Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

While the opinions are fairly well split between the three options, but with Options 2 and 3 having the same base rationale (i.e. "keep separate") they outweigh the singular option to merge the two. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

---

There has been a lot of discussion about whether AfC and NPP rights should be merged or kept separate. This RfC is an attempt to gauge the community consensus on the relationship between these rights. What should the relationship between permissions for Articles for Creation and New Page Patroller be?

• Option 1 Merge these two rights - the work is similar and share an interface, so editors should have similar experience and capabilities. Someone with one right should be fully capable of performing the tasks of the other right. The details of how this merge would happen should be worked out in subsequent discussion.
• Option 2 Keep separate - Because AfC reviews are routinely checked by new page patrollers, AfC may be granted to editors who are missing some experience or capability expected of new page patrollers
• Option 3 Keep separate - The experience and capabilities needed for each right are different and so the permissions are not comparable

Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think there should be explanation of what "Merge these two rights" means to help people make informed comments. NPP is a software-defined usergroup. AfC by contrast, is a user script which usage is restricted unless one is added to this list. So if we "merge" them, what does that mean?. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ammarpad, I've edited slightly to reflect that should Option 1 gain consensus details would be worked out. My goal with this is to stay big picture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to have the AfC script check if the editor is in the NPP group instead of whether they're on the AfC whitelist. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Barkeep, please link where have there been lot of discussion about whether AfC and NPP rights should be merged? It would give a context to whether there is a need for this RfC and whether this solves any current issue existing at the project. Currently, things are progressing pretty calmly and I don't see any need for this RfC. Thanks, Lourdes 03:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the conversation that has occured at this RfC has been productive, which was my hope above all else in starting this, and I'm glad you've been a part of it below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Please could you answer this important question asked by Lourdes? A direct answer would be most helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: it is possible for any auto confirmed editor to publish a draft without the accesss to the script. The script just makes it automatic like closing AfD with twinkle. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2. Since accepted drafts at AfC still have to go through NPP, it makes sense to grant AfC access at a lower level of trust than NPP. The risk of merging them is that an unqualified editor (or one with a nefarious agenda) could accept drafts and review them without anyone getting a second look. That said, some editors will have an interest in one and not the other, so a track record at AfC should not be seen as a mandatory prerequisite for NPP. But either way, they should not be handed out simultaneously without being evaluated at both venues. – bradv🍁 05:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Support to the extent that it is positive with respect to efficiencies of tool writing and management. New Page Reviewing, and AfC reviewing requires basically the same skill set, a skill set proven by successful experience at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, I would endorse the view that a track record at AfD is a prerequisite for both perms. – bradv🍁 14:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 contains a terrible notion. People with limited experience should not be invited to AfC review. Instead, ther should edit, and then they should get AfD experience. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 includes a wrong statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 has an assumption - some AfCs reviewed by those with NPP rights are also patrolled by that editor, other editors leave it to another patroller. That discussion has been had and left to the reviewer/patroller to make their own judgement on whether to do both. The fundamental point still stands (a reviewer without NPP rights would mean it was checked twice, so lower access barriers might be permissable), but clarification could be beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Barkeep49: what does any of this have to do with WP:PERM? We don't handle "AFC" here, do you want us to? If the AFC people want to allow access based on 'patroller' that is up to them and should be discussed there, while we do handle AWB here at PERM, I don't really want to add in AFC checklisting. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Keep in mind, YAAHS was never "fully" gadgetized and just loads a personal script from @Enterprisey:. Enterprisey, any comments on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I think it was to allow Enterprisey to maintain the script without (int)admin intervention. That is bad practice, from a security standpoint, but at any rate he is now an int-admin so we should move it. I asked about this last year and he gave the go-ahead. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, I've noticed a number of AfC reviewers getting NPP perms without asking, even if they have been previously denied at PERM. I think this RfC can provide some important clarification on whether that is appropriate. – bradv🍁 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Administrators should have the right to grant NPP perm to editors who they feel are trusted, whether the request has been made at the PERM desk or otherwise. If an editor has been refused NPP previously by an administrator, and if another administrator has granted the NPP away from the desk, then the appropriate method would be to point the same out to the granting administrator. However, forcing administrators to "only grant NPP to editors who request the same at PERM" may be a very narrow view. And irrespective of your statement, this RfC is not about the venues, but about merging the two rights or not merging. Lourdes 14:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think I suggested that. I'm merely suggesting that there is a natural progression between the two perms in order of risk to the project, and that should be matched by the level of trust required. But that obviously doesn't work if people are given NPP automatically when they request AfC access. – bradv🍁 14:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  "there is a natural progression between the two perms in order of risk to the project" – This view is not represented in the guidelines to granting these two rights (the current guidelines are absolutely similar for both). If you wish to address this specific issue, or if you wish to propose that editors with AfC rights should NOT have NPP rights (to allow your proposed double check system), you should initiate a clear RfC with these objectives. The current RfC, as it is worded, does not propose this. Thanks, Lourdes 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't start this RfC, but perhaps when this concludes we can reevaluate the criteria for the different perms. While the numbers are the same for both, some of the other criteria are different. For example, AfC currently requires experience with deletion, but NPP doesn't mention this. But NPP requires experience with moving pages, which isn't as relevant to AfC. – bradv🍁 14:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. Let me also add a line from the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers page that may support your argument: "It is very possible that regular reviewers from the AfC team will apply for the New Page Reviewer flag; this is highly desirable given their related expertise." Lourdes 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2, per Bradv rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, per SmokeyJOe; the criteria for both are about the same and both are granted by administrators; and in both cases, administrators have the discretion to disregard guideline in case they perceive the editor needs more experience. Lourdes 13:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep separate, these are both issued "admin discretion"; patroller access encompass more than just "new articles" - it is "new pages" while afc is only about "articles". "AFC script access" doesn't actually give anyone any special access to anything that they can't already do - while patroller access does. All that being said, if the AFC regulars would like to request that Enterprisy add something like (or groups_in 'patroller') to his script, fine by me. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• ""AFC script access" doesn't actually give anyone any special access to anything that they can't already do". Xao, I'm quoting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants: PLEASE NOTE: Editors whose usernames are not on the list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions. (bold as in original). Thanks, Lourdes 14:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: I'm speaking from a technical perspective on that matter only, not the guidelines for that wikiproject. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux part of the reason I brought it to PERM is that I think depending on the consensus here it has permissions related implications (as bradv already noted). If the consensus is that AfC is a stepping stone, then the current quasi-perm of granting access to the script suffices. If the consensus is that they're not comparable or that they should be merged perhaps we rethink about how we handle articles in AfC (which is related, but distinct from an article in draft space). I think this is a fundamental question, where consensus has perhaps changed since the last RfC, that can then clue in where, if anywhere, productive future conversations might occur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't this about the need for 'checks and balances'? I'm currently minded to support Option 3, and have the utmost respect for both NPP and for AFC reviewers. Let me explain my perspective: I believe I'm a reasonably competent editor (intending to go for WP:RfA soon). I already have NPP permissions (not hugely active), but for the last year have not felt I've had anything like enough free time to commit to the  WP:AFC process, and what I envisage as the much heavier engagement needed to respond to AFC rejections and follow ups. Whilst the work is similar, I do occasionally see decisions at AFC that don't match with NPP perceptions. Having two different groups of editors working in these two related areas seems to me to offer very sound and sensible 'checks and balances', and an opportunity to limit damage done through incompetence of one editor who is given one or other of those permissions. (I could provide a recent diff of such a concern, but it might be deemed invidious for me to do so). Whilst one activity/permission could be a good stepping-stone to the other, I do see a number of editors who like to hatcollect. I currently believe retaining the 'status quo' of Option 3 makes a lot of sense. Maybe it's too late in the evening for me to appreciate the subtleties of the above interactions, but I see no overwhelming arguments to merge these permissions, or why doing so would help protect the encyclopaedia in any way. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• There's a significant number of AfC declines that don't line up with NPP ones due to notability grounds (an NPP one referring to delete would need to do a good BEFORE check, whereas AfC is based off the present sources) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Yep, I do know that. So, keeping permissions separate and having two different sets of reviewing editors (some who've applied for both permissions, and others who have applied just for one of them) seems to me to provide the best checks and balances. The skillsets and commitment needed are indeed different. Thus Option 3 seems most appropriate to me, yet Option 2 delivers the identical result. I don't really see why Option 2 and Option 3 rationale's weren't merged together. Just not Option 1. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 I strongly support what bradv said. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 has the most correct rationale. Options 2 & 3 contain incorrect or poor rationales. However, the rationales are not decisive. Poorly posed RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• I kind of feel like this is a solution in search of a problem, especially because of the concerns raised by others that AfC isn't even a permission per se. However, I'd support an automatic addition of all NPP reviewers to the AfC list, since I'm hard pressed to think of a reason that an NPP reviewer wouldn't be suitable for AfC reviews. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3: The permissions are for different purposes. NPP is ideally one of the best ways to double check to ensure sub-standard content (i.e. Spam) isn't being passed out from AFC to the mainspace and then rarely (if ever) looked at. I do think there might a use case for including the membership of NPP into the AFC list (as indicated by @Rosguill: above) but the reverse should not be automatically granted. Hasteur (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  If that is desired, it could be possible for the script to check "are you NPP OR on the list", thus automatically making all NPP's not cause a script reject. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1 these should have been merged years ago. There is no reason whatsoever to have them separate. I also think the "let them learn at AfC" idea I've heard suggested is bad: just give NPR to reasonable people. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science, and learning "on the job" isn't really that hard. I have always thought that keeping them separate only exists because of the different cultures of the NPP and AfC projects, and I do not see that as a good reason to not do the obvious answer and merge what is effectively the same user right at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I'll state it even more clearly: option 3 is completely wrong even though it has been the historical objection of the AfC project. The only problem is no one has ever pointed out how they are different nor how admins assess differently (hint: we don't except it is easier to get AfC because the standard is intentionally lower right now.) I don't think option 2 makes much sense either, but I think option 3 is out of this world incorrect. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

