Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive

Getting ready for the drive

Question: Are the software changes discussed on the main talk pages being implemented to help detect inexperienced reviewers, and if so, what are they, and what will the reviewers need to do to take advantage of the changes?

Question: Do we want to make any changes to the drive procedure (there were a number of discussions about this, but I don't think a decision was made) ?

Some possible changes:

1. Limit participation in the drive to those already on the list or who can show that they have former reviewing experience.

   • Problem: Who decides? Also, fewer reviews done.
   • Advantage: More consistent reviews

3. Let new reviewers participate, but list them separately at the top of the list and check their reviews right away, using the new process

   • Problem: More work for everyone keeping an eye on the new reviewers.
   • Advantage: More skilled reviewers by the end of the drive.

5. One point for a good review or re-review, two deducted for an inaccurate one (as agreed by two other reviewers)

   • Problem: Deductions would have to be done manually unless AFCBuddy is altered.

   Advantage: Makes everyone take a little more time.

7. An extra point for detecting a copyvio and an admin agrees and deletes

   • Problem: Each reviewer would have to keep track, maybe by checking their watchlist
   • Advantage: Incentive to root out the copyvios

9. Top barnstar for anyone over a certain number of reviews; no winner, to cut down rivalry

   • Requires no extra work, but may take the fun out of it for some

11. A point for reach re-review done before the drive ends, so that they won't all be left to the end.

    • Problem: How to count them, fewer overall reviews done
    • Advantage: Review problems found more quickly

13. Leave everything as it is and tell Anne to stop thinking up work for everyone

    • The path of least resistance, everybody in their comfort zone

Any thoughts? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on all of them. You are hilarious, Anne. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• This is amazing, both in the good humor and diligence in the suggestions. I love you, Anne. Also,

1. Support - all of us decide. When a new reviewer wants to sign up, they petition us on WT:AFC.

2. Secondary support - first one is better, this one if that doesn't pass.

3. Support - also, pinging Excirial to see about possibly changing AfCBuddy to do this.

4. Support - unconditional support. Copyvios are unacceptable.

5. Oppose - there's nothing inherently wrong with competition. Also, I'm going to win.

6. Support - XC?

7. Oppose - without Anne to think up work for us to do, we'd never get anything done! theonesean 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Changed Anne's list from dotted to numbered for the sake of easy reference of one of the raised suggestions. Anne, i hope you don't my Boldness here.

1. Oppose - I understand the rationale behind this one, but Wikipedia:Equality keeps nagging me that it would be highly unusual for a drive sign-up to state: "If you wish to sign-up, please send a request to WP:ATC (So we can review your application)".

2. Support - This one is much better. It is less restrictive, won't scare people away and will act as quality control / editor assistance at the same time.

3. Support - No further comment

4. Support - No further comment

5. Oppose - I believe the suggested scoring system will prevent whack-a-mole style reviews, and competitive element does spice things up a bit.

6. Support - No further comment

7. Question - Does this one imply that if we tell you to stop thinking, you would be in your conform zone? Corollary: If we agree with these changes we would drag you out of your conform zone which would be quite unfriendly? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no, I just meant that an advantage of not changing things is that everyone is familiar with the current process and wouldn't have to adapt. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My views 1O 2S 3N 4N 5S 6N 7O: If anything we need to decrease the gamification of the drive. It shouldn't matter how many reviews you do as long as they're quality and appropriately reflect Standard Operating Procedure. Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment' The tally table does not say what the original proposed questions say... Look at question 5 and compare it against the tally, completely oposite meanings. Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Never mind. Hit my head on a cabinet and the concussion is defintely causing problems with me interperting things. Hasteur (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1 - Oppose

2 - Support - Is "new reviewer" defined as "first time backlog drive participant"?

3 - Support

4 - Support

5 - Neutral - Competition is good, whack-a-mole reviewing is bad

6 - Support

7 - Absolutely Oppose - Anne is consistently the MVP winner at AfC

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In reply to the quesetion about a new reviewer definition - If someone has been on our list doing reviews all along, but hasn't taken the time to set up a drive page before, this shouldn't affect the quality of his or her reviews, so I think that person shouldn't be considered new. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1 - Oppose

2 - Support

3 - Support

4 - Support

5 - Both - Give everyone a barnstar who gets over a certain number, but give top awards to like the top 3 or 5 or something. So basically like it is now.

