Latest comment: 1 year ago39 comments16 people in discussion
It is often mentioned that there are not enough reviewers for NPP and maybe lowering the bar would help?
At least in my case it was rather time consuming and also a bit discouraging to join it. I was only definitely accepted in November 2022 after I mentioned that I received an award for the most active fresh reviewer for September and two awards in the October Backlog drive. Before I was granted the rights twice temporarily for a month, with both times not being made aware of significant mistakes but me approaching other more experienced NPP members when I became aware of some uncertainty.
The very first time I applied in May 2020 I didn't feel confident enough and then withdrew after an encouraging answer didn't follow after three days. Maybe a bit impatient that time, but a first encouragement to go to NPP school might have helped adding members to the NPP team. The second time in 2020 I was more patient, but I was declined after more than 15 days after my request and this good faith edit as an answer to what I have learned and you'd probably have received just that, as I am currently reviewing in about the pace mentioned in the request.
I believe formalizing the NPP process, like granting the rights automatically after editors reached a certain bar of experience like passing the NPP school (great that this exists), having created an considerable amount of undeleted articles or made 5'000-10'000 edits would help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Good food for thought. I went ahead and added your idea to my NPP reform notes. I think passing NPP school is currently a de facto auto assign (these folks are always accepted when they apply). Consider cross-posting this to WT:NPPR if you'd like wider discussion -- I'm not sure lots of NPPs have this talk page watchlisted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
When I am aware of someone passing NPP School, often by Atsme if it's not my own student, I am very happy to grant the PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Passing the rigors of NPP school has just proven to not be any real "de facto auto assign" at all. As was just demonstrated in my case. Though I do feel we should probably change the "500 edits" requirement to probably "5,000" edits or more, I do think passing NPP should be sufficient. I was rather surprised that it was not. —Moops⋠T⋡14:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
While I empathize with the general sentiment, I'm not sure we have a problem right now as far as being too stingy--the NPP backlog is solidly under control right now, so I don't think there's a desperate need to lower the bar or make the application process easier. It's also a permission that is frequently sought out by editors trying to game the system for UPE (or to pad out their super-user resume for a future admin bid). As for the specific suggestions, I don't think it's realistic to expect all queries to receive a response in under a week. Setting auto-grant guidelines for it is also difficult, as a lot of normal editing activity doesn't clearly demonstrate a general knowledge of notability requirements, even when it includes significant new article contributions, but often just shows familiarity with a handful of subjects. signed, Rosguilltalk16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with everything Rosguill has written. Especially the part about the need to safeguard against determined UPE editors with this PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yet we have a NPP coordinator as a RfA candidate who mentions the lack of active reviewers in an answer to Q12. MB More reviewers will likely also provide with some more time to observe WP:BEFORE which was one of the most cited concerns during the RfC. Also, editors who assemble 10'000 edits throughout a year, create a GA, or are known to save articles from deletion are hardly to game the system for UPE. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*@Novem Linguae, Barkeep49, and MB:, and Atsme out of courtesy because she was mentioned here without being pinged. As one of the initiators in 2011 of today's NPP system and creator in late 2016 of the much needed New Page Reviewer right I'll say this – though more modern ideas may disagree:
Over 750 users have been granted access to the NPP tools. The vast majority of them (around 97%) are inactive and we do not have enough sufficiently qualified ones. The few active ones do 90% of the patrols between them, and many of them are admins who have the right anyway and are not counted in that 750.
The assumption is that the round 700 inactive ones either found NPP too challenging, or they were hat collectors. Access to NPP is already governed by the policy I wrote (AfC by contrast, is not). Based on the first assumption therefore, the bar to NPP should be raised, not lowered, and heaven forbid that it should be automatically granted - several reviewers have already been exposed for abuse of it for their own agenda and the undetected ones are possibly many more.
Not to slight the admins who work the PERM pages nowadays and generally make good use of the new probationary period process, If I were still active (and I will be leaving Wikipedia for good very soon because after 17 years of it I've had enough of the drama, the toxic environment, and unresearched comments on various RfC for improvement), I would even propose a system like RfA for appointing patrollers. It's that important, not only due the required near-admin knowledge of notability and deletion, and the need to sift hat collectors out, but also because it's totally unfair to hold the NPP coordinators accountable for the deficiencies in the system. The coords are constantly striving to improve the software and its other tools and it's shameful how they get insulted and are targets for WP:PA with impunity for their efforts. That said, Paradise Chronicle, and your suggestions are noted, but sorry to say, I do not think it is appropriate to use this venue to attract more attention to a RfA which you have opposed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I would also suggest raising the bar to get NPP, rather than lowering it. Right now, since the backlog drive, the queue has been stable at 1000-2000, which is the range I think it should be in. There is no doubt that we could use 10-20 good editors who commit to reviewing 10 or so articles a day, but they also need to be quality editors. I would probably not be sad to have everyone who wants to get the right go through NPP school. Onel5969TT me22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Compared to the difficulties I had, this measure would actually mean a lowering of the bar, but I agree with you, much more since you are one of the NPP teachers and potential addressee. How about going through the NPP school AND add a formal trial phase. If experienced editors come, they also get a formal trial phase? There would be no approvals without a trial phase. If their reviewing wouldn't lead to issues to the NPP process during the trial phase, they are in. Then as an additional and optional measure to encourage NPP team members to also review a certain amount of articles, their NPP flag could be removed if they do not review a certain amount of articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Rosguill and Onel5969. When I created the NPP school back in 2012, I did it for a purpose, and since I created the user right in 2016 we have a much better standard of reviewing than we had before when every newly registered user with no experience at all could pass articles for inclusion or tag them for deletion (ironically they can still tag them for deletion or dispatch them to AfD - perhaps getting that changed might be an idea for the focus of your argument - one which I would support). I have strongly advocated for a couple of years the removal of the right from inactive reviewers but for some reason the community refuses to entertain it. The bar needs to raised much higher. NPP needs more reviewers of the calibre of that handful who are already doing 90% of the work. The ANI cases brought against reviewers by disgruntled article creators and RfAs of those who are actively engaged in improving the system should not be turned into an ugly quagmire based on claims of 'enthusiatic deletionism' and refusal to observe policies that don't even exist. Even WMF staff have today stated 'NPP should not have to shoulder the weight of the world by themselves' and that 'They should get to do their main job without being asked to do everyone else's job'. - which means that the vague and misty assumption of BEFORE is not strictly in their remit and if perchance it were, they would not get their work done. That said, 'The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.' is a very, very clear policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd see something like this as helpful. Now if experienced and trusted editors apply I'd also support to give them a trial from start. But only a trial, not an approval from start. But I believe the ones who apply for NPP in good faith, should be shown the possibility of the NPP school.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The backlog is at its lowest point in years - I hardly see the value in lowering the bar now. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea espoused by some editors and admins that passing NPP school is an automatic entitlement to gaining the permissions. It is not difficult to grind out a few assignments and this can be, and has been, abused by bad actors. Spicy (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
