Former talk page archives

/Header /School /Newsletter /Awards Backlog drives Page Curation/Suggested improvement

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

At this point MPGuy2824's fork of the draftify user script is a clear upgrade compared to Evad37's original. In particular, the improved multiple-choice message templates, warnings about too new or too old pages, and addition of a #moveToDraft tag make it significantly more policy-compliant than the original, which I think is reason enough to fully deprecate Evad37's in favour of MPGuy2824's (as previously suggested).

My question is, what's the best way to achieve this? Has anyone asked Evad if he's okay with passing on the torch? Could we redirect the old script to the new? Or mass message people asking them to switch? Courtesy pings @MPGuy2824 and Evad37: – Joe (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has asked Evad directly, but he must have noticed me sniffing around his script's talk page, and you now have pinged him to this thread.

There are a couple of options to deprecate Evad's script:

1. Add a small message to the UI of the script: "This script is no longer being maintained. Please switch to the current version: Edit your common.js file by changing User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js".
2. Replace Evad's UI completely with a message asking people to switch. (screenshot attached)

   

3. Redirecting from the script to my fork.

All of them require either Evad (or an int-admin) to make changes. I think we should definitely do #1 first. I'm torn between #2 and #3. #2 is more jarring to the user, but #3 might seem like we are bamboozling them without their consent. @Evad37, thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 seems too much, 2 seems a bit pushy, but 1 seems most reasonable. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to proceed here with respect and sensitivity. Someone should definitely reach out to Evad37 via their user talk page and see what their thoughts are, then we should discuss further. Let's make sure they are involved in this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a user talk message for Evad37 just now. I want to make sure they are included in this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Evad37 responds, we should wait a week before posting an int-admin edit request for option 1 (adding a small UI message to his script). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did this edit request, and the change has been made to Evad's script. I'll report back with how many people switched over after 15 days. We can decide on any further action after that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active just means active on wikipedia, not necessarily actively using the script. I recommend that we wait for 15 more days before doing anything else major. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few holdouts that are actively using Evad's version. If they don't switch by the end of the month, I'll send them individual messages asking them to. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Zippybonzo

Hello! I just wanted to ask, how often does the NPP has backlog drives. It appears that the article backlog drive has risen into moderate territory and that it may need attention in a possible July backlog drive. I am not sure if it’s rare to have 2 in a year, so if you could tell me more, that’d be great. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Illusion Flame We typically have them when the backlog is around 8000 or more, as otherwise there aren’t enough articles for people to review. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 05:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 in a year is not uncommon, last year there were 2. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 05:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I think we should space them out by a minimum of 6 months. There are folks that don't like them so doing them too often can bug people. Also doing them too often can lead to reviewer burnout. There's lots of good things about backlog drives too, so we need to find a good balance that keeps everyone happy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, any interest in moving this discussion to WT:NPPC? I feel like our discussions are getting scattered on user talk pages a bit. Feel free to use the templates {{Moved from}} and {{Moved to}}, and just cut and paste. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think a move is necessary as this was meant to just be a clarifying question, but I’ll start a thread there about how often we should have backlog drives. Is that okay @Novem Linguae? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked about this here and on Discord, so starting a new thread and having to talk about it a third time could be a bit repetitive. Up to you though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your points make sense. Reviewer burnout seems to be a big one. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up for doing them more than twice a year. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on Discord, it'd be a good idea to check previous backlog drives (Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives) and see where they were at when they were started. The backlog isn't high enough to be worth a drive at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that now, but @Novem Linguae suggested moving here for wider discussion. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drives work best when there's a sustainable level of reviewing (i.e. the size of the queue isn't growing) but we need an extra push to get rid of a previously built-up backlog. We're in the opposite situation right now: the backlog is still historically low, but growing alarmingly fast (about 1000 a week I think). Put short, this is a good time to recruit new reviewers (and encourage them to actually do some reviews), not organise a backlog drive. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the next backlog drive starts, may I suggest that we draw up a template that we can use to advertise NPP and the drive to existing editors who current NPPers think might make good new-NPPers? Think of it as a both drive to patrol pages and to recruit more editors to the cause. An award for the most new NPPers recruited would be great, but I'm not sure how that would be kept track of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)

