This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I run across a good number of articles that are valid topics but are (usually due to sourcing issues) not ready for primetime. I've worked at AFC a lot and many of these are prime AFC candidates, but to move a NPP page to AFC I must:
Click Move page, select "Draft" and type "afc" as explanation
Go to what is now a Redirect, and db-r2 it so it won't block later publication if the draft is approved
Go to the Draft, click Submit, then turn around and click Review and decline it for whatever reason it wasn't ready for primetime.
Is there some way we can add a button to the Curator which automatically moves a page to AFC, deletes the old Redirect, notifies the author that it's at AFC, and puts it in the active AFC queue? That could be a way to save quite a few articles and lessen the sting of a straight deletion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that would make our work as reviewers easier. I would much prefer moving articles to Draft to nominating for deletion, but I never move things that Draft: because it would leave a redirect that needs to be cleaned up. I'm unsure about the technicalities; would it require the extendedmover right to move to Draft without leaving a redirect? Maybe it's too much of an administrator task to give to page reviewers, but could reviewers at least have the option to suggest that an article be moved (by an admin) to Draft? Mduvekot (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You can move it to draft without the extendedmover right and then nominate it for deletion per WP:R2. Page movers are able to suppress the redirect when they move an article to draft. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a frequent suggestion and is listed on the suggestions page. However I for one have some real concerns about it. I can see moving to draft becoming a form of unilateral "soft deletion" with no discussion, no admin oversight and no limits on what can be deleted. New editors (i.e. not autoconfirmed) won't have the technical ability to move their draft back to mainspace without going through AfC (which is supposed to be an optional process). Even if they did, they wouldn't necessarily know that's what they're supposed to do, or they might assume their article has been "rejected" and give up on it. There's a huge potential for biteyness and I think a lot of these drafts would end up abandoned and G13ed. I think if this were to become common practice, or if were to be built into Page Curation, there would have to be a much wider discussion to establish a community consensus for the process and agree some guidelines on what circumstances it can be used and if any oversight is necessary. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that it's far more bitey to just CSD/AFD articles, whereas AFC is a place where rough articles can be cultivated into something stable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The two shouldn't be comparable – articles that are eligible for CSD or are likely to be deleted at AfD have no place in draftspace. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
NOTE: @MatthewVanitas, Joe Roe, and TonyBallioni:, most reviewers are aware from previous discussions, that the WMF has been asked to add a 'Move to Draft' feature to the Page Curation menu. NPP is an official essential core software process while AfC is just a voluntary extramural project operated by a special-interest group. The 'Move to Draft' feature was already a community wishlist item ; it is currently queued at Phabricator among a host of improvements to the process wich does not need a separate RfC to do dot each i and cross each t. Do read WP:NPP instead. You could also consider reading Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC and becoming active members of that project. Perhaps we are now beginning to understand why NPP needs coodinators, but not why in spite of 350 recently created reviewers the backlog is still growing. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung, yes, agreed 100% with your sentiment and knew about the phab task. I was making the point that it is still possible to draftify an article using the move toolset without it being in Page Curation. The main advantage of page curation being that notifying users is easier, and I'm assuming it would also be tracked in the page curation log. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's been suggested in phabricator, I still don't think it's a good idea. I don't see how that's relevant. – Joe (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to unpatrol moved pages
There is currently a proposal at the village pump that bears directly on new page patrolling:
Is there a quick link anywhere to the New pages feed? I end up coming to the New pages patrol to find it each time. Mattlore (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Special:NewPagesFeed, it should pop up as an option in the search bar as you type (at least it does for me). TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, had not thought to add the "Special:" Mattlore (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mattlore and TonyBallioni:, Lourdes created a very useful script that puts a link right at the very top of your toolbar that appears above any page you are on. Load it into you vector.js page. See:
Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Double headers on A11
Recently tagged an article for A11 and it produced this [1]. I know the double headers was fixed recently, but was wondering if anyone else had experienced this on any of the other CSD criteria? I'll put the report in phab, but if there are other issues, I'd like to include them now. From spot checking my recent tagging, it seems to be working fine on the other criteria I have used. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Tony, that would be an issue for the new coordinators to handle by a) listing the bug at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation, and b} registerng a Phab report, or c) both. Of course, if you feel up to it, there's nothing to stop you stepping in and doing it yourself, but having looked at your example I don't think it's a desperate priority. Maybe something to come back to when the urgently needed requests have been addressed? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung, yes, agreed it is not a top priority, and would ordinarily not have thought of it as a major issue, but given that we have had larger issues with double header's recently, I thought I would see if there were others who were experiencing the issue with other CSD criteria. I put the last double header issue into phab, so I wouldn't mind doing it myself, but if there were other issues arising with it on other criteria than A11, I would want to know so it could be included as well. As always, thanks for your reply. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, Kudpung, I've suggested it before at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#36 Page Curation messages, and I know it's a low priority problem, but implementing Page Curation's messages through templates would bring the ability to fix several issues back within the competence of wiki-editors rather than needing to go to phab/WMF so much. Seems a win-win to me. Cabayi (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Backlog
Just so's you are all aware - especially the 300+ newly created reviewers.
