Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Bonus points reviewing older drafts

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.

---

Currently in this "!vote" S/O/N: (2/3/1).

It's generally easier to do reviews of 0- and 1-day old drafts (there are many quick-fail type submissions of these ages), whereas the drafts that tend to remain in the pile for longest are the most tricky and most time consuming to review. In order to reward reviewing the oldest entries, I suggest the following bonus points:

• 1 bonus point if the draft is 7-13 days old

• 2 bonus points if the draft is 14-20 days old

• 3 bonus points if the draft is 21 days old or over

Is this a) technically plausible, and b) agreeable for the community? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support I can get through four recent submissions in an hour, while older drafts take me three or four times as long. I work from the back of the queue because I find it more satisfying, but still: the additional time required to review older submissions should be reflected in the scoring system. Julie JSFarman (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle - This is a good idea. However, given the severity of the current backlog, I think the overwhelming majority of reviews would fall under a "bonus-point" time range, yet still fall under a quick-fail criterion. Perhaps we should shift the bonus points back a week? As in, 1 bonus point for 14-20 days, 2 for 21-27 days, 3 for 28 or more Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I still support in principle, but withdrawing this side-proposal to consider some views below. Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• NO Do you want editors to exploit the system and cheat for high scores? cause that's how you get editors to exploit the system and cheat for high scores. All pending drafts are of equal importance. We can write encouragement to focus in the drafts that are oldest, but explicitly making the oldest ones most valuable will only cause unintended consequences. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gamifying the system already has the consequence of occasional poor-quality reviewers trying to "win", but it's demonstrably the only way to clear the backlog. I don't see how this adjustment makes foul-play any more likely than before. Could you please explain? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• LukeSurl If we give bonus review points to editors who review submissions that are older, that encourages them to delay on submissions that are on the threshold of being more valuable (Don't review a submission that is in the 6 day range today wait till it's seven days to get the bonus point). Furthermore this will encourage editors to greatly favor speed over accuracy (Why spend 20~30 minutes fine tooth combing a 3 point submission when you can attempt to decline it for a trivial reason, collect the points, and bust it's bonus status back to zero in 1 minute?). Finally, the amount of extra work that Excrical and AFC-Buddy will have to do to figure out what bonus bucket the category was in when it was reviewed means that updated tallies on the points board is going to take even more work. In short, so many strategic moves and gotchas make this a complete non-starter, but I also opposed having a June backlog drive because we're back on the treadmill of Flank speed effort at reviewing followed by periods of complete inactivity. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral. I understand the principle behind it, but as Hasteur says, we shouldn't be rewarding sheer numbers, as that will sooner or later cause some kind of disturbance. One shouldn't be participating in the drive for prizes in the first place. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• No I feel we should be working form the oldest towards the front as a matter of course. But that is an honour thing, not a matter for points. Let's just be honourable. Honour is its own reward, probably. Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• We're already gameifying the system when we do a drive, so why not tweak the game to get what we need out of the drive?

The problem with the backlog is that editors who we encourage to use AfC rather than creating their article directly are waiting weeks for reviews. This is unacceptable. This tweak of the gameification rewards countering that problem, rather than being the one who catches the obvious fails in the 0 day old drafts.

For an interesting breakdown of how long articles are likely to take to be reviewed, see this figure. Notice the first hump at ~8 hours (the quick reviews), then the second at ~1 week. It's much more important to work on the right side of that graph than the left. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• But I don't get influenced by that. I work almost exclusively in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old, starting in the top left hand corner and doing all those I am competent to handle, in order. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• It would be great if all reviewers were like you! :) But they're evidently not, and the gamification currently actively encourages people to work at the quick-and-easy end of the scale. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• No the sort of enthusiastic new reviewers that are so keen to build up a great points score, which I no doubt was once myself, are not really the sort of experienced editors that I would trust with the really difficult reviews that you get in the category of oldest reviews. --_nonsense ferret 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• You all have legitimate concerns which I appreciate, but this is the sort of flaw that is inherent to the nature of the Backlog Elimination Drive itself. There will be those reviewers who cherry-pick quick-and-easy reviews to get a great points score, and there will be those reviewers who diligently and effectively review the oldest and most difficult reviews to the best of their ability. The principle is to reward the latter type of reviewer more than the former. The fact is: we have a rewards system for these drives, and it is sometimes giving rewards to the reviewers who don't necessarily deserve it. This proposal is an attempt at fixing it.

