Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Template-protected edit request on 20 January 2016

Please remove interwiki links at the bottom of the source code.--GZWDer (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Autorespond bot task

@Graeme Bartlett: I've got a FIXME in place for this bug at [1]. The bot needs to compare the time of the request with the time the permission (or AWB access) was granted, so it doesn't end up autoresponding before you get a chance to respond yourself. Just letting you know it's on the to-dos :) — MusikAnimal talk 19:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I was pretty slow with the "done", as I was interrupted! But if we are two slow with the "done" tag, perhaps the bot can do the notification after waiting say for 4 hours. It could add "done by user ...." with a black tick. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Good idea! I can make that happen :) — MusikAnimal talk 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This should be fixed now, and hopefully I didn't break anything else in the process :) — MusikAnimal talk 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually that's not entirely true. For AutoWikiBrowser, we have to search the revision history of the CheckPage to determine when the user was granted access. That's not easy, so I just side-stepped it. That means the bug still exists there :/ Also for the waiting period I went with one hour. I feel like that's plenty of time for the admin to respond! — MusikAnimal talk 03:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianhe

I've been doing a lot of maintenance work on files recently Commons files. I've already successfully requested about ~30 (probably more) file renames here (although in one I had to amend the proposed name because the file description was misleading) and several more on Commons and I am familiar with policies on file renaming. --77.37.134.66 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a question or request? Note that this talk page isn't for requesting changes to your account. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Amatulic: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover on my file mover not yet. --77.37.134.66 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The request cannot be granted to an anonymous IP address. If you are Brianhe, log in and confirm your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Autorespond bug

@Beeblebrox and Graeme Bartlett: Careless error... while debugging I accidentally pushed code that removed the proper checks for autorespond to work. Here's the fix if it means anything [2]. Should be good now. Sorry! — MusikAnimal talk 22:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I just figured it was running at the same time I was about to hit the "done" button, no bigee, but thanks for your prompt attention! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Unable to Login

Hello there, Am unable to log in at AWB today it was working fine yesterday but today it's showing an error "Operation 'login' ended with result 'NeedToken'." Cheers – GSS (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note - Fixed in AWB 5.8.5.1 release. Its fine to remove this message now. Thank You – GSS (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

Requesting on autopatrolled rights. Edward Imager (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Autopatrolled, permissions rights. Edward Imager (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. Bazj (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

Sujeet kumar mehara (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2016

Sky52442009 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Empty request. — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016

Sabin Aryal2017 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ?I am a student so I want to join wikipedia.

 Not done (invalid edit request) - it looks like you have already created an account, so you have already joined. — xaosflux Talk 03:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

Requesting rollback. --BasBibi (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You. BasBibi (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done BasBibi this is not the place to request a user permission, please follow the directions on the very big banner when you edit this page. — xaosflux Talk 11:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

Administrators: With all due respect, I have been posting my request for Autopatrolled for nearly a week yet there's still no reply on whether the permission is granted. Why has this taken me so long while a couple others applying after me has already been approved or denied days earlier? It is not that I need the right immediately, but it'd be better if this process can be more efficient.

Wishds (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User rights manager script

Recent PERM admins @Beeblebrox, BethNaught, Biblioworm, Coffee, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, and Mr. Stradivarius: @MSGJ, Swarm, The Earwig, Widr, and Xaosflux:

Sorry for the spammy pings... I wanted to let you know about a nifty script I created: User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js

When you browse to a WP:PERM page, clicking "assign permissions" will do the following:

  • Show a confirm popup reading "Assign User:Example xxx permissions?" This confirmation is just in case you accidentally click the link
  • Assign the permission, with a permanent link to the discussion in the summary
  • Issue the corresponding template on the user's talk page (except for Confirmed since there is no template)
  • Mark the request as {{done}}

It does all of this in about 3 to 5 seconds. This obviously is a quick and dirty way to grant the right. I wanted to add a prompt to enter in a description to add along with {{done}}, but there's not a graceful way to do it, I think (you'd need two separate popups). Recommendations very much welcomed.

If you want to assign the rights manually, simply right-click the "assign permissions" link and open it in a new tab. AutoWikiBrowser is currently not supported, but I plan to add it.

UPDATE: I'm now using the OOjs UI library to give it a fancy pancy interface, and allow you to customize both the summary and closing remarks. Most of this UI code I adopted from and/or completely ripped off Mr. Stradivarius's Draftify script.

Hope others find this useful. I just got tired of doing this step by step process (especially adding the permalink, though it of course is not required). Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 01:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I always try to inlcude the permalink, helpful in the future - does it allow for editing the reason? (e.g. adding a "remove after xxxx" note for temporary items like AC? — xaosflux Talk 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't, but that is a very valid use-case. So we really want to customize the summary and the closing remarks with {{done}}. That makes for 3 total popups. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, just slows down the process if you're not trying to customize any wording — MusikAnimal talk 01:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Give her a go now! Or whenever a suitable requests comes in, I guess. You can also try it out on testwiki, the same PERM pages live there, e.g. testwiki:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback — MusikAnimal talk 05:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: on testwiki:Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback I'm not even getting the "assign permissions" link to show on that page, is that also the trigger for this script? — xaosflux Talk 10:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Oh yeah, forgot. Something's up with testwiki's CSS. Just add .sysop-show { display: block !important; } to your common.css — MusikAnimal talk 15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. I aksed the Twinkle devs to do this a while back and they acted like I was crazy for some reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I can look into adding it to Twinkle. Thing is it's very specific to just a handful of admins. This again brings up the idea I had for "extensions" to Twinkle. That's on the drawing board, just haven't gotten around to it — MusikAnimal talk 01:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
👍 Like — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Very handy. Widr (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Possible tweak? Post the {{done}} and closing comments, then save the page, then use THAT permalink for the rights change summary? — xaosflux Talk 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It took a bit of work given how JavaScript promises work, but I think I got it. Try it out on testwiki, or on enwiki, I've already copied the code over in confidence :) Also added an option to watch the user talk page. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 05:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not working for me, though the rest of my scripts seem to be functional - would someone take a peek at my monobook.js page to see WTF I've managed to futz up this time? Katietalk 22:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Just to check first, are you using monobook KrakatoaKatie (as opposed to vector?). — xaosflux Talk 22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, Xaosflux, I'm using monobook. Simply personal preference. Or curmudgeonry. Katietalk 22:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Try using the old loader importScript('User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js'); - that's what I used on testwiki. — xaosflux Talk 23:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    That did it! Thanks! Katietalk 23:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Glad you got it work Katie! However I would like to find out why you can't use mw.loader.load. Usage of the old importScript will break soon... see here (permalink) — MusikAnimal talk 05:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    MusikAnimal Looks like I'm not the only one using import :D — xaosflux Talk 17:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Established editor" access level