I think we're not giving ourselves enough credit when we say in the newsletter the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The number of pages in the backlog tripled from July to October, and though it is still growing, I see definite change pre and post user-right change—the backlog has plateaued and even dipped one month. If technical issues could be resolved like redirects getting put onto the queue when they are nominated for deletion or a lack of the move to draft tool, I think we'd begin to see more positive change. Pinguinn🐧 20:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
We've now pushed it under 16,000. Keep up the good work! Pinguinn🐧 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Look at the x-axis. I don't know if it's actually plateaued or if it's just scaled weird. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the data publicly available somewhere? Natureium (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we're now down to 14,100 - keep it up everyone! -- numbermaniac (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Too much HASTY
I've noticed an awful lot of pages being tagged for deletion (many A1 "empty") minutes after it has been created. As someone who has been in that situation, it's awfully frustrating.
I know that most of these will end up being deleted, but please consider waiting half an hour before tagging, if only so that you're not putting off new users unintentionally. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
PrimefacPlease note that this page is for discussing the tutorial. Any other topics are likely to be ignored here.Please post other issues at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Shifted. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, this was originally in another location, but it was short enough I figured just copy/pasting the whole thing (with attribution in the edit summary) was sufficient. To answer your question, though, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah- that move is understood. Exactly- and it's happening repeatedly- now, there is a template isn't there asking to slow down- but what about WP:DTTR? An even a normal message could meet with an aggressive response. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hasty A1s/A3s are one thing, but hasty A7s of an unreferenced BLP that is about minor are another. There was a village pump RfC about a waiting period for A7 about a month back that pretty decisively landed with "no, we shouldn't have a mandatory waiting period for A7". I've left messages on userpages of new patrollers who are regulars suggesting that it is bitey to A7 an article within a minute of creation, but at the same time, it is a judgement call and in the case linked above, while I might not have been as hasty, I can't really fault someone for quickly tagging an unreferenced biography of a minor that meets A7. There's too much that could possibly go wrong there. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You make a fair point, and I was mostly concerned with the A1/3 issue. I made the post mostly to start a dialogue about these sorts of things, so I'm open to suggestions about how to deal with this. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. In that particular case, it had already been deleted once before, so it was clearly in itself a good call. But it was an example of what is happening frequently. Now: we either have a rule, or we do not. But if we do, we mst ensure we have an enforceable one. Having said that, if it becomes too disciplinarian, people will simply stop doing it, and there goes the backlog again. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion: template people who are newish to NPR and if you find someone who is an old hand, leave them a note. We've had a fair amount of new users tag bombing via Twinkle or AWB lately too, which is a different but related issue IMHO. Worst case, if it doesn't stop, a user can be taken to a drama board or we can actually start using the noticeboard here and one of the admins who helps out can deal with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Adding my two cents to the "aggressive response" business; if a new page reviewer responds aggressively to a request to improve their reviewing, especially from an admin experienced in this area, they simply shouldn't be a reviewer. If they can't treat their colleagues civilly, how will they treat the newbies? ~ Rob13Talk 18:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikimania meetup?
Hi all,
I will be attending Wikimania this year, and if any of you will also be there, it would be great to arrange a meetup, and possibly a reviewathon. --Slashme (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Workshopping an RfC to combine AfC reviewers and new page reviewers
See here. Basically, this is a proposal I've written up to alter the AfC helper script so that only new page reviewers can review AfC submissions, adding that extra layer of quality control to the AfC process. I see this as an important setup to ACTRIAL, as there's little benefit in pushing all the crap from the mainspace into AfC if their reviewers aren't going to do a good job reviewing it. Thoughts? Pinging the coordinators (Robert McClenon and Jbhunley) as well as Kudpung to ensure you're all aware of this. ~ Rob13Talk 04:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the RfC is a good idea, though it might simply make AfC more backlogged than it already is, which is ironic considering it has less articles awaiting review than NPP. Regardless, Rob, I think you've done a good job setting up an RfC on it, and it is worth having. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: In the short term, yes, it likely would increase the backlog. But it would do so only be weeding out bad reviewers, which is hardly a bad thing. More importantly, it is a major step toward the "end goal" of getting WP:ACTRIAL up and running. We can't dump a bunch of stuff from non-autoconfirmed users into AfC and expect that to go well unless AfC is running smoothly to start. That requires reviewers who know what they're doing. I think the easiest way to do that is requiring AfC reviewers to be new page reviewers, who we actually vet already. That's the long-term plan in my head, anyway. ~ Rob13Talk 09:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:, yes, I definitely support this, and think the RfC is a good idea. Just raising a critique that would probably happen if this was raised for wider community input. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, BU Rob13, would it make sense to give administrators the discretion to grant existing AfC participants who are active there but do not have the NPR right without their having to apply for it? I am thinking like was done when NPR was initially created or even like autopatrolled. