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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: how do we know they are competent? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make a list of every one in one thousand reviews and review these reviews. Does it matter if someone who rarely reviews is only semi-competent, compared to a prolific reviewer who has become confident with their idiosyncrasies? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP:PERM/NPP admins do a good job of doing thorough background checks. In the absence of evidence of a big problem, I think this is a safe assumption. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has always been my point of view. There's some risk of compromised accounts that make Xaos' cleanup helpful but I have generally favored a looser rather than stricter enforcement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I know you don't agree with me on this, but the data I've posted below is fairly convincing, don't you think? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no benefit either to having a long list of people with the right who never use it. Of course, some people do some reviews and move on to other things for a while, then come back. Some people may never be very active and just to one review occasionally. But the threshold is very low - one review in a year. If we send out a message after six months with no reviews, and they still don't manage to do one in the next six months, that is probably a good indicator that they just aren't interested in the project. If someone like this changes their mind, it's easy to request it be restored (not denying that is is an extra step). MB 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: while I'm very much concerned for several reasons that the physical number in the NPP user group should be slimmed down as is done is for other special rights and AfD, I have not been advocating doing anything drastic anytime soon. Hence my suggestion to first obtain the the Quarry lists based on the script by Insertcleverphrasehere, and waiting for the outcome of the current backlog drive. I think it has become evident over the years that suggestions are best based on concrete stats and data, and also RfCs where they are considered absolutely necessary. I have offered to do a thorough, unbiased analysis of the lists. It will be time consuming but I hope it will enable the new coordinator group to move forward one way or another. I have already asked at ICH's talk page if he can produce a first list based on a certain time frame. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/65845 — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was quick. Thank you so much, ICH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung Well, I tried to do it last night but some of the coding had changed since I last ran it, so had to ask for help over at WP:QUARRY. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae I guess it is a security risk. Additionally, if people knew that they had to wear their hats occasionally after collecting them or they would be taken away, maybe some of the hat collecting members of the NPP group might do more patrolling? — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think possibly a lot that has to do with it is that many users apply for the right in good faith without having read or realised the implications of WP:NPP where it is nevertheless spelled out in bold type in in the lede. They haven't done their homework, the bar for obtaining the right is too low, and not all admins at PERM do sufficient due diligence or accord the right on a 30-day probation. Hence there are dozens of reviewers who have bitten off more than they can chew. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung I don't think the bar for inclusion is too low; I think a lot of the learning necessarily has to be 'on the job'. But I really think that the 30 day probation is a good way to weed out hat-collectors who never intend to use the tools, and potentially to annoty anyone with nefarious intentions (UPE black hats). I used to be against the idea of paring down the list, but I've come around more to the idea that some minimal amount of activity should be required to keep the tools, if only to encourage those who are inactive to do a few reviews. I do think that re-establishment (pending activity on a 30 day probationary period) should be assumed essentially automatic for those who want it reinstated. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paring down the reviewer list is necessary. It's not an exercise to name and shame anyone, and most user rights are 'easy come; easy go', and easy come back again. Learning 'on the job' is of course important, that's why we have the NPP School, and more motivation is required to help new reviewers find their feet. I've caught some pretty sticky persistent UPE and blocked and banned them, and only yesterday while patrolling, I caught and CSD flagged an article that I immediately recognised as a hoax (if I had admin tools I could have deleted it on the spot because it was potentially also a negative BLP). But that kind of instinct only comes with experience. I am sure that it would not have been detected by a new(ish) reviewer.

The problems for AI solutions which some NPPers are now asking for, is that the WMF (or more exactly the boss of Phab) is still claiming only yesterday, lack of resources for addressing even simple but urgent software bugs. I contend that as the WMF is awash with money, there is no excuse for not hiring more software engineers. There is going to have to be a major shake up of NPP and I'll stick around to help see it through. I've been talking to some leaders at Growth and Community Tech where I still have a voice (I think). I have a good feeling that now the issues of coordination appear to have been addressed by MB and this page restarted, some progress is going to be made. Paring down the reviewer list will provide an important overview of the performance of NPP.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activity report

Of 740 reviewers in the period of 12 months up to 30 June this year,

• 320 had made 0 reviews
• a further 45 had made 1 edit.
• 153 had made 2 to 20 reviews.
• 112 had made 100 or more reviews.
• 71 had made over 200 reviews
• 25 had made over 1,000 reviews.
• 12 had made an average of 5.55 reviews per day or more.
• A significant number of the 136 < 10 review patrollers have not patrolled in the last 6 months.

