Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021

Hashing out the rules

Thanks so much for agreeing to help out, Elli!

So, I've got some ideas on how to run the drive, especially using existing bots (Enterprisey hasn't replied) to do most of the heavy lifting—now detailed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October–November 2021. Relying so heavily on the leaderboard for scoring may not work because there may be more than 100 people participating in the drive and/or reviewing articles that month. Let me know what you think about the proposed rules.

Once we get that figured out, I expect the next major thing will be send out a message urging all patrollers to participate in the drive, perhaps about a week before it starts. Then afterward, the coordinators have to add together all the points and award barnstars. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for setting the initial page up. I like most of the rules, but there are a few things we should probably take note of.

First, the database report includes patrolling redirects. While this is an important thing to do - it's a very different task from regular NPP, and can be done much faster. Using a separate report to only count non-redirects would probably be a good idea.

I like the idea behind re-reviewing - but I'm a bit concerned people might focus heavily on the people at the top of the leaderboard, and end up re-reviewing the same articles. Not sure exactly the solution there, but maybe we could ask people to make sure the article they're re-reviewing hasn't already been re-reviewed by someone else?

Other than those two things - maybe also change up some of the rewards to be more NPP focused? I like the tiers, they seem reasonable/fair. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a third coordinator, Tol has kindly agreed to help out. I agree that the drive should be focusing on articles, not redirects, but is there a database report that excludes redirects? If not, we may have to get people to list the patrolled articles (perhaps on a dedicated subpage for each participant as was done during the AfC drive).

I've added a note to the instructions to avoid duplication with re-reviews.

I plan to create special NPP barnstars later today to replace the GAN ones. (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is a database report for that currently, but I'm sure one could be put together. Everything else looks good. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Database reports are done by the Community Tech team. As far as I can tell, they don't have a reputation for being very responsive. This particular report relies on another bit of code by MusikAnimal. I'm guessing it wouldn't be too complicated to exclude redirects but in order to have two separate reports you would need to get the community tech team to do something. Probably the most likely way to accomplish it is if the NPP community wanted to exclude redirects from the leaderboard calculation either temporarily or permanently, then we could contact MusikAnimal (they are still active). But I don't know if that's desirable. Otherwise, I think we would have to use individual user subpages like the AfC drive did, except we would probably not have a bot to automatically generate them. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm in asking - MusikAnimal, would it be easy/realistic to exclude redirects from Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Community Tech team ... don't have a reputation for being very responsive – I'm assuming you're referring to on-wiki talk pages? There are many dozens, so we do miss things, but we never ignore inquiries when seen! Phabricator tasks tagged with #community-tech are certain to be noticed, or you can just ping someone on the team. In this case, you pinged the right person :)

It's fairly simple to change the bot's query to exclude counting pages that are redirects at the time query is ran. However, there's no easy way to query the redirect status at the time the review actually took place (the same reason we gave up on phab:T157048). So there's a chance a patroller could mark an article as reviewed, then before the next bot run it's changed to a redirect, and hence isn't counted in the report. As long as you're okay with this, I'm happy to make the change. We can also do this on a different page if you want, as a supplement to the current report. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: a separate page would be best - even better would be having a merged report, one for redirects only, and one for non-redirects only (I know redirects-only can be derived from the other two, but that takes more effort than a bot would). And while not perfect that would probably be good enough.

(also, if a page is deleted after being patrolled, it would count for the "non-redirect" number, right?) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A separate report for merged, redirects-only and non-redirects sounds like a fine idea. And yes, I believe you are correct that patrolled redirects that become deleted are reported as non-redirects, since we can't tell if deleted content is a redirect.