If the bad faith actor is willing to grind out enough to pass NPP School they're likely in enough control to not otherwise reveal their bad faith enough to show in a review of actions. So while I agree that passing the school shouldn't be an automatic grant it is a huge presumption in favor of a grant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Many of the NPP school curriculums are quite difficult, taking around 3 months of effort, and I've noticed that the teachers aren't afraid to terminate the NPP school early if the candidate is found to have big issues. I am comfortable trusting NPP school to help with the WP:PERM/NPP screening process. For my own education, feel free to elaborate about any UPEs that have gamed NPP school in the past, and I'd be happy to re-evaluate my view. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
As a recent graduate of the NPP school—with the excellent teacher of Atsme—I was just put on a trial after the graduation, I would say that a discussion on the matter related to requirements and NPP school really ought to continue. There seem to be disagreements among admin and whether or not you are granted this perm does indeed appear to be somewhat up to whom is granting that day and who is not. It should be more objective than that in my view. —Moops⋠T⋡14:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I only applied after User:Red-tailed hawk left me a talk page message inviting me to apply - by that point I had enough experience that I was accepted without going through NPP school. I think we should follow that example and reach out to recruit experienced editors who can be trusted with the permission. I don't think there's a need to lower the standards for assigning the permission to editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Encouraging editors with certain editing characteristics to apply is something ICPH and I did while coordinators. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+1. In particular, we would significantly benefit from doing this sort of outreach to editors with familiarity in languages and subjects that are poorly-covered by our current team (off the top of my head, Japanese, Chinese, Iranian, Thai, Nepali, Malayalam and Nordic language topics have a tendency to stick around to the back of the queue (for Nordic, particularly because news publications in those regions tend to be paywalled, rather than due to actual inability to translate the language) signed, Rosguilltalk19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Paradise Chronicle. Nothing standardized leads to a subjective and unfair process. I asked for the perm so that I could help ..twice. I was denied twice. Once because of a deletion Tban which did not apply to another deletion Tbanned editor, and the second time because MB used their considerable NPP clout to shut down my request. I was a willing volunteer who is trusted enough to be auto patrolled. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Being a New Page Reviewer is more than a simple question of trust. Admins usually also look for consistency of editing over a period of time, participation at deletion processes, possibility of hat collecting, and social skills. Only admins can accord the rights listed at PERM, and they accord at their discretion and usually get it right. Nobody can use 'clout' to refuse or accept a permission request - PERM is not RfA.
Possibly one of the reasons that there are so few active reviewers is the insistence of so many editors that BEFORE be recognised a policy or guideline which demands 100% observance. Careful research of AfD that were kept will reveal that it can take an hour or more to look for sources which still might not be available. This would significantly slow down the process forcing backlogs to rise again and none of the reviewers would get their job done. Also, backlogs are also caused by existing reviewers passing only low hanging fruit as patrolled due to recrimination and possible sanctions for just doing their job by listing articles for the various deletion processes. For New Page Reviewers it's a no-win situation for what is already a thankless task. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I definitely agree that evaluating an NPR perm is more than a simple question. And for reasons Kudpung aludes to, I'm also not in love with the recent examples of community feedback about NPR requests. Let the person applying and the admin(s) responding do their thing without meta commentary is something he taught me and which I think serves everybody (the applicant, admins, the community at large) well.I also agree with Kudpung that NPP face difficult competing pressures. Having NPP who can explain that in a way that in a way that helps the broader community understand and accept - and I see many such NPP in this conversation - is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is very true. Maybe it is not what they intended, but after seeing the RFA for MB I would prefer to kick the can down the road for others to review rather than risking an AFD. And yes, reviewers would pass low-hanging fruits rather than risking deletion process. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill I think my statement is quite accurate that the granting of perm here is political. I said above "Nothing standardized leads to a subjective and unfair process". I am qualified - if I am not you should revoke autopatrol. I have more than 100 articles in main space and my only deletions are primarily G7. I asked, as a volunteer if I could volunteer my time to help the project. The first denial by Joe roe was based on my Tban from deletion. He said I could not properly patrol with a Tban. Another editor was also Tbanned from deletion along with me and they were allowed the perm... so then it really does not have not much to do with a Tban does it? I was Tbanned 6 mos they were Tbanned indefinitely. At WP:ANI - Joe Roe admitted that he made a mistake denying me the perm and he said he would grant the perm if I asked again. So I asked again and the second denial was based on MB (NPP coordinator). Joe Roe did not want to go against the NPP coordinator and said so on their talk page. The background was in the RFA, MB had made public statements against ARS and of course I am associated with them - so yes I see the denial as political. I hope you can see it from my viewpoint. Without a standardized process we get these kind of political denials and the kind PC called out above. You saying I was unqualified either then or now is simply not true. FYI: I am not applying again - two denials is enough. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to equate "qualified for autopatrol" with "qualified for NPP". They are different permissions with different requirements. Autopatrol requires flawless article submissions, a bar which many NPP reviewers do not meet; NPP requires broad knowledge and reliable application of notability guidelines across topics, which many autopatrol editors do not meet. I'm not sure who this other tbanned editor is so I can't comment on that. signed, Rosguilltalk19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyhow, I believe some sort of a formal grant might help, as else it is just something on discretion to the admin/s and might cause some undiscussed suspicions as it at least happened with me. The current low number of unreviewed articles is not an issue, but the process of granting the right. I have had some difficulties, Lightburst apparently, too. A good faith applicant as well. The concerns of the bad faith editor do not really convince me. What can a bad faith editor possibly do with the NPP right? Approve an article so it appears on google before it appears after 90 days anyway? For that concern, the auto patrolled right could be controlled a bit better as many of the articles created by autopatrolled editors would have hardly made it through AfC or an NPP review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