Still to analyse: How many of the 1 to 9 review users are new users.

Anyone is welcome to do a better or more accurate analysis. I won't be offended. A further report will be made to cover the period of the July backlog drive to compare and measure its impact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.

I have raised again a request I made over 6 months ago on MMiller (WMF)'s talk page. Please see Suggested Improvements. It concerns additions and updates to the criteria on the filter dialogue panel. There appears to be Phab tickets but it's not clear if this request was included. Could someone please follow up on Phab? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The July Admin newsletter may not be sent for a few more days. I added a request that admins consider doing some reviewing based on some prior discussion. Kudpung, you didn't say anything. I'd like someone from the project to concur it sounds OK. Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter. I'm not sure what editorial control there is - there is a note that says contributions are welcome from all users, so I just went ahead and added something. MB 04:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB I already saw that. It's perfect. I didn't see any need to say anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. – Joe (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts on Phabricator appear to have stalemated. Do we want to slap an RFC tag on the WT:NPPR thread and add it to T:CENT? Is it worth the time/effort/drama? It doesn't directly reduce the backlog, so I feel a bit meh about it, but I guess we should finish what we started. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae IMO even more important than reducing the backlog is preventing junk, spam, UPE, and other vanity pages from becoming indexed by Google. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that, but an RFC could drag on for another month. My reading of all the discussion is that 365 has wide support and the devs should go ahead and do that. We could try one more time by asking a non-involved party (at Wikipedia:Closure requests) to assess if there is consensus for 365 which might be enough for the devs to move forward. Then we could give up on indefinite, hold an RFC for that, or just wait awhile and reconsider maybe in a few months. MB 20:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is that when if we need to do a proper rfc, we would need to start the whole new discussion again with everyone repeating their comments. tbh neither is great and it should just be done, but I get that's not feasible. Lets try ANC, might as well not give everyone even more to do. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One potential issue with ANRFC is that the discussion may be hatted, then rejected by the Phabricator volunteer again, then because the discussion is hatted we'd be pressured to start the discussion again from scratch.

