Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

NPP recruitment mass messaging idea

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

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

First batch of 50

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

   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)

   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)

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)

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

   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)

    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)

   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)

   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)

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

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

New teachers for NPPSCHOOL

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Backlog drives

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Coordination request

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

@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)

IRC

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Moving drive to September

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)

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)

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

I also feel that there should be no change in time. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsletter draft

I just wanted to note that I oppose the mention of coordinator changes in the newsletter unless it refers to the lead coordinator(s) changing. I don't see how it being included helps the NPP readers. I'm also not sure how the newsletter has been "restructured", aside from moving the newsletter archives from the coordination page to its own dedicated archive page, so I think it would be useful to clear that up or remove it from the draft. This also isn't the first newsletter that has been sent since MB's departure so I don't think mentioning that is relevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The draft script was also mentioned in the January newsletter. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we can remove the paragraph, if no one else sees a need for it. The usage of Evad's script is reducing a lot (92 this month v/s 731 in May). I think the few holdouts are folks who like that version better, and admins who don't want to use a non-admin's userscript. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it was unnecessary. You did a commendable job by removing it. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Stats counter

Is there some tool we can use to see how many pages we've reviewed? I know at least in AfD, someone has created a wikitool where I can put in my username and it shows how many AfD's I've participated in, and sorts them as deleted, keep etc based on the outcome of the discussion... Does such a wikitool exist for NPP? Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You can adapt this useful query by Novem Linguae: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/74414. Just press 'fork', replace his user name with yours in the 'SQL' box, then 'submit query'. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe xtools also keeps track of the pages you review. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The "patrol" label in XTools is a decent approximation and often the quickest way to check, but be advised it can often be inaccurate, because patrol and review are technically different. WP:NPP#Patrol versus review. In my case, patrol under-counts. Also, if you are trying to count all of a user's patrolling experience, neither XTools nor the above Quarry query count CSD taggings, since the patroller never hits the "mark as reviewed" button for those, but CSD taggings are often done in the course of NPP patrolling. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This counts deletion tagging and other stats of stuff done via the curation toolbar (or the 'mark as patrolled' link). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice. I don't think undeletion, and only maintenance tagging but not marking as reviewed, are quite the same level of work as marking as reviewed or csd tagging. Imo they are not complete reviews. If you think it's a good idea, consider forking this, removing those two, then converting username to a variable at the top. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated the quarry instead of forking it. I've commented out the other two queries, in case some future reviewers are interested in those stats as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Backlog re-reviewing

So who's bright idea was it to ask brand-new NPPers, some still on trial periods, to review the work of people who have been doing it for years? Scanning down Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023, where "issues" are supposed to be reported, I already see a reviewer on a trial asking quibbling (wrongly) with a three-year veteran about MOS:DABNOLINK; and another patroller on a trial misidentifying the reviewer of an article. The logs show many more instances of unnecessary second-guessing that, contra the instructions, weren't followed up on that talk page.

Apart from being a bizarre way to use time when we're trying to reduce a backlog (surely we can all agree that enforcing the manual of style on disambiguation pages is not exactly a high priority?), it's a sure recipe for conflict. New NPPers on trial periods or in their first few months should be focusing on learning the ropes and getting the right permanently, not starting pointless arguments with other patrollers. Whoever is running this, please get some kind of guidance in place for who should re-review and when (if we even need to do it at all). – Joe (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Its been done since at least the Nov 2021 drive. Obviously, it is meant for veteran NPPers checking the work of newbies. But, even some bad re-reviews (if swiftly corrected) will get the newcomer to understand some aspect of reviewing better, IMO. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the talk pages of the backlog drives since then, I don't see a single valid concern with a review raised. New idea or not, I think my points above still stand, it's not a great one. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point. What do you think we should do about it? Should we only exclude trial NPPs from the re-review, or should we also exclude new NPPs (those with 1 month of experience)? By the way, I'm also informing the drive's coordinators, @Hey man im josh, and @Illusion Flame, about this. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I never loved the idea of re-reviewing, but I got involved in this drive after it had already been partially set up. I'm open to just not doing it after this drive is concluded. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My view does appear to be a minority, but I support the re-review system. The goal is to combat the possibility poor reviewing that a drive may cause. I believe we should have re-reviews only be for experienced reviewers. A message added to the top of this page could read: Re-reviews should only be completed by experienced reviewers very familiar with our policies and guidelines. New reviewers and reviewers on a trial period are discouraged from using the re-review system. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally, the idea behind backlog drive re-reviews (for NPP, AFC, or any backlog drive that uses them) is to catch if someone is doing a bunch of poor reviews or reviewing too fast in order to get more points. Removing re-review requirements would get a different kind of complaint on this talk page, from those who are worried that backlog drives gamify things too much and lead to poor quality reviews. So take your pick of who you want to get complaints from :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Novem Linguae and Illusion Flame. We could adopt a criteria in the next backlog drive to discourage brand new NPRs (<1 month of experience) and any still on trial from re-reviewing, but I don't think the system should be scrapped entirely because more often than not a second pair of eyes is beneficial (the aforementioned re-reviews are not great, but I don't think they form the majority and when I occasionally do cursory re-reviews I tend to find a couple that warrant AfD or a notability tag). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to just have a veteran spot check those newish reviewers with big numbers. For me a big part of what makes this job so painful is that it is impossible to do it perfectly and in a way that would be bulletproof to a magnifying glass applied later. Such could discourage reviewing. To do the full flow chart 100%, do a full wp:before on deletions, provide tags on all of the taggable problems, do everything that the fan clubs at AFD say was expected would take about 1/2 hr to 1 hour per article. If you look at the numbers, that would bring our backlog up to 100,000 within a few months. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on marking Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements/Phab tickets as historical