UPE sockfarms try to obtain the right so that they can approve UPE articles created by other socks in the sockfarm. With our current level of screening, I think it happens a couple times a year. If we reduce the level of screening, it'd probably increase. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The UPE concern doesn't convince me as mentioned before. For this the autopatrolled right should be under a tighter control. Anyway, I mainly brought it up inspired by MBs mention of the small number of reviewers and not having the time to perform a WP:BEFORE. From my perspective this was not ideal for the working process of Wikipedia and I would have liked to prevent a similar mention and its following complaints. For the moment all seems good. The backlog is really low, lets hope it stays like this, and if it doesn't some might remember this discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that is a real and valid risk. I think the significant barrier to entry of passing NPP school should absolutely be sufficient in and of itself though to keep out bad actors etc. Just my own two cents. —Moops⋠T⋡14:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about UPE (which is a concern, but we're getting towards "reds under the bed" levels of paranoia). But we need NPPers to be able to accurately identify attack pages/spam/copyvio (which should take care of a lot of the UPE) and less urgently articles with other problems (references, notability, etc). Equally importantly, they need to not mistake good-faith but badly written content for any of the first three. That's why I like to see some track record of deletion tagging in the wild, even with the theoretical background from NPP school. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is not over yet. Moops is an editor with thousands of edits, has absolved NPP school with success and was encouraged by their trainer to apply for NPP rights after being declined before. Moops participated in deletion discussions before and as to what I saw, with success. If one is going on a wrong deletion tagging spree, they can also do it while not being a NP reviewer. I believe the main thing a reviewer can do exclusively as a NP reviewer is tagging articles as reviewed. There comes the UPE concern for NPP, that doesn't convince me. What precedents are there on UPE on NPP, how many articles were affected?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
A large part of what a new page reviewer does is separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, meaning that they are expected to flag the articles that are problematic and to mark as reviewed those that are not. For many articles, that's the last time an experienced user will check the page thoroughly for a while, because, after an article is marked as reviewed, it can get swallowed up in the sea of pages that we have on Wikipedia. And while that's not going to be a problem in many cases, in others it will most certainly be. For instance, keeping an article about an insignificant band is not the end of the world, but a negative unsourced article about a living person or copyright infringement are another kettle of fish entirely. Therefore, we need to ensure that editors will understand the cases where deletion is appropriate and where tagging is enough. Since only reviewers can tag articles as reviewed, we need to examine an editor's track record in deletion-related areas, in addition to their edits in general, to ensure that they are conversant with the most important policies. That and a liberal use of trial periods. But there is also another aspect which in my opinion is relevant: tagging a page for deletion is bitey. So, at least as far as I'm concerned, when I review a request for this user right, I will not only focus on deletion, but I will take a look at that area as well. And I'd be against granting this flag automatically just as I'm against making passing NPP school a firm requirement. That's one of the many things that administrators take into account, but, in the end, I think the decisions should be left to the discretion of administrators with a set of criteria to guide them. I can support tightening the criteria, so as not to create false expectations, but I wouldn't overhaul the system. After all, administrators have been elected by the community because their judgement is trusted and, while sysops will certainly make mistakes from time to time, for the most part I have found that my colleagues' decisions when it comes to granting or not granting a user right have been reasonable, even when they have done something different compared to what I would have done. Salviogiuliano20:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Salvio, please forgive me if I'm too outspoken, but I disagree. Within the past year, this NPP team brought down a backlog of 18,000+ articles, & are keeping the queue pretty low. We need more morale building comments. If you don't trust experienced tutors to produce qualified reviewers, then perhaps we should just turn it over to admins and let them teach NPP School. Let's see how far that gets us. I personally don't think admins automatically have better judgment than an experienced NPP tutor with 5 to 10 years experience, and/or who have GAs and FAs under their belt. Some of our NPP coordinators turned out to be admins, and arbs, which speaks volumes. Some NPP reviewers simply don't want to be admins. A reviewer I graduated became an admin, but sadly she was bullied off the site. I think admins need to be focused more on behavior and vandalism than on article content. You may not be aware, but our curation tool warns us if a copyvio is obvious. Our tools are getting better everyday. I also had the opportunity to tutor an admin, and I think the combined levels of knowledge & experience made that admin an outstanding reviewer and a better admin. Maybe we should get more admins into NPP School. I don't think being trustworthy with some of the admin tools automatically makes admins competent reviewers. I imagine a big percentage of community trust comes from editors who are careful in their selections, and prefer people who don't get upset too easily because they don't want some overzealous admin dropping the hammer on them. In fact, not that long ago, it was decided to remove auto reviewer rights from admins because some were abusing it as UPEs, or were simply not qualified to have it. I've also seen reviewers who were given the rights by admins, never attended NPP school, and turned out to be unqualified to review, a few of whom were UPEs. Quite the opposite results are seen as many of our excellent admins and reviewers who have never attended NPP School may even be considered overqualified for the job. You just never know. Atsme💬📧21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Granting extended confirmed on discretionary basis
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments3 people in discussion
@ToBeFree and Xaosflux: Per WP:NOTBURO, I'm not strongly against this approval. However, my personal view is that administrators do not have discretion to grant the extended confirmed right to editors who do not meet the 30/500 threshold on at least one account on the English Wikipedia. A precedent like the one here could encourage more applications from experienced editors on other projects, and as a community, I don't believe we've ever discussed allowing some editors to bypass the extended confirmed requirement on a discretionary basis and not others. In other words, for future requests like this one, where is the minimum bar set? TheStriker may be a checkuser on hewiki, but what about non-functionary admins or non-admins with years of experience? The extended confirmed restriction was specifically designed to be mathematically defined, not one where admins could become gatekeepers. And thus ends my two cents. Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't thought that much about my suggestion to make the request that led to the granting. Mz7 has a point; perhaps TheStriker would be fine with relinquishing the permission until it is automatically granted. In case this doesn't happen for technical reasons after 30 days and 500 contributions due to manual removal, I'd re-grant the permission on a quick talk page request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mz7 conceptually I think that once arbcom recently decided to disassociate their remedies from actually being about "500/30" to just being in this community managed group - it has become much more of an admin discretion capability. I didn't think that was a good idea, but they insisted that is what they wanted so I've rolled with it. — xaosfluxTalk23:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I've also used it for certain x-wiki users that wanted early access to WP:CX prior to that (warning those people to stay away from arbcom areas). — xaosfluxTalk23:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks for providing a link to that ARCA. I hadn't seen that thread before; it must have missed my attention. You do have a point now that the language at the ArbCom decisions has been changed away from specifying 30/500 and more on having the flag itself. Mz7 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mz7 no rush, back to the original question, for the most part I'd decline this for xwiki editors unless they are quite well established and have the opportunity to chat with them to ensure they understand that these protections are often in place for reasons that are quite sensitive and that people can easily be blocked and sully their otherwise good xwiki reputations if they carelessly edit or don't observe special restrictions on contentious topics. — xaosfluxTalk19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
"Clerking"
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