It may be worth pinging the Phab volunteer and asking what they'd accept as sufficient consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed with caution. The conventional wisdom among most WMF staff is that the Wikipedia needs as many new articles as possible irrespective of quality or appropriateness. The official management section of Phab considers itself to be the WMF's upholder of this fallacy and will refuse or stall as many requests as possible from the communities which might be measures to reduce the flow of new article submissions. Volunteers developrs, who appear to be mainly concerned with using MediaWiki for non Foundation projects are also apt to quietly shunt community requests into an overgrown siding in the forest. Any well intentioned comments at Phab from the community will also be interpreted wherever possible as a 'no' vote for a bug repair or feature request, and that's why NOINDEX was thrown out again on the eve of its being rolled out. At the English Wikipedia, those who have longer memories are still smarting from the grossly uncivil behaviour of Buzilla (Phab's predecessor) governance obsessives over ACTRIAL which then took nearly 10 years to resolve. The bottom line is that strictly speaking, Phab should fully recognise the discussion at WT:NPR as an affirmation of the 2012 consensus which Okeys (WMF) promised to enact but as he often did, swept it under the carpet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I believe this ticket was shut down by 2 respected admins from the enwiki community and a Phab volunteer who interpreted that opposition as insufficient consensus, rather than WMF staff. Anyway, what is to be done? I think good options are to ping the Phab volunteer and ask for criteria, or RFC this. I think we should just RFC it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay do the ping first. Worst thing that could happen is they say RfC and we do the RfC anyway. At least we wont waste time going to AN/C, or making an unneeded RfC, if it doesnt go that way. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a number of (uninvolved) admins to consider reviewing & closing this discussion, but all have seemed reluctant — I am very keen to get a firm(er) answer to the question y'all have raised, so that this can be implemented. I'm not sure an entire RfC is required, and I'm confident an uninvolved close (i.e. a summarisation of the discussion) would un-stall the phabricator task and get the patch implemented — TNT (talk • she/her) 04:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TNT and Kudpung. We should be leading this, not following. We just have to find a willing uninvolved Admin to summarize/close. MB 05:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless things have changed since I deleted my watchlist on 4 March 2010, as far as I know there is no policy that states that discussions have to be closed by an admin. Any experienced and trusted editor of admin calibre can do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Proposal: increase unreviewed new page search engine NOINDEX duration. However don't let this stop you from recruiting a closer who can potentially do it faster :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to let the new NPP coords look for someone. I'm somewhat out of touch these days since 4 March 2010 - and of course since Wikimania stopped happening. The sooner I can get back to my semi-retirement, the better 😉 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, I'll just point out that that discussion is by way of an affirmation of an earlier RfC which closed with a consensus 64:11. The WMF promise to roll it out was never fulfilled. You may wish to add that to your closure request. OTOH, it states quite clearly at closure requests: Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. The bolding is mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reply to my ANRFC request and add the info about the old RFC if you'd like. I don't recommend an involved close of... really anything on Wikipedia. I'm surprised that such contrarian advice is given by an official page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I will, Novem Linguae, again it's something I'll leave up to the coords. Suffice it to say however, as well as the 2012 RfC, NOINDEX was ironicaly part of the WMF's original development concept of Page Triage / Page Curation in 2012 and again in their 2818 overhaul. Those seem to me to be pretty strong arguments, but the management at Phab and one or two isolated Wikipedians seem to have other opinions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the equivalent of a self-close by stating at the ticket that there was clear consensus at least to extend to 365. As that had no affect on the Phab, I agree we should get a formal close by a non-involved closer, preferable an Admin or "trusted editor of admin calibre". MB 15:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and Novem Linguae: I may have misread his comment - it's full of Phab jargon - but it now looks as if another WMF dev is finding reasons to deny this request. You might not be subscribed to that thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majavah aka taavi wrote a patch that allows PageTriage NOINDEX to be set to indefinite, and the patch was accepted, and Krinkle thinks he found a major bug in it. We should go silent for a bit and let those two talk and fix the bug. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I've already opened my big mouth there, but it's due to my long and gruelling experience with the WMF and the many serious concerns voiced about that organisation's management from all quarters of the volunteer community. Perhaps all it needs now to assuage Krinkle's concerns is to address any non covered points about the two available patches. Our en.Wiki is not his home project and he does not appear to be aware of what is as stake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krinkle works for the WMF. He's a software developer contractor on the performance team. I think a likely scenario here is taavi sees the comments and fixes the bug. Pressure may not be needed at this exact moment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, I've just finished adding all the issues with open tickets on the suggestion page. We are going to have to go review everything and prioritize (from the NPP perspective). I see some of them were suggested by just one person, and then a ticket opened without much discussion. We need to talk about the best way to do this. Maybe ask everyone to pick their top 10 or something like that. But before we get to that stage, what's missing? Most everything there are enhancements. Aren't there more bugs that need fixes?

Also, can you archive the one item that is closed - this one. I don't know how to use that one-click archiver, I assume that is another script you have to install.

And can you take a look at this. This claims that redirects drop out of the queue after 30 days, and asks for the noindex time to be changed to 90 like articles. MB 05:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I went ahead and archived the requested thread. The user script you're thinking of is User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js.

