Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 27 November 2017

• v
• t
• e

Articles

11170 ↓237

Oldest article

17 months old

Redirects

91

Oldest redirect

35 hours old

Article reviews

2528

Redirect reviews

5820

• There is a very large articles backlog

This page is for New Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on IRC at #wikimedia-npp For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

FYI - editathon

Join us for the Aphra Behn / Burney Society Edit-a-thon at Duquesne University on Wednesday, November 1, 2017!

The Aphra Behn Society and the Burney Society of North America will host a Misplaced Pages Edit-a-thon on Wednesday, November 1st from noon to 5:00 in 644 College Hall as a pre-conference event in honor of Adrianne Wadewitz. This event is free and open to the public. We will create a community of the participants from the event to encourage the ongoing use of Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages editing in the classroom. A roundtable presentation about Misplaced Pages is scheduled for later in the conference. The event aims to promote: Women in the arts, 1640-1830 Misplaced Pages feminist activism Public humanities This event is supported by a Rapid Grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Expanding queue

I just thought I'd let everybody know—the queue is larger than it was when the last newsletter came out. We need people to be more active and review not often. RileyBugz_投稿記録 12:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: erm... I didnt understand. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There are more new pages coming in to the unreviewed queue than we are taking out. RileyBugz_投稿記録 12:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant review more often instead of not often? Domdeparis (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Sorry about that. RileyBugz_投稿記録 15:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think a large part of this is that one of our most prolific reviewers has been less active than normal recently according to the stats (and I can't blame them). Another factor is that DrStrauss has been CU blocked, and he was also pretty active. This I think goes to what the WMF said in their may report that the activity of one or two reviewers can have a major impact on the backlog. The way to fix this long term is by recruiting more active editors to become reviewers and also to encourage current reviewers to focus on mainspace. That being said: from what I can see, the pages are still of a higher quality and reviewing is much more enjoyable and easy than it used to be, so ACTRIAL is still achieving many of its goals and is a net-positive (especially when you consider the rate of growth that would be happening without it). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's getting kicked to AFC :-p But I have the same concerns there, where 6% of our reviewers are doing 66% of the work. It's not a bad thing, but it means if any of them leave we're hosed. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Heh, and as I've said before: I don't think the growing AfC backlog is too much of a concern: G13 + no automatic indexing makes it much less worrisome than a growing mainspace backlog of unreviewed pages. I think an eventual combining of the rights could also help here, and an ongoing conversation about that is somewhat happening at WT:NPPAFC.Re: the percentage point: yeah, but its also something that you expect in most organizations, the overwhelming majority of the work is done by 10-20% of people. The other 80-90% is important, but if you lose one person from that 10-20% you really feel the impact. The sad thing is that I think if we could get a small number of people doing a small number of extra reviews, it would address the concerns immediately, but we'd still likely be subject to the possibility of the workflow being changed when 1 or 2 of the top people stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, I know, and I agree that having a draft sit for a month (or two) without being reviewed is better than it being dropped off after 90 days and disappearing into the ether. At least we know those pages are there. And yeah, if we got 1/10 members to do one extra review per day our backlog would start dropping, so I'm not overly concerned with where AFC is at the moment. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  The Pareto principle: 20% of the users do 80% of the work.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I do definitely agree with you that reviewing is becoming much better; I used to only be able to reasonably do 5 or 6 reviews a day before stopping, but now, I can do about 10 or so. I do think that we need to be more vocal about NPP, and maybe encourage some people to join it. RileyBugz_投稿記録 22:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am glad that others are finding the reviewing better, which means ACTRIAL is proving its worth. I search mainly be keyword and haven't noticed a huge difference within those, still lots of unreferenced articles on geographical topics in particular. It's such a shame to see the total creeping up again, over 13000. I'm feeling a bit of burnout and will need to give less time to it, because it's hard to stay motivated when it feels like all that work is not making a dent. I think more recruitment is the best thing to get this down further. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree; another thing we need to work on is getting current reviewers more active. But, we actually need to be committed to this. We need to start notifying inactive patrollers, and leaving talk page messages to recruit new ones. RileyBugz_投稿記録 14:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I know I washighly active last month, even tthough I was AFK often, so I should be able to crank it up a bit more in December after the WIRP ends. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

NPR user right and the AFCHS

I've started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC#NPR_user_right_and_the_AFCHS on possible changes to the AFCHS use requirements. All are welcome to give thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD issue - Bug in the Curation Tool

In September, the decision of an AfD for PSA Tour was delete. The article was recreated so I tried a G4 which was declined. Then I went to AfD, but when I added the template using the PCT, it added it to the bottom of the already closed AfD. I sought admin help:

• - edit summary confirming it was done with the Page Curation Tool
• - per Filelakeshoe ‘’Clearly for some reason it didn't clock there was a past AfD and open a new one.’’

The problem has been resolved at PSA Tour but I don't know how to fix the PCT issue or if it will ever repeat the problem. 15:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: The bug is phab:T169441, which mentions another one of the articles you have sent to AfD using page curation, Queen Street Bus Terminal. GeoffreyT2000 02:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability issue

Hello. In my NPR patrol I have come across this; 2006–07 Elitserien (men's handball). There is nothing in WP:NSPORTS that deals with handball. Therefore, it seems to be covered by WP:N and WP:GNG, which this article does not seem to satisfy. Also, there are already two articles that deal with top tier Swedish handball. These are: Handbollsligan and List of Swedish men's handball champions. So, I think a page such as this should be redirected to Handbollsligan. This seems to be a good decision on my part until I look at the creator's contribution page (set for 500).