It seems like we are once again seeing users adding commentary to other users' requests on some PERM pages. While legitimate comments from a user familiar with the user making the request can be informative, random users commenting on other users' PERM request rarely, if ever, are helpful, for the simple reason that making these comments does not absolve reviewing admins from doing the due diligence themselves before deciding whether to grant the request. However, when I have tried to address this issue in the past I fear my blunt manner of speaking may be more off-putting than intended. So, I guess what I'm saying is maybe someone with a more soft-spoken nature would care to construct a template for use in these situations, something that communicates "thanks for your contributions, but perhaps you'd care to contribute where your efforts would actually be helpful". Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the second time I've seen this issue/concern brought up in as many days (the other being on IRC) so clearly something needs to be done (though personally speaking I do not see such clerking on the PERMs that I regularly watch); happy to work on the technical side of anything that might need implementing. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm usually not a big fan of templated messages when they aren't necessary. They are impersonal and I can imagine them being a not insignificant issue for editor retention when used poorly. Basically I agree with WP:Don't template the regulars. Perhaps an essay about this issue explaining why this help isn't helpful would be better? --Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago32 comments12 people in discussion
I've seen a few admins at WP:PERM/NPP say that they are look for some experience in article creation before granting (@Rosguill, HJ Mitchell, and Spicy:, probably others). This makes a lot of sense to me: knowing written policy is one thing, understanding how it works in practice is another. I can also see how it could be demoralising for editors to have their creations rejected by someone who doesn't have substantial experience in article-writing themselves. But it isn't actually part of the guidelines for granting, and doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
Should we make article creation an explicit part of the granting guidelines? A nice and clear requirement could be to say NPPers should either have autopatrolled or be eligible for it. It doesn't make much sense to say that we trust someone to review other people's creations but not their own, after all. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the de facto criteria for autopatrolled like 25 articles created in the last year? I wouldn't have qualified for NPP with that requirement and still wouldn't without intentionally grinding out some species articles. I do not think it is a good idea to make the prerequisites for NPP be so high, as the prerequisites are already quite high (demonstrated AFC/AFD/CSD experience, 1 month trials, etc.) I will share some more thoughts if this idea gains traction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Technically the mininum is 25 articles total. My estimate (that query still needs work) is that about a third of current reviewers wouldn't meet that standard. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I seem to remember some autopatrol declines due to not having 25 articles created in the most recent year, but perhaps I am mistaken. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
There's always admin discretion at PERM. I tend to look for recent creations as well as 25 total, yes. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Injecting a little extra cynicism, the conviction that "my own articles are so good that they don't need a second look" is not necessarily a mindset conducive to alert NPP work. I'd rather trust people who are keen to have others check their work, than those who have applied to specifically be exempt from such checks. Requiring some article creation sounds reasonable, but I don't think autopatrolled is a reliable indicator of what we need. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree—I removed autopatrolled from myself for that reason—but the suggestion is "have autopatrolled or be eligible for it". – Joe (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I prefer that NPR applicants have at least some experience with content creation, but I don't agree with restricting the permission to users that would qualify for autopatrolled. In my view, there are two ways that editors can demonstrate knowledge of the relevant policies and guidelines - one is by adding content to mainspace that is compliant with WP:N, WP:V, etc. and the other is by appropriately participating in deletion processes. A deficiency in one of these areas can be balanced out by the other. My main concern is with applicants who have done a negligible amount of content work and spend a lot of their time churning out boilerplate AfD votes and slapping tags around in what seems like a deliberate attempt to make themselves look like a good candidate for the perm. These users are often inexperienced, overly eager and come off as being more interested in adding another hat to their collection than improving the quality of the encyclopedia, which tends to lead to poor outcomes. Sometimes they're UPEs. I think patrolling administrators should consider the applicant's editing history as a whole and use their discretion. Spicy (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay so if not autopatrolled, what's a reasonable minimum level of content creation? I think the most important thing is that we avoid a situation where you might need significant article creation experience to get NPP, or you might not need any at all, depending on which admin reviews the request. That seems to be what's happening now. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not averse to adding content creation as a requirement but I think it should be kept somewhat vague, e.g. "a reasonable track record of content editing" or similar. A minimum number of articles doesn't seem like a good idea to me as it would exclude editors who haven't created many articles themselves but have expanded existing ones. Spicy (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I could get behind that, but isn't it specifically article creation that's relevant? You can turn any number of existing articles into GAs and FAs without ever having to worry about say, how much coverage gets a topic over the GNG, or how to respond to a deletion nomination, or how easy it is to take it personally when someone says your work "isn't ready for mainspace". I've occasionally come across editors with long and impressive editing histories that have had a rude awakening when they try to create new articles. Or conversely, I've seen people who write really good articles struggle to align their own high expectations with the actual minimum standards required by policy. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd speculate that notability and content creation are mostly different skillsets. Notability is tuned through things like NPPSCHOOL and AFD, and content creation is tuned through things like summarizing sources and knowing the MOS (knowing what an article is supposed to look like, how it's supposed to be organized, etc.). I'd argue that CSD and notability, not content creation, are the bread and butter of NPP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule I think that most people who are capable of bringing articles to the DYK or GA level have a broad understanding of what content is and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia and how to work collegially with other editors. I'm not saying that I'd grant the right to someone who has a bunch of DYKs but has never voted on an AfD - there has to be some experience with quality control processes - but I don't think that we should be looking for perfection, just evidence that the candidate is more likely than not to do a good enough job. I've created articles, but I've never had one draftified or nominated for deletion, so you could argue that I'm unfit to be an NPR since I can't empathize with those whose creations are subject to deletion processes. In practice, I don't think it matters all that much. Spicy (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think I agree with Spicy's view. When conferring the permission, I try to look for some form of evidence that the editor is familiar with notability and content guidelines; this can be in the form of well-sourced articles, but it can also come in the form of solid AfD participation, or extensive rewriting of existing articles. And frequently, it's a mix of both, with one picking up the other's slack. signed, Rosguilltalk00:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I too am opposed to the notion of requiring some form of content creation for New Page Reviewer rights. My main reason for feeling this way is because there are other ways to prove knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures than creating content. Take me for example. I haven’t created an article, but I have a strong knowledge of our policies due to my experience in NPP School, which helped me a lot. Especially with the increasing backlog, making things harder for new, completely qualified users to become New Page Reviewers is a terrible idea. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that the criteria “The editor should have 500 undeleted edits to the Wikipedia mainspace that clearly demonstrate proficient knowledge of articles and page quality control” Wouldn’t creating articles just be one way to prove that? I don’t think we need to restrict it to only article creation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that the 25 articles for autopatrol is backwards. IMO most people who create 25 new articles in modern mature Wikipedia are the ones most likely to need scrutiny rather than be removed from scrutiny. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree, I don't think content creation is needed, as I can write an article, but I actively avoid doing so as I don't want to. If someone is firing out 25 articles very quickly they should be scrutinised. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I am also opposed to autopatrolled giving an extra point for NPP applications. Most (if not all) of the top article creators are autopatrolled and yeah, I wouldn't approve many of those articles. In fact I also draftify some, if I come across some I believe are not ready for main space. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on it. Those with the autopatrolled right may have their own niche and they could possibly start with patrolling in that niche area. I think it should be considered, but not necessarily to the point of being worth mentioning in the requirements. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there's enough objections here that raising the NPP criteria would be a bit controversial. To change the official criteria, I think I'd like to see an RFC with an exact proposed wording change, and wider attendance than just the watchers of this talk page (including notification of WT:NPPR), if we are to move forward with anything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I started this thread with a question and a suggestion. Clearly the suggestion (link the criteria to autopatrolled) is a non-starter. But in terms of the question, the PERM-patrolling admins that have responded have confirmed that they already do consider content creation (vaguely defined) to contribute to be one way of demonstrating knowledge of articles and page quality control, which matches my initial observation. Considering that these information pages are supposed to document practice at PERM (not the other way around), I think it should be uncontroversial to update them to reflect that? – Joe (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
What's your proposed criteria/wording change, and on what pages would you like to make the changes? Perhaps we can start a subsection to discuss that. If there's multiple objections to the new proposal, then I'd suggest it needs wider discussion. This has been RFC'd before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't love that the mention of AFC was removed. I think users with experience in that area really are some of the most qualified to be a part of NPP and a mention of that may push a few users into giving it a shot.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow I'm blind. I did ctrl+F for "AFC" and missed the extremely obvious "Articles for Creation" under point 2. Sorry about that. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This looks fine to me, especially if it's a somewhat-widely used unofficial guideline. I'm a little hesitant to tighten guidelines with the backlog going up as rapidly as it is, though... we need help, but it needs to be beneficial help as well. Skarmory(talk •contribs)05:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's one thing among many that I look for. A lack of article creation wouldn't disqualify someone, but might make a stronger case for somebody who doesn't have a lot of obvious patrolling experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?08:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I figured as such. The granting guidelines are already explained as being only guidelines, and "An administrator may also grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent" is in them, so I don't think adding a non-disqualifying factor to the guidelines is a problem. Skarmory(talk •contribs)08:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Visiting this page, I was greeted with "Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions" for each user right. As I am for sure a registered user, it seems like something is going wrong. Eteethan (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You left WP:XRV off the list. If someone is requesting their own rights be removed the place is PERM/PM. For third party ones like this, I'd suggest ANI, though it could arguably be AN (and that's where WP:PMREVOKE says to do an appeal of removal). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that ANI seems like the right place, if you want to escalate it to that level (i.e. you think it is serious misconduct and that a chat with the user won't fix the problem). –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Not an active dispute, I was just trying to answer the question for someone else, and couldn't find clear documentation as to what the proper answer is. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just wanted to know if autopatrolled right will do any good when I am going around creating new user talk pages by giving warnings during RTRC vandalism patrolling. I have created around 4000 user talk pages like that which probably someone else have mark as patrolled. I do so if I see that button during patrolling. Will the user right help me with that, or is it just limited to article mainspace? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
PD Slessor - Only 647 edits. Created a bunch of NPOL articles, got autopatrol, then immediately switched to NCORP.
I think it is especially risky to give autopatrol to editors in the 0–1500 edit range, and I don't think the risk reward calculation is worth it in that scenario. Better for NPPs to do a bit more work. Anyway, just wanted to bring this to our attention. We should consider tightening up our criteria for granting autopatrol. It doesn't even necessarily need to be a formal tightening up with an RFC or a survey or editing the criteria. We can simply start being stricter about granting it, especially with new users who don't have enough of a track record to convince us that they are not UPEs.
I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion. I would only add that I think it should be formalized and added as a strict benchmark to the guidelines at WP:APAT, which is currently written in such a way that there are essentially no objective criteria, everything is "suggested". The result of this ambiguity are ocassional cases in which I have not granted someone permissions and then have to process a bevy of complaints including, sometimes, from other admins as to why I'm not granting so-and-so such-and-such. (Indeed, in the case of PD Slessor, above, I initially granted them Autopatrolled for 90 days and was immediately asked to justify by a third party why I limited it to 90 days!) This leads to a system in which (at least in my experience) the Admin faces the potential of being punished with essay-writing assignments if they decline marginal cases (e.g. [2]), while no such punishment awaits them if they just accept the request. I'd suggest this probably has some deleterious, subliminal effect on decisionmaking. Chetsford (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I think criteria being somewhat flexible is a good thing, but I agree some reform is needed. For example, I think autopatrolled should be primarily not self-nominated, and it should be rarely granted on self-nominations by relatively new editors. Pinging Firefly and Tamzin since I think they have some ideas in this area. In any case, I think a design principle should be that we should not make the lives of admins working on this backlog harder. MarioGom (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with autopatrolled right now is that it drives scrutiny from 100% to ~0% (especially if the articles are on relatively low-profile subjects). I think we could change that with only a slight addition to backlogs. Something like
Every 20th article by an AP, or one article every 3 months, whichever comes first, is unpatrolled by bot and left for an NPR/sysop to review
AP is given for a fixed term, maybe 1 year the first time and 2 years subsequently. After it expires, the user is automatically renominated once they've had 3 articles patrolled manually. The reviewing admin spot-checks a few articles made while AP and grants or declines primarily on that basis; in most cases the editor's participation won't even be needed. (For existing APs, start with a mass removal of anyone who hasn't created an article in over a year, then come up with a staggered timeline for switching remaining permanent APs to temporary.)