I don't think most folks could name 10 PageTriage bugs and feature requests off the top of their head. Asking them if they have one or two they'd prefer we work on should suffice. I'll go ahead and create a thread at WT:NPPR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant ask them to go through the list and pick the their top 10. We can still do this in the future after we have a complete list. You queried phabricator directly recently, does thst show more that should be added to our list? MB 10:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting about the 30 day redirect thing. I didn't know about this and this is kind of alarming. I found the code that is responsible for this at https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-PageTriage/blob/58ef5381d2c1d5455a92090477bd6488544f3bf0/cron/updatePageTriageQueue.php#L80-L102. A patch for this would be easy. I may write one soon. @Rosguill, any objections to not autopatrolling redirects after 30 days? Would this overwhelm redirect patrollers like you, or would you prefer that every redirect get a set of eyes? (Right now they appear to get autopatrolled after 30 days) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill asked for this in 2019 according to what Barkeep49 said on the Suggestions page thread. The oldest redirect is currently from June 13, so it appears that they are indeed autopatrolled at 30 days. I have noticed the oldest redirect was a month old for a while now, but never realized this was why. We have probably not reviewed hundreds or thousands of 30 day old redirects by now. MB 10:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been manually patrolling the back end of the redirect log since I raised this in 2019, so we've only been missing thousands of redirects prior to 2019. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, If you are getting to all older ones before they reach 30 days, that is good to know. I've been reviewing a lot of redirects myself and always work on the back end. Since the queue goes back exactly 30 days now, it sure looked like older ones were dropping off unreviewed. Reading the Phab, it looked like there was some hesitancy to implement this over queue size/server/database concerns (with a projection that the queue could grow to 95,000). Then because apparently it didn't rank high enough on the 2019 Wishlist, it just got ignored after that. With the redirect whitelist and the bot patrolling, I don't think the number of unreviewed redirects will get out of control. Hopefully, Novem Linguae can take care of this. MB 17:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping up with the 30th day for some time now. It's about 20-30 mins of work each day to clear out the last day available in the backlog. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's my list:

1. Extend No-index time
2. Opening AFDs
3. Put undeletes back in queue
4. Autopatrolled filter
5. New icon for patrolled with tags
6. Disable unreview message appears to have been done - or wasn’t it? Winged Blades of Godric very abruptly stopped editing from India on 10 July 2020. I hope he is ok.
7. Decline CSD/PROD msgs
8. Welcome new user (this is more useful and relevant than having a WikiLove feature)
9. Tool for moving to draftspace (there is an independent script, but it should be functional from the Curation toolbar)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, wasn't asking for this yet, just discussing the need to get a handle on all the issues so we can do a 2022 ranking of priority. On the suggestions page, the older ones have a hard-coded number in the titles; does that refer to some other list that I haven't found, or was that just a static number within the suggestion page. Can those be discarded and the table numbered starting from one, or is there still a need to keep the old numbers and continue the sequence? MB 17:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to report that "3. Put undeletes back in queue" was recently completed :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'hard-coded number' is what I applied to the page format to give the issues a unique reference for easy location; I thought it would be useful - at least it was when I was coordinating everything single handed. At some stage I collapsed the completed issues. I think the table is an excellent idea but I found it slightly cumbersom that it did not use the same titles (or numbers). It meant having 2 windows open and switching back and forth. If I had time (and incentive) I would have added an extra column to the table because the table is going to prove to be indispensable. There is nothing to stop you renumbering the still open issues as a fresh start. Some of those requests were started more than a decade ago by seriousand experienced users, none of them are frivolous but of course setting a priority is very useful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the description column of the table are to the sections below. If you hover over the description, you will see the full section heading name. I was just piping the description to keep it short, some of the section headings are rather long. MB 05:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table list is not really long but it obviously contains some requests that are more important and/or urgent than others. It should not be too difficult for reviewers to make a top 10 list of priorities, based not only on their personal preferences, but on what they believe is most important for NPP. Twinkle is not an option, Triage/Curation was based explicitly on the premise that it should be compact and not force patrollers to dash around all over the site to find a function they need, and we should not be expected to go back to the pre-2012 NPP system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung and Novem Linguae:, I have completed adding all the Phabs that were mentioned anywhere on the Discussion and Suggestions pages. The table is up to around 35. There are other items on the Suggestions pages for which no ticket was opened - some of them may be more beneficial than some of the open tickets. Then there is this list in Phabricator of 96 items. It should contain all of our 35. I haven't looked at it closely (some of them are technical and hard to understand). I presume the others were opened without discussion at NPP. I think we need to go through those too for candidates that belong in our table so we have a complete picture before prioritizing. MB 05:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were probably no Phab tickets opened because there have been no coords for a couple of years. Some of them might not stand a chance anyway - there has to be a limit to what can sensibly be asked. Your thread at What PageTriage bugs and features would you like us to prioritize? has become the classic phenomenon that destroys most focused discussions: rather than reading what was asked, users are now piling on with yet more wishes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that thread is going OK. I'm kind of using the same process that I use at WT:TWINKLE. People give their ideas in prose, I screen the ideas, and if I think it is a good idea and is actionable I create a Phab ticket.

