→Reviewed inactivity report: new section Tag: New topic |
Novem Linguae (talk | contribs) →Reviewed inactivity report: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Per the discussion on my TP on this matter, I have requested a monthly[[Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports#Request:_New_Page_Reviewer_activity_report| database report ]] to identify those with zero reviews in the last 6 and 12 months. I put in this request without an immediate need for it since it looks like it could take some time for a volunteer to create it. Before implementing any automatic removal (per [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Guidelines_for_revocation|NPP guidlines]]), we should heed {{noping|Xaosflux}}'s advice and clarify that the criterion (12 months inactivity) means 12 months of NPP inactivity (i.e. no reviews) - not 12 months of en.wp activity (attested by its author {{u|Kudpung}}) and advertise this on the reviewer discussion page and in the next NPP newsletter. {{ping|Joe Roe}}. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC) |
Per the discussion on my TP on this matter, I have requested a monthly[[Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports#Request:_New_Page_Reviewer_activity_report| database report ]] to identify those with zero reviews in the last 6 and 12 months. I put in this request without an immediate need for it since it looks like it could take some time for a volunteer to create it. Before implementing any automatic removal (per [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Guidelines_for_revocation|NPP guidlines]]), we should heed {{noping|Xaosflux}}'s advice and clarify that the criterion (12 months inactivity) means 12 months of NPP inactivity (i.e. no reviews) - not 12 months of en.wp activity (attested by its author {{u|Kudpung}}) and advertise this on the reviewer discussion page and in the next NPP newsletter. {{ping|Joe Roe}}. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I'm in the minority on this one, so maybe I shouldn't say anything as it will probably just bug people. But I am wondering how de-certifying competent but inactive people helps reduce our queue. Pragmatically speaking, doesn't this just add an unnecessary extra step if we do succeed at inspiring these people to help out again (e.g. via the newsletter)? Food for thought. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 19:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:28, 7 July 2022
| Tutorial | Discussion | New page feed | Reviewers | Curation tool Suggestions | Coordination |
- Articles
- 9476 ↓194
- Oldest article
- 14 months old
- Redirects
- 29054
- Oldest redirect
- 5 months old
- Article reviews
- 1922
- Redirect reviews
- 18273
-
There is a very large articles backlog -
There is a very large redirects backlog
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 9476 articles, as of 22:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
Coordination talk page re-opened
All NPPers are encouraged to watchlist the main discussion page to keep on top of issues directly related to reviewing and policy. The current high backlog is generating a lot of "coordination-type" discussion that has been spread about various personal talk pages. It would be better if all coordination discussion were in one place. Since these discussions are not happening on the main discussion page (where this TP has redirected since 2018), moving them here makes more sense than having them scattered on User TPs. @Kudpung, Novem Linguae, and Barkeep49: MB 03:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed inactivity report
Per the discussion on my TP on this matter, I have requested a monthly database report to identify those with zero reviews in the last 6 and 12 months. I put in this request without an immediate need for it since it looks like it could take some time for a volunteer to create it. Before implementing any automatic removal (per NPP guidlines), we should heed Xaosflux's advice and clarify that the criterion (12 months inactivity) means 12 months of NPP inactivity (i.e. no reviews) - not 12 months of en.wp activity (attested by its author Kudpung) and advertise this on the reviewer discussion page and in the next NPP newsletter. @Joe Roe:. MB 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in the minority on this one, so maybe I shouldn't say anything as it will probably just bug people. But I am wondering how de-certifying competent but inactive people helps reduce our queue. Pragmatically speaking, doesn't this just add an unnecessary extra step if we do succeed at inspiring these people to help out again (e.g. via the newsletter)? Food for thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)