Now that a new user access level to enforce the 30/500 arbitration remedy has been supported by community consensus and is about to be implemented by the MediaWiki developers, it would probably be helpful to describe it at Wikipedia:User access levels and add it to WP:PERM, since one of the features of the new user access level was that it could be manually assigned by administrators, in case there is a user with a legitimate alternative account who meets the 30/500 requirements. The folks on Phabricator appear to be calling the right "established editor" for now. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as PERM goes, this should be pretty straight forward - we are only going to grant this to alt accounts (inc approved bots that are alt accounts) of otherwise registered editors. — xaosflux Talk 23:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The technical details need to be a bit clear, such as if this is an "automatic" role (like autoconfirmed) we would only be dealing with a parallel permission (like confirmed). — xaosflux Talk 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it will be implemented as both; a user group that is automatically assigned after 500/30, but one which can also be manually added/removed by sysops. The same could be done for autoconfirmed actually. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as a participant in that RfC, not as an arb (and for full disclosure, I opposed the creation of this group): I think calling it "established editor" is a terrible idea. Please call it literally anything else. Up to and including someone plopping their cat on the keyboard and using the resulting mishmash of characters as the name. (Here, mine suggests "p09000".)
I also reiterate here the concern I raised in the RfC about admins being able to revoke this user right from accounts that were auto-promoted (rather than granted the right by admin discretion as legitimate alts and so forth). You probably think now that that would be a useful thing, in case someone games the system with hundreds of meaningless userspace edits or something, but this will be the genesis of a thousand angry ANI threads when this protection level inevitably spreads beyond its current remit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The potential for policy creep here certainly exists, and I'm personally unsure of the benefit of another automatic user group and a third tier of protection for very specific cases. Would it be better enforced via abusefilter that targets the specific pages under the arbcom direction? I first heard about this an hour ago, but it does seem like more discussion is needed before the group is made. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps extendedconfirmed or something more generic? — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, something generic and boring and not especially desirable-sounding would be better.
I believe the original plan was to do this via the edit filter, but there were various reasons for preferring a user group, which are described in the RfC - for one thing, the "edit" tab is still sitting there temptingly for users under the 30/500 threshold, and the edit isn't rejected till the work has been done and the user has tried to save it, which will inevitably be confusing no matter how big you make the font in the editnotice. On the other hand, it's much easier to adjust the thresholds, and harder to expand the deployment of this "protection", with the edit filter mechanism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's go with extendedconfirmed. "Established editor" sounds too much like a position/rank – this is merely a technical solution to a problem, not a new class of Wikpedians. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely agree about the name. We don't want this to turn into a thing people are bragging about and coveting. Some will anyway, but we should do what we can to make it as "unsexy" as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, both counts. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Also in agreeance. Let's wait a bit before creating the PERM page, though. I'd like to see how the community deals with the new user group first; maybe PERM isn't the right place. Aside from alternate accounts, there are legitimate reasons to "confirm" accounts early. I don't see that being the case for something like "extendedconfirmed", which instead opening up 5% of pages for editing it's going to be considerably less than 1% — MusikAnimal talk 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
We do handle MMS here - arguably the least widely used permission you can just "apply for" . — xaosflux Talk 21:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Questioncomment - With all due respect to our Admin corps, who perform a stellar job in often trying circumstances, what is the reasoning behind having the new extendedconfirmed right be manually added/removed by sysops? It would seem that any reason for removal would necessarily involve disruptive behaviour (likely in a topic area under discretionary sanctions), which would be better addressed by topic bans/blocks than by removing access to other topic areas in which the editor had not been disruptive. Similarly, manual assignment of the right would seem to be unnecessary; the user could simply use the account which had the right, or work up 500/30. Thanks in advance for any replies. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    As far as adding: basically the same reason as confirmed - it would be for legitimate alt accounts, possibly a request for access after having it previously removed. We will not be handling removal requests here at WP:PERM. Having seen creep before and recent arbcom decisions expect that type of protection to grow. The technical mechanism on the server side is slight different then for autoconfirmed so that is why we dont have an additional manual extended confirmed access in addition to an autoextended confirmed one. — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    Hi xaosflux, Many thanks for your kind reply; greatly appreciated. Of the 11 legitimate uses listed at WP:SOCK#LEGIT, which do we envisage would require extendedconfirmed rights without having the 30 days tenure & 500 edits which would automatically qualify the account? I also note, and share, the concerns of Opabinia regalis, above, w.r.t removal of automatically assigned extendedconfirmed rights. Under what circumstances do we consider that removal of such rights would occur? Under what circumstances could those circumstances not be better addressed by the current tools in the Admin's Toolbag? Finally, are autoconfirmed rights revocable? Thanks in advance for any response. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • MusikAnimal So after re-reading all of this, I kind of glossed over you thinking this isn't the best place to process and legitsock requests for this access and already created most of the framework for it - if you really object we can tear it off and talk more, though I think perhaps just adding strong language to the pages of why people shouldn't need this might be enough? — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    I've no strong feelings. It's not really an issue should the page receive very few requests, and the added bot work won't take long. Happy to help set it up — MusikAnimal talk 04:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    Bot should be processing the new page now. Did a quick test and it worked. Testwiki doesn't have the EC user right, so production testing it is! — MusikAnimal talk 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I added a link to the protection page and the list of articles in case anyone else is like me and saw their user rights changed today and was curious to learn more. Even more information would be helpful if people who are involved have it. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Concur that we should do something to enlighten the curious; have added a suggestion for something in the next The Signpost - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016

Hi my name is Lucy Idegwu and I would like to make a request to have permission to access Auto wiki browser I would love assisting Wikipedia in editing and creating new articles I hope my request would be granted or given a response when noticed. And also to have access to semi protected Pages

Lucy (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lucy idegwu: - welcome to Wikipedia, these features are not typically available for brand new editors, please read through the Welcome slides left on your talk page for how to get started editing. — xaosflux Talk 20:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed draft for new "Page mover" permission

Hear ye, all those with interest in permissions! Kindly see Wikipedia:Page mover for a draft treatment of a proposed new user group and comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover or improve draft directly. –xenotalk 00:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2016

rushidongare (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Hello sir I am student create my Wikipedia account not allowed me please sir permission I created profile 

          Thank you sir,,,,,,,
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

Hi im charles austria and i would ask an permission to you because i loved uploading images and edit some pages. i hope you read this permission letter. thank you.

Chaustria16 (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

Can I'm upload the pictures in the other wikipedia's page and edit some of the pages and remove the protected editing Pages?.thank you. Chaustria16 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not the page to request access, please follow the very large red banner instructions at the top of this page when editing. — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeebz, this is complicated

Hi,
I've suggested some edits to the locked "Misogyny" page, including one simple correction of a typo in a name. Still haven't found out how I go about requesting permission to do it. Then again, I'm not a computator. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

i want improve my account information as knowledgeable as well as wiki pages please accept my request rasedul islam 01:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ip block exemption

The current instructions are wrong, the unblock-en-l list no longer deals with this. Probably just say we should go to the Functionaries? However, since there are now one RFC that passed, and a second RFC in flight regarding relaxation of the ipbe permission, perhaps this board will be able to deal with that permission going forward? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably UTRS? — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:IPBE says Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System, so I updated the note here. — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is WP:PERM uncontroversial, while RfA and RfB are controversial? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: IMO it's because only "minor" user rights are granted at PERM and because they don't require the high level of scrutiny from the community that admin/crat requests do. Requests at PERM are very straightforward; you request the permission with some brief rationale as to why you could use the right, and the admin processing it either declines or accepts your request. However, RFA/B is a large-scale discussion between the community and the rights granted there are far more significant, so there's a lot more drama in those areas. Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Page mover

FYI, I'm not going to add the new page mover user right to MusikBot until after the permission has been deployed to the wiki, and by then I'll on wikibreak until 30 May. I simply don't want to write the code then hope it works while I'm gone :) Though I'm pretty sure it will, given we just went through adding a new permission a month ago, but not worth the risk.