Undoubtedly, this will encourage some of those enthusiastic new reviewers to the end of the backlog, but I feel that this is better than having them solely carry out the easy jobs. In addition to clearing the backlog, we also want to attract new reviewers to the project. And the best way to gain experience is trial and error—you can't really gain this experience if all you do is the easy stuff. I feel that we should actually encourage new reviewers to challenge themselves so we can have more quality reviewers. We also have the re-reviews system that, while it admittedly has also gone under a bit of cheating lately, does keep most reviewers more-or-less in check on how they can improve their reviewing. Reviewing the oldest submissions is more laborious, and this is why I don't think we will see a very huge issue with regards to cherry-pick cheating - because reviewing older submissions is harder. We can discuss problematic reviewers case-by-case. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• My thoughts: I don't see how Excirial would be able to program this in the tool, before this drive has begun, and then it is too late. It also seems to be no consensus for this "bonus-system". I like the idea in theory (as with communism), but in practice I don't think it can work. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because we have had experience in another drive where all of the "low hanging fruit" was gone, and reviewers eager for points started rapidly declining complex submissions without proper care or knowledge. It was a disaster. This might cause the same thing to happen even when the queue was still long. My solution would be:

• (1) reduce the points (maybe 2-for-1) or limit the number given out for re-reviews, since they are usually easier.
• (2) give everyone who reviews an impressive number, maybe 500 (or 512 for we math people) the top barnstar instead of having a top prize which results in frantic reviewing by the top two or three reviewers near the end of the month. Newer reviewers should be able to do 500 if they work hard at it without trying to review every submission they come to whether they know the policy for that type of submission or not. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Maybe should give more points for accepts based on time in queue, but one point for declines. I generally find accepts take a long time to verify, except for the obvious keeps (such as one for this year's tennis tournaments which appear, with previous year's tourneys also in mainspace).

LionMans Account (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2014 (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.

AFCBuddy

Hey Excirial... I was just looking at my AFCBuddy recorded pages and noticed that the two drafts I accepted aren't showing up in the list. I'm sure it is because I accepted them with the AFCHRW version of the script and you just haven't updated the AFCBuddy script to recognize those yet, is this correct? If so, when do you think it will be able to count those in as well? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13:  Fixed. If you are wondering why the "Draft:Yes! (Jason Mraz album)" does not have a fail icon in the main article list: You added the review manually with an incorrect parameter order. It should be neatly marked after AFCBuddy's next run though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing Reviews

The backlog drive page does not specify that reviewers have to both select the right outcome (accepted or declined) and the right reason (verifiability, notability, etc.). I am now aware of this WikiProject's norms in that regard, but I think it ought to be made explicit in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The steam has gone out of the drive

Pending numbers are climbing again. Fiddle Faddle 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's finals week for me next week, and I'm pounding the books to try and pass (I have a group project, and three finals to do for one 14 week condensed into 7 week class next week). I'll not be doing much of any reviewing by the end of the drive, but I will probably take another poke at reducing the backlog sometime the week after (I really don't care about the rewards). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't care about the rewards either. I'm amused to see that I seem to be in the lead, but the real reward is the lowering of the numbers. I just seem to have spare time right now so I can review things, I guess. "Enjoy" finals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)
  • Ha.. ha... ha.... You're so funny... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Proof that Hasteur is right. We have too many drafts inbound every day. This WikiProject has to be in a perpetual state of backlog drive to keep up. I'm only contributing for the rewards and I just need to get a couple dozen more points to get the AfC barnstar. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• With the numbers still rising, can we have a last push to try to approach zero before the month end. Obviously this means pushing me off the top of the heap! Go for it! We are barely keeping up with the firehose of unacceptable material. I wish we could accept every one. Fiddle Faddle 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