Phab is the most important place to get these documented, because developers use Phab when they are looking for tickets to work on. Developers will not visit WT:NPPR or WP:PCSI on their own usually.

We should be careful of duplication... some of the ideas are ending up in 4 places (WT:NPPR, WP:PCSI section, WP:PCSI table, Phab). This may be more work than is needed.

At the moment I am just kind of soaking in people's requests and mentally noting which ones get mentioned the most. If we want to be more formal about it we can start tallying each mention, but this may not be necessary.

I have some ideas for lobbying to get PageTriage worked on. One of them is to collect our top 5 tickets, and submit them via email/IRC/etc. to the manager of the Growth Team, and then to the VP of Engineering. We can look into that more in a couple weeks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the Growth Team, Novem Linguae. It depends who picks up your query, otherwise there is a risk that they will tell you to go to Community Tech. Community Tech will tell you to go to the Growth Team, and sooner or later they will both tell you to open a ticket at Phab. User:Eetzie (Wikipedia), aka User:KStoller-WMF (on WMF sites) is the new product manager of the Growth Team since around May 2022. Works with (or under?) MMiller_WMF (Marshall Miller). On the other hand, the Vice-Chair of the Board of Trustees has just told Atsme that NPP issues have nothing to do with the WMF and that the volunteer community should sort it out themselves. You can't win when the board is run by the WMF's own people. Frustrations like these have been typical since Sue Gardner left as CEO. Nowadays we get shunted from pillar to post, and by the management of Phab, and there is no one in overall control of the 101 departments of the WMF. Your best ally is probably Marshall Miller - please see User_talk:Barkeep49#NPP. I have collaborated closely with him in the past on new features for NPP and he is most helpful and a pleasure to work with. He is a critical thinker and he understands the NPP issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Atsme 💬 📧 21:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, just repeating some of what I said on your TP about issue tracking for the benefit of others reading this page. Yes, we don't want unnecessary duplication of work. Some issues are being raised on WT:NPPR which is a free-form discussion page and threads are archived after becoming inactive. That is no tracking mechanism. Everything we do want fixed or changed should be listed at WP:PCSI where it won't be forgotten. I don't see that there is duplication between WP:PCSI section and WP:PCSI table - the table is just a summary, or an enhanced TOC to make it easier to comprehend the status of the items on the rest of the page. As far as your comment "Phab is the most important place to get these documented" - nothing will be fixed without a ticket, so it is important to write the Phab tickets. I don't agree with the rest of your statement: "because developers use Phab when they are looking for tickets to work on". It's pretty clear that the WMF is not putting any resources to any Page Curation issues except for critical maintenance. The model isn't write a ticket and wait for a developer to come along that wants to work on it. We are going to have to make a case that Page Curation needs some attention and request some developer time be allocated for NPP. When we do this, and if we get any increased support, it's unlikely to be enough to implement all ~100 open tickets. So we definitely need to prioritize the work. To do this, we need some basic project tracking. I was once a software project manager and I can't imagine coordinating a project this complex without good data and reports. Kudpung and others used WP:PCSI this way in the past and the need is still here. So please help keep it up-to-date. I see you did add T280890 to the table, thanks for that. MB 02:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The model isn't write a ticket and wait for a developer to come along that wants to work on it. It can be sometimes. I had never edited Twinkle's code before, and I went on their GitHub and wrote patches for every open ticket that I found to be easy. I'm up to like 50 patches that I've submitted. In PageTriage news, I am happy to report that I found the root cause of both the AFD bug and the PROD bug today, and I will probably be able to write a patch and get that fixed in the next week or two. I hear ya on your points, I'm sure we can meet in the middle on the ticket tracking stuff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is always an exception. Since we are opening tickets for everything (in addition to listing at PCSI), everything is visible (to those developers like you who scour phab looking for things to fix), in case there is someone else like you out there :) MB 13:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae and MB: Thanks NL for finding the bug with the AfD feature inj the Curation Tool. There is another similar one but it is not really a bug so its not urgent. It concerns the Leave a Message for the Creator, on the 'Mark as Reviewed' panel.