I assume your target date for this is October 15? That should be no problem. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could write a bot task to do a leaderboard and subpages, if it's alright with you. I could base it on the AfC backlog drive. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tol, Elli I'm really sorry for dropping the ball on this. I don't think it's possible to run the drive as planned. Do you think it would work to put it off until 1 November, running through the end of the month? Are there any updates on the leaderboard issue? (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with delaying it a bit, I've also gotten very busy in my life. Not sure about the leaderboard. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. I can work on a bot-updated leaderboard. Should it give points for patrols and deletion tagging (via Page Curation)? I know I can monitor those, but draftification would be a bit harder (though I think I can do it). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that all the actions need to be somehow review-able - otherwise someone could game the system by say, draftifying every page they come across. If you could list out every action a person takes - in addition to collecting them all for a leaderboard - that would be great. If that makes sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that lists similar to those used in an AfC drive can be a good way to improve accountability and make sure that the system isn't being gamed. However, I could be confused but I thought that was what Tol was proposing to do. The next steps for me to work on are 1) clean up the project page for prime time and 2) draft a mass message, which I will ask a mass message sender to put out to all NPP rights holders sometime during the last week of October. (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli & @Buidhe: It would generate both a leaderboard and a page for re-reviews. I've also created Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Participants as a signup page (in MassMessage format, so the bot can parse it). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a leaderboard (at User:TolBot/Task 8/Drives/2021-11 New Page Patrol/leaderboard). It doesn't filter out redirects yet; I'm working on that. Deletion tags are only recorded if they're done by the Page Curation tool, so I think we should let participants know that they should use Page Curation for deletion tagging. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information, I have found Page Curation tool to be unreliable in tagging AfD's (it doesn't always complete all the tasks) and so would be inclined to use Twinkle for that to save the bother of having to re-create the deletion discussion manually, page curation is fine for PROD and most CSD's (CSD G12 it only allows one url while twinkle allows up to three) - regular reviewers might be inclined to stick with that JW 1961^Talk 22:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseywales1961: Thanks for letting me know. Twinkle nominations aren't logged, so I suppose we could let participants manually add non– Page Curation nominations. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all. @Buidhe, sorry I didn't respond on my talk page. It would be a decent amount of work to adapt my code to NPP, and I can't guarantee I'll be available to do it (the drive took a ton of time). I would be happy to run code on my account that needs to see deleted pages (if we ever need to see past deletion tagging) or to help out otherwise (including with bot code, bot approvals, etc), though. I would recommend each re-review page gets its own subpage for reasons of convenience - I didn't see for certain whether that was being done. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updates?

Hi Tol, I was just going to update the main page with new scoring based on the tool you were working on, but I wasn't sure whether you had finished it.

In the meantime I've developed a proposal for the message to send out:

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe

If there are no objections I'll post on NPP talk asking a mass message sender to put it out. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: It's functional, but not perfect. (Also, I intend for it to only edit within its user space, so that it doesn't have to go through a BRFA.) There are still a few problems (mainly to do with deleted articles and redirects). It would just check if the page is an article, a redirect, or has been deleted, and assume that deleted pages were articles (not redirects). I don't have access to deleted contribs, so there's no good way of checking whether a deleted page was a redirect. I'll set it up for a test run (and do some optimisation) around Thursday, and it should be ready then. The mass message looks great! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message looks good to me! Elli (talk | contribs) 00:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've posted at the NPP talk page. Let's hope we can get some more people to sign up! (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Points

I think giving (maybe more) points for successful deletions would help minimise bias. One could add that to self-reported bonus part, I guess. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Will CSD count in this backlog drive? Those articles don't get "marked as reviewed", and most also end up deleted, so it may be difficult to detect. I bring this up not to suggest that it should count (may add too much complexity to whatever bot is doing the tallying), but rather to suggest that maybe we should alter the quoted wording. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see #Points above? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Novem Linguae: the intent is for CSDs to be counted, yes. I believe this is only done via the bot if the tags are added via the curation sidebar - this isn't ideal, of course. You can see the discussion of this above - not sure if other methods will end up counting - I would think they probably will? Elli (talk | contribs) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli and @Novem Linguae: Yes, the bot will only record CSD tags using PageCuration. You can also log CSD tags (I recommend Twinkle, as you can turn on a CSD log) and then present it for additional points at the end. I don't believe that any other coordinator is an admin (to view deleted contributions), so it'll be on a basis of trust. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

slow and steady?