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Admins (mostly Kudpung) went through the AfC list when NPR was introduced and found that many AfC reviewers were patently unqualified to be reviewing new pages. I'm aware of multiple "power reviewers" at AfC who would need to make large changes to be acceptable as new page reviewers. I think it's best to keep this to the permissions page, where multiple admins can take a look and discuss if necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, and I'm fine with that. I'm actually thinking of several now that I would have concerns about as well. Just thought I would bring it up. I think that's all my pesky feedback on this :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this would be an excellent idea. AfC is not an essential process, it's more of a Wikiproject really, while NPP is a fundamental, critical core process and a MediaWiki extension. No one is obliged to offer new (or any other users) the feature of AfC, but without NPP the encyclopedia would be an even worse cesspit. That said, ACTRIAL can be rolled out any time by anyone who knows how to do one of the several script solutions that have been proposed. I believe at least one of them needs an admin's access to the interface, but a good, solid read of all the preparatory work that was done at WP:ACTRIAL would provide the full scope of what that proposal was, and contrary to what many people believe, it was not about denying anyone the right to create an article. Just my opinions - I'm out of this circus now.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Support and will help anyway I can. This is a good first step to merging NPP and AfC and since the criteria for AfC reviewing are more or less the same as WP:PERM/NPR anyway, it shouldn't be controversial. I'm not sure it will inflate the backlog too much; my impression is that, much like NPP, the bulk of regular AfC reviewing is done by a small core group that should have no problem obtaining the patroller right. In any case, a proposal to to add hundreds of pages moves per day to the NPP queue just passed, so I don't think the community at large is particularly concerned with the backlog. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support--I think this is an idea par excellence.The motto and to some extent the knowledge needed to run AFC and NPP is basically the same and it would do us little harm to see the people reviewing AFC submissions get vetted by the standards met by NPR folks.Winged Blades Godric 11:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support When this passes let me know so I can actually get off my butt and join NPR... it's not that I didn't want to, I'm just lazy. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and for anyone who wants to know "why do we need more AFC reviewers" - the number of pages per day has been steadily increasing, and the number of users has been steadily decreasing. Of course, as stated above, there is a core group of about 40-50 reviewers who are doing the vast majority of the work (a slight tweak of the AFCH inclusion rules and I could easily drop 1/2 the active list), but I suspect that pool has been decreasing slowly as well. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Question - Do we know, of the apparently 150 or so active AfC folks, is there a significant portion of them that don't already have NPR rights? What I'm getting at is that if this goes through, should there be a significant ramping up period in order to vet and "promote" current AfC reviewers, and make sure we don't just slap a bureaucratic wall in front of our volunteers without giving them a chance to apply, adjust, and continue without interruption. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Every single authorised AfC reviewer was sent an invite to apply for New Page Reviewer when we rolled the new user group out. Very few (less than 5, I believe) responded. We can draw our own (several) conclusions why this was. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean, I know that I've personally "collected both hats", but mainly because I more-or-less wander aimlessly through AfC, AfD, and RC when I don't have a particular purpose. But I can see where someone who is more focused wouldn't bother trying to apply for a right that they correctly don't need because they wouldn't use it. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Of the 148 editors on the AFCH list, 23 are admins (15%), 72 are NPR (49%), and 43 are just EC (26%). Of the latter category, I think about 5-10 of them are users that one would consider to be in the "core" group. Thus, there wouldn't be a major hit to productivity if the rules were enacted without warning. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. That's not bad. Nothing that probably couldn't be remedied in an afternoon. On a completely different topic, I wonder why we don't have a banner for NPR basically permanently on RC. I wonder just how many people hang out at RC that never thought about the right because they might just not know about it. TimothyJosephWood 13:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Admins contain the new page reviewer user right within the bundle, so you'd be fine. I'll make this clear in the RfC text; thanks for pointing out that omission! ~ Rob13Talk 17:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, figured that one out shortly after posting. I sometimes forget I have tools! Primefac (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Support - Doesn't seem like it will cause too much trouble, and may end up actually helping AfC quite a bit, if a lot of the NPR folks are reminded that the project exists, and that they are qualified to contribute. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support I've thought for sometime that the two roles effectively dovetail- one is the corollary to the other. So having them on the same gear stick is logical. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I'm tending to disagree with this, as it's going to erect another bureaucratic barrier against competent editors who aren't AfC/NPP regulars and don't wish to be bothered with going through the process of applying for the NPR right. Why prohibit someone who has read and understands the reviewing process from dropping in to make an occasional review, e.g. when they come across a draft in their area of expertise? (There already is a barrier, though, in the form of the current requirement to sign up on the AfC participants list.) --Paul_012 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Paul 012: How do we know they've read and understood the reviewing process if we don't check for that in any way? Note that this proposal doesn't require any level of activity to become a new page reviewer beyond what's already required for edits/tenure, and it also doesn't stop editors who currently review AfC submissions from continuing to make comments on them. There isn't much process to apply for the NPR right. They briefly apply (<5 minutes) and then perhaps answer some questions (<10 minutes to respond). I'd argue that any reviewer who isn't