On this contributions page I can see that this editor has created these types of articles going back to the 1930's, and has been doing so since November 8th (two or three days). Most all of these will have trivial sources - mere statistics like this: everysport.com - which is a reference on the above page. I have a mind to redirect all these pages, but then that focuses undue flak on me, and might be deemed as disruptive. So, I am looking for a solution. We are not a statistics farm or a sports magazine and so on. Right now I guess-timate we could be talking about roughly 80 new pages. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say this is notable under WP:NSEASON, a season for a top tier in a sport. This article uses 4 different sources and is new, so its sourcing may well improve over time, and it is also unlikely to have many sources in English. I wouldn't agree with a redirect. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boleyn: When I posted this there were about three references from one source, so I tagged it for notability based on the reasoning I presented here. Now, since there are four different sources, I agree that WP:NSEASON is the notability criteria here, and these articles probably meet that criteria, since they are a top tier sport. I don't necessarily think all that much of the references, but as you say, sourcing may improve over time - and that is the reason for notability criteria such as WP:NSEASONS. Thanks for your input. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

UPE editing

So, as an example we've got CrazyLister, a classic UPE article with matching meaningless WP:REFOVERKILL which I've just nominated for deletion. The user in question made ten edits to their sandbox, then created the article in mainspace. Is there an edit filter or something we can configure to detect this clear gaming of WP:ACTRIAL- it's quite frustrating, and of course there are no other related accounts to get a CU on. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• We have a few: filter 867 is normally quite good on this type of thing, but the problem with this specific article is that it is just under the cutoff (and I wouldn't want to make it lower for fear of overwhelming the filter to the point of being useless). Filter 630 tracks moves from new users out of user space. There was talk of expanding it to include drafts. Nihlus, do you know if there has been any work on that? TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: It got archived by the bot. Let me send an email, and I will let you know what comes of it. Nihlus 18:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Explosion of New pages from March

Hi I review from the back forwards and I have just noticed that the new pages feed has exploded with articles dating back to the 14th of March 2017. It looks like the feed now takes into account unreviewed articles going back 8 months instead of 3 months. Can someone tell me if this is a bug or are we supposed to be reviewing these old articles too? Domdeparis (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It always contains them (and has). Special:NewPages drops off after 90 days, but Special:NewPagesFeed does not. The 90 day index period still exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks for that I never noticed I suppose because I had filtered on new users before. If the pages are already indexed should we be worrying about them? As the feed only goes back 8 months does that mean that the pages automatically leave the list if they are older than 8 months? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a list that only contains the pages that haven't been indexed automatically? Domdeparis (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I just checked and the special:new pages only goes back 30 days and not 90 so I don't know how to attack the pages between 31 and 90 days old. Domdeparis (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to worry about all unpatrolled pages. This is why you should preferably be using the Special:NewPagesFeed which was designed for this purpose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that but am I right in saying that the unpatrolled pages that are older than 8 months drop off this feed? The list is getting longer despite ACTRIAL so I thought that as the pages that are older than 90 days get indexed and one of the main aims of NPP is to remove or tag inappropriate pages to stop them from being indexed on GOOGLE so I thought rather then attacking the pages between 3 and 8 months old that have already been indexed or by attacking from the front wouldn't it be better to attack from 90 days and work forward to today? And then if we manage to reduce the number of pages that almost got indexed but shouldn't have go back and clean up the older pages. What do you think? Domdeparis (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You could get to the middle of the list using https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/. Set number of articles to 100 (25 is default), sort by date, and then click your way back 40 pages or so. Doing that as a firebreak is a nice idea, but is unlikely to work with current numbers.HydroniumHydroxide 08:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pages do not fall off the list at all as far as I know, the 13000 page backlog just stretches back to March. Many of these unreviewed pages are indexed by Google, but may not have been reviewed properly. This is an issue, but unfortunately there are too few patrollers to reduce the backlog. It has been steady around 13k for a few weeks now, but really we need to focus on reducing it back to zero. Unfortunately there are too few active reviewers for this task. About 10 people currently do the task of merely keeping up with oncoming pages. Reviewing from the back of the new pages feed is very nessessary, and I do it quite a bit myself, but it is harder than reviewing new pages, because many of these older pages were ignored in the first place because they were difficult judgement calls. Keep up the good work. Hopefully we can reduce the backlog down to zero during ACTRIAL but at the current standstill, I am a bit discouraged personally. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Backlog 13,500

Hi all, the backlog has started rising again to 13,500. I didn't send out a newsletter this month, because there isn't really much new going on, but would everyone please consider reviewing some pages if you haven't recently (and I count myself in this number as I've been pulled in a lot of different directions recently). As I've mentioned above, I think a lot of this has to do with some a few particular users who do a lot of the heavy lifting dropping their activity a bit or leaving Misplaced Pages, which I certainly can't blame them for, we are all volunteers. If there are any users who you think would be good at this or enjoy it, please encourage them to apply. Any user who has been editing for at least 90 days and has a clean block log is a good candidate. Thanks everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we notice a surge in reviewing after the newsletter goes out? If you need an excuse for the next newsletter, I would suggest an advertisement for Evad37's new rater tool for adding wikiprojects, which is fantastic and far quicker/easier to use than the old rater tool. The tool is also still in development, so feedback at User Talk:Evad37/rater is productive. — Insertcleverphrasehere 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Backlog Drive Proposal

I know that there are some regulars here that are a bit opposed to backlog drives, but I think if we are clever about how we organize it, we can ensure that quality reviewing is occurring. Can I suggest that we do a backlog drive for the Month of December and call it something hypeable such as: "The Great December New Page Backlog Drive". I propose that we set up a page dedicate to it where we can collect statistics on the # of reviewed articles for each patroller, and tiered awards for participation (awards specific to the backlog drive).