Is there any point--barnstars--in participating if I'm only going to be able to do a couple dozen articles? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling that you've contributed to a collective effort in clearing the backlog. I'm going to participate, and I don't care about getting barnstars. But if they serve as an incentive or even just an amusement, then that's good. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project page says barnstars start at 5 points, which is rather low, so I think 24 reviews will be enough. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to participate. We started the barnstars at 5 articles because even reviewing a relatively small number helps clear the backlog. (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa Adluri

The subject is the author of a well-reviewed book named The Nay Science: A History of German Indology. Most of the sources cited in the article deal with this single book. Should I request to creator to create book's article and move the relevant content over there ? Or Should I mark this page as reviewed? --Gazal world (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: Looking at the article, it doesn't seem like all the sources focus on a single piece of their work - so I'd probably mark it as reviewed (Hans Harder, Angelika Malinar and Thomas Oberlies, in a 2011 editorial for Zeitschrift für Indologie und Südasienstudien on combating "discrimination, racism and sexism", noted that Adluri's works engaged in polemics against multiple German scholars under the veneer of probing ideological orientations of scholarship.[3] wouldn't be that relevant in an article on the 2016 book). If it did, though, I'd ask them to move the page to the book's title and rework it - it's what was done with Abigail Shrier and tends to work pretty well for authors notable for a single work. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elli. I have marked it as reviewed. --Gazal world (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: And in this case? --Gazal world (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If all the RS coverage is about the book, I would rework it to be an article about his book. (t · c) buidhe 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: How to send message to article creator by using the page curation toolbar, without reviewing the article? --Gazal world (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gazal world Unfortunately I don't know, perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers? I sometimes mark a page as reviewed by accident and then unreview it, that's also an option. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel R. Kelly has now been redirected. (t · c) buidhe 11:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about book

See, Charm & Strange as well as Vanishing Girls and Bloody Seoul. The reception section contains only these type of sentences: "The book received a starred review from X, positive reviews from Y, and a mediocre review from Z". Is this valid? "Reception" section should have some opinion/remarks/comment by the reviewer. Isn't it? --Gazal world (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine to approve. We don't need the article to be perfect, with that many reviews it will probably be considered notable and it can always be expanded later. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Ok. I have marked them as reviewed. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants who are not patrollers

@Buidhe and @Elli: I just noticed four users who have signed up on the participants list but are not new page patrollers. I'm not sure how to handle this. I think that non-patrollers can assist with patrolling (by tagging pages for deletion, improving new pages, adding cleanup tags, et cetera), but I worry that if they participate in a drive where they get points for tagging pages for deletion and draftifying, this will incentivise them to err on the side of deletion tagging and draftifying (as leaving alone a good page does not gain any points, whereas a patroller would be able to patrol it and gain a point). What do you think? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that while they're here in good faith, they should not be allowed to participate without the relevant permission. No offense to them, of course, but the permission is kinda necessary for this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed the users in question, and will let them know on their talk pages. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this. The rules also state that only New Page Patrollers may participate in the drive. (t · c) buidhe 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elli, Tol and Buidhe I think there are a couple of the newer entries on the list that are not NPP'ers JW 1961^Talk 19:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961: I've gone ahead and removed them. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol @Buidhe @Elli @Joseywales1961: Please note that, while I don't currently have the perm, I did have it temporarily, so please don't remove my name from the list. Thanks! ― Qwerfjkl talk 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get TolBot to detect Twinkle?

I tried using the page curation toolbar for some deletions tonight. I am having some trouble. G5 places the tag then hangs. PROD places the prod, but doesn't log it in my prod log. Perhaps TolBot could be programmed to detect Twinkle in addition to Page Curation. Helpfully, Twinkle edits are tagged as such. If not, no worries. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to take a page to AfD using PageCuration, which successfully tagged the page, created an entry in the daily log, notified the creator, but did not create the nomination page itself ... Can we allow AfD nominations to be accepted in good faith (like CSD nominations) if we have the permalink of creating the nomination? Sdrqaz (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPP flowchart says to mark pages taken to AFD as reviewed, so we may not need a special process for this one. I imagine AFDd pages would count as normal page curations. Correct me if I'm wrong! –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I did mark it as reviewed and I think it counted that way. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae and @Sdrqaz: Yes, you should patrol pages that you send to AfD. PROD and CSD should be simpler (fewer pages to edit), but Twinkle CSD and PROD logs are acceptable and will be added to your total at the end of the drive. The difference with PageCuration deletion nominations is that they are logged, whereas Twinkle nominations are not (and, if the nomination is successful, there is no non-deleted record of them unless you turn on the CSD/PROD logs). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do page reviews from SDZeroBot list count?