I see the table has been fully populated. Thank you both for your work on that. I think it's a very important overview and proves now that the issues need to be prioritised. The WMF has replied to Atsme's thread at here and I've posted a long reply (as I usually do 😉) It might have some effect but only if they will pass it on to where it needs to go. The problem is that although the WMF staff list on their WordPress page lists hundreds of employees and their departments, its not in any sense an organigram. It carefuly avoids clearly depicting any hierarchy, and in true US tradition, everyone is a 'manger' or a 'Senior this' or a 'Senior vice that' or even a a VP of something.

In other cultures we reserve such job titles strictly for people who actually head up a department. No one here knows who the people are who are really in charge. It's obviously not the CEO, but her position since the trend set by her predecessor is probably one of being an ambassador rather than a management executive. In my day it was easy, I could sit down with Erik Möller and discuss NPP in detail and follow up in discussions with him on Skype. We got things done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the gizmo with the green check mark start off named PageTriage and then start getting called Page Curation? Without knowing the history, I would suggest renaming it back to PageTriage. My first impression is that having two names is confusing and imprecise. Happy to hear the history though in case I'm missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole process has got more names than that.

• New Page Patrol (NPP) was the original name and used for the ancient Special:NewPages feed, a very basic and limited feed which only holds 30-day's worth and which only had Twinkle and Friendly as a tagging tools - which could be used by all and sundry and only had a limited choices in its panels or drop-downs. Friendly was merged into Twinkle in 2011.
• PageTriage was the working name of the 2012 development for the new Special:NewPagesFeed feed.
• Page Curation - the 'gizmo' - was the working name of the 2012 development for the NPP fly-out tool. It's still used when referring specifically to the tool which is described in its tutorial with its excellent video made by Fabrice Florin.
• New Page Review is the name I gave to New pages patrol/Reviewers user right when I created it in 2016 to avoid the word 'patrol' being confused with Recent Changes Patrol which already existed as a user group.

We still broadly refer to the whole process as NPP. To change it again would create more confusion and mean dabbing thousands of links, and dozens of pages, sub pages, and their talk pages, and all their shortcuts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to change NPP or NPR. My concern was that the software itself has 2 names (PageTriage and Page Curation). I'll table this for now though. Thanks for the great background info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page now has a header and a short cut. See page top. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

–Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, I really don't want you to think I've usurped your initiative to do the newsletters - I've written enough of them over the years, but I've been jotting down some thoughts for the next one which you will probably want to send when the results of the backlog drive are in. Feel absolutely free to change anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your work on the draft. I'm waiting until next month to do any more work on that issue myself. Thanks for sticking around a while longer to help out in various ways. MB 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My patch to fix the PageTriage AFD and prod bugs got merged today. Yay. May thanks to TheresNoTime for the quick code review. It will be deployed around Thursday, July 28. I'll make a post at WT:NPPR the day after that, encouraging people to switch back to PageTriage for prods and AFDs.