Most importantly, I suggest that on the statistics page we also have an additional column "review the reviewer" where other reviewers can put a dated check mark saying that they have reviewed that reviewer's reviews (no comments on the statistics page, any issues should be brought up to the reviewer directly). There should also be tiered awards for users who 'review the reviewers'.

I think if we can make up some good advertisements and post them around on various noticeboards, we might be able to get some experienced editors that might not otherwise participate in New Page Patrol to join us for a while and crush the backlog down (and hopefully some that will become regulars). Happy to do most of the work organizing it and make the awards if we can get some technical help about how to set up the statistics page.

Does this sound like a good idea to the coordinators? (who I am pretty sure are TonyBallioni and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง?) — Insertcleverphrasehere 21:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with something like this as it seemed to work pretty well in September to get the non-autoconfirmed backlog eliminated. I'd had concerns before, but given the increase in the quality of pages and the previous good work done, I think it could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I retired in February after years of coordinating NPP. I personally don't approve of drives because as clearly demonstrated at AfC several times, they lead to sloppy reviewing. We have an excellent tool that already provides an accurate overview of who is doing the most (and the least) of the work, and I would advise against checking on the the work of the the reviewers - sounds too much like a witch hunt. What does need to be done however, is keep the non accredited patrollers in check. They are still causing as much concern as they ever did without a user right - NPP is definitely not for beginners. On the whole, however, Tony is our de facto coord and understands the issues and his input to the idea would be most welcome. Certainly something needs to be done because since ACTRIAL was introduced, despite the marked drop in the number of pages to patrol, the backlog is actually growing again. Don't count on me though for doing much patrolling any time soon - I've had enough of it, really.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviews of the reviewers is a good idea, just as all reviewing is good, in the right (small) proportion. Clever's an additional column "review the reviewer" sounds like encouraging way too much. A process page to receive complaints, like done at DRV and MR, has proven to be a good way to work reviews. Some important points: (1) Reviews should be giving the reviewer considerable leeway to use their own judgement, and perfection is not the goal sought by the reviewer; (2) Criticism should be reserved for actual mistakes that cross a defined line, not nitpicking; (3) criticism should always be constructive, what should they do differently next time; (4) The reviewed should always resist any temptation to argue a point of the reviewer, instead, they should adopt the mindset: the reviewer is working for me, trying to offer constructive feedback, and may be mistaken. At worst, say "thanks, In understand you, I don't agree", but preferably just the first clause. If a review is harsh, refer to Meatball:DefendEachOther.