*Comment. I am a AfC and NPP reviewer. Both projects are here to patroll/review new articles and yet there are some differences in guidelines and processes, Listed the diffs below for the discussion and welcome to add or correct if any. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

#	Topic	NPP	AfC	Note
1	Review	Follow NPP chart	GNG & SSN notability and content policy within what provided in the draft article
2	Source	Not judging by article sources but what is available outside the article	Based on what indicated in the draft article	NPP - sources will only be included by interested editor to support the content claimed which would take years or no sources are added at all NPP - reviewer can moved article to draft page under WP:NPPDRAFT if no source or only dependent/not relaible sources presented in the article AfC - editor who input the info responsible to provide source - inline with WP:PROVEIT or WP:BURDEN verifiability guidelines
3	spam/promo/COPVIO/attacked page/vandalism/nonsense	via CSD	via CSD
4	CSD A7	via CSD - go through admin	reject - reviewer decision
5	Question of meeting notability	via PROP or AfD	decline (but not reject)
6	Merge/redirect	tag on page	inform editor
7	user right min requirement -	at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace. no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months experience with moving pages	at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace. requires experience with deletion	both given by admin
8	Process	via page curator	via script
9	Reviewers/Patroller in need of help	via NPPSCHOOL	via AfC talk page	NPPSCHOOL - enroll the program and guided by experience editor (trainer) AfC talk page - New or experienced editors get help from other experienced editors (A robust talk page)
10	Diffs	1.accept upon credible claim of significance even without sources if sources could be found by reviewer - place the responsibility reviewers to look for sources on behalf of the creator 2.accept and tag NPOV 3.No communication or advise by reviewer 4.Only one reviewer but if found unsoundly accepted, other reviewer can unreview the page 5.Page would be indexed by after 3 months in NPP even the page has not been reviewed 6.Reviews do the tagging (unreferenced/stub/improve cat) 7.Review AfC approved article unless the AfC reviewer hold both AfC and NPP user rights 8.Design for autoconfirmed user. Any PAID editors' article need to move to "Draft" space (AfC review) irregardless how many edits or page created by the PAID editors in the past. 9. NPP discussion page - mostly among reviewers	1.accepted if independent, reliable sources present in the article - place responsibility on creator to provide sources so they would comply to Wikipedia content policy 2.decline if NPOV (accordance with WP:Content policy) 3.Automated recline message and reveiwer's comment on draft page to creator on how to improve/what is need 4.Multiple reviewers could review a page if the page is previously decline 5.Could be G13 for stale drafts after 6 months or postponing G13 6.Reviewers do the tagging (cat, Wikiproject, article class assessment) 7.No need to review NPP page. 8.Design for new user who is not familiar with Wikipedia, but autoconfirmed editor would move drat to main at will where AfC review will be replaced by NPP review. 9. AfC help desk for creator seeking help

• Option 3 They are wholly-different tasks and I have always opposed efforts to merge them. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not option 1 - ultimately this comes down to whether the pluses would outweigh the negatives of a merger. I do not think they do, so I do not support a merge. Both reasons 2 & 3 have something to them, but I'm not sure which I would use as the most influential reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, what are the things you think Options 2 & 3 have towards them? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. Whiole the requirements are simialr, and both deal with new pages hoping to eb articles, the optimal attitudes and workflow are quite different. Merging these would, I suspect, be quite unfortunate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. Double checking of AfC productions is a good thing in principle, and frequently necessary in practice. From my own experience, there's a small percentage of articles coming in that way that shouldn't have passed, and a second layer of reviews is useful for catching those. More frequently, AfC articles need a good deal of maintenance tagging and/or basic fix-up, which has typically not been provided at that point. I can't really see what payoffs, apart from some administrative slimming-down, would be gained from a permission merge that would offset the loss of this security net. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• There should still be a multi stage process for drafts., whether or not we mergethe permissions. AfC checks very limited things--the criterion is whether the article is good enough that it would be likely to survive AfD. It does not attempt to tag or correct minor issues. the main things to check for are copyvio, promotionalism , a reasonable likelihood of notability , basic sourcing--and eliminating such things as non-English drafts, essays, & personal web pages. But, while it only checks these, it also often involves--or should involve--extensive explanation to the users. The AfC help desk is one resource, but it should only be necessary to go there if the reviewer is not sufficiently helpful, or their explanation is not understood. I've always thought it my responsibility at AfC to guide the author to a possible article, or to explain why we do not accept promotionalism .

In contrast, NPP is a screen for tagging problems, as well as determining basic acceptability. It's a logical second step. Drafts should not get rejected at AfC for problem such as reference format, because if more than the basics is dealt with there the article is likely to be abandoned. Most NPP articles do not need to be sent for deletion--this is very different from the old days when we had only one process, and half of the new pages generally needed to be deleted. The NPP reviewer usually does not get involved with the contributor.

I think NPP easier than AfC. I know I can go faster there. If we do not merge the permissions, this, rather than AfC, should be the first step for a new reviewer. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 do not merge I formerly supported merging the positions. I not longer do, because the two steps dod different things, and should be kept distinct. Otherwise, we'll find AfC reviewers trying to get new contributors to fix minor things, and NPP reviewers forgetting about PROD, and many other confusions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• If anything, more or less Option 2, but not Option 1. I say this with great reserve because a) This discussion is in the wrong venue because a dedicated project space (with a mailing list) for this issue has already existed for some time, and b) in order to succeed, such a debate needs to be thought out, well prepared, and presented in such a way that voters will not be confused and will vote with their heads and not shoot from the hip - things which cause many well intended RfC to fail for the wrong reasons and thus further setting back needed progress. I will open a comments section below in which I will expand why I think this discussion as proposed comes too soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Tentative Option 2 not really convinced on merits of merging the two except for simplicty which I'm all for. Option 3 is wrong. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - As someone who has both tools, (but should probably use them more), they are fundamentally different, and serve different roles. NPP should be our "last-first" line of defence, so it is where we have users reviewing articles before they are indexed by google. This is where we should catch a lot of shoddy articles, and poor practices. AfC is different. Nothing stops a user completely bypassing the process. Heck, usually, even when a user needed to have auto-confirmed access before posting an article, this still occurred before a review in the first place. I think it is best to keep AfC as the first line against clear PAID editing, copyvios and the like, and a great place to give feedback to new users (I've always thought of it as an article specific teahouse when the editor is in goodfaith). NPP isn't the same as this. NPP can allow good feedback, but it is non-negotiable (well, in most cases) and is there to be a set of eyes that always see an article. I think these are fundementally different. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