What is says on the tin, the page seems to be duplicate of the PageTriage phabricator workboard and seems to be fairly infrequently updated. I think if we do want to keep track of the specific phabricator tasks associated with suggested improvements, we should use the {{tracked}} template in WP:PCSI (and maybe we can also encourage reporting directly to Phabricator via the the phabricator form?) Sohom (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like MPGuy2824 made the page. I'd be fine with marking it as historical (I didn't even have it on my watchlist, didn't know about it) but will defer to him. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole page was a section on WP:PCSI that I thought was cluttering up the page, which is why I separated it into its own sub-page. MB and Kudpung found it useful. As you can see from the history, I haven't been updating it much since both of them stopped being active.

It is linked from one of our newsletters and so I think we shouldn't delete it. Maybe convert it into a soft redirect to the phab workboard, with an additional link to the phab form that Sohom mentioned above. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made it a soft redirect :) Sohom (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Next NPP drive in early 2024?

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

---

The October NPP drive significantly reduced the articles backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431. These are remarkable results, and we all did an excellent job. Despite our best efforts to reduce the backlog, there remains a substantial backlog for both articles and redirects, and it continues to grow rapidly. As the October drive is very recent, organizing a new drive right now isn't feasible. Therefore, we should plan the next drive for March or April. Additionally, it might be beneficial to schedule backlog drives at specific times in a year, such as one in March, one in July or August, and one in November. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

One in March-ish sounds good to me. Not sure yet about prefined ones, as in the past it seems only in response to an backlog backlog. Worth thinking about though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Article backlog increased by 2,235 and the redirect backlog increased by 4,306 in just 14 days. If this rate continues, there may be approximately 17,000 articles and around 30,000 redirects by March. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there, say, 5-year charts of the backlog level and a list of drives somewhere? Might be interesting. Don't want to overanalyse things though. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea on scheduling another backlog drive as soon as practical. March sounds good to me. I suggest we give up on the redirect backlog and do article backlog drives from now on. Articles are more important. Splitting our efforts between both articles and redirects is likely to dilute our limited available bandwidth and result in neither reaching zero. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of the stuff getting created is so borderline, it's hard to review anything. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I have enormous sympathy for this POV... And FWIW (bear in mind I don't really go in for 'drives'), I'd say January is more timely. March, as @DreamRimmer points out, will see the Augean Stables overflowing... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think January is ideal, but if its in March, April, it will be 4k bigger. We really need to get it under control as soon as. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As Novem mentioned earlier, if we focus solely on articles in the next drive, I believe we can reduce the backlog. However, this might lead to a significant increase in redirects, and we might need to organize a separate drive in April for them. The idea for January isn't bad either; we can focus on articles in January and redirects in March. Considering everyone's views on this idea is crucial because we recently conducted a drive and initiating another one soon may dampen enthusiasm for the drive. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think moving the backlog drive to January is a good idea. Yes, we run risk of burnout by doing drives more often, but the state of the backlog calls for taking that risk, I think.