In my mind, these were some of the highest priority bugs. These particular bugs are, in my opinion, what gives the PageTriage tool a reputation for being buggy and what has driven a lot of patrollers to just use Twinkle for everything but the green check mark. I'm very excited I was able to knock out these high priority bugs. I hope the deployment goes smoothly, and I look forward to working on some more bug tickets as time permits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since it looks like I am probably going to be the person writing most of the patches we need, I've taken over the PageCuration kanban board and organized the tickets. You can take a peek at the "soon" column for the stuff I plan to work on. I decided which tickets to place in this column via a combination of my judgment, how many people have asked for it, and how easy it is to code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, I think you've done a really grand job, especially where the work is clearly the responsibility of the WMF who developed the new NPP system and the bugs and feature requests should be addressed and coded by the paid devs. At the end of the day however, the system will sooner or later have to be re-engineered from the ground up to comply with today's MediaWiki code.

There are some things that User:Shani_(WMF) got wrong when in good faith she researched her answer to Atsme.

On Zoom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYg9sJ4Ml3M&t=4180s she says :

"It's important to note that the New Pages Patrol and the Articles for Creation workflows are unique to English Wikipedia and are basically community developed, right? It's something the community itself decided on periodically with support from our Product Department. Just like in the 2019 new page patrol project from talking to the good people in our Project Department. I can say there is a desire to help specific projects to maintain the ability to request changes as they see fit. I know it can be very hard to wait when an issue feels really urgent, but tase types of requests are perfect for the Community Wishlist and we encourage you to actually take the concerns there what opens in January. I hope this answers, and we welcome any further feedback on that."

On WT:NPR she writes:

When any Trustee answers a question, these are official answers. They are usually checked and researched beforehand. I happen to know EnWiki quite well, including this issue and others, but even if I didn’t, I would not speak without checking first.[…] Any Trustee would have given the same answer, no matter what their home wiki is as the answer that was given was prepared in advance, after checking it with relevant staff. It may not have been the answer you wanted, but it was an honest answer.

The true facts are: Page Triage was certainly not community developed. We didn't even ask for it. It was a conciliatory and apologetic offering for so rudely dismissing our request at Bugzillas for ACTRIAL to be implemented. She has obviously been misinformed when she researched her answer to Atsme, quite possibly because unless she spoke to Erik Möller (the former vice-president of the WMF), Jorm, or Ryan Kaldari, there is nobody left who was around at the time but nevertheless, much of it is documented.

Some candidates for the BoT are running on a platform of making the Board more responsible for the technical side of the Foundation. This is a welcome development. Perhaps if the WMF still claim they do not have sufficient resources, you may be able to apply for a grant for the heavy lifting you are prepared to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about grants, members of the volunteerr community do get grants for some development work. I believe Bluerasberry knows more about the grants process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have an inside track on anything but just as peer to peer community member, I am happy to talk with any community member who would apply at meta:grants:start. I would talk by voice or video if anyone likes, and will support any grant request that I can. Besides technical development I like the idea of more community funding to organize community discussions to identify needs and problems, because just documenting needs and proposed solutions is a lot of work. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It absolutely is a lot of work, Lane. This was the kind of stuff I had to do back when I was active with my conservation/environmental NPO. It wasn't my favorite part of the job because of the details and research it entails. I would think one advantage we have now is the fact that our volunteer BoT are familiar with the community, the editing environment, and based on what I've gleaned, serve as a bridge to WMF funding. I can easily provide reasons and ideas for what we need that will bring resolution to ongoing issues, and that will help relieve us (via AI) of the burdens & menial tasks that cause burnout. I just don't have the time or the patience to create a formal proposal for funding. I did it once for WP:Project Accuracy and was met with unwarranted resistance by editors who have since been site banned, and I'm not incentivized to do it again, although my proposal did advance right up to being denied by the WMF. I am certainly willing to help organize, communicate, and do my part, and I do still intend to communicate with Shani about the issues we've discussed and what I believe would be remedial steps, or at the very least prove helpful. Kudz was one of the first to bring all this up, and I'm basically just an echo with no real technical ability...but I sure as hell can teach at expert level how to ride a cutting horse, or scuba dive. 🤠 🤿 Atsme 💬 📧 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some progress?