AFCBuddy formatting request

Excirial, what would you think about moving the "(Deleted Revision)" text out of the diff template and linking it to the draft itself like in this revision which would be very helpful in quickly determining if the draft has been recreated or restored? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-reviews

The vast majority of reviews will not be re-reviewed when the drive ends. Will they still get checked after the drive ends, or the % of mistakes found to applied proportional to the un-reviewed ones, or will something else happen? For almost all reviewers, the % of mistakes is trivial, so it matters little. However, Zach Vega, for example, would probably have few points left by the time all his reviews were checked since so many errors have been in his work from the small sample checked thus far. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The re-reviewing rate we currently have (about 10% or so) is all that we can realistically expect - and for the most part it is sufficient. We've got enough evidence to show that most major reviewers are sufficiently competent, and hopefully some useful feedback has occurred. For example, regarding our MVP Timtrent, it's clear he's good enough (not perfect, but nobody is) and there's little utility re-reviewing many more of his submissions. Regarding Zach, he appeared to "unilaterally" stop AfC work after re-reviewers raised issues, though as he hasn't replied to these its not sure whether this was a response to that or wholly unrelated. If it was a response, then I guess the re-reviewing sort of did its job.

Personally I don't think Zach "deserves" the 2nd place award. However, on the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't be an efficient use of reviewer time to re-review enough of his points to reduce his score sufficiently (and his reviews aren't poor enough to merit the complete rollback and redo that Bonkers necessitated). If there were community consensus to do so we could ignore the rules of the drive and re-apportion the awards - however would this be worth the effort? I guess it depends if Hewhoamareismyself and Joe Decker are happy finishing 3rd and 4th when they should probably be one space higher. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You're very kind over my reviews. I do reserve the right to make mistakes, of course, and I have, but I try to learn, and have learned a lot before and during this drive.

I can't see that we will ever get more than 10% or so, and we really don't need it in normal circumstances. I used to run a marketing fulfilment house. We sample checked 10% of our output to see if we needed to check more than that, because human error was ever present. I think that is the rule we need to try to follow. If the sample check is good then one can make the guess/assumption that all is likely to be fine. Sample bad, then a more detailed check is needed. Fiddle Faddle 16:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding places, why not adjust the total scores of each by the percentage of incorrect reviews and re-reviews? For me, by the way, I'm aghast to be currently in the lead. That ought not to be the case. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Having disappeared to watch the World Cup and play various videogames I picked up in the recent Steam sale, I'm okay with a 3rd place finish, I don't feel liike I can argue for much better than that with little contribution as of late. hewhoamareismyself 16:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

4th is fine for me, my biggest reward here is seeing decreased AfC review wait times. Onward! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, even with ZV's presumed errors (I say 'presumed' because I have not looked in any detail, though I think I may have failed one or more of his) I'd say the entire gang has done an amazing job. At the end I'd like to see the total of how many reviews the participants has handled in total, including sometimes second, third, even sixth reviews of the same article. People seem to have given drives a strange reputation, but, starting out at almost 4,000, watching the bucket fill faster than it could be emptied at times, every last participant, even those who have reviewed a tiny number, have all made a difference. Wikipedia is the better for it, and some new folk have learned something. So have some old folk. Fiddle Faddle 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think Zach should get an award, whether or not others are moved up as a result. So far, 38% of his checked reviews have been failed. If that pattern continued, he'd end up with only a couple hundred points and be no where near the top 3. To give an award for poor work because no one has the time to check them all sends the wrong message entirely - we should value quality, not quantity. (One could decline every submission as NN and get at least half right.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I fear that ZV's reviews at 38% fail rate have proven to be sufficiently unreliable to at least ask him for comment. I would not object to his award being set aside pending comment, and the others being moved up. This returns to my concept of factoring the numbers by the percentages. I don't mind joining you in a re-review quest if you think it is worth it. Just not today. I'm running out of steam.