I use this User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting to find new articles to review. I reviewed two pages this morning and they don't appear to have counted for the drive. Anyone know why? EDIT: Didn't see I had to do it using the page curation tool--oops! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move re-reviews to a subpage

Any objections to moving re-reviews to a subpage and transcluding, so it doesn't blow up my watchlist? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of re-reviews, I noticed that Jessamyn has re-reviewed several redirects. Based on the mass message I received on my talk page, I thought that redirects didn't count. Although the main drive page speaks multiple times of "articles", it might be worth making clear. As for the question of a subpage, please do (and possibly transclude it to the main page). Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while redirects are part of the same workflow, technically, that backlog isn't much of an issue, requires a different amount/type of effort, and is handled by different people than most NPP work. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I think re-reviews should be of articles that were reviewed as part of this drive. I could have my bot make a list of such reviews, if that would be helpful. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections at all JW 1961^Talk 19:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Re-reviews. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to encourage people to use

and

when re-reviewing, to quickly see which ones pass and fail? Or is the idea to just provide gentle feedback and no need to track things so precisely? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I find the re-review workflow really confusing (as someone new to this) while the rest of this process basically makes sense to me. Like, I know how to do a re-review and I definitely understand why it's important, but how to find a page to re-review that hasn't been re-reviewed already seems super challenging. The redirects were just the first pages I found and I didn't know they were redirects until I clicked through. If there was a backlog-November-drive list to work from, that would be excellent. Jessamyn (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessamyn: What I would do (speaking as someone who is also new to this drive and hasn't done any re-reviews yet) is to check go a random patroller at Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers (not the bot and not Rosguill because they tend to do a lot of redirect patrolling) pick a random review, check it isn't a redirect and Ctrl-F on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Re-reviews. I've probably made this sound a lot more complicated than it is, but it seems like Tol above has proposed making their bot make a list of eligible reviews. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer not to use the

or

(they might make it look like it was some sort of exam) - the gentle feedback seems sufficient to me JW 1961^Talk 23:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good idea may be to have the bot generate a list of recent reviews each time it runs, and move reviews there (reply to each item in the list to re-review it). Does this sound good? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be an improvement over the current system (as described by Sdrqaz). (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that would be helpful. As it is, I do Sdrqaz's suggestion but it's cumbersome. Jessamyn (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; I'll work on setting that up (probably by Thursday/Friday). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, and don't know how long it'll take, as it requires either a structural change to the rest of the code or for me to implement a lot of new stuff. Sorry. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Leaderboard

I think there is an issue with update on "Leaderboard" since my patrols are 0. --Antan O 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntanO: Your page curation log shows no entries since 2014. Are you using PageTriage/PageCuration to patrol pages? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I use New pages feed and manual patrol. --Antan O 02:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntanO: Ah, I see the problem: only the PageCuration toolbar logs things in the page curation (pagetriage-curation) log. I'll change it to use the patrol (patrol) log; that should fix the problem. Just to make sure; does your patrol log look right? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, patrol log of mine is correct. --Antan O 03:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful using # of patrols as opposed to # of page curations. My experience is that the two rarely correspond 1:1. And one is not completely inclusive of the other. Overall, I believe page curation is the accurate one, and patrol is a random mishmash of people hitting the "mark this page as patrolled" link that appears at the bottom of some namespaces, and certain automatic criteria for patrolling that is executed when performing other actions. I have not been able to figure out what the criteria are. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've investigated this, and the patrol log is going to be difficult to use. I'm not sure if I can switch over, and am still investigating exactly how "patrol" works, and looking into edge cases. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AntanO:

