If it is promotional but doesn't meeet G11, we'll tag it with related templates of advert, POV, etc. Also, if we notice that the creator has disclosed COI, we'll patrol it. Otherwise, if the creator has not disclosed COI, we will add COI tag to the article. There is also a case of claims which are made in the article, in which case we may add the notability tag - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY



13. What should you do when you review a new article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer: In that case, draftify is the option. Because WP:NPPCOI says that "Paid editors are expected to submit their articles through Articles for Creation. Moving to draftspace and requesting that editors submit through AfC is also an appropriate response". - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

checkY

Practice scenarios[edit]

For each of the following prompts, identify how likely it is that the described behavior is COI or PAID editing (not COI/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely), as well as what measures would be appropriate to take (both in terms of messages sent to the involved editors and whether to approve/delete/draftify/tag the article)

14 An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.
That's definite COI. We'll add a COI tag in this case if it has not been disclosed. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY, in addition to tagging the article, you should also send a warning to the editor's talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
15 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.
Neither COI nor PAID. It is a fanpov. We may tag the article with fanpov. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Orange tickY while it's likely fanpov, it's probably still worthwhile to warn the editor about a possible COI. If they are editing in good faith, it won't end up mattering, but if they're not then this will help build a case against them if they keep making borderline articles. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
16 An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.
These are single purpose accounts. Per WP:Spa, we may add a Spa tag. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Red XN there's no motive here more sinister than living in Georgia and wanting to write about local topics. It's pretty unlikely that someone is going to have a COI with a tree, especially if it's a well-sourced article that isn't just promoting a single nursery signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
17 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.
Definite POV pushing and thus PAID. We may go with the rationale of G3, G10, G11. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Red XN, while it's possible that G11 could apply, we don't know that based on the information that I gave above. There's a chance that this is a notable topic, albeit poorly written. A notability assessment should be made, and if kept it should be tagged with {{POV}}. Secondly, while a strong POV may eventually be considered a conflict of interest, we only sanction editors after repeated attempts to insert biased content, not on sight. Finally, PAID is exclusively about contributions for which an editor has been literally paid; there is no way to induct PAID from a strong COI, even autobiographies are not considered paid editing. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
18 A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it
Paid editing and advertisement definite. We will go with G11. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Red XN dependent on article quality, G11 might be appropriate, but it's rare that an entire article is totally unusable when the subject is notable, which a Billie Eilish album likely would be. This could be a fan, or it could be COI, so tagging the article with {{POV}} and warning the editor about COI is the way to go, assuming that it is notable. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
19 A new editor with the username "BEOfficial" writes an article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it.
COI and advertisement definite. Action same as 18. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Orange tickY, G11 is dependent on the content, so we don't know that we can use it. However, this is a clear cut case of paid editing, so if G11 doesn't apply, draftifying it is appropriate. The editor needs to be warned both for PAID and for a violation of username policy WP:NOSHARE. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
20 Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics
I don't think there is any COI or PAID issue. Every editor has his own subject of interest. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Orange tickY Such a small and specific set of subjects over so many years is suspicious, but you're right that there's a good chance this isn't a COI. You should consider leaving a friendly message asking them if they have a conflict of interest, instead of a template, and you can leave the article alone unless their response is unsatisfactory. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
21 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about an obscure businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the professional headshot photo in the infobox as their own work.
Definite COI or PAID per Question 11. If it is promotional but doesn't meeet G11, we'll tag it with related templates of advert, POV, etc. Also, if we notice that the creator has disclosed COI, we'll patrol it. Otherwise, if the creator has not disclosed COI, we will add COI tag to the article. There is also a case of claims which are made in the article, in which case we may add the notability tag. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Orange tickY, this one comes down to the quality of the article text. While claiming a photo as own work is a hallmark of paid editing, it's also a common mistake by new editors (although the fact that it's a headshot is suspicious). The article should be tagged as COI, and the editor should be warned about COI. If they deny COI, they should be asked for how they got the photo. If the subject is notable, they don't have any other questionable edits in their contributions, and they give a plausible explanation about the photo, you can AGF. If the subject is notable, then by definition it's not implausible that someone from the subject's country would have heard about it and want to write about it, even if it seems obscure to you. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
22 An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.
I don't think there is a COI issue. Paid issue may be there. We may add notability tag to the article. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Red XN this is suspicious. 50 edits is very new to have written two articles, businesspeople are a high risk for COI, and StacyRichardson is not a Russian name; why the specific interest in Russian businesspeople? The articles should be tagged for PAID and the editor should be warned. Depending on the quality of the articles, draftify is an option if they are not obviously notable. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
23 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable
In that case, CSD G5 criteria may help which says "the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion."
Red XN G5 doesn't apply until we've proven that the other editor is a sock. You should open an SPI. Depending on the state of the article, either nominate it for a valid deletion protocol or leave it alone pending the end of the SPI. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