willing to spend a maximum of 15 minutes on the application process is unlikely to perform in-depth reviews anyway. ~ Rob13Talk 02:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, we don't actually know right away either, whether a user will make a good reviewer, when they first apply for the right. In either case there's still the need to check reviewers' work, and for a mechanism to prohibit bad reviewers from continuing. I just think that the extra first step is a largely unnecessary burden and would have preferred that everyone had permission to begin with and be disqualified when it's shown that they aren't competent. Many Wikipedians made their first edit anonymously, and seeing the results of their efforts led them to create accounts and become regulars. The same could apply for such processes as AfC reviewing. Going through the request process might not be a hugely difficult task, but it's still a deterrent that requires prior commitment to join. Some users might be willing to make that commitment right away, but others are looking around to see what areas of the project they'd enjoy participating in; they're not sure if they want to commit, and making such a requirement might actually turn them away even if they could turn out to be great reviewers if encouraged to join. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, I'm not expecting that these comments will stop the proposal. Given the current state of things, with the NPR right already here, it doesn't seem unreasonable to use it for AfC as well. I'm just wary of the consequences, given the unexpected backlog and scarcity of participants NPP has seen following implementation. (I didn't follow the original discussion that led to the creation of the NPR right, but in hindsight it seems clear that things aren't going as well as expected.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's difficult to gauge how well things are going because everyone is using different metrics. Some point to the backlog and say things are going poorly. I point to the quality of reviews (which I believe has increased, somewhat) and say things are going well, not to mention the inability for paid editing rings to approve their own articles. I've caught many more paid articles than normal due in part to this increase in oversight. I believe most of us agree that good reviews are more important than fast reviews, and using that metric, we aren't doing half bad. New page reviewer is just one step in a larger reform, though, and so we do have to keep plowing ahead to give it a chance to really work. (As for people just "jumping in", I largely agree with you. I fought very hard for the right of non-reviewers to dip their feet into new page patrolling by placing CSD tags, cleanup tags, etc. before becoming an actual new page reviewer. The only thing they can't do on new page patrol is actually his the "mark as patrolled" button. That's the new "gateway" activity; if their review is good, a new page reviewer will quickly be able to mark it as patrolled later. There's not really much of an analog for AfC, but I don't really see that as much of a bad thing. ~ Rob13Talk 22:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob13Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Userpage/sandbox patrols
A while back I saw a post somewhere about the backlog of unpatrolled userpages, personal sandboxes, etc, but I didn't get the link to that page. Anybody know where that backlog is located? I often talk with newbies, and I have NPR, so that would be an interesting thing for me to work on. White Arabian FillyNeigh 21:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
White Arabian Filly Very belated and you may well have found the answer, but in case: go to Special:NewPagesFeed, use the "Set filters" link, then in the "In namespace" menu within the box that appears, select User instead of Article. At the bottom of the same box click on "Set filters" and there you are. It's an area in need of patrolling, as unlike articles these user pages seem to fall off the back of the patrol queue after 30 days: Noyster (talk), 21:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Just letting you guys know that I posted a notice here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Edit-a-thon) that may interest reviewers. Summing it up, University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to create pages on Wikipedia and are attending a talk/workshop/edit-a-thon with Dr. Connie Crompton today/next few days. I know someone who works there and just told me about it so thought I would let you all know. Hope this helps --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Stats for April 4, 2017
On April 4, 2017, 799 new article were submitted, 526 new articles were reviewed, and the backlog grew by 273. Our top 10 reviewers for April 4 were:
The tweaks to the navbar graphics may be interesting for some, but since my resignation from years as de facto coordinator of all things NPP, just over a month ago, the backlog has assumed a sudden, enormous leap to an unprecdented 18,000. I was hoping that by moving on, a new breath of air and enthusiasm would establish itself for this critical process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I don't believe enthusiasm is what's needed. I can only assume you're surprised that you're not seeing immediate results. NPP and AfC both suck as editing tasks. They're both thankless jobs and only serve to make the participants more enemies among the editors. I probably have a more pleasant time doing GA reviews and I don't particularly enjoy fact-checking. I think what's important now is that you discontinue being involved. You resigned your leadership role and the aggregate chose new leadership to replace you. And yet, you left a message on my talk page to draw attention as you did to 21 other editors. I think your continued presence is only going to engender resentment. You're one of my favorite Wikipedians but publicly criticizing the new leadership is hardly the way to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
They shouldn't be looked on as thankless. To me, the opportunity to be the first to interact and advise new users is the most important, most varied, and most interesting activity at Wikipedia. They are also the activity that requires the most judgement and knowledge--not just about Wikipedia, but about he widest possible range of topics and their sources--and--even more--about the motivations of contributors. It also require s maturity and experience in the organization of work, to concentrate on the ones where it is possible to and necessary to be helpful, not focusssing unduely on matters which can be fixed later, and not on the other hand omitting to deal immediately with the material which is hopelessly improper. The problem is just the opposite: they are extremely difficult to do optimall,y and there is only a chance of doing them well if many qualified people participate, so nobody has to do too many.