With that being said, if it's a case of the tools being merged, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to. I like the AfC helper script, I think the NPP toolbar could do with being a little bit more like this (if there is a script that does this, please link me). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep separate - COI and PAID editors are pretty much required to use AFC. Merging NPP and AFC results in said content being scrutinised once, when they need to be scrutinised as much as possible. As a reminder, both NPP and AFC have been infiltrated by spammers recently (Mar11, Stevey7788). MER-C 11:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 is better, because drafts accepted by AfC reviewers may have problems to be addressed and a second review (NPP) will reduce it. Its like double filtering. If these get merged same editor can do the both and problematic article may be accepted (though it can be done if a user have both of them). A double checking is always better than this. Also AfC permission may be given to users before become NPR as part of training. Then, if they are eligible and willing, they can give NPP perm. Some times users with AfC perm may not have enough experience to become NPP, then they can use this as a platform for mastering the skills. This is applicable when only both remains two. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 in that the arguments for Option 2 and Option 3 are flawed. However, having the same reviewers perform both reviews does not mean that they should have the same instructions. They should have different instructions. But one reviewer can have two hats at different times. I have applied the G11 tag to spam both as AFC and as NPP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Make AfC automatic for NPP I was unilaterally given the NPP right by Lourdes for being an AfC reviewer, and my work in that department has since dwarfed my work in AfC; having said that, I do think that the projects are similar enough that cross-pollination can't hurt, although I'll balk at a complete merger at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 seems best to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 as an inherited right (i.e., update YAFCH to check for AfC or NPP permissions instead of just AfC). Sceptre (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Moral support for option 1 acknowledging that there are technical issues that need to be worked out before implementation. It just makes sense that there be one userright for reviewing new content, whether it's articles created in mainspace or drafts submitted to AfC. I would go so far as to say that autopatrolled should also be bundled in this - why should we expect that someone is competent to review new articles created by others but isn't competent to review their own work? We're not going to expect that every editor given this new userright is going to do all of the things that they're able to do: some will be generalists, some will continue only reviewing new pages while others will continue only reviewing AfC submissions. The skill set is the same, though, as are the responsibilities. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I totally get wanting to merge them, and it makes sense in theory. Speaking realistically, however, NPP is a fairly restricted user right that is not necessarily easy to obtain, even for experienced and trustworthy users sometimes. AfC is not a formal prerequisite, of course, but it is the natural stepping stone for those users who can not immediately get approved. I feel that integrating AfC into NPP will only make participation in these activities more difficult, further restricting access to AfC and simultaneously taking away the entry level for NPP participation, which, ultimately, works spectacularly against our goal of increasing participation in these areas so that we can eliminate the huge backlogs, both of which are completely out of control as it is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:BURO. Wikipedia became successful by ditching the constraints and conservatism of Nupedia. As Wikipedia was conceived as very open – "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – we need to keep pushing back on the complexity per WP:CREEP. Merging such similar roles together is common sense and consistent with our core philosophy. Incorporating autopatrolled, as suggested by Ivanvector, would be sensible too; encouraging our competent contributors to be reviewers too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Originally, I had no comment on this opinion. I was given the New Page Reviewer permission by Lourdes after applying to WPAFC. I greatly appreciated the gesture, and it has been very helpful to patrol pages directly after approving them through AfC. However, I do believe that Option 2 is the right way to go. While I'm not requesting to have my NPR permission removed, I don't believe that both privileges should have come bundled together. NPR is a more powerful role, as simply approving an AfC article does not remove it from the list of unpatrolled pages. Those with the NPR permission should be the ones who perform the final checks for an article, and can catch any mistakes made by an AfC reviewer. For one, my request for the NPR permission was denied by User:Kudpung back in July, see here: [1]. Yet, because I applied to be a New Page Reviewer and an AfC Reviewer at the same time, I was given the NPR permission anyway. Now, to move on from my anecdote, I do think that AfC is more surface-level, per se. While an AfC reviewer is expected to have a knowledge of Wikipedia policy and criteria for deletion, it would be good to have newer reviewers require a new page patroller to check over the article for a second opinion. With enough experience with AfC, then the NPR permission could be given as the reviewer likely doesn't need somebody to double-check everything for them. Utopes (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Utopes, You are perfectly correct in your perception of the differences between AfC and NPP. There are however very good reasons why the double check is always appropriate - AfC has been abused in the past. It's not usual,but it's her prerogative as an admin. As a relatively new admin, Lourdes might not be aware of some of the processes involved at PERM - for one, if the process is not used, many of the atuomated features don't get carried out. If she has her own way of doing things and often bypasses the regular process at PERM for according user rights it's nevertheless her prerogative.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Utopes, might I add that in August this year, on the AfC talk page (which is probably watched by Kudpung, who undoubtedly has more years than me, but relatively lesser than many others), I had posted this query that the AfC right should be made into a bit. Probably a matter of chance that more experienced editors did not chip into the discussion there. And then on 8 September, realising that in all these years, there was no mention of AfC on the PERM page, I added information about the right to that page. This is just for information and context about my efforts. Thanks, Lourdes 11:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes, turning AfC reviewer into a bit has been on the minds of several users since I introduced the current system for it several years ago, and more since I and a couple of other editors collaborated closely with the WMF to develop the draft list in the feed so that new drafts can benefit from ORES, and to provide the reviewers with a central list to work from. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Wrong venue: A dedicated project space was created almost 3 years ago to the day to discuss these very issues. It is at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC.

Baby steps: A lot of progress has been achieved in the meantime, including ACREQ, ORES, COPYPATROL, and important enhancements to the New Pages Feed and its Curation tool (often collectively call 'page triage' by the developers), including my (and others) close collaboration with the WMF to develop the AfC section in the feed earlier this year. Following discussion a few weeks ago with Primefac, the de facto coordinator of AfC, I am about to launch a RfC proposing the promotion of AfC to official status by requiring access to its function to be governed by according its right through PERM. This will of course play into the hands of the hat collectors, a big issue we are having to cope with at NPP since I introduced the NPR right by RfC in October 2016 as a result from preparatory workshopping at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. However, more importantky - and perhaps ironically - by providing a few stripes to sew on their sleeves, users may be more encouraged to become reviewers and hence also to work at a higher degree of accuracy - this worked for NPR.

AfC and NPP while not being quite as distinct as apples and oranges, are nevertheless as similar as they are different. DGG and I who have largely steered much opinion, have indeed changed our own opinions over time. Due to more and more accrued empirical experience and lengthening institutional memory, we have gone from firmly wanting to deprecate AfC altogther, to wanting to merge AfC and NPP, to now keeping them close but separate. One of the reasons is that since the roll out of ACREQ, the coal faces and MO of both systems have changed significantly, and a review of these changes has not been formally established - yet. Without going into too much detail here and now, it's all to do with checks and balances, and the type of new artcles that nowadays make up the majority of new submissions to mainspace and/or draft space, but by carefully coaxing the WMF we have achieved the almost unthinkable: lists for AfC and NPP in the feed interface. There are also still many misunderstandings about the function of the drafts, when and if they should be used, and who can move them and/or create articles in mainspace. CASSIOPEIA has provided some good information in their table as points to ponder, and important issues have been raised by Xaosflux and DGG.