It's looking as if one or two of the Phab tickets might in fact be getting close to completion. I'm sure that by now key people like MMiller (WMF), KStoller-WMF, Johan (WMF), are all aware of at least some of the key issues concerning Page Triage clearly explained in this synoptic comment, and if not, I'm equally convinced they are nevertheless doing their best to understand the situation - especially where The Growth Team's mission is to recruit and retain as many editors as possible. However, they might not have been around as long as Kaldari, DannyH (WMF), and I have and they may not be fully sensitive to the impact NPP/Page Triage should be having on maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia's articles and in addition, the new challenges faced by the patrollers. We now have the attention of the Board of Trustees and Vice Chair Shani (WMF) has firmly promised it will be properly discussed and that both the CEO and the new CPTO will be involved in discussions.

The main recurring issue cited by the staff is the lack of resources. IMHO with the abundance of funds available to the WMF it should be possible to increase the HR capacity to address these and other technical grassroots requirements for ensuring a clean flagship encyclopedia. The medium (and not 'long') term solution can of course only be a rewrite of the code base. The question for us, the volunteers , is knowing whom the NPP coordinators can best directly lobby to ensure that the team of engineers is increased as quickly as possible before the system ends up being completely bankrupt, and that the overtaxed team of volunteers at NNP is not expected to divert their time from patrolling in order to provide the technical patches themselves - even if they have some of the technical knowledge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, speaking as a volunteer only, firmly agree that some additional budget to increase the staffing levels of teams dedicated to supporting the community in a technical capacity would be a step in the right direction — a step which would see these features and bugs worked on by WMF teams in collaboration with the community, as it should be. I hope your discussions with the board et al prove fruitful. I'd also like to take a moment to thank Novem Linguae for engaging in thoughtful and intelligent implementation discussions and providing patches — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I received a very encouraging email from Shani (WMF) in response to the draft proposal I recently emailed to her, which she also forwarded to askcac (at) wikimedia.org for further input and to help ensure that it will be seen by the right people, including the new CEO Maryana Iskander. While the BoT focuses on strategies, Shani noted that the BoT is looking at what I've proposed from "a more strategic angle", and are/will continue thinking about some of the larger issues raised, including community needs, and the various external threats posed by AI and other sources. Her email coupled with the activities at Phab, and the input from WMF techs who are working on our bugs and other requests, is like a big dose of B12 for reviewer morale. And Shani, the comment above by {{noping|TheresNoTime|TNT}} TNT indicates yet another editor in support of a dedicated team. Atsme 💬 📧 11:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC) ^{corrected ping 12:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

• Just the tiniest of comments Atsme.. TheresNoTime and TNT are one and the same (I'm going to change my signature as this has happened before, sorry!) — TNT (talk • she/her) 12:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for not remembering that noping adds both names vs the {{u|TheresNoTime|TNT}} which only includes the acronym: TNT. I should have previewed before publishing. Atsme 💬 📧 12:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahah, that catches me out too — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 12:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WMF outreach

Folks, I have been away on another summer vacation and had little WP time. While offline, I was thinking about other ways to raise awareness within the WMF of our needs. Some of us have been doing some WMF outreach (Kudz, Atsme, NL). Building on that, I have drafted a letter requesting Page Curation software support. This is specifically about addressing the backlog of open phab tickets that could be done in the short term if resources were made available, not about any potential rewrite or major change (unless of course it becomes obvious that that is a better way forward).

My thought is that we review/improve this very rough first draft (that borrows heavily on things various people have posted in various places) and agree on the best recipients. Then we ask all NPPers to add their signature (either in the next newsletter or maybe a special mass message), a “petition” of sorts. NPP needs to be more squeaky to get “oiled,” and hopefully this will have more impact if we get dozens of signatures.

Just brainstorming here. Should we try it? Waste of time? If we do nothing, getting a few of the most important issues on the next Community Wishlist may be the only opportunity to get anything done (except for bug fixes provided by NL ex-WMF). MB 12:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]