Like many of the others I only joined in to lower the backlog. Ok, that's easy to say when sitting at the top of the pile (unless any re-reviews show me to be useless, of course), but that is all I joined in for. I've never been award conscious, but I'd like to see folk rewarded correctly. Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, I asked Josve05a on his talk page what he might do with Zach, since I don't think he should get an award, or at the very least not the silver medal. (He said he'd look for a consensus here.) Remember that all his reviews were done in half the period, so really quality is lacking. I would help out in a re-review quest if deemed appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• After spending most of the day re-reviewing, my conclusion is that everyone at the top (except Zach of course) did an excellent joke with very few errors - probably less than I would make on average. Those with only a couple dozen or less reviews are a mixed bag: some did well, others made many mistakes. No doubt mistakes are due to inexperience only. I'm not too concerned about "denying" awards to these people, but I am somewhat concerned about lost content and potential contributors. (It seems being too tough is a far more common mistake than too easy among new reviewers.) It wouldn't hurt to get some more re-reviews on the less experienced people now, and possibly "save" some usable content; (I passed a half dozen previously declined submissions today.) ... but, the main lesson, I think, should be to take an early look next time around and help out new reviewers when needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur - I just passed an article Zach declined for a trivial reason when it should have been accepted. I also agree about help for new reviewers: I personally am grateful to Bellerophon who pointed me in the right direction over when you can be lenient. BethNaught (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A pat on your backs and Request for Comments

Hey everyone! First, I'd like to say good job to all our reviewers as wind down in the final hours of this BLD! Next, as it has been shown before, these drives are great for finding issues with our process and coming up with ideas for improvement of the article creation process from a new editor starting a draft and being guided as to what they need to get started until approval of the draft and the move to Article space or the deletion of the draft as G12 or G13 most often. As such, I'd like to hear what all of you have found or come up with for problems and ideas for improvement! Surely, there won't be time to incorporate all of the ideas or fixes before the inevitable next drive, but with a list, our developers can categorize all noted things by expected amount of time and pick through and get as many of them done as we can! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'll start off this with notes that the RW script has a few feature requests:
  1. Should call and support the existing working FFU and AFC/R scripts
  2. Should offer more user customizable preferences (and possibly a better way to store these preferences).
  3. Should offer a way to disable the script from the script.
  4. Should offer a better way to report bugs and request features. (developer and beta tester idea).
  5. Should offer a simple interface to be able to switch versions for testers. (developer and beta tester idea).

There are also some other project requests

• The submitter talk page decline notification should include the decline reason and posting the decline should offer to post a "Welcome!" message as well other than just the Teahouse notification.
• Submitting a blank draft should auto-decline and notify and instruct the person that submitted it what they did wrong and how to fix it.

This is a non-exhaustive list, and is just a primer to get your other ideas... So, let's hear them! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to start my own list here:

• Offer the option to add a welcome message also when accepting. We need to welcome those who get it right, too!
  • Excellent! I was thinking of only the "having a hard time" welcomes like welcome-coi or welcome-image, but offering welcome-screen and welcome-tns (the next step to encourage them to try and develop their article though GA and FA if possible) is a great idea! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}
• Gather stats on common rejection types. It is not just our processes that need to improve, we may be able to point a way to making WIkipedia easier to enter if we know why folk get it wrong
• Allow multiple decline reasons in the boilerplate message
  • Need you to expand on this, I think one of us is missing something. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}