Next: IMO, we should treat this RfC as an exercise in testing the waters and kicking the tyres. The first step is to do what I have drafted, and that is to call for a user right for AfC, and define the criteria for it, and together with perhaps Hasteur and MusikAnimal develop truly technical resources - without loopholes - so that only authorised users are permitted to review (accept or decline) drafts, and how the AFCHC banners and embedded template functions can be turned in to a cloned Curation fly-out, which will need some assistance from the WMF and for which is now the time to strike while the iron is hot. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit disjointed but it's now 6:49 and I have to drive 500 miles today for my work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks for your thoughts. I am definitely aware of your future of NPP and AfC space but found that more historical than active (which is why I didn't notice there) and wanted a centralized place to discuss. I definitely see this as a direction setting RfC. If the processes are to be merged, well that will require discussion. If they're not to be merged, the reason why is important and it could perhaps lead to formalized criteria and a real PERM, rather than the informal bit we have now, for AfC. Given all the work you've mentioned I think it's the right time to take the next step forward, but think it important we agree on what direction we're headed so we can figure out which step to take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm confused. We have (an) "AfC" user right(s)? I'm not seeing any such right on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• The AfC "permission" is simply the members of WikiProject Articles for Creation, at WP:WPAFC. To become a member though, you need to meet certain criteria that are akin to those for the NPR right. You can find the list on the participant page. Once you become a member, you can start using the AfC Helper Script and reviewing AfC articles. What is being decided is whether the NPR right should be synonymous with being able to review AfC pages. Utopes (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and Utopes: while AfC has an informal mechanism for controlling who can use the HelperScript, AfC is not (yet) an official process. However, since the WMF created a very useful feed of drafts in the queue on the NPP feed interface, there are good reasons now for creating a user right around AfC - but not necessarily merging the two responsibilities into one user right. This RfC will determine if the two user tasks are to be merged as one user right or to be kept separate. If they are kept separate, a new, and official user right will be proposed for the AfC reviewers and they will have access to the queue for drafts in the feed and the AfC functions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2019 (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.

How does automatic revocation of this privileged work?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser (23:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC))

The bot edited in something saying that somebody had the privileges automatically revoked. What triggers that? DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 23:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

DemonDays64, I believe it's one year of inactivity (i.e. no edits) that triggers the automatic removal from the AWB Checkpage. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Third-party requests

I wanted to ask that User:Battleofalma (a long-term editor in good standing, and known to me personally) be made autopatrolled, but the pro-forma seems to be suited only to autobiographical requests. Is there an alternative? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Autopatrolled is unique in that its designed to ease the burden of patrolling on others - per Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, "If you know an experienced editor with a reliable history of creating "clean" articles, feel free to request the right for them." Per [2], they appear to have created the 25 articles, so I would say there is no harm in asking DannyS712 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I know all that, but it doesn't answer my question, nor solve the issue I encountered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, what kind of alternative are you looking for? I ask because there are several third party requests at the PERM for autopatrolled right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If I click on "add request", I'm taken to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=true&preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Preload&preloadparams%5b%5d=autopatrolled - I'm looking for an alternative to that. I have no idea what PERM is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: while that auto-fill form doesn't handle that directly, it can still be mostly used. Just replace {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} with the username of the other person. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That line is immediately followed by the line " <!-- Only change the "Reason for requesting..." text below. Do not change anything above this line -->". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: this seems to be devolving in to meta-squabbling over an edge case for the preload template...that form is intended to help people get the formatting right, especially people with much less editing experience than you. Use of the form is never required, you can just skip it all together: just go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and edit the page, make a new section that is similar to the ones above. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"squabbling"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Late to the discussion, but for the record, third-party requests for autopatrolled are made and granted on a very regular basis. The issue here seems to be that we don't have a process-specific template for making such a request as this permission is the only one where that is something we would normally consider. I imagine an experienced template editor could resolve this in a matter of minutes. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  An experienced editor should be able to recognize they only need to replace {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} with the user in question, but in fairness I can also see how reading the "do not change anything above this line" could stop people from doing so. I will amend the commented-out note. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  I think the best text would be Only change the "Reason for requesting..." text below. Do not change anything above this comment UNLESS you are requesting for someone else; use their username instead of {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} Primefac (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I nominated myself?

I know this may be a easy question but can anyone nominate themselves? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserz, yes. Keep in mind that the various permissions aren't an "award", they're just user rights that allow you to perform specific tasks. Review the qualifications for a user right and, if you meet them, add a request for that permission to the list. It helps if you're able to state how that specific user right will help your activities on wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protecte a template

This article Birgunj need semi-protection.Can anyone please lock this articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romizatiion1 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Romizatiion1, how did you not see the big red notice that says

• "This is not the place to request edits to protected articles" and

"To request an edit to a protected page, go to that page's talk page and make your request there" ? Cabayi (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nominators or endorsements

I see that again a few new template editors have gotten themselves in trouble with this tool...one even blocked. Perhaps a nominator or endorsements as we somewhat do with admin nominees is something we should look at. A endorsement by a someone that is already a template editor or admin might save us some time...and the decision to grant will not be dependant on one person that is what happens here most of the time. This way the editors involved in implementing requests by potential candidates can certify someones motive and technical abilities. Just a tought --Moxy 🍁 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the revocation of rights when you say "blocked" (there are no recent TPE requesters who are currently blocked). As for endorsements, that happens occasionally (though I do note the latest was you), and I went back to the beginning of the year and most of the declines (and some of the accepts) involved at least two admins discussing the matter. Plus, the ability to grant on a temporary basis has (so far) been nothing but a positive; as far as I am aware none of the editors who were in that category were declined when they re-applied.

So I guess my point is we already do most of what you suggest, and I don't really see a reason to "codify" it. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why they went crazy with User:Sdkb.....was not my intent - nor was this course of action recommended or implied by me. Was a harsh outcome for a new editor mistake - many have been made by many. But i was referring to the user abusing multiple accounts that got blocked. Was thinking more involved so we get MORE applying for the tool with those applicants being semi vented. In my view having more involved will lead to more applying......as in nominations by third parties. We have many editors out there that could use the tool but simply wont apply. If we have nomination processes in place it may help.--Moxy 🍁 14:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't be bothered to find the diff, but we changed the requirements for PERMs so that one could nominate someone else. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Just for the record, as the bot insisted on archiving Sophivorus' request as declined, I've manually fixed the archiving to show the permission was granted [3], [4] --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for doing that. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Where can I request apihighlimits?

It's not listed here. Any way to request it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: this is not something that people normally should need, if you have high-volume writes to do you should normally use a bot account, if you have high volume reads to do you should normally use a replica (offline) query. That being said, this is only requestable as a global flag at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Miscellaneous_requests; where your should include what your good reason for needing to not use one of those methods is along with your request. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Xaosflux. It's to allow me to use AWB with nolimits while listmaking. I will explain in more detail at the request page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: you can run a no limit AWB against an offline database, is your list making something that requires the live replica? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Move the /Confirmed page to "Common" on the template?

WP:RFP/C has 23,600 revisions–it's the second-most popular page in this whole requests for permissions complex! Why is it marked as "Uncommon" in the template? I am proposing to have it moved to Common on the RFP template. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There are less than 500 users with this permission. It's not about how often people go to the PERM page, it's how often the permission is granted. Since AC is granted for almost everyone, the vast majority of people asking for confirmed are either socking, impatient, or have no idea that they'll likely get AC in four days. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, we do normally set it temporarily and revoke when no longer useful - so the commonality should be based on how common the requests themselves are, not on how many editors have the flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thought is not to split hairs over definitions of what's "popular" or commonly-granted and just merge those two lines into a generic list of permissions, call it something like "Available permissions". Primefac (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I think we split them because the line was too long (other hacks available for that) and to dissuade people from signing up for things that likely weren't appropriate for them (esp event coordinators who were filing as account creators). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Viewing the list of contributors to deleted pages

Unforgettableid (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi! There's no usual place to request the permission I want, so I'll ask here instead.

I've done a fair bit of CSD tagging of undisclosed paid puff pieces. It might be useful for me to be able to easily do two things:

• See who has created a deleted page.
• And, preferably, also see who has edited a deleted page.

Therefore, I'd like to be able to see the history metadata of deleted pages. This would include usernames, dates, and times. I don't really need to see edit summaries.

The closest user right to what I want is "deletedhistory". This right would let me "View deleted history entries, without their associated text". So, I could view revision usernames and edit summaries, but not the actual deleted-article text.