6 - Support

7 - Oppose

Zach Vega (talk to me) 10:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1 - Oppose - "former reviewing experience" is too subjective, but if TenPoundHammer (who AFAIK doesn't patrol AfC often) turned up tomorrow signing up his cluebat to smack down non-notable WP:GARAGE submissions, who'd complain?

2 - Oppose because 1 is okay

3 - Support, with the additional proviso I gave on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Roll Call - Backlog drive score changes (which has -5 for submission deleted at AfD, -20 for submission deleted by CSD)

4 - Support - because copyvios are a serious problem that need to be dealt with as soon as practically possible

5 - Leave it as it is now - I don't have time to race through reviews and get the top barnstar

6 - Oppose the principal sounds fine but we should give the people the time they need to re-review

7 - Oppose - Anne, if you're running out of things to do, the bin needs taking out, the stairs could really do with a hoover, and we're out of biscuits. (Mrs 333 and I like custard creams). Oh, and the lawn could probably do with one last trim before autumn, and the window cleaner hasn't been paid yet. And I've got some articles that could do with a nice GA review. Thanks! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did take time off from rescuing G13 eligible submissions today to give blood... I'm pretty lazy, so anything that can be done without actually standing up... —Anne Delong (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Could the copyvio rule perhaps be applied to G10 attack pages too? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Tally

	Support	Oppose	Other
Limit new reviewers	2	3	0
Allow new reviewers, but list at top	6	0	0
Plus one point per rev, minus one for bad rev	5	0	1
Extra point for copyvio detect	5	0	1
No winner, just barnstars	2	2	1
One point per re-rev	5	0	1
Leave as is	0	5	0

Helper script

Hi all, in preparation for the backlog drive we're going to be pushing a new release on September 25th with a few nifty features (that can currently be seen in the beta script). After this we will not be pushing another new release until after the backlog drive is complete, to ensure that nothing gets borked during the drive. Theopolisme (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

to ensure that nothing gets borked during the drive - great idea, but I would make two exceptions: Emergency fixes of any kind, and serious borkage that doesn't get noticed until later, like the issue with "under review" that went unnoticed for days in the gadget version (now fixed in the development-line of code). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course; everybody loves hotfixes. Theopolisme (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I despise hotfixes, they are usually pushed out in a hurry with a lot less testing. But I hate NOT having things fixed if they are seriously broken even more because the fix is still "on hold" pending a "normal" level of testing :). As an example of where a hotfix would help a lot, just today, I took a page "off review" because the reviewer who put in on review was using the gadget, which not only breaks things when he puts things on review, but it would have broken it again if I "fixed" the page and he later took it off review. See submission and reviewer's talk page. A hotfix for this issue in the gadget now rather than on the 25th would be most helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I was being sarcastic. Theopolisme (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

AFCBuddy changes

@Theonesean: Someone summoned me here by rubbing the magic lamp? And yes, modern genies prefer electric lights over those old-fashioned, smoking oil lamps - especially if Wikipedia doesn't have an icon of those that one can abuse. But on to the reason why i was summoned - the requested changes in AFCBuddy (Separate section to prevent derailing the above vote)

• One point for a good review or re-review, two deducted for an inaccurate one (as agreed by two other reviewers).
• A point for reach re-review done before the drive ends, so that they won't all be left to the end.

This can be done if we change the way reviews are re-reviewed a bit. Currently we use that "Dash, Pass or Fail, Dash, Dash" combination to denote a successful or failed review, but incorrect variations of that format (Incorrect amount of dashes, Minus signs or hyphens instead of dashes) can cause AFCBuddy to fumble on detecting reviews. If this were changed to a template that would kill three birds with one stone: It would prevent any confusion over the format, it is a lot easier for AFCBuddy to parse (Less mistakes!) and it would allow me to generate the "Reviewers" section along with their review count automatically. I went ahead and created the template {{AFCDriveQC}} for this job. This was a quick job so please DO mention if it lacks features / has issues.