NB. While I have heard (and repeated) a fair bit of historic criticism of AfC reviewing, I've not heard the same about NPP reviewers, except a couple of very specific things by Kudpung himself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Being the devil's advocate: with AfC declined drafts stick around and are re-submitted, and accepted drafts have to be patrolled, so there's always at least one other person looking over your shoulder. A badly-reviewed new page will either have a CSD/PROD/AfD declined or be ticked and likely never checked again. So all other things being equal you're probably going to hear about more problems at AfC. – Joe (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I suggested an alternative backlog drive. Instead of encouraging editors to review lots of articles, we'd encourage them to maintain a "streak" of reviewing at least one article per day. I think that would have the same effect of upping the volume of reviews overall, while avoiding the problem of people rushing through them to rack up their score. – Joe (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I'll emphasize this as the primary goal, and will craft the Award tiers accordingly (maintained a streak of # reviews per day for X days) in addition to overall awards. The problem that I have is that the Top reviewers page does not record any but the top 50 per day, making streaks difficult to record. Is there any way of getting the Community Tech bot to output a full list of reviewers (and # of reviewed articles) each day at UTC 0:00? — Insertcleverphrasehere 23:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The most important data at Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Top new article reviewers is displayed for 100 users. What happens over he most recent tranche of 24 hours is less important - there is no kudos to be gained in being the day's best reviewer. In a ny case, as I mentioned before, I'm adverse to turning Misplaced Pages processes into a MMORPG - it's bad enough when admons get accused of having too much power even if they don't abuse it. What people don't realise is - because they are not admins and don't work at PERM - is that a lot of hat collecting goes on there, and I mean a lot. I'm not pointing the finger at any individuals, but research will show that of the 450 or so authorised reviewers, the number who have never used, or rarely used the tools is staggering. Admins need to be reminded that it's not only meeting the numericial threshold for the right that counts, but also demonstrating sufficient experience and convincing of a genuine need and desire to help out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree that caution is necessary. Backlog drives and editathons (in this case a "patrollathon") are meant to employ elements of gamification to improve user engagement. I think that this is particularly advantageous when discussing something like NPP, which has a high burnout rate. It is essential to ensure quality reviewing however, and this is where 'reviewing the reviewers' is important. What form that should take is up in the air for me, but at the very least, I would consider it essential for my own peace of mind to re-review a half-dozen or so random articles from each of the top 100 reviewers during a drive that I organised, especially for users that aren't regulars at NPP. This should help identify reviewers that need help or forget to complete reviews fully. A healthy balance of good reviewing and good productivity will be the aim here. — Insertcleverphrasehere 00:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made top 100 of any list. What is the difference between "patrolled" and "reviewed"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The difference has to do with the tool used to review. Both Page curation and Twinkle use the Patrol log, so if you tag an article with twinkle as patrolled, or review it in it will be marked as 'Patrolled' in the patrolled log. The Page curation log keeps track of all actions made with the page curation toolset, and in that log pages that are ticked off with the page curation tools are marked as 'reviewed' (but will also show as 'patrolled' in the Patrol log). Basically, Twinkle only logs as 'patrolled', page curation logs as both 'patrolled' and as 'reviewed'. Either one should record statistics at Top reviewers. As far as I can see, your reviewing levels would put you outside of the top 100 year/3month/month/week rankings most of the time. The reason you arent on the top 50 for today is because the list is only updated every 12 hours, and your two reviews today were both after the last update. You should show up there in a couple hours. — Insertcleverphrasehere 01:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So I can treat them as synonyms? I am not an enthusiastic NPP reviewer hoping to win awards, I like the goal someone suggested, maybe it was DGG, of aiming to do a couple most days. I do find it much more rewarding that spending time at AfD, which I came to find depressing. I find the page curation tools make the job reasonably easy to do, and that I basically can't do it on a mobile device. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a worry wort, but I'm not sure it will be a good idea/effective for a few reasons: (lameness alert)
  • -Some of us are currently delayed due to participating in other things, WOMRED 60's November contest e.g., and may wish to take a break, also
  • -December is a month of holidays and I assume a large amount of patrollers* will either be taking wiki-breaks or won't be available as much due to family, feasting, fooling what have you
  • - a month is an awful long time keep at something. I'm not a learned psychologist and maybe I overdo Misplaced Pages, but i would feel much better about a drop-everything-and-patrol if it were only a couple weeks
  • Asterisk in point dos: if there were a couple thousand of us patrollers we might be better able to "survive" but as there are only 300 active patrollers we could play hit or miss
• if there were a drive I would participate. I like NPP (even though there aren't any keyboard shortcuts ;-) and am trying to do it at least every other day. But new year new drive might possible be a better idea. I know we are running up against the end of ACTRiAL, but I have a reasonable expectation that someone will forget to remove the specs and it will become the new normal. As for awards, none were handed out in July so I never expect to see any recognition for holding at the top of lists. Again, I may be getting on about nothing in regards to the above 3 points, but its just something to think about. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, January might be better given the recent Womens contest. In the meanitime I am going to focus on inviting users to NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is a clear distinction between patrolling and reviewing. Patrollers are anyone and his dog, including absolute newbies whom the community insisted should still be allowed to tag new pages and bite new editors. This is the group that causes most problems. Reviewing is done by Reviewers who have had the right accorded to use the Page Curation tool and mark pages as patrolled thus releasing them into the encylopedia and free to be indexed by Google. 'Patrollers' can't do this, and their tags still have to be controlled and reviewed by proper reviewers. The end effect is that while we now have somewhat better quality control over what gets passed as an appropriate new page, it hasn't really reduced the work load for the real reviewers, out of the 450+ of whom, only about 10 - 15 are actually doing it. And the backlog is rising again.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I've let things pass previously, but as someone who is not one of the 10-15 real reviewers (and props to those who are), I have no intention of reviewing many hundreds of pages a month, and don't appreciate feeling guilted into doing more than I'm doing. There's not a lot of fun at the back of the queue. Agree with comments elsewhere that what we need is (many) more reviewers. 120 reviewers doing 50 each a month would be far less fragile than another 6 doing 1000 each a month. (General call for volunteers at WP:VPM and WP:AN?) HydroniumHydroxide 07:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide, I'm just throwing in my 2P. I retired from years of NPPing. I don't want to know about it any more, except to say that I'm very disappointed in the result of the efforts I went to over the past 7 years - 100s of hours of coord and coercion, and 1000s of patrols I've done myself. It all feels like a wasted effort. No one needs to feel guilty unless they are one of the hat collectors. They are generally user names I've never heard of. They know who they are.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide, I agree that we need a lot more reviewers, and I would say anyone reviewing even a page a week on average would be a 'real' reviewer. It would take a lot of pressure off us all. General calls for volunteers at certain pages may well work, as those pages are likely to be watchlisted by people who already have the skills we're looking for. We may also want to consider more of the method that led me to become a reviewer - I was simply given the right unasked, and it was then up to me whether I used it or not. For a long time, I didn't, until the newsletters eventually persuaded me to check out what NPP actually was. Asking people to nominate themselves and have their voluntary work picked over will put off a lot; what about giving the right to people who have earnt it, editing well over time? Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I did just send an advert out over at WP:VPM and at WP:AN. Also, I think that this is a good idea if any admins are up for it (give the right to users that havent requested it, but that they know have the skills. In the meantime I'll keep inviting peeps. Looking like around a 20-25% invite success rate (to successfully given reviewer user right). — Insertcleverphrasehere 18:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts, Insertcleverphrasehere. A 20-25% success rate looks pretty good to me, and every new reviewer helps. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A new feature, and new hands

Going through the posts above, I am restating my opinion again: we need more reviewers.