I've concentrated on this part of WP for ten years now, and I've never been able to do it as well as I would like. I probably never will, because there are never going to be enough really qualified people who are willing to do this instead of devoting themselves entirely to either the good function of writing articles, or the less important organizational minutia which so many WPedians find fascinating, or ,even worse, to the extensive opportunities WP gives for starting and perpetuating quarrels. The backlog is always at danger of increasing any time that there is even a slight decrease in emphasis, and it is not wrong to call this to attention.
I'll say right out that what is needed here is not leadership, but front-line work. No one should think of a coordinator role here as leadership--except in the sense of continually trying to recruit qualified people and interest the in the work. The part that is most unpleasant and difficult is discouraging the not yet qualified, and Iit is extraordinarily difficult to do this both effectively and without discouraging their development and future participation. Enthusiasm is not the only thing needed, but it's the first essential. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You read me completely wrong Chris, and that's the sad part of human Internet nature: always assuming the worst. One of the reasons for moving on was because I was beginning to think I was the very reason for the lack of support for new page patrolling. Far from criticising the new 'leadership' (also a feature I created), I was drawing attention with my 21 messages to the fact that by coincidence or otherwise, the backlog has increased by a stggering 20% in just under 4 weeks, where it took 6 months to creep from 12,000 to 15,000 which gave already enough cause for concern, and nothing is being done about it. It would be hard to escape anyone's attention that I have always highly valued your contributions to these issues, and I'm surprised at your lack of good faith in mine. It makes me feel as if 6 years of hard work has just been trashed. How nice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Let's take this from the top: "tweaks to the navbar graphics may be interesting for some" Implying they're not interesting to you? "since my resignation from years as de facto coordinator of all things NPP, just over a month ago, the backlog has assumed a sudden, enormous leap" Kudpung says Kudpung leaving the project caused the backlog to jump, no thanks to the remaining members. "I was hoping that by moving on, a new breath of air and enthusiasm would establish itself for this critical process." Implying that it did not, thereby attacking the elected coordinators who are now responsible. I didn't misread you, Kudpung, you misspoke. If I were one of those elected coordinators I'd be furious at you. The coordinators can speak for themselves but if you continue to nag me with messages on my talk page then I will respond with candor. I don't want to create ill will here, as I already have enough enemies on wiki and I'll have more within the next week. I just think you've gotten too wrapped up in this to let go and I think your continued comments about NPP where they are out of step with the leadership are inappropriate and unwelcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You completely and totally misread me, putting a very disingenuous spin on everything I said in good faith above. Well, as you suggest, I'll be very careful about involving you in future in anything where I thought you may have been interested or have wanted to help. Most sensitive people here who are dedicated to Wikipedia will not allow you to turn them into your 'enemies' - they'll just quietly leave Wikipedia for good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung, could you give us the spin you intended please? I for one read it pretty much the same way as Chris troutman and struggle to see any other interpretation. If you had suggested something different, then it would have come across as constructive. As is, it just reads as "things were better in my day", which is sad.