• I may want to decline as an advert and improperly sourced since the two are not mutually exclusive, for example Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• A script initiated move (via the template, so I assume it is script related) should clean the submission as well as moving it. Leaving the userspace draft stuff on the moved item is, well, silly.
  • It's actually not script related at all... It is a simple template generated link that takes advantage of being able to move using index.php. However, I could see use for this type of thing when all draft pages have a guided tour set up and will make sure it hits the list of things to add when designing the scripts for that project. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}
• A review that declines a userspace draft should auto-move it to the Draft: namespace and notifiy the editor that it has been moved as a part of the review
• Place the delcine rationale including AFC Comment on the submitter's talk page. Evidence of the need is in this diff]
  • Think this was in my list above, definitely a good idea and I'll be working on it week after next. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• When a redirect is in the way I want the things I entered (projects, Persondata, etc) prior to pressing Accept to be preserved in the draft and the draft's talk page, and migrated with it when the admin clears the redirect and performs the move. And, pre admin clearance of the redirect I want the submitter to know what is going on with a talk page message
  • This has been on the list. :D — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reflinks died this morning, and for ever it seems. So here is a big ask! Please can we have Reflinks functionality within the tool, to use when we choose?
  • I'm going to answer this one as a no. This is simply because of the amount of resources that would be taken by such a change in the script would seriously cripple the functionality of the purpose of the script and would make it extremely inefficient. However, you should know that a reflinks replacement is on the horizon and it is just a matter of time. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}
    • Apart from highlighting the issue I am being more serious that]n you may imagine. My concept is that our script should be able to call a reflinks element as and when it re-appears. Ok, I know. It;s easy enough to fire up another script, but, well, I like things that are seamless. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Move draft: talk pages when accepting, prior to editing them with the AfC stuff, and 'knowing' where to place the AfC stuff
• When placing things the reviewer wishes to place on the talk page on acceptance, consider the photo request and infobox request banners and place them above the extra stuff we choose to add via the script. Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

More as I think of them. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Another minor feature request.... I've been using the 'clean' feature of the (new) script to remove drafts (unsubmitted, pending, and 'old') from Category:AfC submissions with categories. Not really 'reviewing' most, just getting them out of article categories. Could you make the script leave a 'note' above the categories when it fixes them about not categorizing drafts? Should be simple. Thanks. Revent^talk 20:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean like a <!-- Article drafts do not include non-maintenance categories. Please make sure all categories you add are just linked to by prefixing a : (color) in between the opening brackets and the word "category" -->? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Revent^talk 20:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• One thing I think would be useful to add to the copyvio decline template would be a clearer explanation of why you cannot copy-paste material from another website to which you own the copyright. I have had multiple people ask why I declined as a copyvio and get frustrated, and I've seen other reviewers been asked too. BethNaught (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Beth, draft up a proposal replacement text for it (maybe mentioning things like paraphrasing if not already included) and I'd be happy to apply the change to the templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial draft posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Copyvio boilerplate message. It's still rather rough so I've asked people there to help out. BethNaught (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is a great start for ideas! I've added the script related ones to issue #18 of the GitHub page on GitHub and encourage more ideas and comments! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• This... [1]. For a BLP, {{Wikiproject Biography}} must always be the on 'top' (see WP:Talk_page_layout#Lead_.28bannerspace.29), and the script should detect when to use {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}}.
• Also this... [2], where the script broke on an instance when DEFAULTSORT and PERSONDATA were already in the draft. Revent^talk 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Another nitpick (not complaining, this is good work) here [3] where cleaning to remove a mainspace category put the AfC header above {{csb-pageincludes}}. (FWIW, in this particular case the draft is about a GPL project, and the source page is probably 'intended' to be GFDL, though it's not stated) Revent^talk 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Added to the GitHub ticket. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus on the various 'things'?

I'm not concerned for myself, but I believe it to be only fair that ZV knows whether he is to be granted a place, and then that everyone receives whatever it is they are entitled to. I'll happily forego my own apparent top of the heapness in order to see others rewarded soon. Loads of folk did loads of work, and we need to give out loads of pretty badges. Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I will start re-reviewing Zach, if needed. (Preference is to simply deny an award.) He certainly won't be legit top 3, so no reason to hold back on bumping 3rd to 2nd and 4th to 3rd and start distributing the awards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As it had been discussed, this WikiProject hasn't set a hard percentage for failures leading to outright revocation. The prize for Makro was removed after the last drive but that was a very small consensus vote. The drive page intones that we would have to re-review every single one of Zach Vega's reviews and let the points total up. If he ends up in last place because of bad reviews, so be it. Unless the WikiProject wants to evaluate Zach's 27% fail rate with a simple consensus, re-reviewing all of them seems to be the only proscribed way forward. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could ask him to do the honorable thing and ask Zach to estimate what his score would have been if every one if his reviews were re-reviewed. If his estimation skills are reasonable, make that his final score. In any case, a sampling - say, 10% of his total reviews that haven't been double-checked - should be double-checked by 2 other editors each before he attempts to estimate his own "if they were all re-reviewed" score. I would also encourage him to pause every 10-20 reviews during future drives to wait for feedback, or better yet, actively solicit feedback on the next 10-20 reviews he does inside or outside of a formal backlog drive. This will make him a better reviewer and everybody wins. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are to downgrade everyone's points by the percentage of fails to date and call that 'job done' and move on. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion coincides in every particular with ThaddeusB and I reiterate my offer to re-review if that is decided upon. BethNaught (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to the submitters, if we know that there are likely dozens of incorrectly declined submissions, should we not be re-reviewing them anyway? Sigh... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We need a conclusion