Hey there. Thanks for the idea. We're actually proactively recruiting already. We've sent out several hundred invitations to experienced editors in the last month, and it has resulted in maybe 15 perm requests. I think it might be hard to invite qualified editors who haven't already received a message. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I saw the outreach for possible NPP coordinators, and needless to say, I'm interested. As we already have good people for backlog, awards and newsletter, I'm thinking I can help in recruitment by sending invitations to fellow editors for joining NPP and AP. Furthermore, given my interest in counter-vandalism acts, I can audit editors who may be abusing their rights of both NPP and AP. I sure do hope I will contribute efficiently and will benefit from our coordination. Best. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk)

Pinging Novem Linguae for faster response =D ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 04:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. Will check with some folks and get back to you shortly. Thank you very much for your interest. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a thought, we could also possibly have multiple recruitment coordinators. It'd be beneficial to have multiple users looking for qualified members to add to the team.

I also appreciate that Raydann mentioned inviting users to apply for the autopatrolled right, as that in of itself is a helpful way to reduce the backlog now and in the future. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Raydann. Thanks for your enthusiasm. Would you be willing to help out with NPP recruitment on an informal basis for awhile, and then if everything goes smooth we'd add you as an official coordinator a little bit later? Also please follow the section right below this closely, as we may be loosening the criteria we use to determine who we reach out to about joining NPP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I actually thought of doing so even before requesting here. So yes, I'll do the outreach informally for now. And thanks for the heads up, I'll keep myself updated with the below discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Novem Linguae, do you reckon I can add my name to the Coordinators list now? Helping in Invitations and outreach (probably auditing too). ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raydann. Just a suggestion, not entirely related to adding yourself to the list, but would you be able to help out with preparing the recruitment MassMessage lists and such, and then I’ll send them upon request from you/NL. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks for helping out with recruitment. Nice job. (Un?)fortunately I think we've automated recruitment with the MMS project, so please keep an eye out for other jobs you may be interested in, or feel free to help Zippy with tasks. Sounds like he has one for you above if you're interested. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo sure I can make a MMS list for people who I have decided to invite, but it would only delay the process. Usually I look for the user's contribution in other areas, then I screen their talk page to see any negative issues, then I see their responses to generate civility and then finally if satisfied, I leave a message on their talk page. If I continue this process but instead of directly inviting them, add them in a list, it will ultimately increase the workload for me, you and NL. Instant invite would be best for manual screening, and Mass message would be best for list generated through a query.

@Novem Linguae, thank you for adding me. Even with the MMS system, I would continue to look for prospective editors, quite possibly, active AfC reviewers who do not possess the NPP right. Also, not to mention I screen editors for the Autopatrolled right, and we currently do not have an automated process for that. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 14:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raydann, if you are able to help with automating autopatrol (screening and setting up small batches, of around 10-20 to allow tweaking) and then I will be able to send upon request, though if you end up requesting sending from me regularly, I'm sure @Novem Linguae can probably set you up with the MMS right if needed. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raydann. Sounds good on inviting AFC reviewers for NPP and others for autopatrol. Thanks. Keep up the good work! –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raydann, thanks for picking up autopatrol recruitment as well. Could you also add "checking for autopatrol abuse" in your list of tasks? Removing a user right is a sensitive area, so please bring your first couple of suspected abuses here just for a second opinion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just had an idea as well. Can we get a WP:QUERY detecting folks who have made more than X edits to AFD subpages in the last 30 days. Then we can manually cross-check those results to https://afdstats.toolforge.org/ and invite folks with an accuracy rating higher than 70%. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo that's a good idea and the way I would prefer it. I got the autopatrol invite template deleted (on Joe's suggestion), but will have a talk with @Joe Roe to see what could be done.