Currently, a publicly visible message is sent out only if the reviewer has something to tell to the creator. I think a message should be delivered to the creator whenever the article is reviewed.
Also, I have created {{NPR invite}} which seems to be used almost never. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to start using it. :) Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere. I don't believe for a moment that we need more reviewers. If all those who asked for the user right (which is abolutely not difficult to get for anyone with sufficient clue) would some reviewing we would not need more. What we need is fewer hat collectors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That being said. I think we need to request a change to the measured statistics to see who isn't using the user right at all and who is just reviewing a few pages a month. We need a full list of all of the admins/patroller user right holders and how many reviews they have made in the last year (as well as an 'all time' longlist). I personally don't have a problem with someone who only plans to review articles that they randomly come across as part of their other activities (as long as that person has the knowledge and expertise necessary to do a good job). This might only be a drop in the bucket, and might not make much of a difference, but they still deserve the user right and are not necessarily a 'hat collector' (although there are undoubtedly some of those). More reviewers overall will increase the number of those that are dedicated solely or mainly to the project (rather than it being a side thing, or a tangential thing that they might do if they randomly come across a new article. Realistically, most of the people with the user right have no interest in reviewing regularly, just like most admins have no interest in reviewing regularly (very few of the regular reviewers are admins, despite there being 1700 of them with the user right). Personally I can't exactly remember how I got the new page reviewer user-right, I don't remember applying for it, so maybe I was one of those grandfathered in, but I definitely have not been consistent with it. I am pretty sure there have been many months with no reviews at all when I was working on other stuff (GA reviews etc). Others may think that NPP is something they will do, apply, and then just not get into it for whatever and never come back. Still others may have once been very active patrollers, but given it up for some reason and never come back (resulting in their review count for the year being zero, but their all time count would be much higher). My point is that there are many reasons why there are lots of users with the NPR user-right who do not patrol many/any articles, not just hat-collecting. We need to stop thinking that there are 500 patrollers. It isn't productive at all. I will soon be requesting a change in statistics so that we can see how many active reviewers that we actually have, so that we can get a good idea of what our community of user-right holders actually looks like. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Some feedback from a new user. I was alerted to this permissions group when a reviewer reviewed my page.

1. I received a (notice) message informing me that it had been reviewed by user Fyddlestix.
2. A message informing me of a pass/fail was conspicuously absent - I had to message the reviewer and ask if there was anything that needed doing
3. I found it relatively easy to become a page reviewer
4. Now I am one, my biggest issue is knowing what to do with obvious passes (I haven't actually made use of the permission yet - I plan to soon, and I have been looking a lot at other people's usage of the tool). My instinct in the absence of a button which leaves a default message on the author's talk page is to message them manually to let them know that I think its a pass, with no formal issues, which need tagging, perhaps suggesting some ways of expansion etc.

This would essentially address the confusion I myself felt after having had a page reviewed. I get confused very easily, so I may not be a paradigm case worth addressing

Edaham (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A couple of additions regarding paid reviews

In light of yet another questionable use of editing privileges for pay, I've added the following to the guidelines for granting:

1. The editor must review pages solely on a volunteer basis.

As a guideline for revocation, I've added:

1. The editor has accepted or solicited payment in return for reviews.

This already goes without saying and is in line with the scrutiny placed on potential reviewers, but unfortunately it now needs to be explicitly stated. (See also Special:Permanentlink/811528494#Should_Wikipedians_be_allowed_to_use_community_granted_tools_in_exchange_for_money.3F.) The change mirrors those made to AfC. I'm not too fussed about the wording, but something like this needs to be there. MER-C 06:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep... sounds good to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup. No issues at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Should paid editors be allowed the reviewer right at all?

I think we should be stronger on this, and say that NPP shouldn't be granted/should be revoked if the editor discloses any form of paid editing (not just pay in return for reviews). It creates too strong a potential conflict of interest for them to be trusted to patrol. – Joe (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a step too far. The relevant discussion can be found here. While editors should not be allowed to use the tools for money, there is no reason whatsoever why a responsible paid editor cannot keep their paid editing activities and volunteer reviewing activities separate. As is clearly stated above, failure to due so will result in revoking of the flag.

Your comment is no doubt related to the most recent PERM request , where the user has clearly declared and is also trusted with other user rights such as page mover (which has much more stringent restrictions than the NPP flag). This sort of thing is up to Admin discretion in my opinion (in terms of granting); some editors that have engaged in paid editing elsewhere will clearly be unsuitable for NPP, others may be an asset. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Insertcleverphrasehere 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think if the KDS and Salvidrim cases show anything, it's that money can rapidly corrode the ability of even experienced, trustworthy users to act responsibly. It's not that people set out to abuse their privileges, but the conflict of interest inevitably impairs their judgement. I think it's a mistake to wait until they actually misuse them to take action (or more accurately, wait until someone notices them misusing them). I wasn't aware of the PERM request. – Joe (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that is your justification, it sounds contrary to WP:AGF. If an editor has followed all the rules, and declared as they are required to, there is no reason to exclude them in bad faith from editing in other areas as a volunteer.

This also seems to be the consensus at the VP policy thread on the issue, where no one has suggested outright banning paid editors from having advanced user rights; rather it has focused only on them using those rights for paid editing purposes. — Insertcleverphrasehere 11:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not questioning their good faith, I'm questioning their good judgement. Advanced permissions are based on trust, and I don't think I'm alone in not trusting paid editors. By disclosing they may be complying with the bare-minimum "rules" of the ToU, but they are choosing to ignore the spirit of the community's consensus outlined at WP:COI, which is that paid editing is damaging to the project and "strongly discouraged."

