Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drafting[edit]

I copied in some information from other talk pages - feel free to change anything and everything! As far as group assignments go, there may be multiple options (like with extended-confirmed), groups can be configured for manual add/remove and also be configured for an auto-promote if desired. The auto-promote system isn't super-smart, e.g. it can't tell if your edits were "uncontested". — xaosflux Talk 12:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any suggestion for an auto-promote, indeed, requests for the right need the additional scrutiny of a human being. Discussion with other users suggests that we should leave the user right threshold open for a future discussion if and when this RfC gains consensus. participants at RfC have a habit of sidelining and detgracting from the [proposal, so this should also help prevent the RfC from being clogged up with discussions that are not essential at this time. Likewise, the actual software technicalities should not necessarily be of concern in this RfC and will be handled at Phabricator, if and when this RfC gains consensus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer[edit]

Why can't we just use Pending changes reviewers user-right package for this, instead of creating a new one? It seems to have just the right things in it. And this way we're trusting someone to review both new and existing pages. No sense in having separate user-rights for this.

As for requirements, we came very close (some might say we indeed had consensus, but were over-ruled by dev fiat at the time) for autoconfirmed to be 7 days and 20 edits. And now that we have the grant-able "confirmed" user-right, I think that this should be re-visited.

And I'd really like to have a better set of standards across the board for granting the various WP:PERM permissions and for arbcom's "Extended confirmed users" (which should be renamed to "extended autoconfirmed" for clarity and neutrality).

This is a bit beyond this discussion, but it would allow this to be a piece of such a system.

Autogranted user-rights:

  • 1.) All - Never edited, anyone, even IPs
  • 2.) Users - Created an account
  • 3.) Autoconfirmed - 20 edits, 7 days (1 week)
  • 4.) Extended autoconfirmed - 400 edits, 30 days (1 month)

Why 400 and not 500? because it's the requirement we have for those to run for arbcom, And it's silly to suggest we trust you for arbcom, but not these abilities.

And remember that #3 can be bypassed by admins granting "confirmed".

And just make #4 a requirement to receive most of the "extended editing permissions" (much better word than "advanced") at admin discretion/WP:PERM. (IP exempt being an obvious exception.)

As for the proposal on this page, just remove the abilities from the autoconfirmed package that Pending changes reviewers get (except "autoconfirmed" itself), and I think this is solved.

Good luck on consensus : ) - jc37 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes is the lowest, cheapest user right we have. IIt was even accorded to thousands of usewrsby a bot. If you set those criteria for NPP which clearly needs even more clue than the unofficial projecrat AfC, then there will be no need for this RfC, and I can retire from Wikipedia :( Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rofl. well, then don't make #4 a requirement for granting : ) - Though seriously, 400 is minimum for arbcom, in truth we both know your edits likely need to be far greater to have a snowball's chance : ) - jc37 13:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading, I think I misread your comments. I thought you wanted less requirements. I now think you were advocating for more.
So with that in mind, why 90 over 30? Sincere question, does the extra 2 months make a difference? - jc37 14:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes a difference because less important meta functions require even greater qualifications. One of the major functions of NPP today, which was not taken into to consideration at its inception, is to combat the exponential growth in spam and paid advocacy, some of which (Orangemoody) is not easy to detect. Arbcom is a poor comparison (apples with oranges) because the process of election is a ballot, a popularity contest even. NPP is a function that needs proven competence and is not a ballot fort a popular user. nevertheless, a discussion between the original drafters (DGG has suggested that the competency level be left open for a later discussion if and when this RfC gains consensus for the user right in principle.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC template[edit]

Kudpung, please reposition the {{rfc}} template so that it precedes the actual question, and not what appears to be a "terms and conditions" list; also that such question end with a timestamp indicating when the RfC started. To see why this is necessary, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals where the entry is blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, It's not quite clear (to me at least) what is required here. I've done this many times before but there were no isues. I've moved it as you suggested and added a time stamp, but perhaps the RfC is better off without it, although maximum participation is desired Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is for those who go to RfCs either by looking through WP:RFC/A, or who have watchlisted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals (like myself).
You didn't need to move the template, just put some sort of summary question (with timestamp) after it. Have a look at how it now appears - there is a timestamp, but no question. The timestamp is useful for humans but also for Legobot, which determines the end of the 30-day period from that. See for example my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms#Introduction, which yielded this edit which had this effect on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Nice and short, and apart from that {{ARBGMO talk notice}} and the first phrase it quickly gets to the point, no list of rules or extraneous detail on the RfC listing, although those are still present on the RfC proper. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted[edit]

The watchlist notice referenced has been added - it may require tweaking. — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened for clarity. Because it is not listed at PERM, most users (like I was) are not aware that there was ever a specific 'right' attached to this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)clear and[reply]
Let's not get too pedantic about this. If we can't keep it simple, best now to leave it off the watchlist altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I filed an edit request to fix the grammar of the existing notice and to clarify it. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

I would be happy to close this RfC. As someone who hasn't been involved in the previous discussions (as far as I can remember), I can't see any reason I shouldn't, but please let me know if you think there is one so I don't waste my time! Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A relative question is here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any reason why it can't be someone who has patrolled pages. However, someone who fits the bill and who is not only one of our most expert closers, but also has relativeyl little to with NPP issues is HJ Mitchell. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually closed the RfC, but self-reverted when I noticed the AN section. However, unless there is any objection from any editor, I will reinstate my close in 24 hours. After that, of course, the procedures at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE will apply. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kevin for the closure. AFAICS it was well evaluated and nicely exressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks guys, actually a shame the the closure required another RfC to actually implement anything - at least it is clear that it "will happen" now just to determine the "how". — xaosflux Talk 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC to determine the threshold for access to the new ser right will be posted in about 30 minutes. It can be found at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/RfC_for_patroller_right&oldid=742809345"