In standing up for our new coordinators Chris deserves better treatment than "I'll be very careful about involving you in future in anything where I thought you may have been interested or have wanted to help". Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
On the merits of the cause of the backlog, I take a middle path between DGG and Chris. NPP can be demoralizing at times, especially if a savvy marketing director has created an account and does their best to run you through three weeks of AfD. At the same time, the project can be very exciting, and I am constantly amazed at the GOOD articles I see coming through. Diamonds in the rough. Kudpung, I tend to disagree with your past assessment that the NPR right should have decreased the backlog. To me it makes sense that it goes up when you restrict the rights to mark as patrolled. That's not necessarily bad... the people who get denied it and then tag bomb with AWB I don't necessarily want reviewing because it can cause bigger issues than the backlog. In the end we need more reviewers who are enthusiastic like DGG has pointed out, but we also need ACTRAIL if we want this to be manageable, especially when new moves are added to the feed... TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Btw do we have updated tables of reviewers (who reviewed how much)?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm starting to think that this NPR right was a mistake. Ever since its implementation, the backlog (on both Special:Newpages and Special:Newpagesfeed), has increased tremendously, to the point that it could take days or even weeks before some articles are patrolled (as an anecdote, an article I created wasn't patrolled for almost a month after creation, while another article I created which was even featured on DYK wasn't patrolled until about two weeks after creation). Of course, this was a problem even when any autoconfirmed user could patrol pages, but the problem has gotten worse since October. And quite a number of our active newpage patrollers don't have the right, which leads to the now common situation where several articles have been tagged for deletion but are still unreviewed. Of course it's possible that this could simply mean that these users have yet to apply for the right, but leads to another question: is the NPR right well-promoted enough that active patrollers are even aware of it? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it likely caused an increase in the backlog, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing in itself. I'd rather a copyright violation or G11 eligible article stay unpatrolled and get dealt with by someone who knows policy than be tagbombed with maintenance templates and released out of the feed and into Google. I can think of several prolific twinkle and AWB users who have been denied the right who have this issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
As Tony says, of course there will be an increase in the backlog as the inadequate reviewers leave, until we get more good ones started. Incompetent reviewers, there cause many times the work they accomplish: first, as just mentioned, in dealing with the bad articles that get through; second, in trying to teach them --or at least stop them; third , in re-reviewing their poor or even absurd reviews; and fourth and by far the most important, in losing to WP the potential good article-writers whose material is unreasonably rejected and consequently never try again. The one absolutely indispensable element to the continuation and improvement of WP is a continuing addition of good editors--the ones we have cannot be expected to be here forever.
As a practical matter, I support another attempt at ACTRIAL, and I know Kudpung does also. The current administration at the foundation is not as indifferent to the practical requirements of the volunteers as it used to be. (I did oppose ACTRIAL originally, on the grounds that most new people come to write an article, and if they cannot do it immediately they will go away, but by now I've come to think it necessary.) DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You certainly have my support for reviving ACTRIAL (though maybe we should clarify with WMF before this time...) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That, Kharkiv07 would be to invite the same mistake we made last time. We just did not realise that it could have been implemented with a local script. In our naïvety of the day, we thought it required a tweak to the core MediaWiki software. The decision to allow or disallow ACTRIAL is a local community decision and is not within the remit of the Foundation. Read more about it by following WP:NPPAFC and its links to the background. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be absurd to suggest that the new user right is the cause of the increase in the backlog. The user right was introduced in November last year - nearly 5 months ago, 6 months after a signifciantly new, high backlog had crystalised, and then suddenly jumped 20% just 3 or 4 weeks ago. I have been on Wikileave for 4 weeks so it's cause is nothing whatsoever to do with me.It is highly possible that the quality of reviewing might have improved, and it's just possible that actual passing of articles as 'patrolled' may have slowed, but 370 reviewers between them could easily have reduced the backlog to zero if they had used the tools they were given. These are facts - do not interpret my words as criticism, instead try to objectively find some cause and solutions. It might also help for starters if instead of relying on conjecture and making bad faith assumptions, someone could pull some stats out of a hat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
used the tools they were given Well the tool I was given as often as not takes me from the article I clicked on at RC, and leads me through eight other articles that have already been marked for deletion. So I often just click back to RC, and it's probably been weeks since I've made it more than 24 hours into the backlog. There seems to be a pretty big wall between "the stuff that slipped through" and "the stuff that's new", consisting of a lot of "stuff that hasn't been deleted yet". If other's experiences are similar to mine, they're probably seldom willing to click through that wall to get to the actual meat of the backlog, especially since one of the big benefits of NPP is supposed to be offering a way to contribute to the project that can be done a few minutes at a time, rather then needing to sit down for a solid half hour, like is some times required to contribute to a place like AfD or AfC. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point. Is there currently anyway to go to a random unpatrolled page by clicking a button? This might help with the pages that are in the middle of the backlog. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