The consensus at VPP that paid editors shouldn't abuse their advanced permissions doesn't preclude us from deciding to be more strict with the reviewer right. After all, NPP/AfC has been subject to more disruption and gaming by paid editors than any other area of the project. I am just trying to open that discussion. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Caution is always advised, I'm just saying that it should be up to admin discretion over at PERM, not a blanket ban. Per your proposal, Wikipedians in residence (even past WiR) would not be allowed to become reviewers, which isn't the end of the world either, but all of this just smacks of assuming the worst of people in my opinion. And I don't want to support something that assumes the worst about editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere 12:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think that as we cannot avoid paid editing it would be better to allow paid editors to have profils that are totally apart from "normal" volunteer editors and that an editor should chose if he wishes to edit[REDACTED] for money or for "nobler" reasons but not allowed 2 profils like the admin used. That way it would not even be debatable which rights are incompatible with paid editing as the paid editors would be clearly identified as such and all and every edit they make would be considered as a COI edit. That could also be a way of making money for the wikifoundation. All paid editors could be charged a donation (I am aware of the contradiction in terms) for the privilege. And that way paid editors edits would have to be vetted and approved by a group of reviewers. I am sure that this would not be acceptable so I have to say I agree with Joe, any rights that involve reviewing are incompatible with paid editing. The temptation is too great, you only have to read the statement by Salvidrim! notably the bit where he says "I did not fully appreciate the difficulty of proper COI management, thinking myself honest enough to just act properly on my own, instead of allowing the community to have proper oversight of my paid actions." he then posted this very poignant phrase on his user page

         "Arrogant and optimist levity makes a complete, careless fool of the biased man who thinks himself true, honest and believes the strength of his integrity to be beyond flaw; blind to his own influenced and skewed judgement.... resulting in shameful nuclear fuckups."

We all know what Lord Acton said about power and corruption. I personally believe that NPP and AFC reviewing are incompatible with paid editing, and we also all know that AGF in every and all cases is what the French so aptly call a "voeu pieux" ...a pious wish. Domdeparis (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• No. They should not. We cannot currently revoke NPR status once it has already been granted if someone simply edits for pay (and doesn't solicit for reviews), but that is different than granting the right to new individuals who have declared. As I said here, it is a de facto requirement for AfC already, and NPR closely matches the AfC requirements, but is a bit of a higher standard. If AfC doesn't allow it, we shouldn't either. I'm pinging Primefac since he is the main admin who works that desk. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Neutral. Some corrupt reviewer taking bribes to let trash into the mainspace is only temporarily benefitting his customer while giving us a casus belli to indef him. T L3X1 (distænt write) 16:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. My concern is that even with full disclosure, there's currently not much mechanism to detect potentially undisclosed collusions to my understanding. I am not sure if blanket ban is the best idea, but the strong discouragement should be clarified further if it hasn't been done already. Alex Shih (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral (with alternative proposal). Having read the Arbcom case and some of the views expressed here, my own view has changed slightly. I am still generally opposed to 'punishing' editors for paid editing, which I personally believe just drives it underground and makes it harder to identify and deal with (disclosed editing becomes undisclosed editing). There are also some paid editors who may be considered assets to the community. Any reviewer who also does separate disclosed paid editing would necessarily be under greater scrutiny by the community, and even undisclosed paid reviewers have been identified in the past; so I don't think this is a case where eventual detection is not likely (per Alex Shih's comments above), and that undisclosed paid editors are a much larger concern (because we don't necessarily know where to look).

However, there are some good reasons why COI editing is considered a bad idea, and is discouraged. Ignoring this advice with regards to the COI policy is at least tenuous grounds for assuming that the editor might also ignore other advice (like a prohibition on reviewing for profit).

I suggest that, at most, we add wording saying that existing reviewers are "strongly discouraged from engaging in paid editing, even if unconnected to their reviewing activities" and that "Editors who engage in paid editing may be declined at PERM, at admin discretion".

This would leave the door open (at least a crack) for editors such as Wikipedians in residence, who are often paid to edit wikipedia, but not to edit anything in particular and aren't necessarily engaged in promotion. Essentially: each case should be judged on its merits at admin discretion. — Insertcleverphrasehere 18:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is just unwise for someone who edits for pay commercially (not WIR etc) to have the autopatrolled or NPP privileges, from a risk management perspective. It opens the door to temptation for the person and will very likely lead others to raise questions at some point. It is best to just avoid all that. It isn't about punishing anybody but keeping things clean structurally. It is not about any individual person. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• The holding of advanced rights (autopatrolled, New Page Reviewer, OTRS, Adminship, functionary positions) is totally incompatible with any form of paid editing (except WIR). That's it. Or are we going to put foxes in charge of henhouses just because we AGF when the fox promises not to eat the chickens? It's happened already Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to invitation template

Hi. Do you think the {{NPR invite}} needs a little more clarification? —usernamekiran(talk)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: You invited a lot of editors; how were their responses in general? (Paleo is in my watchlist.) I recently got this response, to which I responded this. Do you think we should add similar content to the template? —usernamekiran(talk) 06:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty good honestly. I think I invited like 40-60ish people (no idea honestly). Mostly people who had recently edited the villiag pump policy page, the reliable sources noticeboard, the fringe theories noticeboard, as well as some of the people on this list. I was a bit scattershot, and invited some people who haven't been editing enough recently to get the flag, which was my mistake. I also accidentally invited a few admins and existing reviewers when I typed their name wrong when searching the permissions list (derp). In general I got a lot of positive responses, and so far we have 8 new reviewers as well.