{{AFCDriveQC}} example

The default template's default syntax is: {{AFCDriveQC|{{Subst:REVISIONUSER}}|PassOrFail|Comment}} {{Subst:REVISIONUSER}} - RevisionUser is automatically replaced with your username once the page is saved PassOrFail- Marks the review as Passed or Failed. Use "P" for Pass, "F" for Failed. Comment - Optional comment. Can be used to explain the review. Below is an example of the template in use. Note that the article and review templates reside on a single line in edit mode for coding simplicity; the template will handle the indention and the Enter after the template. (Declined) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cult of dom keller  Pass - Borderline notability, but enough to pass AFC. Excirial  Fail - The content added was a copyvio - see www.thisisasite.com's homepage. Excirial (Declined) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chasing Time

• An extra point for detecting a copyvio and an admin agrees and deletes

Fairly interesting criteria, and unlikely to be entirely foolproof. The flow for this one would probably be:

1. Query the API, and fetch the deleted edits of the user.
2. Check if the edit contained the text "Declining submission: submission is a copyright violation (AFCH)"
3. Query the API again, fetch the first deletion after the editor made the CSD edit.
4. Check if the text contains "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)". If so, the editor received an extra point.

Now, there are a few caveats with this:

1. The reviewer has to use the AFCH script. If the editor doesn't use it this scoring system will be difficult for them to maintain.
2. The deleting admin has to use the default "G12 -" criteria. If he or she uses a different criteria (While the Copyvio is correct) or a custom rationale AFCBuddy wouldn't detect this.
3. This won't cover oddball scenario's such as "Mark as Copyvio" -> "Admin deletes as copyvio" -> "Admin restores article since he or she made a mistake" or special deletion such as suppression.

Other then those i cannot think of any accuracy related issues, but often those won't pop until actually working on the code. I can see this might be a performance bottleneck since each delete requires one API request (One page load). If there are 1.000 copyvio tags AFCBuddy would end up loading 1000 pages just to see if something was deleted; But that is just a technical issue that exist to be solved or worked around.

• Top barnstar for anyone over a certain number of reviews; no winner, to cut down rivalry

This is quite captain obvious as far as AFCBuddy is concerned but still: Easy enough to implement in AFCBuddy, if so desired.

And finally:
Someone other then me actually read all this text? Congratulations! For our valuable readers we now have a special offer! Please add a comment containing your username and the voucher code "3d441fa1" below. You may now choose to secretly add 50 points to your review score, or reduce another reviewers total by the same amount Joking, Joking.

Jesting aside: At least on first glance the above changes can be implemented and automated, but this is a rather extensive and time consuming set of changes. Right now AFCBuddy just counts reviews, so a adding a score tracking system would require changes and additions throughout the entire application. (Ranging from adding a table that tracks score to updates in the HTML layout of the backlog drive to reflect the new score system / visually display the changes). I don't mind building that, but this the type of change that shouldn't go Topsy-turvy every other drive; and we should definitely keep rule creep to a minimum; The latter inspired by an "I have to build it" perspective and from an "How the heck does that thing calculate score?" perspective an editor would have. So before going ahead i'd like to be sure that this has broad support, and that the ruleset at least sounds solid to everyone Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Overarching support for all of that. I will (if it hasn't been done already) post this on the main WT:AFC for people to comment. Thanks, theonesean 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Excirial: I just threw these ideas out to get discussion going. I didn't expect that they would all be popular, and that the AFCBuddy would need to accommodate them all. I realize also that there is very little time, so maybe the AFC buddy can't be changed. If any of the ideas are popular, but the software changes can't be done, I suggest that reviewers wanting extra points for copyvios, for example, could make their own list, and those who didn't want to bother could just ignore it. Since this was my idea, I would be willing to add the extra points to AfC Buddy's tally after the drive is done. (I have an abacus...) —Anne Delong (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WPAFCDrive template

• Note: I've updated the {{WPAFCDrive}} to now include a signature inside the template:

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Technical 13 (I think): Inside this template the link still points to the July backlog page. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Fixed Anne, thanks for pointing that out. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Making progress on the new header section for BEDs, looking for input