In the end:

• A) May I please get full the "deletedhistory" user right?
• B) And, if not, would it make sense to invent a new more-limited user right? This new user right would let the rights-holder get a partial view of deleted pages' history. The rights-holder could see the contributor usernames, but would be unable to see the edit summaries.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Unforgettableid: as a non-admin, your current options are Special:Log/create, and page creations by a user at xtools. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Building on kiran's response, if you use WP:SUPERLINKS you can see the log entries for a page without leave the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

does it support mono skin? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Usernamekiran: see User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks#Notes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Unforgettableid, Special:WhatLinksHere will lead you to the article's AFD/PROD/CSD notifications. In turn the user talk pages with those notices may lead you to their other contributions here, on Commons and Wikidata which may reveal more info. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• At the moment, the only way for you to get that userright is by becoming an administrator. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dear Primefac, and dear all: I'm not sure I'm eligible to become an administrator. Is it true that both right A and right B (as described above) are available only to administrators and to WMF-approved researchers? If so, could anyone guess: Why might this be? —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC); edited 22:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Unforgettableid: because these revisions can contain components that are disruptive or illegal. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Unforgettableid: I believe that the information being requested here (without edit summaries) is actually publically available via the API or quarry (albeit in a format much more intelligible to computers than humans). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the pure deletedrevisions list can be accessed (example) , this is less than the "deletedhistory" information. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really need to see edit summaries., so that information appears to be sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Unforgettableid: wrote a litte script for you- if you import User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link.js from your common.js page, you'll see a link "See deleted revisions" above the red "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted" notice, taking you to a fairly readable version of the API output. SD0001 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear SD0001: Appreciated :) I've installed the script.

Dear all: Would it make sense for similar functionality to be built into MediaWiki?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2005 or so, non-admins used to be able to see all the revisions (without content) in Special:Undelete. I don't remember why they removed that ability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the rewrite of the code didn't accommodate it - I keep meaning to open a phab request and have a bunch of notes to add in to have the same access view webui as api - will update here when ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry

I'd be interested to know how long it's been since a request was granted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. It seems like an essentially useless process. EEng 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I cannot think of a time when it would be absolutely vital for a user to edit today as opposed to waiting three more days (and nine edits). Primefac (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I used it successfully in August here for my bot. The BRFA forgot to give the right, admins on IRC didn't want to perm a bot, so I had to ask there. Hitting edit errors / captchas without. Just one case but FWIW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That's something that any BAG admin should have been able to do, and I would say that's a fairly rare occurrence nonetheless. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@EEng and Primefac: looks like at least a couple were done in November 2020. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

...both for new alt accounts for established editors. I'm guessing this is pretty much the only real use case. EEng 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: mostly. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering why someone sophisticated enough to understand the concept of an alt account can't just do 10 edits and wait 4 days and not bother anyone. EEng 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see the bot use case, but otherwise? No. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The bot?

My understanding was that after adding a done or not done template to a request and there being no further comments, the MusikBot would automatically archive these requests ... that doesn't seem to be the case? Is there something else a reviewing admin needs to do to trigger archival? Go Phightins! 10:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To be specific, I'm talking about requests at autopatrolled. Go Phightins! 10:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: it does it 72 hours after closure. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, perfect. Thanks, Xaosflux. Go Phightins! 11:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User rights granting notification template for AWB

Is there any reason we don't have a User rights granting notification template for AWB? I feel it could be useful to reiterate the AWB rules in a friendly granting message on new users talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Likely because it's not a true userright, and access is dependent on a name being added to a list. For the other rights, "assign right, add new section with note, mark as done" can be automated, but "edit X section on this specific page and add a name, save that, add new section with note, mark as done" is a little more complicated.

In other words, I would guess 99% of the notification templates are not added directly (rather via script) and thus even if we were to make an AWB template the patrolling admins wouldn't take the time to add it (I know I wouldn't). Primefac (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Broken "AWB Guide" link.

The text "Please review the AWB guide before making a request." links to a missing anchor on a page that clearly isn't a guide.

I'd fix it myself, but I don't know what the "guide" is supposed to be.

Intralexical (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed, the new target used to be transcluded onto the old target, but the old target is now a redirect. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled and stub creators

Has this ever been addressed here? Regarding the editors seeking autopatrolled and who mostly or only create stub articles. I see hundreds, if not thousands, of perma-stub articles clogging the encyclopedia (esp: one-game sports players, one-term low-level politicians, etc.) and wonder if these editors actually should be requesting this right? Is this truly a viable reflection of their abilities to create articles? Should the criteria be increased to include the words "... 25 non-stub articles" (or similar)? Should this be addressed in the article criteria here and at that request page? Sincerely, GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• ...no? Adding a dismissive prefix to "stub" does not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with creating them and never has been. If anything, editors who regularly create many stubs have the most need for autopatrolled, since their articles rarely need individual review. As we continuously try to impress on people here, autopatrolled is not an award for good article writing, it's a purely technical tool to help us triage NPP. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  I understand that, Joe. Stubs are growth. They can also be reviewed very quickly, so there is little time-drain there. My reasoning is that authorship competency is not shown by 25—or 100, or even 250—cookie-cutter, one or two sentence, stub creations. Let them show that they can create viable, non-stubby articles first, and then they can create thousands of stubs if they wish. Even if we lower that article creation threshold to 10 or something. I feel this should be addressed more systematically (with written guidelines), than has been the practice in the past. GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  The criteria for autopatrolled aren't really about writing competence. The basic requirement (i.e. the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Autopatrolled) are that you are creating articles at such a rate that it has a noticeable affect on the NPP queue ("prolific") and that there is little risk that your creations will violate core content policies ("clean"). We have to judge this in relation to the kind of articles a particular editor makes, because nobody can be an expert at everything, and someone doing the very valuable job of filling in stubs on geographic places should not be expected to jump through an arbitrary hoop like writing a GA biography of a painter.

  Admittedly, the "suggested minimum standard" is very badly out of alignment with this basic requirement, as I've tried to argue before. Under the current system, I do think it's a problem that someone could get autopatrolled on the basis of 100 stubs about rivers, then use it to write promotional biographies. But it's also a problem that someone could get it on the basis of 25 lengthy articles about cars and then go on to create dozens of stubs about non-notable ice cream factories. The root issue is not stubs, but that we've made autopatrolled a for-life grant to all "trusted" editors, when it ought to be narrowly targeted at users who intend to create a large number of articles on a specific topic, for the duration of that project and no longer. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Non admin decline

Hello, looking for admin input here. If a user requests advanced permission, such as NPP, and is then indefinitely blocked by an admin for e.g. sock puppetry or copyvio, is it appropriate for a non-admin to place {{not done}} on the blocked user's request, if it is still open? Just asking for clarification of the "rules". Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Simple clerking isn't inappropriate, but I do wonder why an admin would not be able to decline the same request. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

They would clearly be able to, but backlogs happen. After an admin (@Rosguill:) suggested I could do this, but then when I do I get reverted. But without any real evidence provided that it is disallowed. So I just wanted some clarification. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe then you should wait until there is a backlog before closing such cases (even if obvious). Primefac (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Exploring the pending changes reviewer and rollback permissions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In a strictly binary sense, the outcome of this decision was no, the two perms should not be combined. There were some interesting ideas floated about the perms and maybe even having the requests for both on the same page, but nothing actionable. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the permissions of the pending changes reviewer and rollback user groups be merged into one?

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No

Anarchyte (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Original post from 09:39, 20 October 2021

Pending changes reviewer and rollback exist to serve the same purpose: ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia by removing vandalism and bad faith edits. Currently, I have two ideas that could improve the process of granting these permissions for both applicants and administrators: Idea 1: Merge the pending changes reviewer permissions into rollback and increase the black letter threshold for being granted rollback. All existing pending changes reviewers would be grandfathered into rollback. See above. Idea 2: Introduce a new permission that merges pending changes reviewer and rollback, and also grants the ability to assign both PCR and RB to other users. Leave it as the status quo. The bars for entry into both of these permissions are the lowest that we have across the board and share similar criteria. Typically, if an admin trusts the user with one of the permissions, they can be trusted with the other. Option 1 would simply reduce the backlog and make it easier for editors to apply for counter-vandalism permissions. As it stands, from what I've seen in patrolling WP:PERM/RB and WP:PERM/PCR is that despite PCR technically requiring more out of the applicant, an administrator is unlikely going to grant rollback without the user showing an understanding of content policies. At a policy level, merging them would only need an update to the threshold requirements. Idea 2 is more advanced, seeing the introduction of a new permission with the capability of granting rollback and pending changes reviewer. In theory, editors would be able to apply for this new permission in a manner similar to edit filter helper in that it would require a small amount of community input instead of one admin unilaterally granting it. This would be a form of unbundling (albeit limited), and would need greater community development and discussion if the concept is well received. The idea was mentioned in passing at the ongoing RfA review. I would appreciate the community's opinions on these ideas. Regards, Anarchyte (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