I'm going to go hit the autopatrolled list of users next, as many active editors that are on that list would (in theory), have most of the skills necessary for NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...I received one of the aforementioned invites (see Special:Diff/811699026) but I do not think I am on any of those lists. I wonder if I should apply. Despite the invitation text, it seems like a time consuming endeavor. Uzume (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work, we need to try all we can to get new editors on this project. There are lots of good editors out there who have never even really heard of NPP. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Melanie? I saw your comment there, but some other editor had already pointed it out.
I had thought about auto-patrolled users too. But unfortunately, I have been very busy IRL in last few days. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: All the appliers seemed promising, the ones who were not approved were denied only for their lack of activity. So I would say we are heading in the right direction. :)
I also created Template:NPR invite/massmess for sending a mass message. I think we should make appropriate changes in the content for mass message format (especially to the note at bottom). Once it is done, we can send it to autopatrolled users who have done more than 300 edits in past 60 days.
@Xaosflux: Is it possible to add such filters in a mass message? —usernamekiran(talk) 08:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a possibility, though I actually found that a lot of the users in the autopatrolled cat are not exactly what we are looking for in every case. The mass message is still a good idea. I'm planning on also drafting an avert to go up on a few messageboards soon. I am currently working through the Page mover category (most of them are also reviewers but many are not and are very high calibre editors). — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean something like that? —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking in a different direction, using something like File:Uncle Sam (pointing finger).png, and a bit of humour to catch people's attention. Not going to be tonight, but hopefully will have time in the next couple days. I finished inviting all relevant users from the pave mover category. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere 09:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The MassMessage extension does not have any target filter capability, filtering needs to be performed as part of the process of building your MMS target list. — xaosflux 14:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• How does this advertisement look? Any suggestions? — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere I think it looks fine. To me, the "only firewall" part looks a bit cheesy as over 100 AfDs are filed each day, and I think at least 70% of them pass (I'm looking for hard numero). We're an important part of the firewall for sure, we catch and deal with a lot of the spam early, but we aren't the Sole Valient Defenders. If everyone else is fine with it then I am too. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reworded. — Insertcleverphrasehere 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

LikeL3X1 (distænt write) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I posted it up at AN and VPM. — Insertcleverphrasehere 09:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer of the year.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is time to hand out the New Page Reviewer of the Year Award!
This award is given out on the 5th of November of each year to mark the anniversary of the roll out of the New Page Reviewer right.
The top 5 reviewers of the year:

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that New Page Patrol thanks you all for your amazing service over the last year.....

However, we have to pick a winner, and by sheer numbers and overwhelming dogged persistence; I propose that we present this award to PRehse. PRehse has shown themselves to be a shining example of the tireless contributor. The quantity of reviews is only overshadowed by the overwhelmingly good quality of reviewing actions. PRehse regularly reviews 200-300 articles each week, never rushing but instead methodically crunching away at the backlog. While I support actions that reduce the workload on our top contributors, I think is fair to say that New Page Patrol would be in a very dire place indeed without the efforts of PRehse. Thank you very much for your service. — Insertcleverphrasehere 21:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on the endorsements below, I have engraved the cup. Congratulations PRehse. — Insertcleverphrasehere 04:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements

• — Insertcleverphrasehere 21:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Fantastic work, PRehse, and it deserves its recognition. Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly. I dabble. They excel. Onel5969 22:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Hip hip HURRAAAH! Well done. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Amazing, PRehse. If we had one more reviewer as tireless as you (or Boleyn), the backlog would be gone! – Joe (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Well done! Rentier (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Good work deserves recognition.  — Ammarpad (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats, and thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 01:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Without a doubt. Congrats! JTP 02:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How did someone manage 18,000+ reviews in a year? This is grazing 50 pages a day right? Edaham (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And that is exactly what PRehse does. — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit shocked by the numbers and it makes me question how I spend my time but in reality I follow a pattern of cleaning out the simple ones (mostly redirects) and tagging a limited number for others to review. I suspect the numbers come from the occasional obsession with clearing out mass redirects by single users. I figure my real average is 20 a day and again mostly redirects. Anyway thanks for the recognition but in my mind it's better deserved by others.PRehse (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretend you didn't read anything and carry on. The last thing we'd want is for you to critically evaluate your time and allocate it to other less worthy pursuits Edaham (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The surprising thing is, none of the top 10 reviewers make bad calls/mistakes regardless the volume of their reviews. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is it possible to award this thing to PR, and Boleyn? I think both of them deserve the award. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I wish we could properly award the participation of all of our top reviewers. But alas, all of these awards pale when it comes to giving proper recognition to the amazing work that our top reviewers have accumulated in the past year. While I do think that the cup should only be given out once to as not to dilute its importance, I think that we all recognise that Boleyn is part of the backbone of New Page Patrol and that we would be drowning without her contributions. I have awarded Boleyn the Gold NPP Award. — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have always been impressed with the quality and consistency of Boleyn's work too. Alex Shih (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• A big thankyou to all those who have worked hard at what is actually a dismal task. Special congratulations to PRehse for being the first to win the Reviewer of the Year Cup, and to Boleyn for being a close runner up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, one of the reasons I keep working on this project is how nice people are :) Well done, PRehse! Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Two questions

• Regarding the move to draft tool Is it OK for me to test using this tool by creating an article I genuinely intend to create and then moving it to draft using the tool to see the results and be sure of what will happen?

Reviewers are encouraged to make frequent use of the existing message to creator tool

• what is the message to creator tool? is this just referring to a regular function, or is it contained somewhere within the new tools I installed?

  Edaham (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine way of testing. Regular function of the tool. — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice, cheers. Edaham (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Edaham - The message to creator tool is the box at the bottom of the review screen. It allows you to send the article's creator a customized message. Onel5969 11:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Edaham (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

With User:Evad37/MoveToDraft, it is also possible to change the default personalised message whenever you use the tool by using 'var m2d_notification = ' as the next line. See my common.js page for an example. — Insertcleverphrasehere 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

503 editors

That's a lot of people - roughly half the average number who attend Wikimania each year. 503 is a lot of New Page Reviewers. Obviously they've not all been around since 5 November last year. The disappointing thing however, is that despite this large number of reviewers (which is more than the number of truly active admins), and despite significantly few new pages to review since ACTRIAL, the backlog is again seriously on the increase. If during the next 12 months if they would all do just 10 reviews a week there would be no backlog. Perhaps the coordinators could highlight these issues in their next newsletter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