Thirteen days after the drive closed we need a conclusion. I am thus going to make a proposal, actually a pair of proposals, below: Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have now notified every editor who has posted on this talk page for any reason at all with the message "There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration" Please feel free to notify anyone you wish that this proposal is here. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Proposal for points

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.

---

That we take the simplest route, leaving all re-reviews as they stand, and cutting every reviewer's positive score by the percentage of failed reviews found.

In support of the proposal for points

1. As proposer, I support the proposal on the simple basis that we need a decision and we need it now, otherwise we may discourage participation in future backlog drives. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I think this is the best way forward, focusing on third decimal places for points rather than reviewing articles is counter to our goals here. See also my comment in non-ballot comments. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Easiest solution. We shoudl be following the spirit of the rules, not the letter of them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Against the proposal for points

1. That's not in the current rules for the drive. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Don't we already have a modifier for bad reviews (You loose 2 points if your review is confirmed bad)? If editors feel that more stringent rules need to be applied, then apply them going forward. Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
3. I tend to agree with Chris Troutman on this one. We might have the card to disqualify people (for obvious reasons), but changing the rules after a BLD is not...right. We have these BLD to clear some backlog. why not just give away the top barnstar to everybody? =P Kiddin' aside, is this really that important? (t) Josve05a (c) 18:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
4. I too am uncomfortable making retrospective changes to the rules. There's no fairness in moving the goalposts for everyone who took part because of one errant reviewer. BethNaught (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

non ballot comments about the proposal for points

• As proposer, should people consider that, because I am apparently so far in the lead that I just want the badge I will be happy to withdraw entirely from the leader board. I leave that entirely in your hands. I have an interest in drive quality and encouraging future participants, not any form of Wikiglory. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• As a supporter of this proposal and someone who would otherwise benefit from it, I withdraw my participation from the previous backlog drive with respect to points and awards, in other words, I ask no drive award be given me this time around, allow them to go to someone else who participated. Improving the encyclopedia is its own reward, and moving on here is the best way to do that. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• @Josve05a: it is important that an expectation has been set and thus should be met. By no means everyone who participated is an experienced editor, and they all deserve their bit of bling. We need to do what we say we will do, or we need not to say it. Since pretty badges were promised then pretty badges should be delivered. I am not wedded to this proposal, but nothing seemed to be happening, so I have stirred the pot. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 14 July 2014 (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.

Proposal regarding Zach Vega and his and other positions in this drive

That Zach Vega's points be reduced by the percentage found to have failed, and that he be awarded an honorary position equivalent to the position he would have been awarded had his reviews been within the normal variance demonstrated by other reviewers in this drive, but the decision is also taken that his eventual position does not affect the positions of any others. For the avoidance of doubt, his performance is to be removed from the honour roll for this drive, but his work rate is to be acknowledged.

In other words, were his points total to show he merited a 3rd place, he would be placed 'honorary third', and a real third place would then be awarded to the reviewer in third place without Zach Vega's position.