@Anarchyte: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I've attempted to fix it. Would this work? Anarchyte (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I don't think what you've said is what you really mean. Permissions grant specific access to functions. User groups contain collections of permissions. Users are associated with groups. I think you are saying you would like to merge the group: reviewer (pending changes reviewers) with the group: rollback (rollbackers); correct? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes, in part. I'd like to condense the permissions of the rollback and reviewer groups into one (i.e. people ask for one permission and get the ability to rollback and review pending changes). I've modified the text above again. Anarchyte (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, it is easy enough to apply for both of these if someone wants to - and I don't really want to have our permissions/group specialized just for this. That being said, on the PERM process I don't mind if we combine the requests for these to PCR+RB in one place and have the normal close be "grant both" - leaving in place the ability to grant or remove one or the other should their be a need. As far as giving such an entry level group group management access, I don't think that is a good idea. The one place I'd maybe support that would be for pa rollers to be able to add autopatrol. For PCR/RB groups, I'd also be open to perhaps using autopromoteonce similar to extendedconfirmed for editors that reach some sort of edit threshold, leaving it open for revocation for cause if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• It's simply not true that RB and PCR are similar tools with similar granting criteria. The requirements for PCR are so low that in essence it is granted to any established account without prejudice. RB on the other hand is granted to experienced and competent anti-vandalism workers only. Every Rollbacker qualifies for promotion to PCR, but absolutely not every PCR applicant qualifies for Rollback. IIRC, when PCR was implemented, it was meant to be treated as nothing more than a restoration of an ability the community had by default, which was to engage in basic New page patrol. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Interesting. If that was the purpose of the original reviewer usergroup—being an easy and efficient way of returning permission—what about giving extendedconfirmed the reviewer toolset? 500 edits and 30-90 days is probably the average applicant. Anarchyte (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Anarchyte: if we want to go that route, I'd suggest not adding the reviewer tools to the extendedconfirmed group, but just also setting reviewer to have autopromoteonce to automatically grant it to people (and the threshold could actually be anything combination of edits and time). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I would oppose that; we've had issues in the past where COI and UPE users have obtained NPR privileges and abused them, creating a significant mess to clean up - I don't think we want to increase the risk of that. However, it may be worth holding a discussion on reducing the barrier to obtaining NPR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @BilledMammal: pending changes reviewer and new pages reviewer are much different, this discussion is about the former. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) To add to Swarm's comment above, I'd say PCR only requires the editor to know WP:COPO. RB misuse can be more sweeping especially if using tools like huggle. PC edits awaiting review, have always been low whenever i've checked the dashboard. I'd be in favor of granting an editor pcr if he is accepted for rollback but not vice versa. I can't say whether we should update the threshold for granting the rights. If someone can show that some editors have misused or have been otherwise incompetent with their access and thereby we must increase the threshold, that would be worth considering. Update in the threshold requirement needs a separate discussion preceding this imv, and we shouldn't conflate the threshold issue and rights merge issue, in one single rfc. - hako9 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hako9: I definitely agree that rollback is more powerful than PCR, which is why if we're going to get rid of any user group I'd like it to be PCR. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to phrase this RfC as "Should editors still have to apply for the PCR user group" with options like "Yes", "No, it should be automatically granted", and "No, it should be merged into a different user group". Given the low amount of input so far, maybe it's not too late to change it. Anarchyte (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Idea 2 sounds kinda cool, but I don't think it's necessary to change anything bop34 • talk • contribs 18:52, 25 October 2021 (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.

UserRightsDiff user script

Hello friends. I created User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserRightsDiff.js today, a user script that may be useful to people working around WP:PERM. When viewing Special:UserRights, it analyzes the log entries and concisely summarizes what perms were added or removed. See screenshot for example. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh thank fuck. It's a PITA to parse out diffs for users with a bazillion perms. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Haha you're welcome. It was bugging me too and I don't even work in this area :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

musikbot

Hi. A user has been renamed so musikbot is throwing out the error. I forgot how to handle this :-/
—usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Give more specifics please? If it's AWB, the bot updates things automatically, otherwise the bot shouldn't have an issue. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied."

"Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied."

...almost... certainly...

Why not just delete those two words so that it reads instead as, "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will be denied." ?

Seems to me that there ought to be no reason to include the "almost certainly" if it is truly a near certainty, then just make it a certainty. If the purpose of this request form here is to approve "legitimate alternate account[s]" then why not just make the text reflect as such? Thanks! ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: it is meant to be a strong discouragement, but we have made exceptions before. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough then. If there are exceptions, then I suppose that makes sense to leave as is. Thanks! ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. If you are an administrator, you may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if an administrator wishes to self-assign they may do so now. Additionally, there is some agreement among those discussing implementation to mass message admins a version of this message. To find out when the change goes live, or if you have questions, please go to the Administrator's Noticeboard . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Further to the above, it's been decided that those admin who were already autopatrolled when they got the mop will be manually assigned the autopatrolled right. Happened to myself earlier today; thought it useful to share this here. Schwede66 08:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Idea lab (preliminary) discussion over adding a new permission

Here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Adding "AfD closer" status. Participation welcome. No benefit to writing in this thread here I don't think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

third-party requests to add autopatrolled to admin accounts

I saw one of these today and my first thought was "shouldn't they just ask the admin to flip the switch themselves?" If they want it but for whatever reason don't feel comfortable doing it themselves they can always post a request. So I guess I'm asking if others see it that way or if we should just treat them like any other request. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: just treat like any other seem fine - this flag is supposed be for the benefit of patrollers not for the user holding it anyway. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked users with user-rights

It feels bad to see blocked users in the lists where they don't belong. I mean to say, flags aren't removed from their accounts once they're blocked. Can we manage to get these users out of all the lists? For example, see this user, who's still listed in those groups. Though these users can't perform such actions but being them listed in the user-rights-groups is really bad. Ideas? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 21:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Though these users can't perform such actions... so then there is no harm in leaving them as-is. them listed in the user-rights-groups is really bad - why? Primefac (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: additionally, the less-minor additional flags usually have an activity requirement, so they end up getting removed eventually for indef blocked users. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

TheAafi may be interested in the information at WP:INDEFRIGHTS, and the discussions linked within. One key aspect is that in most cases an indefinite block is not a forever block, and the user could in theory pick up where they left off. Having said that, there does sometimes come a point where we know that an editor won't be editing again. I'm not averse to removing these rights myself when I come across them, like usually from sockpuppets of proper banned users. I think if you read the discussions there is an argument for doing things on a case-by-case basis, without unnecessarily offending people and without imposing unnecessary workload, and that's probably the best way to handle it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Makes sense. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 23:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I remember seeing a few years ago that one of the other reasons we don't go through and purge indef blocked accounts from these lists is that some may have email notifications enabled and it would be discourteous to remind them that their permissions had been removed despite having not touched the site in years. Anarchyte (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

If an editor reverts a large numbers of edits by an IP, many of them using rollback, and in the process not only removes bad information, but also good information as well, and then when this mistake is pointed out to them refuses to assist in fixing the mistakes, would that be grounds for the removal of rollback? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: it could be, see Wikipedia:Rollback: ...editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. .... You can bring them up at WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I know you're attempting to keep it vague as a "general" sort of question, so to that I would agree with xaosflux that ANI is probably the best place to take such concerns. You could also ping an admin that regularly patrols that PERM page and ask for their opinion (e.g. for this specific situation of which you are concerned, I wouldn't personally feel comfortable making a unilateral removal so I would point you towards ANI). Primefac (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, Primefac & xaosflux are correct in their stance, but my thinking is, if it isn’t a reoccurring pattern, ANI might seem a like a shocker or a little bit too soon, I’d suggest you add the editor to your watchlist and if this persists warning after warning then they are editing disruptively which in my opinion should then lead to an ANI report (this is just my thinking) my take is, be a little patient with them, advice or warn them accordingly and let ANI be reserved for later, but if you must, you can take it to ANI as correctly suggested by my superiors above. Celestina007 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses, folks. I don't want to escalate to AN/I, so I guess I'll watch and wait. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: it is very case by case. If I saw an IP add something like: TOPIC about SUBJECT is GOODCLAIM <ref>GOOD REF</ref> and is also a TROLLCLAIM to a bunch of pages, I'd bulk roll them back and not try to salvage the goodclaim parts myself. Agree with @Celestina007: though, if it's stopped then its over - if it become a recurring problem - AN/I can look in to it further. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the bad part of the edits involved were more like adding non-recommended stuff to an infobox field, so it does not quite raise to the level of "TROLLCLAIM". Yes, the non-recommended info absolutely needed to be removed, but the removal of good info at the same time (on some of the reversions) was not optimal, especially considering that it could have been easily done with an ordinary edit (removing the non-recommended information) instead of with rollback. Now I'm stuck making a large number of annoying edits to fix the errant rollbacks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for permission template