I suspect people are going to get really excited and there will be a ton of requests. So I guess once completed requests have been up for sufficient time (MusikBot waits User:MusikBot/PermClerk/Archive/Offset hours), then feel free to blank the request. Later on when I've got the bot configured I'll restore all the old requests and have it archive them all at once. If you really want to archive manually, please carefully observe how MusikBot does it and do it the same way. Permalinks are a must – especially if you are declining!

Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 00:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We can just collapse them all in one section until they are ready to archive. — xaosflux Talk 01:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Temporarily have a collapse section, and some completed requests are in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover/HoldingPen. They can be moved back and the page normalized when you are ready for a bot run. — xaosflux Talk 11:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done All set! Thanks for setting up the holding pen. Got all those requests archived and deleted the page. I've also configured the bot to comment if the applicant's account is younger than six months or has less than 3000 edits. Let me know if you have any issues. Writing from MusikVarmint because I have special plans for my 100,000th edit under my primary account :) — MusikVarmint talk 19:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

To Do's

Most of the framework for processing these should be good now, if you see anything pending please list below (feel free to work on!):

  1. To do: Build and incorporate in to linked areas: Template:Page_mover_granted (model after Template:File_mover_granted)
    ^ Item is done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: - enjoy your break, this went live so if you can incorporate when you are back that would be helpful - I made a holding pen until then. — xaosflux Talk 19:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. To do: fix Template:Rfplinks. — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    Done by User:Omni_Flames. — xaosflux Talk 02:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2016

Hi, I am currently working as a communications contractor at the WMF. I need the Mass Message rights to be able to send several work-related announcements, newsletters, etc. to subscribers. Please grant me the rights. Thanks. SPanigrahi (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@SPanigrahi (WMF): do you just need it just on enwiki? Almost always WMF staff hold these rights on meta instead, for global message delivery. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 Not done there is a huge infobox on the edit screen that clearly states This is not the place to request a user permission - Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Arjayay: Except the user needs the rights as WMF staff, and it not autoconfirmed and thus cannot request them himself. I think in that situation this page, or maybe WP:AN would be a reasonable place to put a request. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@SPanigrahi (WMF): I've copied your request to the request page, and added +confirmed for you. You can now edit that page if needed. — xaosflux Talk 22:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

In the description for the rollback request, please link the first instance of "vandalism" to Wikipedia:Vandalism, the phrase "capable vandalism fighting" to Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, and the phrase "good and bad faith edits" to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Also, please remove the sentence linking to Wikipedia:Rollback as it is already linked to in the title. Thanks for your time. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. In general, I'm of the opinion that this information should be left to WP:Rollback, which is rather prominently linked, and the context indicates that users should read that page prior to requesting. Izno (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems fine... just adding relevant wiki links, which I think you can do yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header. I don't see an issue with linking to Wikipedia:Rollback, it's adding clarity on where to find information and WP:OVERLINK pertains only to the mainspace — MusikAnimal talk 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

I'm interested in getting page mover rights but feel the need for education on how more complex moves are processed. Can you point me in the right direction? As one of the coordinators at WP:WPSCH I find myself in the position of needing to fix overDAB titles fairly frequently. I just want to be sure I know what I'm getting into before requesting rights. Pls ping when you reply. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I suggest you start by reviewing these pages: WP:MOVE , WP:PGM - and then participate with WP:RM. — xaosflux Talk 15:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016


Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 19:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

User:InternetofThings2017

Reason for requesting account creator rights InternetofThings2017 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

InternetofThings2017 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @InternetofThings2017: I added to the request page - however with no explanation - this is likely to be denied. Please expand and reactivate this edit request if you have more information. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

SMTP has been renamed to SharpSpring and the initial administrators are no longer working here. Please can we change the public name of the page, as we have been able to change all the other information.

Thanks

CindyReynders (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

i want to be about to send messages to coworkers via email Goldscholars (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016


Momen 433 (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. From WP:ACCP: Account creators must also either be already active and experienced in the request an account process (ACC) and so are identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, or involved in the Education Program or other outreach work where they have a need to create accounts without restriction. It doesn't look like you meet that criteria. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016


Acidlikeb (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you're wanting to request the account creator user right, please say that. Omni Flames (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

I have to nominate myself.

Bindopug (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Nominate yourself for what? Did you not read the giant pink box in the edit-notice here? Each type of permission has its own page; please read the instructions and make your request in the appropriate venue.—Odysseus1479 04:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Atul adroit (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) I have created a page with the title: Merc global's International Jorunal of Management. However, there is a mistake in the title. The Correct title should be MERC Global’s International Journal of Management.

Kindly make the necessary changes or provide me the right to do so.

Thanks

Atul adroit, wrong place to ask but I've moved the article and added some helpful links to your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 23:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover

Hi everyone. A few minutes ago, I granted the pagemover right to CookieMonster755. I examined his move log and decided that it showed sufficient experience, so I gave the right to him. After this, I realized that I had forgotten to look at his block log. So I did ... and then I started to wonder whether I had made a mistake. The guidelines say that an editor should not have any blocks for six months prior to being granted pagemover, but this user had a block for sockpuppetry lifted less than four months ago. He was also blocked for legal threats in 2014, although he was rather new at the time and I don't think that is really relevant. It is the sockpuppetry block that concerns me, especially the fact that the unblocking admin noted that he is under his last chance. I think it would seem overly bureaucratic to revoke the right just because he didn't meet one guideline to the letter, and I don't see anything of concern in his move log. But I am always willing to admit it when I have made a mistake, so I welcome the opinions of others on this issue. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 17:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2016

CLOSED
Misplaced reviewer request

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:Olaf222222244

Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights Olaf222222244 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2016


I want to edit articles with semi-protected template, and please i am asking you for this and give me some trust and let me acess to the pages. Thanks a lot ☺. Chris Mahone 13:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done ChrisMahone Please read the giant red banner that you saw when editing this page for directions to request to be confirmed early. Also your custom signature has multiple formatting errors, please repair these before signing anywhere else. — xaosflux Talk 13:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

AWB request - instruction change?