Hey, if you haven't noticed, I've been making a lot of edits to the BED's header up top. I've pretty much hit a coding stonewall and everything is mostly set (I still need to tweek the countdown timer to be correct for during the drive and after it, although the pre-drive calculation is correct), and I need to know what everyone thinks of the wordings I used and any possible improvements that can be made to reorganize to order of the boxes up there and whatnot. I appreciate any input I get. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I've been working on it all afternoon trying to get the countdown timer bar working based on APerson's template that he made, which is based on {{Countdown}}, which as it turns out was poorly coded and does not work as intended. I'm too tired right now, but I intend to re-write that template tomorrow and that banner should work at that time. You case see the evidence the meta template is busted and the code/changes in progress on Template:Countdown/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Technical 13 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since you asked, there is a link to the drive participants list at the top of the page in the large box, but it doesn't seem to go to the participants' list. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Anne, again with the great eye for detail. Do you know where the list actually is? I actually didn't change any of the links in that box, but it definitely needs to be fixed. Should the list be at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Participants? Technical 13 (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive#Participants should do it. The problem came because the participants list is on the same page where this template is normally used, but you have moved it to another page, so it needs a more global link. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed the link in the AfC buddy notice. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FAFCBuddy_notice&diff=574533954&oldid=573814382 -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 03:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Logging

This is the first time I have participated in a backlog drive before. Do you have to manually log each article you review? Or does AFCBuddy do that? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - as long as you use the helper script, and sign up (as you have done), it will do it for you; However, don't expect it to be instant! --Mdann52talk to me! 07:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So AFCBuddy generates your diffs? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Numbermaniac: Yes it does - have a look at User:Excirial/AFCBuddy for a list of the things AFCBuddy does. AFCBuddy can generate everything an editor has to keep track of (Diffs, re-review count) and everything that needs to be listed (Leaderboard, user totals list, re-review list). These lists will be created / updated every day to every couple of days on average. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So that's what was confusing me. Thanks for the help! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC Buddy

@Excirial: I believe that AFCBuddy doesn't count userpage submissions. I have declined User:Hiperbaric HPP/sandbox. But there's no update for this at my drive page. I believe you should check it out. Also I have reviewed User:Numbermaniac's 16 articles. But the adjustment page shows that I have reviewed 10 of Numbermaniac's article. Is there any problem?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Pratyya Ghosh: IIRC, AFCbuddy doesn't count userpage submissions because AFCH is locked out from working on userspace submissions. Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

AFCH actually is nearly fully functional on userspace submissions as far as I can tell. AFC Buddy has just not been updated as such. Technical 13 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Hasteur: As WP:AFCH is updated I think AFCBuddy too should be updated. Otherwise there'll be a lot of problem. Cause I have reviewed at lease 15-20 userpage submission. Let's wait for Excirial's reply.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Hasteur:@Pratyya Ghosh:@Technical 13: Right now AFCBuddy only loads edits in namespace 0, 4 and 5 (Article, Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk respectively), as those are (were) the only namespaces where AFCH script edits could present. Since AFCH wasn't activated in user or user talk loading and checking these edits used to be a waste of time, hence it being disabled. Having said that: this one is really easy to fix as it is just a matter of adding these namespaces to AFCBuddy's "to check" list. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Excirial, that sounds like a good plan to me. However, I would think it would be best to wait until this drive is over as to not potentially skew the results. Agree? Technical 13 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Technical 13: Why would this skew the results? Every users results are generated from scratch each time AFCBuddy is started - EG: Even if we had discovered this issue on day 29 a new run would retroactively find and add all the user page based reviews it missed to the users totals. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that it was retroactive and re-created the result every time it was run. Go for it. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Most times people don't notice, but it isn't the first time that i had to fix an issue like this while the drive was already ongoing . The only risk lies in the is re-reviewed article's: AFCBuddy detects and copies there to the checked reviews section, but if it fails for whatever reason those reviews will be overwritten and lost unless manually recovered. The new totals are up now, with 3 less bugs to worry about:

1. Reviews based on user / user talk pages weren't counted.
2. AFCDRIVEQC templates that didn't contain a comment were not retained \ ignored from the user score.
3. Re-Reviews that used Wikilinks instead of the DIFF template ended up as invalid links, due to &diff=<Number> being added after these.