I also would support a ban or very strong discouragement of self-noms, maybe even restricting nomination to users who have patrolled articles by the editor in question. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Utopes, FYI. Regarding this: Perhaps we should have supported the admin doing a temporary rather than permanent grant in this situation, since the AP applicant had weak credentials and ended up getting their AP revoked. progress could be reassessed in 90 days to make sure things are golden. I think that's the idea behind a temporary grant: to reassess it at the end of the temporary period. There would be no reassessment done with a permanent grant (there is no efficient way to trigger reassessments for permanent grants). However having to re-apply after 90 days guarantees a re-assessment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
IMO the criteria sort of works in reverse. IMO anyone who creates a large amount of new articles in a 22 year old enclyclopedia needs closer scrutiny, yet that is a requirement to receive the tool which removes all scrutiny. Maybe I'm biased because I got turned down because of that. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Unlike other user rights, autopatrol doesn't provide any benefit to the user themselves (unless they wish to use it to avoid scrutiny). It exists for the benefit of NPP. So I think it would make sense to remove the ability to self-nominate and only consider third-party nominations from NPPers. This could still be gamed, but it would make it somewhat harder. I also think that as a general rule, the right shouldn't be granted to editors who exclusively create brief stubs on notable-by-default topics (NPOL, NGEO, NSPECIES etc) as these creations don't demonstrate a broad understanding of notability or content policy and require minimal effort on behalf of NPP. Spicy (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
As long as we advertise to NPPers that they can (and should) nominate people who clearly don't need their attention, I'm very happy with making PERM/A nomination only. The purpose of the right is to support NPP, so we as admins should be supporting them as they ask us to. Making it nomination-only will reduce the propensity for hat collecting and make it less of a feather in the cap. As an aside, I agree with N8k about more scrutiny for editors creating large numbers of new articles in this day and age. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
From my NPP standpoint, I think autopatrol has created more work that it saved. A couple of times I ended up spending much time at AFD debates (which ended up as deciding that they failed wp:notability) where the main "keep" argument was that there were many similar articles in walled gardens created by autopatrolled folks. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong about that. Currently about 25% of all new articles are autopatrolled, and NPP is still chronically backlogged. Without autopatrolled, the system would collapse. – Joe (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I think raw number of articles affected can be a bit misleading, because the high-quality articles that are supposed to be the basis for this permission are typically faster to review than the average new article. Factor in the de facto re-reviewing of each autopatrol candidate's articles when their application is being considered (as well as the emotional attrition to admins and good-faith candidates alike when a candidate's record is not quite strong enough) and it's not as clear of time-saver. signed, Rosguilltalk21:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Autopatrolled is quantitatively a large component of NPP. I think we should continue granting autopatrolled to even more editors who create a lot of good articles. I hope that's compatible with some of the reform proposals under discussion. MarioGom (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I think nomination-only could help a little, but it's easily gamed. Just hop on Discord, butter up a newbie NPPer, and get them to request it for you. This already happens now, even when self-requests are allowed. It's likely to reduce the number of borderline requests we have to process (i.e. "I just hit 25 articles, can I have this badge now?"), but not deter any actual bad actors. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Have you ever seen or heard of this happening? I haven't. NPPs tend to nominate for autopatrol in big bursts of multiple noms, suggesting that they are objectively looking over the new pages feed or a Quarry query, rather than getting "buttered up" or doing a favor for someone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I personally have never seen this occur, and I’ve been in the NPP discord for months. I am disappointed that you think so lowly of those who act as the last line of defense against bad articles. Do have any evidence that this has happened, as you say it has? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see how providing evidence for a claim that only you seem to believe will cause drama. And the linked proposal is for connecting Discord users to on-wiki accounts, and I don’t see how that applies here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree entirely that PERM/A should be "nomination from NPP" only, and that we should be exceptionally cautious about granting AP to those who create stubs on obviously-notable topics. Paid editors use this route frequently to game AP and then go on to spam rubbish about corporations, "influencers", or governments who are lining their pockets. Personally I would start there, and see how it goes - if that doesn't resolve the issue then we can look at more complex proposals like Tamzin's. I do not oppose such a solution, but I think we should try the simpler ones first. firefly ( t · c ) 11:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Paid editors use this route frequently to game AP and then go on to spam rubbish about corporations, "influencers", or governments who are lining their pockets.@Firefly: Could you provide some examples of this? – Joe (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Joe Roe we have one example above. "PD Slessor" created a bunch of articles on minor politicians and then their first creation after gaining AP was Amini (startup). There are quite a few more in the history of the Ugbedeg SPI - Luciapop is one. They created a bunch of articles on African jurists and lawyers (their article creation history), gained AP and then created things like Parsiq (undelete link) and Victory Obasi (see AfD - some of these articles were deleted under G5, but the rough consensus at the AfD was that they were deletable on the merits). There's Soheelmoon from the same SPI who did something similar and then moved on to entrepreneurs. There are more - I will try to dig them out.
"frequently" may have been an overstatement (apologies), but it doesn't need to be a terribly frequent occurrence for it to cause a mess. firefly ( t · c ) 15:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I've no doubt it happens, but frequently enough to worry about? I'm not so sure. Especially if you consider these few examples as a proportion of the (probably hundreds?) of good faith stub creators with autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it happens frequently enough for us to consider possible mitigations (some data). Other than UPE, there's a second group of concern, which are newbie users who get autopatrolled and end up creating a large amount of articles with serious problems, which go completely undetected for too much time. This is harmful for themselves, since they do not get the early feedback that would have helped them, and once it is noticed, it is a much more frustrating experience for everyone. MarioGom (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm also guilty of this I once nominated an editor for autopatrol because they were making a bunch of articles annnnd they ended up being a sock. I don't know if there's a way to assess content creation as part of granting autopatrol or something like that. I figured I would point out my own mistake since it happened to me. Dr vulpes(Talk)05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the criteria for autopatrolled should be stricter (and have been advocating this for years), but I don't agree that individual admins responding to PERM requests can "simply start being stricter about granting it". The current minimum criterion is 25+ "clean" articles and though the guidelines allow some discretion, when someone who meets clearly meets that standard (like all of the three users mentioned above), we can't simply say "sorry, no, I'm getting bad vibes". It's not how admin tools are supposed to be used (to enforce consensus, not supplant it), not fair, not consistent (what if the next admin doesn't get bad vibes?). Besides, we haven't got magical bullshit detectors – spotting UPEs is hard, and anyone who tells you to otherwise hasn't spent enough time doing it. So if tightening needs to be done—and again, I think it does too—we need to roll up our sleeves and figure out some new criteria that work better. – Joe (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Time-limited grants
I think this is the most immediately practical of the suggestions so far above, so spinning out its own section: should we make autopatrolled a time-limited grant by default? That functionality wasn't available when the current criteria were written, but since it was introduced it's been really useful with other perms (e.g. WP:NPR, where initial 'trial periods' are now the norm), and I think it makes a lot of sense for autopatrolled specifically. But rather than coming up with a fixed period for everyone, I'd suggest a more flexible tiered system:
For self-requests, the requester should specify how long they need autopatrolled for (e.g. "I plan to create a lot of articles on frogs over the next three months"). The reviewing admin could then weigh the specific risks of granting versus the specific length of time requested and we could do away with the general minimum article criterion. There'd be no automatic renewal, the user would have to re-request and show a specific need again.