24 An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.
If that does not meet GNG, but in its current form there is not POV violation, we may do a check for SNG. If the results are otherwise, an AfD maybe appropriate. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
checkY, although you should consider starting a discussion with the other editor first to ask them why they felt like it should be published. This is both because of the possibility that they saw something you didn't, and because they might be here in bad faith and abusing privileges. Depending on their answer, you may either be able to avoid an unnecessary AfD or uncover corruption. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
25 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.
Paid and I doubt there is a sock puppetry case. Borderline case? We may add a notability tag then. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Red XN There's nothing here to suggest paid editing. If I had specified that the subject was a company, organization or BLP then there would potentially be a case for suspecting COI. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We should probably work more on this. But first, do you have any questions? signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I got the above issues. Any practice on MILL. How do we analyse that sources are run of the mill? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
Other than reading through WP:MILL, the only way to practice judging it is with real articles, so it'll take time to put together questions. Some general advice I can give is that sources should provide analysis of a subject in order for it to be significant. An article that simply announces that something happened (or even worse, that it will happen) is likely routine coverage. This sort of coverage is more common in local newspapers, although you shouldn't assume that local coverage is routine or that national newspapers don't do it (they do). signed, Rosguill talk 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I've rightly an issue about positions of people at religious seminaries. Say, for example Abul Qasim Nomani is the Vice-Chancellor of Darul Uloom Deoband — is that position same as defined at WP:NACADEMIC (6) — what I mean, is it necessary for such articles to pass WP:GNG/ SIGCOV, if there position is the highest administrative of say, some highest religious seminary and that's well referenced. One such article is in AfD and I argued so. Hope I'm not wrong in this. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You can certainly make a case for that. NACADEMIC is ultimately rather subjective, so other editors may not necessarily accept the argument that being the head of a given seminary is sufficient evidence, but you're well within your rights to raise the argument. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguate pages[edit]

Hi Rosguill, As part of AfC reviewing, I have accepted some disambiguate pages but never had any chance to review disambiguate pages via NPP. Confused with Prosafe which I think is unnecessary disambiguate page linking only one existing article Prosafe SE - But I am not sure if G14 is applicable. Irony is that talk page of Prosafe redirects to talk page of Prosafe SE Any comments?

AaqibAnjum, I agree that it's unnecessary but G14 doesn't apply. In this case, I would just convert Prosafe to a redirect and add a hatnote at Prosafe SE mentioning the other use. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Swapping pages[edit]

Sometimes it happens that we need to move a mainspace article to draft possibly because it is unrefernced or because it isn't fine to be in mainspace. But what do we do with those articles which exist in drafts as well? We try swapping the two right? I think I recently tried one such thing after I was given the "page mover" right. But when we swap a mainspace article and a draft, we "move former to the latter and latter to the former" and the latter one is to remain for "improvements maybe". What do we do with the one "which is now in the mainspace", that got moved from Draft to mainspace article because we swapped the two articles with one another. What CSD rationale do we apply there? I am a bit confused. I read WP:SWAP but I am still confused about CSD rationale. Hope you are getting me. Regards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if an article is being recreated in mainspace after having been draftified, that's a good sign that we should take it to AfD rather than insisting on an AfC submission. The exception is if it's undisclosed paid editing, in which case it should either be brought to WP:COIN (if no blocks have been issued) or to the attention of the administrator that blocked them for UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting page moves[edit]

In the New Pages list, I found The Light Ages as a disambiguation page, but when I saw its history it was an article which was moved to The Light Ages (novel) by User:Sebfalk. They added two different entries in the new disambiguatiion page (after removing the redirect template). First of which was The Light Ages (novel) and second one (which has no article on the Wikipedia) i.e. "The Light Ages, a history of medieval science and culture told through the life of John Westwyk, by Seb Falk" which seems to me nothing but a promotional entry by User:Sebfalk. Since, it had no article on the English Wikipedia, I reversed the disambiguation thing to "redirect page" but I wanted to revert the page move. What I need help with is:
In such cases, how do we move the moved article i.e. The Light Ages (novel) to its original title i.e. The Light Ages because we can't until the title where we want to move The Light Ages (novel) needs to be deleted first. I thought, G6 is a good thing here. But, I don't know how it works. Any recommendations? Thank you ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

TheAafi, since you have page mover permissions already, you can install User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap, which is a tool that lets you easily swap two pages. If one page is redirecting to the other, you may need to do some cleanup after the swap to make sure that everything is pointing to the right place. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A number of Drafts[edit]

First at Draft:Dhiraj Kumar, then at Draft:Dhiraj Kumar (2), then Draft:Dhiraj Kumar Director and Draft:Director Dhiraj Kumar - they may not be exactly identical, but the last two are. Merging details in one, and deleting others? What would be good option to be applied in such cases? Regards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's a weird situation. I've warned involved editors with {{uw-paid1}}. I think that the two most recent ones can be safely marked for WP:A10. As for the last two, I wouldn't want to use merge tags in Draftspace, so maybe just leaving a note about the two drafts is best? My guess is that these articles are going to be a paid editing honey trap. signed, Rosguill talk 15:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The most recent ones are the last three, and they're identical to each other as well. As far as A10 is concerned, I do not see if it is valid in draftspace as well because I have recently tried it somewhere. And this note from the article creator probably at Draft:Dhiraj Kumar is something strange. If you're sure that A10 is fine here, I'll be marking the last two as A10/duplicates for Draft:Dhiraj Kumar (2). What then for the remaining two? History merge and WP:COIN? I guess? ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft Creation Time Creator
Draft:Dhiraj Kumar 00:24, 22 July 2020 User:Tbt1849
Draft:Dhiraj Kumar (2) 10:58, 29 September 2020 User:Cacophony0Anir
Draft:Director Dhiraj Kumar 14:13, 30 September 2020 User:Filmymasala
Draft:Dhiraj Kumar Director 14:16, 30 September 2020 User:Filmymasala

History merge isn't an option because there's overlap in the history and the articles aren't perfect copies. I'm honestly not too worried about having two copies floating around in draftspace, I think just leaving a note (either AfC style) or on the talk page is enough, and they'll likely get mopped up by G13 in a few months anyway. signed, Rosguill talk 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

RevDel[edit]

Dear Rosguill, I recently patrolled Rafiuddin Deobandi, and later found that most of its content was copyvio, which I removed. However, I guess these edits should be hidden from public view in the article history. Since you are an admin, would you have a look there. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rosguill/AaqibAnjum_NPP_tutoring&oldid=1072705122"