@MPGuy2824 sure, I will try to find problematic new pages created by Autopatrolled user's and see if any one of them is abusing the right. Thank you.

@Novem Linguae I believe the candidates added by a query to a list should go through further manual screening. While using a query is a very efficient way to find probable editors, we should not invite them solely based on that. But a great idea nevertheless. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about autopatrol auditing

@MPGuy2824 and Raydann: I would very strongly recommend against any newer editor/non-admin actively patrolling for misuse of rights – for your own sake. I've done a fair bit of it and, honestly, even if you're as careful and tactful as you can be, it's a surefire way to get dragged to the dramaboards every other week. Unless you have a very thick skin and are absolutely sure you don't want to do an RfA in the future, it's best left to others. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like good advice. Maybe Raydann can just come back here with such users, and you/NL/other willing admins can take the issue forward, depending on the severity of the issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe true enough. It is a difficult and time consuming task to audit the misuse of rights. While patrolling, I did find some borderline editors, but I dare not accuse them for misusing rights, as I would not be assuming good faith. I reckon I will currently not perform this particular task, and in the meantime, I can do other useful things. Thank you very much for the suggestion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s for the best @Raydann. If you ever find misuse, maybe you could contact an admin about it privately. This would solve both issues - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone ends up doing this role in the future, I envision them bringing it to the other NPP coordinator's attention on Discord or this talk page, and then there would be discussion, and others would handle contacting the person in question and other measures if needed. They would not have to be the one delivering the message. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above I suggested that the criteria we use to determine who receives a MMS on their user talk page to invite them to become an NPP reviewer is too stringent. It seems like there's some folks that agree with me that it's too stringent. So I just wanted to start a side conversation here about it. Are we OK with lowering thiis criteria, and if so, what should the new criteria be? I propose >10,000 edits, >500 edits this month, not blocked, not admin/NPP, not currently blocked as a starting point for discussion. Then we MMS these folks in batches of 500, spacing the batches out by like a week so that we can see if we need to tweak the criteria, make sure there's no major complaints about "spamming", etc. Forking and adjusting this could be a good starting point for a new Quarry query. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that more stringent? Insertcleverphrasehere's (courtesy ping) criteria were >2500 total edits and >500 edits in six months, though the query doesn't actually seem to check total edits. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit count part is, but I think the rest is much less stringent. User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list contains 7 automated criteria and 8 criteria that require manual review for each potential invitee. Getting rid of the 8 criteria that need manual review would be what makes the workflow much more efficient, imo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely sounds a good idea. Why increase the edit count criteria so dramatically, though? – Joe (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume people with that edit count are more likely to have mastered notability and can hit the ground running. Feel free to propose a different edit count if you'd like. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting 370 ppl meeting that requirement in this quarry. We can reduce the editcount criteria after batch 1 of the MMS. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you forgot to add "account age>3 months", as that is the min mentioned at Wikipedia:PERM/NPP. Otherwise, it seems fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that query, MPGuy2828. I've used it to spin up an MMS list at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/June 2023 invite list. All, any objections to MMSing these folks the standard recruitment template at Template:NPR invite? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one explicitly objected. Go for it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity... is there a way to check this list for users who have had the permission before? It may not be a lot of users, but we'd ideally like to avoid sending an invite to someone who have the right removed. Even if it's a quarry query I'd be fine to compare it against the invite list and remove those who had it removed for a reason, and not just do to a trial expiring or giving up the right. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no objections, let's get this moving. The current system is inefficient, and I'd like to reach more potential patrollers with less effort.

@Hey man im josh, want to take this to WP:QUERY and ask them if they can modify this query to exclude what you mentioned?