Nominations from NPPers would be for a set time period (6 months or a year maybe). When it's close to expiry, and if the editor is still actively creating articles, a bot would automatically post a new request so the user's creations can be re-reviewed and the grant possibly renewed.
Exceptionally, highly prolific users could have an indefinite grant. This could happen automatically after a certain number of limited grants, but I think it really should be limited to the few editors who really do pump out vast numbers of articles over a sustained time period and do not need to be reviewed.
I think the main advantage of tiering things like this is that it increases the degree of scrutiny on autopatrolled editors without majorly inflating the workload at WP:PERM/A (which, since only a few admins regularly work it, I'd be grateful if people kept in mind here). Hat collectors probably won't bother to keep making requests after the first expires, people who go inactive in article creation will naturally drop out of the system, and people who are genuinely high-volume, problem-free article creators will naturally gravitate towards indefinite grants. – Joe (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I like this proposal. I would still prefer my suggestion of letting temp grants expire and then having a bot renominate after a certain number of manual patrols, but ultimately either order works well enough. I'm not convinced that there's a need to allow indefinite grants, though. For someone like Epicgenius who makes a large number of high-quality articles, sure, it wouldn't do much harm to grant indef, but it also doesn't cost us much to re-up every year. What I'd be more inclined to support is something like "6 months on first grant, 1 year on second, 1-5 years on all subsequent grants at admin's discretion". The Epicgenius of today obviously doesn't need patrolling, and the Epicgenius of 2028 likely doesn't either. The Epicgenius of 2040 who's returning from a 10-year wikibreak? Indefinite is a long time. And even if we add inactivity removal criteria (which would be my next proposal if something like this one passes) there's a risk of someone being active but gradually drifting away from community norms. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for the manual patrols because If an admin is going to (re)grant autopatrolled, they're going to have to review some articles anyway, and hopefully more than three. So why the double the work and make the rules more complicated?
If we were designing autopatrolled from scratch, then I'd be with you on the no indefinite grants thing. But as it is, we have nearly 5000 users who got the right indefinitely based on knocking out 25 stubs or just the whim of an admin friend way back when. I think we can and should try to gradually transition as many of those as possible temporary grants, but realistically doing so en masse will be more trouble than it's worth, so it doesn't make sense to me to be so strict. – Joe (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no problems with admins having indef grants, especially as they are likely to create all sorts of non-article pages that also are subject to patrolling - so many people forget this is page patrol, not only article patrol. — xaosfluxTalk19:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
We could probably start by removing autopatrol for users who created 0 articles in 5 years or something like that. I think that should be a low drama threshold. After some time with the new rules in place, transitioning all indef grants to a 1 or 2 years grant will probably be quite natural. MarioGom (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Is this solving the right problem though? The problem isn't that we grant autopatrol for too long, the problem is that we accidentally grant autopatrol to UPEs. Also, if we start making all grants from now on temporary, then that 25% number that Joe mentioned above will start declining, which would be bad for the backlog.
I'd be in favor of implementing a high minimum edit count. That would increase the amount of work UPEs have to do to prepare an account for autopatrol, and would also filter out newer users that may not be familiar enough with notability. Looking big picture, editors with lower edit counts are much higher risk for granting autopatrol. Two of the three autopatrols revoked this month were for users with less than 1000 edits. However I also know that Wikipedians hate edit count red lines that are above 500, so I doubt this idea will gain traction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, the goal is to increase the overall level of scrutiny, which should also mean that mistakes like that happen less often. I've no objection to also adding an edit requirement and/or raising the article requirement, but like Tamzin I think the primary problem is that autopatrolled is an all-or-nothing proposition. Admins handling it are essentially asked to predict the future -- will this user who's created X good articles continue to do so, or suddenly start creating paid-for spam? -- and that's a fundamentally hard thing to do, no matter how high the minimum criteria are – Joe (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
If autopatrolled on self-noms is limited to short timeframes, the effort-reward ratio of gaming AP would be far worse for UPE. Hopefully this leads to some of the recurrent offenders giving up on this particular tactic. Those who still succeed (which will eventually happen) will be subject to earlier scrutiny. This is still compatible with other reforms though. MarioGom (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Anyone Working On Granting Permissions? (Auto Wiki Browser)
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was browsing this Page and noticed that no Administrator was tending to the requests, I saw a request that has been pending since the 1st Of March, It is not a protocol to do this, but This is a game-changing tool, It is pretty important, even if this may not be regular, Someone should check up on the Request page at least twice a month
New user script to detect removal of warnings on User Talk page
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Howdy folks. I just created User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserTalkErasedSectionsDetector.js, which seems like it might be useful to WP:PERM admins. It will alert you with a yellow banner at the top of a user talk page if there is a lot of self-deletion going on on the user talk page. This could be a red flag for a user deleting warnings without archiving them. Feel free to leave feedback on the user script's talk page. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Ooooh, I just added it.
Warning: This user has removed content from this page (probably without archiving it) in 49 of the last 500 revisions. Click here to see diffs.
Issue with Requests for permissions/New page reviewer?
Latest comment: 6 months ago13 comments5 people in discussion
In spite of being logged in, I get a message in a green box that reads Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions. I'm IP-block exempt and wonder if that might be the issue (but I get the same message with my VPN temporarily off)?
I had the same issue during a previous drive, and I just worked around it by manually added myself in a page edit. If this is a general issue, however, it might be worth addressing at the source. Since NPP is a relatively thankless task, I think Wikipedia should make it as easy as possible for anyone plausibly qualified to have a trial go—especially during a backlog drive.
Admittedly clueless, however, about the underlying technical infrastructure —
I have not attempted to make any changes, but it appears that, as an autoconfirmed user, I could could make edits basically anywhere.
My usual browser is Firefox, and I have multiple ad/script–blocking add-ons installed. I get the same issue, however, on Safari, which I have not loaded up with the same kind of privacy protection. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, there is no "box below": this disqualifying message cuts directly to the list of individual requests for permissions.
I believe I can still add myself, but only by manually adapting the format of the requests above—which I think is not how this is supposed to work and appear. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That's helpful, thank you. Bear with me while I techno babble a little bit, which may help me or someone else solve this.