Most requests for AWB access cite a generic desire to cleanup or copyedit articles. It's difficult to judge whether the editor understands the AWB rules of use or whether AWB is even an appropriate tool for their desired use when faced with such generic requests. I'd like to propose that the instructions for the AWB permissions page be adjusted to require editors to provide at least three diffs showing the types of changes they'd like to make. For me, at least, this would streamline the process quite a bit. Thoughts? Pinging a few admins recently active at PERM since I doubt this page is on many watchlists: @Kudpung, Widr, and Nakon: Feel free to ping others that aren't coming to mind. ~ Rob13Talk 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13, Widr, and Nakon: if you think this is absolutely necessary, then perhaps discuss it with the developer of AWB too. And then consider running a formal RfC on a sub page of the AWB project. I personally have little experience with AWB because it can't be used on Mac. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I would support this change. I don't see why an RFC would be at all necessary for a fairly minor change to the instructions. AWB could easily do a lot of damage in the wrong hands and so it's important to make sure that the person who's being granted access has a clear-cut need for the tool. Omni Flames (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really see the need for an RfC. A change in instructions wouldn't be changing the threshold for granting at all, just encouraging/demanding the requesting editors give us information that helps us process their request. Almost every request I process, I wind up asking for such diffs anyway, and it just slows everyone down. ~ Rob13Talk 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this Magioladitis? ~ Rob13Talk 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Magioladitis is on a wikibreak. I think this is a helpful change and see no downside. Bgwhite (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: When I see requests for generic cleanup, I look for similar manual edits that they've made. The non-automated edit counter was almost exclusively created for this purpose. For example, the see the results for User:Lourdes who recently requested AWB for "simple copy editing". I don't oppose a requirement of providing three diffs, as that might be of more interest for requests that are not for general cleanup. From my experience however the non-automated edit counter usually provides me with what I need to see. Your mileage may vary — MusikAnimal talk 19:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Encourage candidates to demonstrate their content work and collaboration history in the application process

For this new page reviewer flag, do we require the candidate to demonstrate ability to do substantial content work on articles submitted by others? In Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer/Preload instead of 

{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|2=Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights}} ~~~~

I would write 

{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|2=Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights. Recommended to include examples of articles you submitted for deletion, AND examples of articles you edited prior to approval, AND examples of your collaboration with authors of newly created articles}} ~~~~

--Gryllida (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd oppose this. First of all, the flow needs work. Also, this is what every other preload for permission requests is. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Also oppose. The requested info is so all-encompassing it begs to be answered with
[[Special:Contributions/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]
-- Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand you want to review this manually when approving or rejecting the request. I trust you with your judgment and appreciate it. However, lots of candidates mention their CSD list as a sign of wonderful work - if their "deleted/ requested to delete" ratio is high they think they are doing the job well. This is concerning to me; while I agree that removing biased pages is a large part of the review process, I think that the whole purpose of the new flag is increase reviewers' awareness of the need to be content-focused, interested to research the subject outside of what the article author demonstrates in the article, and collaborate at the time of the review. I think it would be useful to not only establish a barrier to outright hostility, as we are already doing, but also to point out these extra skills to candidates the time of the application -- if not in the preload template, then where would it be more appropriate? --Gryllida (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to read the scope of New Page Reviewer - everything you and aspiring reviewers need to know is there.. What is beginning to appear since the RfCs were closed and the tools and permissions are being rolled out, is that many users seem to consider new Page patrolling / reviewing to be simply all about marking pages for deletion. However, while minor tips can be offered to new users, they should perhaps best be generally limited to directing the creators to the specific help pages and advice forums and at least notifying them if their articles have been tagged for maintenance.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Kudpung. Glad to see you helping with the new pages still -- I believe I saw you several years ago. What you said sounds reasonable and efficient (particularly given the huge backlog). Where are such tips best placed? The New Page Reviewer page does not touch the subject of reviewer communication with the article draft author in any way, at present.
Should new page patrollers be made aware of the option to engage themselves in content work if they see a copyvio but see enough references for a stub?
This discussion might need to be moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol -- would you object if I just cut-and-paste it there, or link to this section from there; which would be better? --Gryllida (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle and the new NPR permission

My understanding of Twinkle is that, if someone has the "patrol" flag, it automatically marks the page as patrolled. With the new WP:PERM/NPR permission, does Twinkle need to be updated? — Gestrid (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid this was reviewed (Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/RfC_for_patroller_qualifications#Will_this_require_Twinkle_re-engineering.3F) and is not expected to be an issue, twinkle will still make the edits - but will not flag as patrolled if the editor doesn't have access. — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

New bot task for AWB pages

I've noticed these tasks that used to be bot-automated, but the bot/operators are now inactive:

I'd like to bring these tasks back to life. Also, what do you think about removing users from the CheckPage who haven't edited in say, 3 years? Many users take extended breaks, yes, but many also never return (retired, banned, etc.). I think we should go by the N-year figure and not indefinite blocks, since they may be lifted at any moment. Thoughts? Pinging those who be might be interested: @BU Rob13, Xaosflux, Nakon, and Widr — MusikAnimal talk 05:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Only logical that your bot would handle these too, like other PERM tasks. Go for it. Widr (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm good with the generic maintenance tasks - as for AWB access revocations not sure how many people might fall in to some of the dormant classes - it is likely uncontroversial to remove someone where (block=indef && block issued >1 year ago). As far as general revocations - a discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser to feel out consensus would be a good place to start. Bigger thing is - this will require an adminbot - how often is this work really "needed" ? — xaosflux Talk 10:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes I will definitely ask at WT:AWB at some point about the new proposal. The older set of tasks I hope I can pick up uncontroversially, using a separate bot account since it would need to have admin rights. Special:Contribs/ListManBot suggests general cleanup may happen once, twice a month. How often it happens isn't really the problem though, rather the work involved is incredibly tedious to do manually, at least if you wanted to go the route of checking each username. I suspect the first run will probably show a lot of changes since the list hasn't been checked in some time. Alternatively I can have the bot duplicate the CheckPage in its own userspace, and we can compare the changes it suggested. Perhaps a good starting point — MusikAnimal talk 16:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    Trial would be in userspace - very easy to deal with. I don't see the tasks being controversial, but there has been some resistance to adminbots before. Having a separate account and clearly taking responsibility for all edits it will make in the BRFA should go a long way. Notably, noone is arguing yet that these tasks should not be done - but get buy in at WT:AWB first. — xaosflux Talk 19:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    I've talked about cleaning out the AWB CheckPage with some others in the past. I strongly support this task. The CheckPage is getting large enough that my browser slows when I open it, and that's a problem, not to mention the risk of having a large number of dormant accounts with a fairly high-risk user right and (potentially) weak passwords. In April 2013, all editors who hadn't edited since January 2012 were removed, and they cut out a good 1,200 of 3,500 editors. I imagine even more would be removed if we did this today. I'd say removal after 12 months of inactivity is fine, especially if the bot notifies all editors via their talk page a couple weeks before removing the right. ~ Rob13Talk 19:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: There's been fairly wide support for the task in the past when I used to run it (at least relative to the amount of supprt bot requests in general tend to drum up, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 21#Request for bureaucrats promoting candidates for previous discussions). My guess is it would still be considered fairly uncontroversial, although obviously the normal extra input for an admin bot should still be sought after.
    @MusikAnimal: Once again I'd be happy to provide you the original source code if that would help with your development. One thing in particular to be wary of, is the fact that it is possible for a user to be renamed to create space for another user to use that name, e.g. User:x -> User:Inactive123, if User:x then gets the AWB permission, it is important not to rename them to User:Inactive123 on the check page. I used to just make sure that the bot had seen the user on the check page in a previous run, before the rename occurred. Anyhow, you have my email so feel free to drop me a line. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There was a "purge" of dormant users in April 2013 and September 2014. Rob mentions the April 2013 purge up above and it was done by me. September 2014 was done by Magioladitis. Dormant bots were also removed, but I can't remember the criteria. The lists were generated via a database request. The names were removed manually and did cause a couple of names removed that shouldn't have been (lists were good). Every 3-6 months, a bot removing accounts that have been dormant ~12 months is a very good idea. Bgwhite (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've got the uncontroversial stuff coded up (will open a BRFA soon). As for automatic revocation of AWB access, it sounds like we have some common ground on blocked users and inactive bots. That seems like a good starting point, but I'm with BU Rob13 in that we may wish to remove inactive users in general. One year of inactivity seems like plenty of sufficient time, and if they want access again they can simply ask for it. See below for a "formal" proposal, and not a giant RfC, please :) — MusikAnimal talk 19:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for automatic revocation

