@Milimetric signaled that he might be willing to help out too.

Looks like there's 1953 labels done! That's over 50% :D Maybe it's a good time for posting a status update, @Andrei_Stroe.

I've done updates every 2 weeks so far, but there was no progress since 4/6. But I thought there were 5K changes to review? If there are less than 4K (3650?), perhaps that would encourage people to contribute. We've been trying to decode http://labels.wmflabs.org/campaigns/rowiki/48/?campaign=stats , but the docs are not really enough.

I could use some more context here, kinda lost.

Hey folks! Sorry that this isn't clear. So, first, yes, there are only 3650 edits in a random sample of 20,000 that are (1) reverted, (2) not saved by a user in a trusted user group (sysop, bureaucrat, etc.) or (3) not saved by a user who has already saved 1000 edits. Note that reverted edits by trusted/experienced users still get flagged for review. So, this means that we really only need labels for this 3650. For English Wikipedia, the number is more like 6500/20000, so we usually do a bit of hand-waving and say that for each wiki, it should be ~5k.

We're working on a better interface for the stats output. See T139956. Right now, the best way to read progress is still the json stats output you see linked in the description. When I open that URL right now, I see

{
  "campaign": {
    "active": true,
    "created": 1485545020.41342,
    "form": "damaging_and_goodfaith",
    "id": 48,
    "labels_per_task": 1,
    "name": "Calitatea modific\u0103rilor (e\u0219antion de 5k)",
    "stats": {
      "assignments": 2053,
      "coders": 6,
      "labels": 2053,
      "tasks": 3650
    },
    "tasks_per_assignment": 50,
    "view": "DiffToPrevious",
    "wiki": "rowiki"
  }
}

This means there's a total of 3650 tasks that need 1 labels_per_task. We have 2063 labels saved by 6 people.

So if I were to report progress right now, I'd say that we're 2063/3650 = 57% done.

Here's a recent progress update that I've made for the 2nd English Wikipedia edit quality campaign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Labels/Edit_quality

Note that I've pinged everyone who had submitted a label. Here's the list of people who have been active in the rowiki campaign:

Ok, got it. This is fun!!! I've got a trickier one I put "not sure" about. It was this edit:

https://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vadu%2C_Mure%C8%99&type=revision&diff=10819563&oldid=10811058

Which is undone in the next edit by the same bot (@Strainu's):

https://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vadu%2C_Mure%C8%99&type=revision&diff=10838425&oldid=10819563

So I said "damaging" but "good faith", and "unsure". Does that make sense?

That was a series of bot edits that was untimely, so they were self-reverted in order to be redone in due time. You can tag them as not damaging.

Actually, I tagged them just like @Milimetric :)

The tagging campaign is now complete.

Great news! Thanks for the update. We'll get to work on advanced models ASAP.