See my reply in the section above. We don't have 503 reviewers. Using your criteria of 10 per week as a baseline, have about 90 over a year, 70 fully active reviewers over three months, 55 over a month, and 60 for the last week. I think it is fair to say that there is barely more than 100 active reviewers at any given time, and the trail off from there is people that are busy with other stuff or people that are only dabblers (and a few hat-collectors no doubt). We would know more about the distribution of reviewers if we had lists that were longer than 50/100, but it is fair to say that there are about 5 times fewer reviewers than everyone keeps claiming. At best there are 100 reviewers at any given time and by that rationale we need to be reviewing 50 pages per week per active reviewer to keep up, and currently the difference is made up from very dedicated users that do way more than their fair share. Propagating this myth of "10 reviews a week" just isn't going to help much. Realistically the distribution of editors will always be a decreasing exponential distribution with a long tail. By increasing the total number of users we can increase the area under the curve of the distribution. We can do this by inviting promising users with the invitation template ({{subst:NPR invite}}) whenever possible. Not to say that encouraging reviewers to review more is a bad thing, but I think this logic of "if we all did X, then Y" isn't productive because it is never going to happen and most reviewer right holders are not active at any given time.

Inviting people is a solution though: For example, I spent about 4 hours inviting users to NPP last week (invited about 100-ish people, with about 20 successful applicants, and 10 have begun reviewing). I have totalled up the count of reviews that have been done by the users that I invited last week (the ones that have requested the user right and have begun reviewing), and it is about 175 over the last week, more than 4 and a half times my own average weekly review count over the last year! (my average is ~38 per week) These users will continue to 'pay dividends' over the coming weeks and months, so realistically, with 4 hours work I have managed to more than quintuple my effective review count (my impact to New Page Patrol). If we all spent a little less time reviewing, and a little more time inviting other promising editors to NPP, the whole project would be MUCH better off (a bit counter-intuitive, but true). — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 503 sounds great, but doesn't indicate how many editors we have who are regularly part of NPP or not busy on other projects at this time, but may become more active at some point. The 503 we have doing starting to do more reviews would be great, but isn't going to happen and I don't want editors to feel that their occasional contributions to the project aren't valued - they are and every review helps. We also need to make sure we're coming across as a positive and nice project to get involved with and not leave volunteers feeling beholden. We can't make the people we have give more of their time to this, so getting more reviewers is the only option I can see working. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to add a note about the Invite Template to the next newsletter, so that people know that it exists and that using it is our best hope for a manageable NPP. Several newsletters in the past year have stressed "If we all did X then Y" and while we have had success in reducing the backlog, I think that you are right that we shouldn't be implying that patrollers are being lazy for only reviewing a few articles. Every review helps and we just need more patrollers overall and NPP would become very manageable all on its own without the need to squeeze the few people that we currently have. — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We do have 503 people who have the New Page Reviewer right. The reduction in the backlog over the past 12 months is not a success, and it's actually fast on the rise again. It won't be long it will have reached the staggering number it was at last year. What I can't figure out is why that is happening with so fewer pages to patrol since ACTRIAL was rolled out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a partial success. The backlog is bouncing up and down a bit at the moment (it was down as low as 12900, but then as high as 13600 last week, currently it is around 13250); I wouldn't call that "fast on the rise". There are not actually that many fewer pages to review than before ACTRIAL, and realistically, the pages from non-autoconfirmed users were often the easiest to review (they were often rubbish and could be immediately CSD/BLPPRODed or quickly tagged or AfDed. What is happening is that we went through the backlog and scoured out all the non-autoconfirmed submissions, and what is left are articles that are longer, require reviewers to check quasi-bad sources, annoying POV or mildly promotional articles, etc (i.e. they take a bit more time). I think that the NPP browser is also partly to blame, as I think that some of the 'easy' reviews have been successfully targeted during the period when the backlog was shrinking fast (i.e. short articles on sportspeople). All of this adds up to the bottom of our backlog being a bit more concentrated with the so-called 'time consuming judgement calls' which just ends up slowing the reviewing process enough to halt our progress in reducing the backlog.

All in all though, it isn't the end of the world, even if that means that we are treading water at the moment. I hope that some fresh hands are what we really need. Realistically if we have 500 reviewers now, and only 100 are active, then a couple hundred more reviewers should be able to get us at least 40 or so 'actually active reviewers'. This should tip the balance in our favour in the war against the backlog. I've already managed 20 more reviewers, and I sent out invites to 60 or so people on the WP:List of administrator hopefuls today, so I expect some more applications will be forthcoming. — Insertcleverphrasehere 12:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• 498 is still conservative if a number of indeffed socks and trolls listed in Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Blocked users in user groups were cleared out. I haven't checked everyone on that pages' block reason against Chance Of Coming Back as some people get in a snit when I mention indeffed users, but i'm pretty sure 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 don't need to pollute the count. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Those were not New Page Reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I give up. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1. There is a confusing thing between the 'pending changes reviewer' user-right (which is called 'reviewer') and 'new page reviewer' user-right, (which is called 'patroller'). There are 4 instances of that on the page you linked, (two are self requested, but two others were indef blocked for sockpuppetry). Looks like we have at least two to take off the list. I suspect that we will be back up in no time though, because PERM is also a bit backlogged with requests at the moment; it feels strange to be legitimately proud of singlehandedly creating a backlog. — Insertcleverphrasehere 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You should be, recruiting Sgt, I swung by perm the other day and was a bit shocked as well to see it full. I'm going to go ask Jo-jo Emerus if they are able to do something about the patrol/review NPP/PCR mixup in their popups. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)