I think we should de-prioritize redirect patrolling until we hit zero backlog for articles. If things don't change (if a super reviewer similar to Onel5969 or John B123 doesn't emerge), I don't think we'll have time to do a redirect backlog drive next year at all. cc Rosguill. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think January gives enough time to recover over the holidays. Honestly though, I got pretty burnt out after the last backlog drive and have not returned to my usual volume of reviews yet.

To address the increasing backlog, there's a consensus to organize an article drive as soon as possible (in January). So, I'm currently getting everything ready for the January drive and I'm excited to coordinate it. If anyone wants to team up as a coordinator, I'd love to have you on board! – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi DreamRimmer. I’d definitely be willing to assist with the coordination of the 2024 drive, whenever it may be. I’m thinking it’s probably best to wait until February as the last drive was still pretty recent. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi DreamRimmer, Novem Linguae and Illusion Flame. I'm also willing to assist with the coordination of the upcoming drive. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Once Novem confirms, I will add you, or you can add yourself. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Thilsebatti. I think we might be full on coordinators for this particular backlog drive. Sounds like all 3 coordinators from the previous backlog drive want to coordinate again, and I think out of fairness we need to give them the spots. Hope that's OK. Thank you for understanding. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with that:) Thilsebatti (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Points

I propose awarding 1 point per article review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think is straight forward and there's no other point system we should really be considering. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Re-Reviews

The re-review process is the same as before, but I believe we should discourage NPPs who are on trial and have only been an NPP for a month. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)– DreamRimmer (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I say we prohibit NPPs on a trial from doing re-reviews and strongly discourage new NPPs from re-reviewing pages. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Illusion Flame, but at the very least what DreamRimmer proposed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Recruitment

Stepping back, I think we need to look into even more recruitment as all indicators point to an ever-growing backlog that we simply don't have the numbers to deal with. Backlog drives are all well and good, but we can't have people doing periods of intensive reviewing every four months as many will burn out after that. The dip after backlog drives is obviously desirable, but not if we have top reviewers taking breaks and the backlog ballooning up again. Although we were celebrating the last drive, we only cleared out around a third of the backlog, which has already replaced itself. A more sustainable approach may be more reviewers willing to review a larger number of pages consistently instead of a shorter period that could easily lead to burn out. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 22:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We've tried a bunch of stuff to increase recruitment, and that has probably helped. For example, Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Archive 7#NPP recruitment mass messaging idea. However it hasn't fully solved the problem, so I think mixing in backlog drives is important. @Raydann, are you still around? And is anyone else interested in helping with recruitment? The best way to recruit is probably to send out WP:MMSs to lists of active, experienced users we generate using quarry queries. Then that list needs to be filtered so that we don't double message anyone we've already messaged this year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Novem Linguae. Still here and still ready to help. I will look into making a list of eligible editors for the perm by quarry queries, and cross referencing them. The number of users whom I invited personally is not high, so it will not be difficult to exclude those editors. Furthermore, I will look for a way to exclude those who've already been invited by mass message. I suppose these are the lists from the previous outreach: New pages patrol/Coordination/Invite list, 2, 3, 4. Because I am not really familiar with quarry, I will try to understand how it works and maybe take the help of MPGuy2824. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 18:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Raydann Hi! Whenever you’ve got the lists ready, ping me and I can send out an invite. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame - sounds good, I'll let you know when the list is ready. Also, @Novem Linguae, it looks like we discussed sending out New pages patrol/Coordination/Invite list 4 but never got around to it. And it also seems we never invited editors at New pages patrol/Coordination/Invite list 3. Therefore, I'm requesting WP:CSD#G6 on invite lists 3 & 4 so we don't get confused on who have been invited and who have not. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I fully support your efforts to clean things up. Thank you for taking the lead on it! Let me know if you need help generating fresh quarry queries. If we need bigger lists, we can always expand our criteria. Sounds like we didn't recruit enough folks last time to crush the backlog, and we also didn't get any spam complaints last time that I'm aware of, so I think we should consider greatly increasing the size of our lists. (And of course, we should be exceptionally careful not to double message anyone, else we will get spam complaints.) There are ways to programatically compare two giant lists and delete the overlapping names, so if you need help scripting this up, let me know. (It can be done quickly using array_diff in PHP, for example) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae - I have prepared two quarry lists: Top AfD participants who aren't NPPs or Admins (1 month - Nov-Dec) & Top AfD participants who aren't NPPs or Admins (6 month) by forking another original quarry by MPGuy. The 1 month quarry list has 45 editors and the 6 month list has 316 editors. I definitely need help cross-referencing this list with other invited lists. Can you please guide me further? ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 02:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Raydann: I have a combined list of all invites and all the invites I've sent out. Just not available tonight to work on this. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That is great. We can use the combined list for cross-referencing. But still take it easy, there's no haste! ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 02:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, you can use this tool to get items that are only in one of the lists. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Raydann. Thanks for starting this project! I combined the results of your two quarry queries and eliminated the duplicates. The result is here, although be sure to click "edit" so you can see the names properly formatted. Next step is to figure out what list(s) of "people we already sent to" to cross reference these two. @Hey man im josh, is your list comprehensive for this year (not missing anyone we sent to)? Think you can share it when you get a chance, and then I can do some more wizardry? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, @Raydann, @MPGuy2824: I created a page that includes my list in the first section (433 people), Novem's combined quarry queries (minus duplicates) in the second section (316 people), and a list of people that are only on Novem's list in the third section (255 people, 63 removed as overlapping).