Oh before i forget: Thanks for mentioning this issue. This is one of those problems that cannot be found without knowing that something is missing - it is quite likely i wouldn't have spotted it myself. If anything else catches your eye(s), do let me know. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with AFC Buddy? I've reviewed several more pending submissions since last Friday, but my subpage hasn't been updated in 72 hours. Anyone else having this problem? All the best, Miniapolis 17:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Miniapolis! AFC Buddy has to be run manually, and if Excirial, its operator, is busy or away, we just wait patiently.... —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne; thought it might have been a weekend thing :-). All the best, Miniapolis 01:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC Buddy is a great tool! I would suggest one tweak. On each of the users' listing pages, would it be possible to have the entries alphabetized? I'm seeing where some reviews are being re-reviewed twice, (not a fail) probably because it is hard to see which ones have been reviewed and which ones haven't. If both sections are in the same order it would be easier to see what has and hasn't been reviewed. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I like having the reviews in order by date, because, especially with new reviewers, the older ones are most likely to need re-reviewing the most. Can you give an example of one that was re-reviewed twice? I thought that the new format made it quite easy to tell which had been already reviewed, with the coloured circles. Maybe the article is re-reviewed twice because the reviewer actually did review the same article again later? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it again. But I've kind of stopped reviewing because it takes so long to work through whether someone has reviewed it before. At a guess, I would say that it was reviewed the second time between the script running the first and second times. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bug?

@Excirial: See this diff. It's a big diff, I know. But if you search the page for orthruspromotions, one of the results it comes up with is a bit odd. The hash for the beginning of a line is being put on an existing line... I don't know why. A bug perhaps? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My reviews

The bot doesn't seem to be adding my reviews witth the "yet another afc helper script". Should it be? —(っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 19:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ross Hill: The totals aren't auto-magic. The totals are done when Excirial remembers to run the script and do the updates. Obviously we have to wait on that. Hasteur (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I thought Afcbuddy was a bot. Sorry about that —(っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 19:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth contacting an amenable bot owner and seeing if they can take it on? I thought Excirial's script needs to be run attended due to requiring some JavaScript to be executed, but I could be wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page a few days ago asking that for future backup drives, he either allow multiple people to run the script or make it automated. I don't know if he's been online since I wrote the message though. This tool really should run daily during backup drives. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to make this into a bot with peoples assistance (I currently have enough spare facilities to do this, and the memory to remember to run it) --Mdann52talk to me! 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing your own entries

I know it sounds weird, but I know one of my rejections that on further review I should have accepted, or at least not used notability for rejection. I'd just as soon 'fess up to my failings! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just revert your decline and then do what you want with it? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In one case no, as someone else came along and reworked the article and accepted it.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

Me too - I have an article that I declined twice before being convinced I was wrong. I accepted it. When AFCBuddy picks it up I'll have to go back and give a "thumbs-down" review to the two declines and ask other editors to ratify it so I get scored properly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Me three - A submitter convinced me of standalone notability (I thought it should be merged into another article), so I undid my initial decline and passed it. If AfCBuddy runs again and I spot two entries, I'll put a fail in the first one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How often does AFCBuddy run? I signed up a while ago but my reviews haven't updated. Ross Hill (+???) . . 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Whenever the guy who has access to the script runs it. In past drives, it sometimes went weeks between runs. I think the editor has been offline since late last week. Yes, he knows we would like it to run more often. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Could we get a bot to run it maybe? Ross Hill (+???) . . 21:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it just ran in the last few minutes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ross Hill: I have asked the person that runs it if I can have a copy about 2 weeks ago, and am yet to get an answer.... --Mdann52talk to me! 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Ross Hill (talk) 11:16, 16 Oct 2013 (UTC) 11:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Need 4 volunteers

I need 4 different volunteers to give me thumbs-down on some recent reviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Davidwr:

# (Declined) {{diff|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy|576528728|prev|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy}} {{AFCDriveQC|Davidwr|F|Mistaken decline #1 of 2, requested by {{User:Davidwr}} at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive]] on 2013-10-15. ~~~~}}

# (Declined) {{diff|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy|576528728|prev|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy}} {{AFCDriveQC|Davidwr|F|Mistaken decline #1 of 2 requested by {{User:Davidwr}} at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive]] on 2013-10-15, re-reviewer #2 ~~~~}}

# (Declined) {{diff|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy|576323961|prev|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy}} {{AFCDriveQC|Davidwr|F|Mistaken decline #1 of 2 requested by {{User:Davidwr}} at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive]] on 2013-10-15. ~~~~}}