What there is currently is computer magic that lets the software recognize articles that have already been tagged for deletion, but AFAIK, there's no way to ignore that when you hit the next button. Since the RC folks are the types that we're grooming and giving NPP to anyway, I'm willing to bet a great deal of them are getting to the curator through RC, and that doesn't currently have the best functionality that would persuade users to review 15 articles, instead of reviewing three and then going back to RC. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Could we get some metrics? How many pages have been reviewed each month in the last year or so? How many pages have been created each month in the same period? I strongly suspect that the cessation of participation by the numerically top NPP reviewer -- who in the June 2015-March 2016 period performed over two-fifths of all reviews, an average of nearly 1500 reviews a week! -- is by far the most significant factor in the growth in backlog. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to create some stats, to see if I could gain some insights into why the backlog is so persistent. I don't have the requisite skills with Quarry (yet, working on it!), but I was able to extract some data from logs, save the html and parse it with simple shell scripts. I've looked at pages like this to see what I could learn from that data. Note that Special:NewPages only shows articles from the previous month, not older, and that Special:NewPagesFeed does show older articles. I'm finding that in March, we had on average approximately 750 new articles per day. The numbers vary, some days we have less than 400, some days more than 1200 new pages. The workload is very unevenly distributed. On April 1, for example, we had 582 new pages and 31 reviewers reviewed 750 articles. 8 of those editors performed 90% of the reviews, the most prolific reviewer did 33% of all reviews. Some 20% of new pages don't get reviewed within a month. For example, looking at the back of the queue, March 5, 2017 comparing all new pages from March 5 to all unpatrolled new pages(please note that this changes all the time), I see 101 unreviewed of 489 new pages. To eliminate the backlog by May 1, we would need to review the current backlog of 18222 total unreviewed pages, plus the +/- 750 new articles. That means we need to do 1450 reviews per day. Last week, from March 28 to April 3, we reviewed 3076 articles. If May 1 were our goal, that number should have been 10,150. If that sound like a lot, it means that we need to triple the output of what 10-15 people are doing now. We have 372 new page reviewers. Can we find 20-30 among them who can do this? I think we can. Mduvekot (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Have we considered sorting users by, say...EC users without NPR with 100 or more edits in the last 30 days and sending a mass message detailing what NPR is, what they would need to qualify for it, and a link to PERM? I mean, there's 33k EC accounts, so if 1% of those requested and qualified for NPR, we would double our ranks. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: that's a good and practical idea; but I seem to recall that sending mass-messages is frowned upn somehow- I can't remember why though. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
FIM Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything at m:MassMessage that seems to prevent it in principle. Actually, if it were a one time message we wouldn't even need to set up an opt-out system, since everyone would immediately de facto be opted out once the message is sent. Maybe meeting the standard of groups of users who are likely to want their attention drawn to the message means a stricter standard than 100 edits. Maybe the median most active user and above, or maybe the median most active users and above of those who have more than 100 edits in the last 30 days. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you're correct- I think it was Kudpung who suggested it, but there may well have been a different context. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I think an invitation to apply would be fine via mass message. New pages feed is one of the biggest backlogs on the project and one of the most important as well. I also think a backlog drive to be announced in the next newsletter with barnstars or something as an award like some other Wikiprojects do for content creation could drive activity and get it down. I'm not personally motivated by such things, but Kudpung's talkback has gotten me to decide I'm going to be spending a fair amount of my Wiki-time that had been devoted the past few months to the RM backlog back to NPP. I think a combination of an announcement of a backlog drive and some sort of recognition system for it might go a long way. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, it's not actually one of our biggest backlogs, not in terms of sheer number. There are multiple categories at WP:BACKLOG with more than 100k articles in them, and a few with more than a quarter million.
I'm not sure that my comments are particularly welcome here, or being taken that seriously, but I do think we should be concentrating on solutions that involve expanding the ranks, rather than trying to recruit more time from the people already in them. That's for a few reasons:
Begging for time flatly doesn't seem to be working, full stop.
In large part, this is a zero sum game. Presumably the time most of our dedicated editors spend here is roughly the time they have to spend here. So even if we could convince them to double their contributions to NPP, there's likely going to be a concomitant increase in the backlogs for places like AfC, AfD and the various helpdesks, and all the trouble that comes along with.
The stats below, limited as they are, look an awful lot like a Long tail. That's not surprising, because Wikipedia as a whole functions the same way. But as far as I've read, there aren't any really practical far reaching solutions to that phenomenon that change its shape, and successful projects are the one that find ways to change its scale instead.
There may be a better route to that other than mass messaging and mass vetting, but it certainly seems like an obvious one. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been keeping track of the backlog for a bit over a week now, and added some date form earlier for comparison at User:Mduvekot/Page_curation_statsMduvekot (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The flip-side to that good news is that there are hyper-prolific creators at the top of the list with thousands of articles created. They create many articles each day and yet nobody has nominated them for Autopatrolled. Either they've been mysteriously overlooked or, the unpalatable truth, they've been creating sub-par material for ages and haven't improved to an acceptable level.
What to do? How do we encourage them to up their game? Or do we continue cleaning up without complaint? Cabayi (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cabayi: I'd be happy to run down this list over the weekend and hand out autopatrolled to eligible users, regardless of nominating individually. Sam Walton (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Samwalton9, Thanks, though I think the top of the list may be laden with editors who have been considered but not found worthy of nomination. We can talk more once you've had a look. Cabayi (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Particular concerns for some (but in no way all) of the list would include:
Recent editing-related blocks
Under suspended or active topic ban or editing restriction (there's definitely one user who should be a candidate in a couple of months, though)
Talk page reveals copyright issues
Successful deletions on recent articles, and/or multiple PRODs by multiple experienced editors
Clearly not using RS on recent articles
Creating articles limited notability for current commercial organisations or commercially-oriented BLPs
Neatly encapsulated Hydronium Hydroxide. of that list the first two points regarding blocks and restrictions are general and beyond the remit of WP:NPP. The final four are issues which contributors of long-standing ought to be avoiding, and where we ought to be encouraging improvement. In fact, for editors on the list, with so many contributions, we ought to be expecting higher levels of polish to their creations:
Categorisation of the article; and
Addition of WikiProjects to the talk page, so that the article is assured of some care in the future.