The page can be found at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2023DecemberRecruitment (sorry, maybe could have had a better title). My list includes all of the NPR mass invite lists from this year were used to send out MMS invites, as well as my list of people that I personally invited, so as to avoid multiple invites to the same person. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that I'm trimming a few names off the list as well (some blocked, some unsuitable, some with issues that disqualify them from eligiblity), as we've typically done in the past when creating these lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I just removed 43 users from the list who had fewer than 3,000 edits. While I understand some of them could make great recruits, I think those are users who we should vet manually and more thoroughly. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. So it sounds like the third section of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2023DecemberRecruitment is all filtered and ready for sending? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to say it's all filtered, that was just a quick lookover by me and a bare minimum of 3k edits as a cut off point. Do we want to discuss anymore criteria for inclusion/exclusion before doing so? I'm tempted to go through a part of this list myself and send out personal invites, as I do think individual invites work better than mass messages. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever works. As long as the plan doesn't get too complicated and we end up doing SOMETHING.

By the way, I've started a central page where we should log people we've contacted. That way each time we do this, we don't have to go "hmm, who have we already messaged? do you remember who has the list? do we need to combine it with any other lists?". Let's get in the habit of doing outreach, then immediately adding contacted folks to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/List of users already invited. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I agree with @Hey man im josh. IMO personal invites are always better and more encouraging. Looking at the editor's talk page quickly gives us a glimpse of what kind of editor they are, and if they are suitable for reviewing or not. I'm happy to go over the list alongside josh, review the editor, and if all is well, leave an invite for them. So, am I clear to send out personal invites to eligible editors? ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. Go ahead and begin, using any method you want.

By the way, I have some experience with email marketing, which I see as a lot like WP:MMS. Don't be too quick to write off the MMS strategy. The amount of labor per person is way lower than individual screening. At the end of the day, the more people we tell, the better. We need to get the message to a LOT of people if we want to find enough reviewers to get the backlog under control. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I will start to add eligible editors to the MMS invite list, and in the meantime, personally invite solid candidates. Once the MMS list is ready, we'll send that too. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Raydann, any updates about MMS list? The drive's just 15 days away, so if the list is ready, we should send it ASAP. We are planning to invite a large number of folks and if they request NPP rights, there might be a delay in processing PERM requests. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, the MMS list currently has 176 editors. This list was based upon editors who have a good experience with the AfD process, and was filtered from a larger list of editors. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2023DecemberRecruitment. As we stand currently, I think we are ready to send the invites at a mass level. @Novem Linguae & @Illusion Flame, any thoughts/comments? ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I just took another pass over the list, removing a total of 41 people (list down to 135 now). Some of them were removed due to total inactivity, very low activity, an expressed lack of interest, or because I invited them. Will continue to chip away at it over time and I hope Raydann and others do as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we're screening the people too much. We're losing the power of this method of mass invitation. The screening should occur once, at WP:PERM/NPP. The flowchart should be "nearly effortless automated creation of list using Quarry query -> send MMS -> WP:PERM/NPP does screening of applicants, which will involve screening a lot less people because they'll only be screening people who responded and not the entire list"

I also think the list is too small. If our goal is to tell people about NPP and finally crush the backlog, we need bigger numbers.

I say we send to the current list immediately because of the backlog drive urgency, then for the next list we find a way to generate 1,000 users (who we haven't contacted before) and send to them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, screw it, you're right, let's do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, may I send it or you do? – DreamRimmer (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer. I'd say work with @Raydann to figure out what template to use, then you send, if that's OK :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Done – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

List 3 sent successfully. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)