I left a message at Template talk:Request for permission about a change that I think could be made over a week ago, and no one has responded. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled approval rate

I've gone through the last 12 months of archives to check how many applications there are for autopatrolled and at which rate those get approved. Here are the results:

month	approved	denied
Apr-21	4	4
May-21	13	14
Jun-21	6	8
Jul-21	5	5
Aug-21	9	11
Sep-21	2	14
Oct-21	3	8
Nov-21	16	8
Dec-21	36	8
Jan-22	17	5
Feb-22	5	5
Mar-22	2	5
total	118	95
	55%	45%

There are some editors who, after receiving feedback, are encouraged to try again a few months later. So some are in those stats twice. Schwede66 09:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Review of autopatrolled

Moved to WP:AN

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.

---

User:Sakiv, I assigned autopatrolled back in January 2020 and given the ping from your talk page, I went to have a look at your latest contributions. What I see are several new articles without any references. What's up with that? You would be aware that unreferenced articles is a no-no. Can you please let us know if you would like to do something about it? Because if this isn't rectified, autopatrolled would have to be removed. Schwede66 02:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through a dozen articles now. I try not to leave any article without a source, but most of it is about seasons before 2010, so it takes more time.--Sakiv (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on the poor conduct I've highlighted on my talk page, I would advocate for revocation of autoreviewer as a minimum, with removal of reviewer being a distinct possibility for apparently not being able to distinguish vandalism from good-faith actions. I recognise, however, I should not be the one to do it based on his statement that I am engaging in harassment for criticism of conduct. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 It seems that no action has been taken on this situation yet. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If someone really wants to follow up on this, this isn't the best forum - WP:AN can handle it as it requires an admin to change it, and it is about the behavior of a specific editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sakiv, I've set autopatrolled to expire in late August 2022. At that point, or shortly before, please post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and somebody will review your latest contributions. For anything else, please take action as per xaosflux's suggestion if you consider this necessary. Schwede66 23:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint on my talk page, Sakiv:

• Please keep discussion in one place and don't start a new one elsewhere.
• I had looked at maybe five of your recent articles and, if my memory serves me right, three of them had no references. And that is totally incompatible with being autopatrolled. Since you asked about it on my talk page, at the time of my review, the following articles were unreferenced:

• 2004–05 Deportivo Alavés season
• 2022–23 Stade Malherbe Caen season
• 2022–23 S.S.C. Napoli season

• Please add categories to Latvia national football team results (1991–2019)
• Please omit empty headings as I've done for you at 2022 WAFF Futsal Championship and many other articles I've just looked at; this is a frequent issue with your articles
• Please don't leave bare URLs behind, e.g. at 2022–23 S.S. Lazio season (and that's not the only article I had to tag)
• Many of the articles that I've looked at had a single reference only

Regarding your note I didn't create any articles lacking references after that notice, I did not accuse you of doing so. I told you that you should never do that in the first instance and that I found 3 out of 5 unreferenced is a major red flag. When users do this, chances are they may continue with this, hence it is necessary to keep an eye on this. And now that I've had a closer look at a good number of articles, I find an issue with 1 out of 2. That is not good enough and for now, I shall remove autopatrolled. Please do come back at some point in the future (even the near future; say once you've created another two dozen articles) and ask for a review. And just a reminder what autopatrolled is for: this is a flag given to users who consistently create clean articles that do not require review by others. Please try and create clean articles. The rate at which you pump out new articles gives the appearance of a rushed job. I suggest you aim for more quality over quantity.

And regarding your note The dispute with the administrator is not even related to Verification, but rather the nomination of pages for speedy deletion, I have no idea who you refer to by "administrator". But regardless, you are right. The issues that I'm raising are totally independent of any other disputes that you may have; this is all about the requirements for meeting autopatrolled. Schwede66 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

All of this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't pinged you on his talk page. I don't know what its purpose was but I feel like something inconvenient. I can't continue my work here feeling like everything I'm doing is bad and unwanted. This is not the atmosphere I want to work in. I am not the only one who creates articles that need some tags. This is expected from many. I have been an autopatrolled for more than two years and have not misused this permission. Your way of tracing my contributions is not convenient and indicates that I am disruptive not an active user for seven years. What happened today will be followed by actions on my part because I do not know what is happening. At first you convert the autopatroller to temporary and then revoke it completely. This is not encouraging at all to me.--Sakiv (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled is not for your benefit but for the benefit of reviewers. Autopatrolled articles essentially need to be "perfect" and if they need tags, then they do need some review, so autopatrolled is not appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You say: everything I'm doing is bad and unwanted. No, that is most certainly not the case. You add a lot of value. You create many new pages. That's all very commendable. But you focus on quantity over quality and it's not in line with the requirements of autopatrolled. It's still a most valuable contribution. It's just that it requires review by others. I suggest you slow down a bit, do a more thorough job, and you'll get autopatrolled back in no time. Schwede66 01:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 said in his summary discussed with user that unreferenced articles is a no-no and this has now been rectified; will review the situation in three months' time. I don't know that happened afterwards.

• Midnight Cop, created by an autopatroller, contains no sources since 26th.
• 2022 UEC European Track Championships, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• 2022 Leinster Senior Hurling Championship Final, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• Lot (fineness), created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• List of ports in Iran, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• Sara Fernández Roldán, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• Pierre Pasquier (colonial administrator), created by an autopatroller, no citations.

I demand an explanation from @Schwede66: to my concern about what happened after the first action.--Sakiv (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. After you posted on my talk page (asking me to explain: where are the articles without references?), I took the time to have a closer look so that I could answer your query. That's when I discovered that the problem went further than what I had seen previously. Schwede66 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Latvia results, I was busy developing the article and added the category minutes after your edit. I also filled in the URLs for the Lazio, Alaves and PSV articles minutes after your edit as well. Regarding section headings, these sections will be filled with information after a short period of time, and this is regular with many of my fellow editors. The bottom line is that I have responded to all your concerns and have not ignored them. We are here to cooperate and discuss and nothing has to be done quickly. I think it is a misunderstanding. My comment on your discussion page was before I realized that you just switched the autopatrolled from permanent to temporary. And I thought that the topic was related to the most recent articles after the notification.--Sakiv (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2022 (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.

Interesting Handling of Rollback

I find it quite interesting, that rollback is a rank/right granted basically only to admins by default.

The German Wiki allows rollback by everyone. I can't quite understand why confirmed users don't get access to this feature, as it basically equals going to an older revision, copying the source and pasting over existing source.

Or did I get that wrong and other rights are associated with this as well.

Btw. (temporary) Edit protection would still stop rollback-vandalism/editwars.

Do you have a statistic on manual (e.g. copy over existing source with older source) reverts?

Why have you decided to manage rollback rights in this manner?

I also have some unrelated questions which you can answer on my User page:

- How can you import version history or complete articles from other language wikis (into userspace)?