@Zippybonzo or @Illusion Flame, can you make a subpage somewhere and draft up a recruitment message using one of the recruitment templates we have? Maybe consult with @Raydann to pick the template and adjust the wording? Then post the draft here for review? Thanks all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, even if we wanted to get this moving, I think the number of users that would end up being removed from the list would be small. We could move forward and just accept that it may end up going out to a few people who would not qualify for the perm if they applied for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on vacation, so I may not be able to complete this timely. I’ll try my best @Novem Linguae. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started a draft taking some inspiration from a few of the other templates: {{New page reviewer invitation}}. @Raydann and @Zippybonzo please take a look when you get a chance and make appropriate changes. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 05:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d rather the title was new page patrol invitation, but that’s mostly semantics. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to check the list for anyone who has been blocked recently or has had the permission revoked for a reason other than resigning it. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae I believe the message is ready to send, but I’ll give a few more days for comment/changes while others finish stuff with the MM list and query changes. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying, I was away this weekend. So far, the template looks good. I have reviewed it and added automatic signature substitution, but I'm not sure if it is required for MMS. If unnecessary, please remove it, or just let me know. @Zippybonzo please also include my talk page if you happen to send a test MMS. Additionally, @Novem Linguae, what would become of the list at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list. Should I continue to screen and send out manual invitations or should I cease it, considering that we're already sending a mass message to eligible editors. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raydann, I'd probably cease manual invites, and add some of the higher qualified editors on ICPHs list onto the main one. I'm going to send out an MMS test to confirm it works and then once @Novem Linguae gives me the ok, I'll send it out to the main list. I'd rather the signature said 'Sent by Zippybonzo on behalf of the NPP coordination team using MediaWiki message delivery at 08:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)' Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have commented out the auto sign function, so you can use your preferred signature. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent test to @Raydann, @Illusion Flame and self. Ping me if you want it sending to anyone else. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on Template:New page reviewer invitation. I made some small tweaks to it just now, including adding an "unsubscribe" link.

• Have we made the MMS list yet? Are we going to base the MMS list off of this?
• Can someone please drop a link to the MMS list here, and also fix the MMS list link in the template?
• Does MMS show up as a bot edit or a regular edit? I'm wondering if this could blow up some watchlists if someone has a bunch of active users' talk pages watchlisted. That wouldn't be ideal.

After that I think we can go ahead and send it. I don't know what the norms are surrounding unsolicited MMS... hopefully there's no backlash. Courtesy ping to @Rosguill to let them know we'll be sending an MMS to 370 editors, which could result in an influx of WP:PERM/NPP applications. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo. I disagree with removing the unsubscribe link. Even though it is a one time message, it is unsolicited. I think it is really important that we give folks an easy way to communicate to us that they don't want our messages in the future. Else they may leave complaints on our talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Yes, but it's a one time message, so you cannot unsubscribe in my eyes, as there isn't really a list to unsubscribe from. Pinging @Raydann and @Illusion Flame for input. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List here Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/Invite list Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MMS does blow up watchlists, but it passes quite quickly. MMS list Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/Invite list. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manual invites are definitely still helpful and I see no issue continuing with them. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as it will cause conflicts with the MMS list. If you want to fix it, be my guest. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What “conflicts”? There are plenty qualified candidates that don’t meet the requirements for the massmessage. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but some will be on both lists and receive 2 messages. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so what if they do? I'd also rather be recruited by an individual vs a mass message personally. Raydann has been doing great work and I don't think they should be discouraged from continuing to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo Not necessarily. If I come across someone who has already received the invite via mass message, I won't manually invite them, simple! ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you invite them before the MMS, then they get 2 messages, my proposal is @Raydann, after inviting a user, make sure they aren't on the MMS list. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if so, remove them. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, can you make sure that the message isn't sent by anyone other than me (or at least without a test send having been made) as I have found a few sending issues including an unclosed div tag. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just now I added a message to the top of it to discourage sending. Feel free to remove it when ready. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, after I got over the fact of me believing I hallucinated someone fixing it, I realised @Schminnte had actually fixed it, and my testing indicated it now works after I got rid of some commented bits, so you can ping me when you want it sending. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo. Can you cut our list of recipients into two lists? Since this is unsolicited and there's no unsubscribe button, I don't know how much backlash this might generate. Let's mitigate our risk. After the list is divided in two, feel free to send the first batch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thinking to go in batches of 75-100 and then I’ll send the first batch. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, subject wise what shall I put? Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep it simple and just put "Invitation". –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First batch of 50