In support of the proposal regarding Zach Vega and his and other positions in this drive

1. As proposer I support this proposal in the spirit of fair and even handed treatment of a reviewer about whom I am assuming good faith. I do not believe that any reviewer sets out to game the system. That his reviews fell short is partially our own fault for not giving earlier guidance. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Indeed. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Against the proposal regarding Zach Vega and his and other positions in this drive

1. That's not in the current rules for the drive. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I'd much rather prefer having no award go to Zach Vega for the amount of drama that he's causing. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Concur with Hasteur. I have said before that I believe the speed of his reviewing implies that he has paid insufficient care, and by implication that he has not participated properly, and therefore his award should be struck. BethNaught (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

non ballot comments regarding Zach Vega and his and other positions in this drive

• I have notified Zach Vega by ping and will have notified him of this set of proposals by the time the majority see this. It is my next action after saving this page. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I have placed full notification on ZV's talk page. Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• We need to get out of the habit of establishing a consensus after the fact to deal with problems that crop up. We have an existing process, which is to re-review all of Zach Vega's reviews and award points accordingly. I don't care if it takes a year of volunteer work to figure it out, as we won't be having another drive any time soon. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• While some of Zach's reviews may be problematic, I don't see any evidence that he has done anything to deliberately cause drama. In fact, he doesn't appear to have edited at all since June 15. (For real drama, compare this to the response of some other AfC participants when critical remarks are made!) I hope all of this hasn't turned him off Wikipedia for good. The poor reviews are partly our own fault (and especially me, since I usually re-review and allowed myself to become totally sidetracked this time) for not re-reviewing right away and guiding him. Yes, it's best to have a process in mind, but it's impossible to foresee every situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't believe that one person should shoulder the fault. There is a natural assumption that a reviewer working through many articles is likely to be doing it well. We equate quantity with quality whether we believe we do or not. I cite the remarkably small number of re-reviews of my own work as evidence of that. For myself I set a target that I would re-review 100 reviews and did so. WIth hindsight that was too few, and I re-reviewed far too few of ZV's because of my natural assumption that quantity performed was somehow an indicator of quality. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please screw your heads on straight, the both of you. The blame for this singly rests with the reviewer that did not adhere to written AfC guidelines. Yes, this WikiProject failed to anticipate this sort of problem, which is silly because it's what happened last time. New reviewers should be disallowed from backlog drives until they've established a decent track record. In the future, we should perhaps limit the number of reviews to be performed in the first week of a drive or so, to check compass on what contributors are doing. Regardless of your misplaced angst, the fact that we failed to prevent this is immaterial. We have to play by the rules we have, not the ones we would like to have or would wish to have had. As for me, I've moved on to a backlog drive at GOCE where more barnstars can be had. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• My head is fine. We are partly to blame for not re-reviewing often or early enough. Individual reviewers are also wholly responsible for their own work. Blame and responsibility are not congruent concepts. I return, often, to WP:AGF. Pillorying ZV is an unfortunate part of the alleged wisdom of crowds, a wisdom which, too often, results in lynch law. I am not keen on lynch law.

He got it wrong sometimes. He got it wrong more than others appear to have done. No-one, though has died. But we can do better than to place a burning lower case "T" on his front lawn courtesy of the community, and I am trying to do better than that and to be better than that. I am sure you are trying to do the same, both in the doing and the being. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the rules are the rules -- that they shouldn't be adjusted after the drive -- and that we need to be more diligent about rereviewing, particularly when a reviewer is moving at Zach's pace. (I haven't rereviewed in the past -- I'll do so when/if there's another drive.)

That said, Zach's reviews should be examined, as the inaccurate declines discourage new editors and negatively impact the quality of the encyclopedia. Granted, it would be time consuming to go through all of Zach's reviews, but the positives outweigh the negatives, and, to me, the barnstar is a secondary issue. I'll gladly contribute to the effort. I've done some rereviews (4 fails, one pass), but it's too difficult for me to continue - I've got some issues with my eyes and my vision goes haywire when I look at the source page. Julie JSFarman (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since it appears there is insufficient support for ignoring the rules (a shame IMO), I will start reviewing the rest of Zach's reviews myself tomorrow. (As noted, they should be reviewed for the sake of the creator and Wikipedia anyway, so not a big deal.) Per the rules, we will need at least one other person doing likewise to get two reviews on the fails. If Excirial would be so kind as to update Zach's stats periodically so we can see where we are at, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't be around much after tomorrow so I did a few now: 6 passes and 4 fails. May do some more later. A quick AFCBuddy run on his page would be helpful as it's getting rather messy. I ought to say, however, that seeing more of his reviews increases my belief in his good faith, and so my opposition to proposal 2 should be read as qualified. BethNaught (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Excirial: Could you have your bot continue to clean up Zach Vega's review page as editors re-review that effort and update that point total? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstars and such crap