Per the above discussion, the issue is some users/bots may become inactive and unlikely to ever use AWB again. We need a way to automate maintenance of the CheckPage and keep it from becoming unnecessarily large. So here's my proposal on the criteria for revocation:

  • Bots who have made no edits for over a year (disputed)
  • Indefinitely blocked users who have been blocked for over a year
  • Users who have made no edits for over a year and have been given fair warning. The bot will issue a notice to the user a week before revoking access. The message would resemble: If you do not resume editing within the next week your access to AWB will be automatically revoked. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB.
  • As a reference, a report will be generated for all users who have their access revoked, stating why it was revoked

How does this sound? — MusikAnimal talk 18:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Clarify, is that one year "account" or "AWB" inactivity ? I'm sure it's account, but might as well clear that up now (also works good as a seg-way to a late support proposal !vote :P ) - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, editing activity, specifically. No need to check logged actions as well, AWB is for editing. I have clarified the wording. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 19:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone object to specific wording at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser/Administrator instructions that administrators should restore access upon request, barring an extreme situation (evidence of severe violation of the rules of use, etc)? I think we're less likely to get opposition for these routine removals for inactivity if it's clear that editors can get back the rights easily enough. I have specific thoughts about the bot stuff, but I'll talk about that off-wiki for WP:BEANS reasons. ~ Rob13Talk 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
For sure, that's the idea. We're not revoking access because of wrongdoing, only to keep the CheckPage nice and tidy. Nothing controversial here, we just need some rough consensus on how long the period of inactivity should be. I was even thinking of having a dedicated page where the bot would list the users who were removed due to inactivity, for easy reference — MusikAnimal talk 22:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The easy reference page is a good idea and one year seems reasonable. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, a reference page would be fantastic. ~ Rob13Talk 22:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather leave bots out of here for now - that part of the list is small; we should deal with them but need to deal with abandoned bots in general at a different forum. — xaosflux Talk 04:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, BU Rob13, Bgwhite, and Mlpearc: I'm ready to move forward with a BRFA. Please review the bullet points above (note the first one is struck, per Xaosflux), and let me know if you're content with this. It looks like we're not going to get much more input, so if the four of us are happy, hopefully this will constitute a rough consensus :) I've done an initial test run and we're looking at about ~600 users being removed from the list [3], and if we were to remove bots that'd be another 33 [4]. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 04:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Good to go, in my opinion. ~ Rob13Talk 04:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks good and thank you for doing this. Bgwhite (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Good work, thanx. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
BRFA filed. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 04:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

NPR rights for AfC

Just letting people know that, because WP:NPP specifically mentions AfC reviewers as desirable applicants for the NPR right, I left a note for them over at WT:AFC#New Page Reviewers. I apologize if WP:PERM/NPR floods (more) because of that. — Gestrid (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing vs. New Page Reviewing

I just noticed that many of the pages and templates having to do with Pending Changes Reviewing may be confused with the new New Page Reviewer user right. Should we rename the PCR pages to a more accurate name? (We can't possibly tag every single PCR page and template documentation with "Not to be confused with NPR", can we?) If so, is there a list of those PCR pages somewhere so we could open a formal move discussion? (That many pages, I believe, would require one.) — Gestrid (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional question: Since the formal name is now New Page Reviewer, should all the New Page Patroller pages be moved to fit the new name? — Gestrid (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This is all on our mental 'to do' list and as you can see, a vast amount of work has already been carried out restucturing the pages, creating new ones, adding navigation aids and cross linking. There is actually little confusion if those who create sub pages and cats link them correctly. Most of what you propose will need to be done manually after a preliminary move using he 'move' tool, but the clean up which concerns possibly hundreds of transcluded pages, templates, and categories will need a very methodical manual clean up and there is no urgency whatsoever for the move. Let's get the new user right up and running smoothly first.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
True, we don't want to break Wikipedia. Again. — Gestrid (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a silly, but possibly necessary piece of comic relief - leastways neither I nor anyone else here is on that list - yet ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Template notification 'Granted' - typo in L2

The template at Template:New Page Reviewer granted is issuing a misspelled L2 header. I don't know if this is my fault or if it came from a necessary transclude done by someone else, but I don't know how to fix it. @Xaosflux and MusikAnimal:. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Kudpung: that template does not create a header - but the (notify) link on the page did! Fixed. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Argh, thanks for the catch, sorry that went through — Andy W. (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Stop doing it the hard way and use userRightsManager! :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer (patroller) is coming