How do we encourage that improvement? And how do we broach the subject with experienced editors in a way which won't stir up unnecessary and unintended "content creator" vs "wiki gnome" sentiment as so often occurs? Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a very good question for which I don't particularly have an answer, though one mitigating factor is that not all of the highest-count creators are very active right now: of the 10 non-autopatrolled editors with more than 1000 entries, four have made relatively few pages this year (1, 2, 3, 4). What to do about the other six, I really don't know, but in terms of finding people who are very actively feeding the queue and might be safely exempted, my tactic has been to look for editors with middle-to-high edit counts in the recent submissions. I think there's a lot of opportunity there to get people making many acceptable pages right now--I've put some up for autopatrol and skipped over other promising candidates simply because they work on topics beyond my topical expertise and/or language skills. And then the bonus is that with a competent, currently-active creator identified, it's very quick to process their other submissions in the backlog because most or all will be solid. Doesn't solve the problem of problem submissions but it's something... Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Regesta
Here's an example of a case I would appreciate some feedback from fellow reviewers on. I've been thinking about ways to making reviewing a bit faster, and thought that by tackling them in order of number of new articles per user. I stumbled upon 60 new articles by User:Regesta, who has been creating articles about Ambassadors, in a way that suggest that they plan to create a page for every single one of them. That would be two ambassadors for every two countries that have diplomatic relationships. Potentially there are thousands such articles. Is it worthwhile to review every single instance of those, or should we just all treat them as one, and clear 60 articles from the backlog in a few minutes? Mduvekot (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The one I reviewed still needed dome polish - reFill fixed some refs, a couple of redlink categories needed removing and replacing with the relevant existing category, column header of "ambassador" instead of "Ambassador", four ambassadors have been appointed yet none of them appear to have left. Based on this one example I wouldn't be encouraged to blindly review on trust. Just a little improvement would get Regesta to an Autopatrolled-acceptable level, but for now I think a second pair of eyes would still help. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
oh, and needed projects to be added to the talk page. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Inactive reviewers
In the course of generating some stats for Page Curation, I have looked at the number of inactive reviewers since January 1, 2017. We currently have 375 reviewers. 163 of those reviewers have not reviewed any new pages. I'm reluctant to post the names, because I don't think it's very nice to call people out on their lack of participation when I know nothing about their circumstances, but if anyone has been thinking about contacting them, I do have a list. Pinging the coordinators (Robert McClenon and Jbhunley) in case they're interested. Mduvekot (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I may be wrong but your stats seem to ignore manual patrols & count only uses of the page curation tool. Cabayi (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
That is correct, I use the page caution logPage curation log. Mduvekot (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(presume you mean Curation, not caution) Then it's no basis for praising or admonishing anybody's work on patrolling. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, [[User:|]] I never meant to admonish anyone. I think I suggested someone might want to contact inactive reviewers. I mentioned it because the question had come up before on this talk page. I'm confused about what you expect me to do; make it more obvious that User:Mduvekot/Page curation stats is only about page Curation, stop reporting on the Page curation log, include the Patrol log, stop reporting the number of reviews per user? I know I'm no Hans Rosling, but I'm making an honest attempt at providing some insight into why the backlog is growing. Can you explain to me what edits do not show up in the page curation log but do show in the patrol log that are manual edits? I wonder how one would even make them, since the [Mark this page as patrolled] link is hidden in my view of the UI, I only see the Page curation tool. I need to edit my css to see it. Mduvekot (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you're making honest efforts and I'm sorry if my previous post came across any differently. My concern is you're only looking at Page Curation and consequently overlooking manual patrolling and, in the case of most of my patrols, overlooking patrols done via Twinkle in the course of nominating articles for deletion. It's visible at Special:Log/Cabayi & click "Show patrol log". The [Mark this page as patrolled] link is very live & visible on unpatrolled articles and other pages for me. The point I wanted to make, with only half the stats being collected, the numbers can't be used to make the kind of decisions you're looking at. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Maybe this is above my pay grade⸮ I do use Twinkle sometimes, so I'll see if I can work out how to track TW edits that affect our Page curation backlog. Looking at an example, like Born Broke, Die Rich, that was PRODed via TW, I don't see that affecting the Page curation backlog. That article still shows as unreviewed. If anyone can explain this to me or knows someone who can, please let me know. Mduvekot (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mduvekot: thank you for the stats. Unfortunately I have been unable to devote time to Wikipedia over the last several weeks due to an injury. I expect to be able to get back to contributing in the next couple of weeks. Jbh Talk 12:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Working