Not done: I don't think the "patrol" log can be used, because it contains the title of the page at its first revision, making it impossible to differentiate between patrolling a draft (which can only be done with basic patrol) and patrolling an article which used to be a draft (which can be done either with basic patrol or with PageCuration). "Basic patrol" is the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" button at the bottom. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to please only use PageCuration to patrol pages, so that it can be logged. I can manually add the pages you've already patrolled at the end of the drive. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The leaderboard also shows me as '0' reviews, which isn't the case... though I haven't been using the page curation toolbar to do the reviews. Dan arndt (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used the page curation toolbar, but it disappeared from setting. Any browser issue? --Antan O 04:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use Google Chrome and the page curation toolbar and it works fine for me. (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox and Page Curation and it works fine (I review a small number of redirects and, as it's supposed to be, they don't show up) JW 1961^Talk 08:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Google Chrome and Page Curation but it still shows me as zero not certain what else to do... Dan arndt (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: I don't see any reviews in Special:Log/Dan_arndt. Are you clicking the checkmark, then clicking the green "Mark as reviewed" button? Elli (talk | contribs) 06:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elli I have been doing that on my more recent reviews but the "leaderboard" still shows me as zero... whereas I would have done at least one hundred or more... :-( Dan arndt (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: still doesn't show them in your log. Can you give me an example of a page you marked as reviewed in this way so I could check its current status and the relevant logs? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: I just did Draft:Plateau events, Draft:Apploye, Draft:Podočnjaci and Draft:Zanthoxylum macranthum. Dan arndt (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: ah, you're doing articles for creation, not new page patrol. New page patrol is for pages that are already in the article namespace. At Special:NewPagesFeed, make sure "New Page Patrol" is selected in the top-left of the grey box, not "Articles for Creation". Then you should see articles and be able to review them. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on review (Lee Tae-min)

As required by the rules of the backlog drive, I am noting that I have disagreed with Joseywales1961's review of Lee Tae-min (footballer, born 2003). I had previously pinged Josey, but looking back at the rules I was supposed to bring it to a wider audience here on the talk page. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the ping earlier, yes you made the right call. I have no difficulties with any of my reviews ever being undone by another reviewer if I miss out on something. Thank you JW 1961^Talk 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Scratch

Qwerfjkl, noting in response to your re-review, I marked it as reviewed only because it had been taken to AfD beforehand (see Wikipedia:New pages patrol § Articles for deletion (AfD)). Sdrqaz (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem?

Hi @Tol: it looks like TolBot has not made any substantial updates to the leaderboard since 11 hours ago, even though it's the last day of the backlog drive. This morning it decreased a single participant's number from 17 to 16, and then self-reverted two hours later. Any ideas? Thanks for all the technical work you put into it! DanCherek (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related, I'm willing to do the legwork in giving out barnstars when the month is up and this tally issue is resolved. (t · c) buidhe 14:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know what's going on. I'll look into it. Thanks for letting me know. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, it turns out it was just a problem in the config file (diff). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Barnstars will be awarded based on this chart in my sandbox. If there are any articles that you reviewed that aren't reflected in this chart, please set me know sooner rather than later. My plan is to send out barnstars tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I don't think your sandbox takes into account "We will also accept CSD logs made by Twinkle, which will be added to the leaderboard at the end of the drive, based on the principle of good faith." Sdrqaz (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a few participants who have contacted me, that list does not include CSD logs at present. That's why I'm inviting participants to submit any relevant logs that are missing from their totals. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe I've created this list which uses talk page notifications as "proof" of nominating for deletion, though just noting that it also includes 2 AfD's and 1 PROD. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Twinkle CSD log is here, although I have no way of knowing which ones were in the NPP queue and which ones weren't. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My numbers match what I was expecting. Thank you for doing this. Jessamyn (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now all barnstars should have been awarded. (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the coordinators for their work in organizing and running the drive! DanCherek (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe. You have done really a commendable job. --Gazal world (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New backlog drive?

There's some interest in a new backlog drive. Tol, how difficult would it be to run your script again, say we were doing a drive in mid-June or July? I can work on manually setting up pages as necessary and sending out messages. (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, the script I wrote was cobbled together somewhat quickly, but it should easily run again without too much work. I should probably take this opportunity to make it work better and more elegantly, though. I'd be available to handle the script/bot side of this again! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022 Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]