I know feel, 2 months after the BLD ended, a little bad about not having to sent out barnstars and such things to users. Can someone please give me som directions if that is ok to do now, do we have consensus on stuff and what is the outcome...Hello people, wake up! (t) Josve05a (c) 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think you're safe handing out awards to all but the top 3, as those numbers may change. I think this is normally done by someone with mass-messagesender userrights, so I don't have specific instructions for you. You can always do it manually. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the generic barnstars and badges can be given out as CT suggests. The top three should await consensus, again as he suggests. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Have been waiting to compose my own award-description, to go along with the prizes...hmm, nah. I'll just use the normal boilerplate one. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Awards delivered (so far)

•  Done - Brownies
•  Done - The Invisible Barnstar
•  Done - The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
•  Done - The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
•  Done - The Articles for Creation Barnstar
• Not yet - Bronze Wiki Award (3rd prize)
• Not yet - Silver Wiki Award (2nd prize)
• Not yet - Content Review Medal and the Gold Wiki Award (1st prize)
• Not yet - Teamwork Barnstar
  • I'm waiting with this one. If you want it faster, bug me. But Ithink I'll deliver this later, together with the 1,2 & 3 prize(s).

(t) Josve05a (c) 23:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Updates with awards

This has taken too long, and it has been 2 months since the drive ended, and since no consuses could be formed on hat should've been done, I am now delivering the rest of the "prizes" as is.

•  Done - Wilhelmina Will - Brownie
•  Done - Hewhoamareismyself - Bronze Wiki Award (3rd prize)
•  Done - Zach Vega - Silver Wiki Award (2nd prize)
•  Done - Timtrent - Content Review Medal and the Gold Wiki Award (1st prize)
•  Done - Teamwork Barnstar (as of 08:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
  • Will do this later today.

(t) Josve05a (c) 01:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Omitted editor

*Comment: Since the June backlog drive's conclusion, I have reminded two users about my contributions to the drive, bearing in mind that the program the drive uses never seems to notice my participation. It has been a month and a week now, and I have neither received my commendation nor been given any notification as to why not, even though I requested to be informed if I'd made any mistakes in my entries. In the first case, granted, the user was not the one responsible for distribution and informed me so, but in the second case the user has not even responded to my post. If my continued participation in the AFC drives is even partially desired by the AFC community, then I think I ought to be given my due closure, either way. There was an old person of Rimini... (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The matter has been acknowledged, so I shall withdraw this complaint. There was an old person of Rimini... (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What I do not understand, Wilhelmina Will is that your contributions do not seem to have been included in the main listing on the project page. This means we did not have the easy chance at the time to offer reviews of your reviews, since we were unaware that you had come to play. Are you, or Excirial able to shed any light on this listing anomaly? It's great, by the way,that you came to play. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still a rather floored from traveling back from Wikimania, so i apologize in advance if i am missing something obvious here or if i am not making any sense. However, on first glance: Wilhelmina Will - did you sign up for the drive itself on the participants section? I cannot see you in the section nor do i notice your account in the pages history. The participant section is used by AFCBuddy to determine who is participating in the drive (Eg: Who it should check and generate pages and statistics for). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Side-note from everything

Am I allowed to re-review *everybodys* reviews, even after the drive has ended? Will I get "point" for them, and will that affect the users score of which I re-reviewed, before somebody (possibly I) delivers the barnstars? (t) Josve05a (c) 23:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume points can no longer be earned, but you are certainly welcome to rereview the reviews of whomever you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

But should I write *Passed* and/or *Failed* after the reviews? And if I dothat, will that user get "minus"-points? (t) Josve05a (c) 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Josve05a, the backlog page seems to intone that reviews can continue to affect scores well after the drive has ended, as it indeed should to validate the results of the drive itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)