phab:T149019 is going to get put in related to this new group - anyone want to build out the PERM pages? The localization name will be New page reviewers. — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've build out the MediaWiki pages. — xaosflux Talk 00:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I've built out all of the shells except for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer/Administrator instructions. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: will you be ok to add bot processing? — xaosflux Talk 00:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes this should be no problem. 2016 (page mover, extended confirmed) has given me lots of practice :) — MusikAnimal talk 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: I've built the shells, we are not yet accepting "applications" but you should be good to go for set up and testing. — xaosflux Talk 03:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, I'll get right to it then! Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 03:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Bot should be good to go, assuming the user group will be patroller. For future reference, this was done with one edit to the config. I of course am happy to handle setting it up but don't be afraid to make adjustments yourself :) Everything is documented at User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Configuration. Best — MusikAnimal talk 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and MusikAnimal: {{rfp}} and {{rfplinks}} seems good to go. — Andy W. (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to update Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages. It looks out of date with the new right being added. epicgenius - (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Are we going to have a bot provide this permission to those who met the "grandfathering" criteria set up at the RfC? If not, should we provide a subpage to allow speedy application/granting of those who meet that criteria? Do we perhaps have an existing list of high-volume patrollers so we can quickly grant them this right? It would be less than ideal for this right to go live without preparation and have new page patrolling more-or-less shut down until we got on top of it. ~ Rob13Talk 21:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    I was going to work on a script to identify those who are "grandfathered". The plan was to send a mass message to them saying they will have to request the right themselves, because the RfC stated the grandfathering goes to those who had no disputed reviews since 1 January, 2016, and this will require some manual review. Kudpung may wish to chime in with his thoughts. I did some quick queries last night and there were some ~2,000 users who had use Page Curation since the 1 January, but I did not count the number of reviews they did or if any of them were "undone" — MusikAnimal talk 22:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    @MusikAnimal: Samtar made this service, which appears to count the manual mainspace patrols. If a script is made, I believe the intent is to count the number of manual mainspace entries in the curation (reviews), deletion tag, and patrol logs, and then filter by how many were undone (?). — Andy W. (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    Correct, we can query for manual reviews. My figure above pertains to page curation reviews which I believe are inherently manual — MusikAnimal talk 23:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    BU Rob13 I really don't think be need an admin-bot to mark these people - according to the last RfC the estimated number was around "20" - but that did get put forward without requiring a mechanism to actually do the work - if we can just get a reliable list admins can start clicking pretty easy. — xaosflux Talk 02:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    If it's actually 20, then you're certainly right, although that would be a particularly sad state of affairs. I didn't realize new page patrollers were quite that understaffed. ~ Rob13Talk 02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, according to my potentially flawed calculations, there are 50 users who have made 200 or more manual reviews (page curation or system patrols) since 1 January 2016. All 50 have not been blocked during that time. The list can be found at User:MusikAnimal/Grandfathered NPRs. This does not take into account users whose reviews were undone, as for me that was a bit challenging to query for. Maybe somebody better at SQL can figure it out, but frankly I'm not sure we should flat out exclude such users because anyone can undo another's review (new user undoing an admin, for instance). There are only 50 users here, I think we can do this one by one. I included admins for fun, and you'll also notice RussBot is on the list. Yes, a bot... if you check the log yourself they indeed have patrols showing up when "manual patrol" is selected, even though it still says "automatically marked...as patrolled". I'm guessing this is some sort of bug.
    How I made this list: SELECT DISTINCT(ptrl_user_id) FROM pagetriage_log WHERE ptrl_timestamp > '20160101000000' AND ptrl_reviewed = 1 to get user IDs, then looped through to reduce to those with over 200 reviews: SELECT COUNT(*) AS count FROM pagetriage_log WHERE ptrl_user_id = [user_id] AND ptrl_reviewed = 1, and finally fetched the actual user names. There is probably a better way to do this, but I'm fairly confident that this is accurate — MusikAnimal talk 02:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Well that certainly does help - a lot! Kudpung anything you can think of that would be missing editors with this strategy, or things needed to further curate the list? — xaosflux Talk 02:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Where are their partols recorded? There doesn't appear to be a log that gets created for that.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung In the patrol log here is an example of one I just did. — xaosflux Talk 11:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Kaldari set the changes to be made at Thursday (today), 23:00 UTC. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux, I've fully reviewed all the users on MusikAnimal's grandfather list. I would like some 2nd admin opinions on some of them. I could probably then do the rights management for them all a bit later today in time for 23:00 UTC, but as I have to go out, could someone make a mass message list from the 2nd opinion reviewed list so that I can send the newsletter to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    I sorted the OK's and loaded all the OK'd ones to the message list here: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/grandfathered. — xaosflux Talk 11:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    The rights add won't be available for ~12 hours from now. There were some initial issues with the patch, going in as 2 phases shortly spaced. Phase 1, add the NPR group capability (that is when you can add the group to people) -- Phase 2 remove the patrol rights from the old groups. This will allow for a window to grant the new group before the old groups loose the access. — xaosflux Talk 11:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • On User:MusikAnimal/Grandfathered NPRs, I'm noted down as "needing to review CSD criteria." Other than looking at CSD criteria again, what does this entail? Do I need to undergo a process to show that I know CSD before potentially applying for patroller right? I ask not because I currently want the patroller user-right, but because I'm interested in that in the future (if I ever need to review new pages again). epicgenius - (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Epicgenius, this is a discussion about the technicalities of setting up the permission request page and implementing the grandfathering of users who meet the criteria decided by a recent RfC for which a list has been automatically created and then reviewed. The list is not definitive. Those who are not grandfathered in this phase will be able to apply for the right at a process which is very quick, if and when they need it. If you have further questions, about how this new user right affects you, you can read all about it at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers and start a thread on that page's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: OK, thanks for the clarification. epicgenius - (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux, DatGuy says this user group is being rolled out at 22:00 UTC tonight, Thursday. However, here in Europe where I am right now, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is 15:54:52 Wednesday, 26 October 2016, and our time zone is UTC+1. Could we have a confirmation which day is actually meant? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my bad. It's Thursday. Was in a rush to switch hotels and got mixed up. It is Thursday, 23:00 UTC. See phab:T149019. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Good deal, with the 2 phases there will be time to add in the new people before they loose their current access. — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Perm page to be built out still

Doing now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done all but a few small less critical tweaks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions/General which I used as a model, there is a collapsed section called Notification templates. I was unable to locate the transcluded page to update it. I don't think it's needed here but in case it affects the userRightsManager.js helper script in any way, perhaps MusikAnimal could check it out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the page is MediaWiki:Userrights-groups-help/Templates and BU Rob13 already did the honours :) We just needed to purge the cache of the admin instructions to get it to show. I have also updated the userRightsManager script — MusikAnimal talk 04:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, all the admin instructions should transclude the /General page. This was done to keep it DRY. I'll try to fix it up, but any rate thanks for putting together what we already have — MusikAnimal talk 04:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've done a little refactoring and trimmed it down a bit, hopefully this is well-received. Feel free to make adjustments, but remember this is more of a quick reference for admins; the link to the page is not visible to other users. Instructions should be relevant to PERM, and any detailed info outside of that can be found on the parent permission page. The granting guidelines by the way can now be found at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Guidelines for granting, again to keep things DRY (this is how we're doing it for the other permissions as well) — MusikAnimal talk 04:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There are still errors in the page at {{Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions/General|indent=y|type=newpagereviewer}}. I would like to improve the prose so that it flows like a proper set of instructions. Where is it located? It may be interesting for 'DRY' but we are not compelled by consensus to use the identical set of instructions for every user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Could we not put what's missing for NPR here? The instructions in /General is just bot info, and how to make sure the bot can properly parse the request. This is the same for every permission — MusikAnimal talk 05:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal:, I guessed it was something for the bot. However, for the public page the presentation and prose should preferably be more professional, which is something I have striven for little by little. Also in a context of KommWiss, should is generally more effective than encouraged to. Even admins don't always read instructions properly.
More urgently, we now need additional new mass message lists for some newsletters I have written. We need one from a set of data similar to the one made by quarry searches at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrollers#March 2015 - March 2016 from January 2015 to 27 October 2016; this exercise is in an attempt to win back some patrollers who are no loner patrolling but most of whom are still active Wikipedians. As you will have noticed, I fairly accurately empirically predicted the number of currently active patrollers at around 20 and we actually have 37. Kaldari has set a 90 day limit on NOINDEX, so we are going to need a lot more reviewers very quickly, to both get the backlog down, and then keep it down.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Administrator notation templates at the edit notice for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer are from Page Mover. Could someone let me know where the actual template is located so that it can be copied and reworded for Page reviewer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC) @MusikAnimal:, @Xaosflux:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to the admin notation templates, I don't think anyone is made a template yet (would probably be {{RFPNPR}}). I've removed that part of the edit notice, so normal {{done}}, {{not done}} apply — MusikAnimal talk 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That's what I meant @MusikAnimal: - I wanted to know where the Page Mover one was so that I could copy it and adapt it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The page mover template is here: {{RFPPM}}. Best — MusikAnimal talk 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Logo?