# (Declined) {{diff|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy|576323961|prev|Springside Chestnut Hill Academy}} {{AFCDriveQC|Davidwr|F|Mistaken decline #1 of 2 requested by {{User:Davidwr}} at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive]] on 2013-10-15, re-reviewer #2 ~~~~}}

Why 4 volunteers? To spread the wealth folks, don't hog all the points. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Did the legwork to find that review. Technically, you were correct with that review. Hasteur (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I was correct on the 3rd and final review, which is not listed above. It's #39 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Davidwr. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Update stats

Can someone run the AfCBuddy script please? The drive page hasn't been updated for 5 days. Thanks, Ross Hill (talk) 23:41, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)

It will only be updated when Excirial runs it. If Excirial isn't around there's nothing we can do. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't someone else given the script as well? Ping: user:Excirial Ross Hill (talk) 23:45, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Excirial has a reason for not giving out the AFCBuddy script on their talk page. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Awards for next time

For the next drive, have "pips" or some other add-on to the AFC Barnstar. If the cutoff for the AFC Barnstar is 175, then at 350, you get a Barnstar with a pip, at 525, 2 pips, 700, 3 pips, and so on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! Anyone got the graphical ability to do it and not on MS paint please.....:P --Mdann52talk to me! 07:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Paint.NET count? :P -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I will halve your score if you do :P --Mdann52talk to me! 10:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Then I'll wait until after the drive is over! muahaha! (just kidding lol) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 11:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Need two people to fail a review

I have a review on my drive page titled "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" or similar. I need two people to fail it. It was a stupid mistake I made. Thanks. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• One down, who's next? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, you added a new one. It was already there at number 5, you could have just declined that. But thanks anyway. :) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • As with most of the review/re-review lists this drive, your list has the re-reviews below the reviews. I was just following the pattern set by the 100+ re-reviews that came before this one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay then, let's see what the buddy does. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 01:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's November 1, 2013

The drive is technically over, but who knows when the final count will be made. Besides, there are still 1368 submissions in the queue (now that is scary).

Unless whoever was behind FoCuSandLeArN when the numbers were posted earlier today did a major run or I lose a lot of points in re-reviews, I should be in the top 10, and will be among the 15+ reviewers who get an AFC Barnstar or better.

Thanks to everyone who contributed and thanks most of all to tho mostly-unsung new Wikipedia editors who submitted material for consideration. Even if your submissions were rejected, consider it practice for next time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit disappointing to see almost 1400 articles still in the queue. But a lot of them are resubmits from reviews accomplished this month. I'm glad this drive is over! I've got one starting 1 Nov (EDT) on another site, not to mention it's time for NaNoWriMo! This will be my tenth year and I've been successful 8 out of the 9 so far! The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I almost feel like another drive is in order... January 2014 perhaps? 1400 still remaining is a bit disappointing. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 01:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that we are victims of our own success. When the reviews were badly done, many submitters were discouraged and went away. This time there were (and will be) a lot of resubmits with greatly improved articles. and HERE is a link to the articles that have been accepted this month. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of changes to the Backlog Drive incentives

Dear reviewers: Now that the drive is over, it's time to comment on the changes to the scoring, and how these worked out.

One point per re-review

• This encouraged people to start re-reviewing right away, and I think it helped point out some problems for newer reviewers so that their reviews got better with time. However, the re-reviews were easier than the actual reviews, so it likely led to fewer reviews being done. Maybe we need a compromise, such as a point for every two re-reviews. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur with that! While it certainly encouraged people to do reviews, it moved some of the focus away from the primary goal, completing the initial reviews. I learned a lot this time through! I'm getting more and more comfortable with bios, but still have a way to go on companies. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Losing two points for a bad review

• I think this really encouraged people to take a little more time with the reviews. There were lots of added comments and help for the editors. This also lead to fewer reviews being done, but in the long run the submitters had to make fewer submits before their articles were accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was -2 not -1. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you look at it. First you get a point for the review, then you lose two for the mistake, so you end up down one. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