Ok  Sending... first batch of 50 Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zippybonzo. How big was the first batch? We got 2 signups at WP:PERM/NPP from it so far, and no pushback yet. If all looks good in 24 hours, I say we send the next batch(es). –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Each batch is 50 people, I’m able to send the next batch upon request (unless the Maldivian WiFi breaks, yes I’m editing Wikipedia on holiday) but just ping me and I’ll send it. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that @Novem Linguae was approving the next batch to be sent in 24 hours, providing no pushback. Thanks for still contributing on vacation! (Although you should take the break!) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After background checking the two applicants, I see some red flags. Let's hold off on further MMSs until experienced admins process their PERM applications. If both of them fail, we may need to refine the Quarry query a bit more. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another thing I just thought of. We may need to go through our lists and subtract out the people that Raydann recently invited. We should avoid spamming folks as much as possible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we transcluded the template and then checked for the template on their pages then we could probably quarry for it. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raydann: Are you able to recall all those who you've recently invited? If so, perhaps it'd be best for them to go through the list themselves and just quickly remove anybody they've invited. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise we can look at contribs to the User talk namespace. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh sure, I have marked the people I have invited on this list User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list. I'll go over and remove editors whom I have already sent an invitation. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 18:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also log these folks somewhere so that when we make our next MMS list we can subtract them out. Zippy, can we create a page somewhere that is a list of everyone that Raydann has invited and everyone that has already received an MMS? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we somehow add that to the query? If someone already has the template in their talk. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae I went over the list and made sure that the people I have already invited are not added there. Fair enough there was only User:JDC808 who I had to remove, others were not in the list. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I’m not sure mass new page reviewer invitations are the best idea. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Illusion Flame, how else are we meant to invite 370 qualifying reviewers? Additionally, how are we going to keep the MassMessage senders employed?^[Humor] Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 01:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that @Novem Linguae isn’t sure on 2 of the applications received after the message, I think manual invitations might be best. That way we can specifically curate who we invite, not just all users that have made a certain number of edits. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we just briefly look down the list, and if there are any copyvios or other issues, remove them, I send the messages to a predetermined list of people, I have very little to do with the content or who it sends to. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 02:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, we will pause for now and see if either of the two applicants from the first batch of 50 is accepted. Then we can discuss. Even if they both are not accepted, it may be possible to add some additional conditions to the query rather than abandoning the idea outright. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of 50

Zippybonzo. Okay, one of the invitees was approved and the other was declined, and there were zero complaints that I'm aware of. Let's go ahead and resume the mass messages. Thanks team. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, @Novem Linguae batch two will be sent out within the next 6 hours. If @Raydann gets time, can you please prepare the list (of 50 pages) as I’m quite busy at the moment. Thank you, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Raydann seems to be offline: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/Invite list 3 -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, thanks,  Sending... now. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to wait long for every subsequent batch. We should send out a new batch a day after the previous one. Rinse and repeat. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll send one soon Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zippybonzo. We had another person who received an MMS and applied for NPP receive the perm recently, and zero complaints so far. I think we're 2 for 3 on folks that applied and got accepted. You can do another MMS, and feel free to include all remaining recipients. No need to dice into batches of 50 anymore, since no complaints :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, doing. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to 268 pages. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future mass message ideas