Just realized what all the pages were missing - a good logo! Also for incorporating in to the topicon collection - I saw some userboxes using these: File:Edit-find-replace.svg / File:Computer n screen.svg - but neither seem to fit the series of all of the other user groups. Anyone up for this? — xaosflux Talk 21:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Already underway :D. I'll try to get it finished as soon as possible. I'm currently using File:Notepad icon.svg. Any thoughts/suggestions? Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Uploading... Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

More additions

Something such as Wikipedia:User access levels#New page reviewer should be created. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done by GeoffreyT2000 — Andy W. (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

AWB Request

Could someone with AWB access go through Xaos's recent contribs (something similar to that) and remove

{{warning|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|<big>Coming soon! New page reviewer applications are not yet being accepted.</big>}}

from pages? It's 1:19 UTC+2:00, meaning that it's already 18 minutes after the patch was supposed to go through. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It didn't go live yet. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
And the only pages that need to be fixed for that are:
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Header
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer
  3. Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer
Won't really need AWB :D — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Deployment postponed

There was some opposition to deploying it before the weekend in case something goes wrong, so it's being postponed till next week. It has been rescheduled for Monday, I'm told — MusikAnimal talk 23:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on opening up the perm page early?

Why don't we open up the application page and start approving/not approving applicants now? We could create a list here of those approved and implement them quickly after the right is created. This would help prevent a sudden influx when the "patrol" right is removed from autoconfirmed. ~ Rob13Talk 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that the framework is ready, I'm OK - AFTER the "grandfathered" people are notified - don't want them to try applying. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the plan was to first deploy the "patroller" group, advertise it, process requests as they come in, then some days later remove "patrol" from autoconfirmed and pending changes reviewer. That addresses the above concerns. I'd still advocate for that so we can go about our normal process, have the bot archive the discussions, etc. — MusikAnimal talk 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to wait until we can click the rights button for the grandfathered people - just until their massmessage is sent - it should be able to go now? — xaosflux Talk 11:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: Do you want to send out the "You've been grandfathered" massmessage - perhaps add a line that the technical flag will be flipped soon and they do not need to apply at PERM? — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    That sounds good. All the grandfathered users regularly patrol pages (to some degree), so it would seem they would definitely want to have the right, and hence no need for them to come request it. I've actually been meaning to fix up the userRightsManager script to work without going to a PERM page, I will try to get that done before Monday. That will save us a little time when granting the permissions since it would also issue {{New Page Reviewer granted}}. We might also want to say in the mass message to let us know if they don't want NPR, just in case — MusikAnimal talk 19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. I have a long trip back home to Thailand tomorrow (Saturday) from the UK (my father passed away on Wednesday). The mass message for the grandfthered users is at Template:New Page Reviewer granted, it's the same message for any newly granted new page reviewer right, unless you guys want to make a special one.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
My condolences. I'll do {{RFPNPR}}. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your father Kudpung! My thoughts are with you :) I'm also with you in that we may not need a special template for the grandfathered users. Let's just give them the rights, if they don't want it, they can ask for it be removed — MusikAnimal talk 20:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm sending the massmessage to the list, then will open up PERM for applications. — xaosflux Talk 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It sounds like a good idea to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    OK, MassMessage was sent, and I've opened the NPR pages for applications. — xaosflux Talk 21:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: You sure we want to open the PERM page yet? We can't grant the right yet. You can hide accepted/declined applications like we did for Page mover, if you recall, but otherwise the bot is going to complain that there is no "patroller" right. I want to make sure all applications are properly archived — MusikAnimal talk 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    Additionally we can't use the userRightsManager script unless you move back the applications... I think it's OK to wait. Rest assured we're going to give ourselves enough time to process as many applications as possible before removing the "patrol" right from the other user groups — MusikAnimal talk 22:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm- what will it take to not make the bot mad? We certainly can put "will be done" "will be not done" in a collapse easily? — xaosflux Talk 22:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    How about we transclude two subpages for done/not done and move processed apps there? Would the bot just ignore that as part of the header? ~ Rob13Talk 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    Haha sorry it's such a grumpy bot! You can move all completed requests to some other subpage before the bot would try to archive (36 hours after last comment). All will be fine then. Then when the user group is deployed we can move all the requests back to the PERM page and the bot will archive them. I'll be spotty with my activity this weekend, so if something goes wrong you can simply disable bot processing on that page (Xaosflux just undo that edit I made to the config), but do somehow retain the discussions and not blank them once a request is completed. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Should the "Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, template editor rights and AutoWikiBrowser access." sentence be expanded to "Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, template editor rights and AutoWikiBrowser access."? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
     Done — xaosflux Talk 22:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot temp disabled for NPR

OK - bot is just off for now, but ready to go back on when it is fully live User:MusikBot/PermClerk/config. — xaosflux Talk 01:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done live now. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
And bot edit seems good. Seems like the deployment went swimmingly. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about NPR

OK - I see what's going on here, I looked at the RfC, and it says and I quote: "Any user who has made 200 uncontested or unreverted patrols, maintenance, or deletion tags between 1 January 2016 and 06 October 2016." Does that mean 200 of any one criteria, or what? I've been using AWB a lot going through new pages and cleanup tagging them, and I'm sure I've got more than 200. Ping me when replying. Yoshi24517Chat Online 01:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517: Your log appears to only have ~60 entries this year. — xaosflux Talk 01:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The RfC could have been slightly misleading or missing a word - in that only patrols of "new pages" were in that count. That being said, feel free to drop an application off, it only take a min. — xaosflux Talk 01:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The count was intended to contain only full patrols of new pages. Unfortunately, the WMF never gave us a patrol log for patrols not done through the Page Curation toolbar. The '200' criteria was done using a purpose built Quarry query. We sholdu make a note to ask Kaldari to create a Page Reviewer Log that logs all page patrols by a user whether or not they we done from the page curation. It will be needed for future use,--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: The patrol log for patrols not done through Page Curation is at Special:Log/patrol and setting the "Type of patrol" to manual. Change the log type to Page Curation to see only page curation patrols. Page Curation has a flag for a page being "reviewed", but when this happens it also marks the page as patrolled – but marks it as an automatic patrol, rather than manual. So I guess that's what we need to get both types of patrols on page – make Page Curation mark pages as manually patrolled rather than automatic. Hopefully that makes sense — MusikAnimal talk 04:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not quite correct. Page Curation reviews do mark a page as patrolled, but not as automatic patrolled. If you want a log of all manual patrolling/reviewing actions just choose Patrol log/Manual patrol. That will give you the full list. If you want a log of only Page Curation reviews just choose Page Curation log. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There is an exception though, if you review an article that is older than 90 days, it can't be marked as patrolled, since articles are only eligible to be patrolled for 90 days on en.wiki. So I guess there isn't a 100% foolproof log, although Patrol log/Manual patrol should work in most cases. Kaldari (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that I misread, and Kaldari is correct that you can rely on Special:Log/patrol (type manual) to also get patrols as a result of Page Curation reviews. There is the caveat he also mentioned, and we have a tool to get around that thanks to Samtar [5] (link currently dead, will ask him to reboot it) — MusikAnimal talk 05:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible issues with the grandfathering lists