I assume that you have right tools and I dont quite get the translation tool, either. The German wiki has a import request page (and associated rights "Importeur" can import any version length articles and Admins by default up to I thing 500 or 1000 edit history entries. Feuerswut (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Feuerswut - The rollback user permission is included with the administrator toolset, but it may be requested by any editor who meets the general requirements and demonstrates suitability. The English Wikipedia has strict guidelines in the policy as to when rollback may be used; they cannot be used for any other purpose. If a user with rollback violates this policy repeatedly, or demonstrates a lack of understanding or care of the rollback policy, the user right can be revoked. Sorry for such a late reply to your questions; I just happened to be here and I saw your inquiry. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Feuerswut also very notably, per w:de:Spezial:Gruppenrechte, dewiki most certainly does not issue (rollback) permissions to "everyone", it appears to be ~20000 of their ~4 million registered editors, and none of their IP editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled for translations

Per WP:Autopatrolled, the right can be given to regular article creators. It discounts redirect and disambiguation pages, but there is no mention of translated articles. Can a user who has ONLY created articles copied from WP:Simple English Wikipedia request for autopatrolled? Jay (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I would make the argument that copying from Simple English Wiki is not really a "translation", since technically speaking you could word-for-word copy it and it could in theory still be a perfectly valid article. On the subject of actual translations, though, I would say that there is a fair amount of skill required to do so, not only is there the grammatical and lexicographical side of making sure it's readable, but also making sure that the article still meets the English Wikipedia inclusion criteria (since we have one of the higher standards of inclusion). In other words, someone who only copy/pastes from Simple might not qualify, but someone who is regularly translating from fr- or de-wiki probably would.

That being said, it is up to administrator discretion, so if you are they hypothetical user in question I would say just go for it; at the worst you'll receive feedback on why you don't meet the criteria. Primefac (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes is my answer to that question. What matters is that users create clean pages that comply with policy and adhere to MOS, and are thus free of maintenance tags. Even if you only "translate" from Simple English, you'd need to be aware of all this. There's tons of stuff that wouldn't pass muster (e.g. insufficiently referenced) and as long as the user always picks wisely, or addresses deficiencies, then they demonstrate the required competency. If I have concerns that the user hasn't fully demonstrated competence and that after having been granted autopatrolled they may embark on other areas where they lack experience, I usually assign the flag with a time limit, point out my concern, and ask them to come back for reassessment when the flag has expired. Schwede66 21:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they could. Same for if you only created articles translated from elsewhere. If you are consistently creating good articles, then adding autopatrol lessens the burden on reviewers, period. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. This was for WP:Requests for permissions#User:Haoreima. While my initial assumption (which is when I started this conversation) was that the user only copied from simple wiki, the user actually created them at simple wiki, and then copied them over to enwiki. Jay 💬 16:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• A little late in the discussion, but I think only inclusion criteria is not important while granting autopatrolled. I believe the candidate should create clean articles, with default sort, authority control, proper categories, incoming and outgoing links, wikiproject banners, and similar stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Just a quick note that everything listed above, e.g. default sort, authority control, proper categories, incoming and outgoing links, wikiproject banners is either not mentioned in the NPP checklist, or is optional in the NPP checklist. Some or all of these things would probably be fixed by gnomes rather than NPPs. Food for thought when deciding how strict to be with granting autopatrol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

They might be fixed by gnomes - most tags add to a cat for the gnomes to work through, but I have always clearly understood that Autopatrolled users are expected to produce new articles, whether short stubs or full-sized articles, that are complete and at least needing no tagable issues to be addressed by others. Per Schwede66: What matters is that users create clean pages that comply with policy and adhere to MOS, and are thus free of maintenance tags. None of these things are obligations on NPPers who already have enough to do, but some do briefly give a voluntary kick start to a new user's first article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggest review of right of uncivil editor

Hi @DanCherek:. On 25 August 2022 you granted pending changes reviewer rights to Protonk. I had a dispute with them and they decided to reply in the most uncivil manner. I urge you to review your decision to grant them said rights or at least to admonish them due to their violation of the civility policy. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? This is the wrong venue for this discussion, but Protonk (who deserves a ping) is fully qualified and I won't be revoking PCR. For the record, they could simply ask at WP:BN for their adminship to be restored at any point in the near future, and I'd even support that, but good on them for choosing to re-learn the ropes as a non-admin in the meantime. They offered a lot of good advice about the valid concerns raised in your PERM request; actually, I was the one who, upon Markbassett's request, deleted your inappropriate creation of their user page and I should have warned you against doing things like that in the future. All in all, just disengage and stay off their talk page if this is continuing to upset you – I can't stop you from continuing to escalate this, but it will not lead to a good outcome. DanCherek (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Please review the editor's actions starting at 0453 UTC today and I think you'll want to reconsider your support for their having any of the tools. General Ization ^Talk 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin comments on a request

Is it appropriate, and if so, how should a non-admin comment be added to a request for permissions, NPP in particular. I have not dived to far, but see only admin or bot commentators. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It's allowed. You can just reply normally. Some frown on non-admin "perm clerking", so maybe make sure your comments are few and add enough value to balance that out. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I keep an eye on autopatrolled and appreciate non-admin comments when they add value. Things like "experienced user" are useless, but comments drawing attention to aspects that might lead to a decline are helpful. Schwede66 02:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It was not a clerking–type issue, had grave concerns over one specific requestor. Denials were issued so there was no need for a comment. Should there be another similar situation, I shan’t hesitate to comment.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Can AWB be granted...

...for talk page banner edits? I've been changing talk page banners such as Talk:1812 in South Africa to Talk:1810 in South Africa. Is this permission even granted for such edits? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to use AWB for these kinds of edits? Looks fine to me. It's a good tool for any search and replace affecting multiple articles. Just be careful to be smart with your search and replaces, e.g. don't tag articles with the wrong WikiProjects. WP:PERM/AWB. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar That seems like a good use of AWB although not a trivial one. You will likely either need to learn to use decently complicated regular expressions or do significant manual cleanup for each edit. I've granted you access, but make sure to familiarize yourself with WP:AWBRULES before editing if you haven't already. If you have any questions at all about the tool feel free to visit my talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Editnotice wording

The editnotice in every perm request page has a point Fill in the form below, replacing "Reason for requesting <perm> rights" with a brief reason for requesting the right. Do not make any other changes. Do not sign the request – your signature will be added automatically. However this point is relevant only if someone had clicked the "add request" button. If they try to add a request by editing the page directly, no form is shown and this will be confusing, causing them to search where on earth is this form... (Just happened to me!). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a note that if you skipped the form you should go back and use it. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

AWB and bot access

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.

---

For bots, please consult the Bot Approvals Group or bureaucrats' noticeboard about adding AWB access.

The above quote is from WP:PERM/AWB, which I realised after someone pointed it out is kind of silly advice, since a 'crat has no special perms required to add a bot to the list, and the first link actually points to WP:BRFA not WP:BAG (and being a BAG member isn't special w.r.t. AWB either!).

I feel like there is no reason the botop cannot add their bot to the AWBREQ just like any other editor, provided they point to the BRFA where it was decided they should have access. Is that a reasonable standpoint, and will anyone complain if I just remove this phrase entirely? Primefac (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, any admin can add AWB perms. As you say you don't need a crat, and some BAG members can't add AWB access. So yeah, makes sense to remove that phrase entirely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It should just say that for bots they must link to an approved or trial BRFA, then any admin can deal with it (I think normally a BAG-admin approving the trial will usually just do it on the BRFA). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Normally, sure, but this is the third or fourth time now (and I'm guilty of this too!) of the trial-granting BAG/admin to not realise the bot needs AWB access ;-) Primefac (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Change:
  • FROM:
    • For bots, please consult the Bot Approvals Group or bureaucrats' noticeboard about adding AWB access.
  • TO:
    • For bots, you must first have a bot approval request approved, or in trial; link to your BRFA in the request.
• Or something to that effect. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Works for me. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  the proposed (re)wording is well suited. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

   Done, recognising there's no rush but also no opposition here. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Weird PERM issue

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.

---

I started a VPT thread about a weird PERM issue I encountered with someone who had temporary PGM rights. If you have any insight please join in the conversation. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Note, this was a mediawiki bug, since resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Is it worth getting?

Howdy. I use RedWarn and Twinkle, so would it be worth requesting rollback privileges at all? Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 02:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I was not using Redrawn but twinkle and having the rollback tool certainly provides you with a faster reaction to vandalism. With the rollback rights you have two clicks and an edit summary less for a revert than with a rollback with twinkle. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Rollback grants access to Huggle, which is in my opinion one of the best anti-vandalism tools. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally think AntiVandal is the best anti-vandalism tool. I have received many, many barnstars and thanks for beating people to the punch with my AV work. I do not mean to 'beat them' either... it is not a race, accuracy matters most, but the AV tool is so freaking fast that it just happens! I recommend that everyone who has Rollback try AntiVandal made by user Ingenuity. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)