1. Details of future mass messages: 1) We should be careful not to message anyone we've already messaged. Even if that means feeding a hard-coded list of people to exclude into the next Quarry query using `NOT IN()` or something like that. 2) MPGuy2824 suggested we look at experienced/active AFC reviewers that aren't NPPs yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   MPGuy2824, if you're still in the mood to quarry, would you consider also doing a quarry for AFC reviewers that are experienced and aren't NPPs or admins yet? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   quarry:67155: Getting 28 reviewers when I set the condition to >15 AFC reviews in the past month. Should this be tweaked? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oh, I just had an idea as well. Can we get a WP:QUERY detecting folks who have made more than X edits to AFD subpages in the last 30 days. Then we can manually cross-check those results to https://afdstats.toolforge.org/ and invite folks with an accuracy rating higher than 70%. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Since i was in the quarry already: [1] -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Awesome. Thanks. Suggested tweaks: 1) much bigger limit. 2) include former patrollers. patroller is removed after 1 year of inactivity. maybe some of these folks would be willing to come back. 3) hard-coded removal of SineBot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Removed all bots instead of just SineBot. Former patrollers are now included, but please check to see that they weren't removed for bad patrolling before inviting. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Awesome. Thanks so much. Can you or Zippy please take the results of this active AFD people query, and subtract the complete list of everyone we've already messaged (the sum of the last 3 mailings plus Raydann's individual invites), and program whoever is left into an MMS list? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Raydann, can you make a list of the people that you invited. Maybe put it somewhere on your userspace. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Got it. Here: User:Raydann/NPP outreach. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   All invitees added Y. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 11:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in a couple places, but I'd like to give it its own section. We are drafting a special MMS at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Help draft. Feel free to edit and improve the draft. I feel the draft could use more text, an image, and a title or signature saying it's from the NPP team. Feel free to borrow formatting/text from here or here

• Is there consensus to send this out?
• If so, when? We JUST sent the newsletter last week I think. Does it make sense to space these out? Or to wait until the article backlog gets higher?
• Should redirects be mentioned at all, or just focus on the article backlog?

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we are still in "moderate" territory (according to our dashboard), i think folks might get a bit irritated. Let's at least wait until the backlog reaches 8K, which is our "very high/large" territory. There is also an admin newsletter that is going to be sent out soon. I think Kudpung added a line to one of those previously. We should consider doing this too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the rate of growth that's the problem. We'll be at 8K in three weeks. I think we need to get out of the habit of reacting to backlogs only when they hit an alarming headline figure – it just makes the problem worse in the long run. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait till 6K ("high"), at least. The urgency in the message would be commensurate with how the dashboard treats the backlog number. Also, then it would more than 14 days since the newsletter.

On redirects, I'd say don't mention them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joe Roe in that it's the rate of increase, not the actual number that matters. We need to be more proactive, and consider that if the rate of increase is likely to lead to what is widely considered a backlog, then we should be actively reducing it. It should start with asking all reviewers/admins, including inactive ones to try to review 1 or more pages a day. We've got the people who know what to do, it's just getting them to review the pages. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Help draft @Zippybonzo and @Illusion Flame. I think it looks really good. I think that graph is an awesome image for it too, as it visually conveys what is happening with the backlog and why there is some urgency. I am leaning towards sending this out immediately, because I think that sending it will get some reviewers who took their foot off the gas after the redirect backlog drive to come back (two reviewers talked about this on a talk page... that they don't currently think their help is needed but if they were told that it is, they would come back), and the sooner they restart their efforts, the better the backlog will be in the long run. If I'm reading this discussion right, multiple editors favor sending immediately, so let's go ahead and execute that. Friendly reminder, don't forget to add a signature to the draft. Thank you everyone for your thoughts in this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also let's look at the graph again in two weeks and see how much this helped. If this has a major effect on the graph, we should make a mental note and send these out more often. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are we approved to send? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. We will send it when Zippy comes online. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some adjustments so that the image is fully within the purple div. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. I added a {{Clear}} template. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sending after I fulfil some other MMS requests. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, let's hope I don't have to fix the message. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I've just noticed is that it's sent to a few people who can't help, as they aren't reviewers, so we might get some new reviewers soon. :) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it sent correctly. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap. You called it :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it appears the mass message only temporarily slowed the backlog. For a detailed graph, see here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the following table could be added to the coordination page instead of the current one:

It separates each person into the respective 'teams' (and makes us look bigger). Additionally I think it might be worth exploring turning NPP into a WikiProject, being that it's pretty much a WikiProject in its current state. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting this table. After thinking about it, I prefer the simplicity of the two bulleted lists for now.