From that screenshot we can tell 1) you're for sure logged in, 2) it's not an edit notice that's the problem but rather the template Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Subpage.
From a technical perspective, anything that is only to be viewed by someone with X perm is given an HTML class of something like anonymous-show or user-show, both used here. These are selectively hidden through some wizardry in MediaWiki:Common.css#L-193 and related .css files.
If your ad blockers or noscript browser extensions were interfering with this process, I'd expect there to be two green boxes there, like I get when I visit the page with ?safemode=1 on. It's very interesting that you're logged in but you do not see the "guidelines for granting" box.
Can you try blanking User:PatrickJWelsh/common.css and see if that does anything? Right now you have JavaScript in this CSS file so the file is broken and won't run.
It seems to look like it should now. No idea what the issue was; did not change any settings. I'd be happy to participate in further diagnostics, but probably that's not a great use of our time if no one else has reported similar problems. Thanks for your attention to the issue! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Shortcuts to criteria for granting & revoking permissions
Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
In short, what do you believe to be the best format for shortcuts to the criteria for granting and revocation of permissions?
Full disclosure, most of these redirects were created by me after I noticed Joe Roe had created WP:NPRCRITERIA, but I went with using "CRITERIA" in the shortcuts. This is the table I'm working with at the moment for shortcuts:
@SilverLocust reached out to me about these redirects I've created and suggested that a format such as WP:TPEGRANT, WP:NPRGRANT, and so on. I'm not sure if that makes the most sense, based on the granting guidelines listed for admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Granting and revoking user rights, but SilverLocust made the argument that the criteria for granting, as opposed to the admin granting guideline pages, would be the primary target. WP:TPEGRANT is the outlier, but it's the oldest of these redirects by far. I would have ironed this out sooner probably had I realized that WP:NPRCRITERIA used a different naming scheme instead of just running with that.
I don't ultimately care what we settle on, but I believe shortcuts for the criteria for granting and revocation are useful, so I'd like to establish a consistent format and would appreciate feedback on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the status quo is fine. Nothing strikes me as so problematic that it'd be worth editing all these pages and redirects to change them. WP:TPEGRANT appears to be the only inconsistent one, and WP:TPECRITERIA already exists, so I think that's fine too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I particularly had an issue with WP:PMCRITERIA, since Wikipedia:Page mover has a longstanding shortcut that stands for "page mover criteria", but refers to the criteria for use (namely of suppress-redirect) — WP:PMRC/WP:PM/C/WP:PMVRC (because WP:PMR and WP:PMVR stand for "page mover"; WP:PM and WP:PMC were already existing shortcuts for other pages).
And because these user group information pages are written for a general audiences – not just for admins patrolling WP:PERM — I don't think they should assume that the "guidelines for granting" a user group is a predominant set of "criteria" over both criteria for using a right (e.g., WP:ROLLBACKUSE) and criteria for revocation — given there is a highly unambiguous and concise option GRANT right there.
(Disregard the bother of editing those pages, I'm perfectly willing to add GRANT shortcuts to them. The status quo before April was just WP:TPEGRANT from 2014 and WP:NPRCRITERIA from 2023. My earlier discussion with Josh can be found here.) SilverLocust💬17:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap and they don't have to be consistent. Just create any you find useful. If there's the potential for confusion, that's what hatnotes are for. – Joe (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: While I entirely agree about redirects being cheap, my intention is to add these as shortcuts to the relevant sections. That's the only reason I'm concerned about consistency. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Script issues?
Latest comment: 5 months ago15 comments6 people in discussion
Resolved
Have any of the patrolling PERM admins had issues with the (assign permissions) link added by User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js to give perms lately? Right now (like... the last three days) when I click the link the box says "Grant Page mover to t" in the header and when I fill out the information and hit "Submit" I just get a "Something went wrong" error (with the option to either "dismiss" or "try again"). It's not a browser issue as I've tried on a couple of different devices. Thanks in advance. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)And a courtesy ping to MusikAnimal, though I don't see any changes to the script recently... feels more like a THURSDAY issue.
Some cookies are misusing the recommended “SameSite“ attribute 62
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.ui.input".
[1.41] Please use Codex. See migration guidelines: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Codex/Migrating_from_MediaWiki_UI Template_editor:468:53
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.ui.checkbox".
[1.41] Please use Codex. See migration guidelines: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Codex/Migrating_from_MediaWiki_UI Template_editor:468:265
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.ui.button".
[1.41] Please use Codex. See migration guidelines: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Codex/Migrating_from_MediaWiki_UI Template_editor:468:480
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui".
Please use Codex instead. startup.js:1303:10
Referrer Policy: Ignoring the less restricted referrer policy “origin-when-cross-origin” for the cross-site request: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript startup.js:1053:16
This page uses the non standard property “zoom”. Consider using calc() in the relevant property values, or using “transform” along with “transform-origin: 0 0”. Template_editor
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.ui".
[1.41] Please use Codex. See migration guidelines: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Codex/Migrating_from_MediaWiki_UI startup.js:1303:10
Use of Mutation Events is deprecated. Use MutationObserver instead.
That jQuery.Deferred exception in the second one is great debug info for MusikAnimal. Thanks for providing. Will let him take the lead on it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I went to find the issue with no awareness of this conversation here since I couldn't assign user rights through this script as well.
Hi! Apologies as I was AFK all weekend. Sounds like is resolved now without any action from me? Since breakage from changing {{rfplinks}} has happened a few times now, I've added a warning to the documentation page. — MusikAnimaltalk22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Secondary rfpliks issue
@Novem Linguae and SilverLocust:, not sure which edit did it but the elink to xtools edit counter is busted for usernames with a space in it, see e.g.
Hah! Probably should have used an example name, but since I had just finished with your PERM it seemed appropriate. I'm happy to change it if you prefer! Primefac (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It would be me at fault for anything broken recently. I reverted the template for now as I don't have time to fix it now. I need to add |PATH to urlencode basically. SilverLocust💬20:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
In fact, not that long ago, it was decided to remove auto reviewer rights from admins because some were abusing it as UPEs, or were simply not qualified to have it. I've also seen reviewers who were given the rights by admins, never attended NPP school, and turned out to be unqualified to review, a few of whom were UPEs. Quite the opposite results are seen as many of our excellent admins and reviewers who have never attended NPP School may even be considered overqualified for the job. You just never know. Atsme 💬 📧 21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:New Page Reviewer granted § Survey on what bullets/tips/Discord links to include. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
.png)
.png)
Resolved