But why does the totals section show -3 per failed review? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I must be wrong. I'll change the title. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have some mixed feelings on this. The important factor in my mind is whether it should have been declined or accepted? I really don't think the reason is that critical as long as the right choice was made. The exception is the copyright violation, because of the legalities involved. I don't think I've every seen someone fail an accepted article. Does it really add value to have someone double check something that was rejected because it was blank? Some possible thoughts:
  • Separate the review points from the re-review points.
  • Find a way to identify some of the rejection categories, such as blanks and foreign language and make them ineligible for re-review points.
  • Rejection of a review would be for either a missed copyright violation or use of failed notability when there was an indication of notability. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Aggie's idea. Re-review points should be something like:
  • 2 for a "legal fail" - page that was not at least blanked when CSD is the usual course of action (e.g. COPYVIO, ATTACK) (note that there may be good reason NOT to CSD a copyvio, but it must be blanked).
  • 2 for "wrong call" is when it was accepted when it clearly should've been declined or vice-versa.
  • 1 for "right call, invalid reason" - decline for a reason that is patently false, but article should have been declined anyways. From an AFC participant's standpoint, this feedback is just as important as the 2-point criteria above.
  • 1/2 point for spotting that a reviewer missed a "major" reason for declining like Notability if he declined it only for "minor" reasons.
  • No points or "token" points (say, 0.1 point) for any other review EXCEPT "no effort required" reviews like agreeing that a submission is blank or not in English.
  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It may seem like a blank submission is a slam dunk, but here's a real situation that happened in a previous drive: (1) I placed a blank submission under review (normally I wouldn't bother, but the backlog was down to a few submissions) (2) a reviewer now banned ignored my blue sign and declined it, saying "under review is for complicated submissions" (he wanted the point) (3) I finished properly checking the source code and found a whole article with references, all invisible because of an unclosed comment on the first line (4) I fixed the formatting and failed his review (okay, a little gleefully...).

I have to disagree that it doesn't matter what decline reason is given. We aren't here to just keep junk out of the encyclopedia - we're here to guide the editors. If someone declines an article that is not a biography and not controversial because it doesn't have inline citations, the editor will spend a lot of time fixing up the citations, when the real problem with the article is that the references were all to facebook pages. The article will actually be worse instead of better, and the editor will be disgusted when his article is declined again. How about instead two points off for a decline reason that is not valid, and one point off for a reason that is valid, but misses a more important reason according to the workflow diagram and also doesn't mention it in the comment below? For example, a biography that's written as advertisement (" Mr. X is the most famous camel driver in all of Antarctica") that's declined for no inline citations, or an article about someone's cat that is declined for having no references instead of as non-notable. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In the first example, it wasn't a blank submission. One way we can handle this is for the AFC Helper Script to display the page-size. It currently warns of long comments. I don't think it warns of un-closed REF tags though but I could be wrong.

You are suggesting giving 2 points where I would give one, and 1 where I would give 1/2 a point. I'm game with that if we go with 4 points (okay, maybe 3) for passing what should be a fail or failing what should be a pass, or not blanking COPYVIO or ATTACK submissions.

Hopefully our coders will change the pull-down list into some form of check-box so we can check off all applicable reasons before clicking "decline." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice, although the comment system works not badly, because it allows you to be specific instead of giving a general reason, so I would probably make comments anyway. It doesn't matter to me the exact number of points, but I think we should not make it too complicated. If we want two fail levels the AfC Buddy would have to have Pass, Incomplete and Fail or something like that. How about Pass: 2 points, Incomplete (a valid reason that missed the main reason): 0, Fail (invalid reason, missed copyvio, etc.): -2 Re-review: 1 point, number of points for a barnstar doubled to take into account the point inflation? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar distribution

Hi all! We have once again reached the end of another drive. I am planning on distributing barnstars be the end of next week (15/11/13); Unfortunately, on and off wiki events will likely leave me with little time before then. This also allows anyone time to collect the teamwork Barnstar who may want it as well --Mdann52atalk to me! 14:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So do we have to take the teamwork barnstar ourselves? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he's referring to re-review the reviews that were completed before the late-Halloween run of the scoring script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Teamwork barnstar will be given out, but in case anyone hasn't done the 25 reviews to get it, you have a few more days to do some now. We always leave a few days for re-reviewing before the awards are given out. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Numbermaniac: I was referring to re-reviews; Sorry if I didn't make this clear... --Mdann52talk to me! 08:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. No worries :) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)