We are already a WikiProject, in my opinion. Did you have some specific changes in mind? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are technically a Wikiproject, but definitely not a normal one, given that there’s a user right associated with it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I have in mind are to allow non-reviewersto sign up as helping with weeding out bad articles and allowing us to patrol the good ones quicker. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s a great idea! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’d prefer a blend of this idea and out current list. I like that our current list avoids repeating names, but I like the idea of separating us into teams. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that individuals and their roles are listed in an inconsistent fashion. For instance, you're listed as "Newsletter coordinator/sender" under "Newsletter coordinators" but you're listed as "backlog drives, newsletter coordinator" under "Backlog Drive Coordinators". The consistency of capitaliization for "coordinator" also needs to be fixed, as it's capitalized in three of five section headers and not under the description portion I guess you'd call it?

Why would we want the team to look bigger than it is? NPP is also already a WikiProject. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer more of a consistent look, with a more merged approach to the table so we don't look too big, but I prefer the 'teams' concept. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy ping Novem Linguae) Just a note that I've boldly edited the school page to remove this link to Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors, which states that [t]his page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference, which has been the case since 2014. Please discuss if anyone disagrees, thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Thanks for your edit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be asked at the general NPP talk page? There's 370 page watchers there vs only 55 here. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as the school talk page redirects to here this place is fine, but you could also link it to the main page. VickKiang (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit seems uncontroversial and not needing further scrutiny, imo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Joseywales1961 and anyone else that ends up volunteering. Thanks for your interest in teaching NPPSCHOOL! The way it works is you list yourself at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School#Available Trainers, then the prospective student asks if you can be their teacher on your user talk. Then you say yes and create a user subpage such as User:Joseywales1961/NPP school/Novem Linguae.

There are basically two curriculums: the older, longer curriculum that Barkeep49/Rosguill/Cassiopeia/Onel5969 use, and the newer, shorter curriculum that Atsme uses. In theory you could create your own curriculum, but it is probably best to copy one of these for now.

Please look over that info, then reply back with the curriculum you plan on using and any questions. Then we can get started. Thanks again for volunteering for this important task. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, I'm happy to volunteer, given I went to NPPSCHOOL on the shorter curriculum, when I do get round to adding myself to the list (weekend ish), I'll use that one Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Novem, I'll set this up tomorrow, decide which curriculum to use and contact the student Josey Wales ^Parley 22:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae I'm going to use the older version (I studied under Cassiopea on CVUA and liked their style) Josey Wales ^Parley 07:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023. Your input is requested in said discussion. Thank you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! Am I eligible to be a NPP coordinator? Ma.Sa.54 (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma.Sa.54: You would first need the New Page Reviewer permission, which you are not currently eligible for given your low edit count and relative inexperience. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a NPP IRC channel? I'm not going to be using Discord anymore. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear you won't be using Discord anymore. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we really enjoyed having you @Deauthorized. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still plan on applying for NPP rights and participating in the backlog drive so don't worry. I was deeply unhappy with discord as a whole for a very long time. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to hear that you're still interest in NPP @Deauthorized. I hope that you'll apply soon because I do think you have a solid grasp of things, as well as an understanding of what to avoid. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be one. But, i don't know how active it is. I've just joined it now, and will get back to you about its activity level. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NPP IRC channel is inactive, and I'd like to discourage folks from using it since there are advantages to centralizing us all on one chat client. One chat server with high activity is better than two chat servers with mediocre activity, imo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Network effect. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NPP IRC channel is inactive. Yup, zero activity during the day that I joined. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’re thinking about possibly moving the planned October backlog drive to September because of the alarming rate of backlog growth. I’m afraid that if we wait till October that it will be too high, too late. (https://npptech.toolforge.org/npp/chart.php?type=articles) What are everyone’s thoughts on the move? (Courtesy ping @Zippybonzo @DreamRimmer @Novem Linguae) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's too soon to move at this point, because there won't be enough time to send the messages and allow people to join. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's not really enough time now to move it to September. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]