Please discuss at: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Reported_issues_with_the_initial_NPR_grand-fathering_list. — xaosflux Talk 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User right not yet fully deployed

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T149019

Kaldari, MusikAnimal, xaosflux. The 'patrol' right has not yet been removed from the other user groups: autoconfirmed and extended confirmed users. Could someone please look into this quickly.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Correct, this is intentional, as discussed at phab:T149019. We are currently deciding when we want to deploy the second patch to remove the right from the other user groups. I proposed Wednesday or Thursday, to give us a little more wiggle room to ensure our qualified patrollers are equipped — MusikAnimal talk 02:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal:. Thanks. I am only able to edit sporadically at the moment. I realise this comes as an inconvenience to everyone after having been the quasi 'coordinator' of this project, so please ping me when it has been done because there are a couple more mass message lists to be made and another, more general newsletter waiting to go out to around 1,800 former NPPers which might just get a few more new recruits of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Will do! :) — MusikAnimal talk 03:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung We can work on building the mailing lists - do you have the criteria for inclusion? — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
xaosflux. They were actually in the 17-page report I was asked to send to the WMF three months ago (lol). I'll have to locate it on my computer, but probably tomorrow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but maybe something could go out in the Signpost within the next couple of weeks about the change in permissions. — Gestrid (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I have a draft Signpost' article in preparation and would be more than willing to share it but I would like to wait until all the testing of the new right has been done along with all the other steps that need to be completed. The Signpost article will cover other aspects of article quality control and will also (we hope) generate support to intensify pressure on the Foundation to complete the 5-year-old project to create a proper landing page for new, new article creators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
xaosflux one list can be compiled from the 1,800 users in the Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers fairly quickly, and that category emptied and deprecated and a new one started at Category:New Page Reviewers which will be populated as and when the new rights holders add their uboxes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung I created a mailing list out of that category, and normalized it to talk pages. The list is here: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Mailing2. I don't want to get involved in the userboxes/categories personally - but if you send it to WP:CFD a bot can take care of changes. — xaosflux Talk 04:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
xaosflux Thank you for making the list. Yes, I agree that CFD is the place for the discussion but having taken a look there it's quite complicated and I'm not sure which of the many deletion/move/merge criteria would be most appropriate. I don't think the cat (and its sub cats) actually needs to be deleted, but it should should be emptied and kept for historical and research purposes. Either that, or empty it and move it to Category:New Page Reviewers. This will have the effect of removing all the transcluded userboxes from previous patrollers' user pages. I don't have time to do this cat business right now, perhaps MusikAnimal could do the honours at CFD. We would then also need a bot to manually remove any uboxes that were subst'ed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Kudpung: The category is at Category:Wikipedia new page reviewers, in line with the naming of other permission categories. CfD is probably in order, but either way you can also use {{User wikipedia/New page reviewer}} which will put the user in the aforementioned category — MusikAnimal talk 04:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} can probably be left as-is, along with its category. It may be misleading, but one can still tag new pages for speedy deletion, help with categorization, etc, and not be a "new page reviewer". This is tantamount to {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} and not being a rollbacker or pending changes reviewer — MusikAnimal talk 04:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That is sort of the thing I'm trying to stay out of - anyone can "patrol" the new page feed (for example everyone sitting on huggle) - but only this new group can (patrol) the new pages..may be an interesting CFD (and possible edit warring/MFD needed for the userboxes -- eek!). — xaosflux Talk 05:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I think the real discrepancy here is the name of the permission. "New page reviewer" implies reviewing new pages, which anyone can do in a literal sense, and it's not something we should necessary deter. "New page patroller" makes more sense because that's the part that actually requires the new user group. Either way I think a CfD is in order, but I'm going to have to also kindly decline starting it — MusikAnimal talk 05:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Trout me if you wish, but I called it New Page Reviewer because it should be distinguished from New Page Patroller which didn't need a user right at all, and I found it more apt - in much the same way as the reviewers at AfC, and also to escape the aggressive lexicographical notion of patroller. After all, we have been insisting that NPP is not only a process of weeding out undesirable new content, but also, and equally importantly, providing some very basic help to creations that might escape deletion if the creators are given a jump start with links to help pages and/or notifications of maintenance tags. I think that anyone who is likely to be confused by the language or labels should not be applying for any rights at all.
The point you all possibly missed above is that there are 1800 users sporting 'I am a new page patroller' userbox, which a 2012 survey confirmed that around 50% of them are either trolls or have never actually patrolled - in other words just gracing their user pages with as many userboxes as possible as many users do. These boxes need to be removed from those user pages but this will have the benefit of informing those who were indeed genuine, if infrequent, patrollers, that they can now apply for a new user right.
Let us not forget that part of the overall project (more closely detailed at WP:NPPAFC) which includes this new user right, is not only to improve the quality of reviewing at both NPP and AfC, but also tho get more people (of the right calibre) to do it, in the face of current disinterest and a rapidly growing backlogs in both places. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

You should add to the top of the page something along the lines of: "Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request." I feel some editors may feel like they're being neglected when they apply and end up waiting more than a day or two.

— Gestrid (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Toggling. It appears you are requesting an edit to the header, which I believe you can edit. — Andy W. (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I didn't notice the top was transcluded from there. Thank you. — Gestrid (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of reviewers who are not extended confirmed

So I'm looking at WP:PC2016, which seems to be gaining consensus. Our guidelines are pretty loose for reviewer right now, but if this passes it's entirely possible we'll have reviewers who are not EC accepting edits from those who are. I'm still mulling the proposal, but I think eventually we're going to have to overhaul the way we grant this permission, and possibly review all the reviewers. If the RFC gains consensus, 'eventually' is going to be 'very soon.'

How many accounts with the 'reviewer' user right are not yet extended confirmed? Katietalk 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: of the 6687 current reviewers, 2152 are not extended confirmed, HOWEVER many of both these may be dormant accounts, here is the list: — xaosflux Talk 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xaosflux, I boldly removed the list for navigability, hope that's okay, done fully in good faith :) I had trouble deciding whether a reply should have gone above or below the list, and I had performance issues with the list in the way. The list is visible in Special:Permalink/748244087#Number of reviewers who are not extended confirmed. — Andy W. (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries, it was a bit huge - anyone who wants it can see in your link. — xaosflux Talk 05:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie and Xaosflux: It doesn't seem to be a concern. Please see Special:Permalink/746379799, an old revision of a table with protection and pending changes combos. I worked this out partially at the testwiki and partially with confirmation from Cenarium. If a page is at the proposed PC2 level, the folks who can review have to be both extendedconfirmed and a reviewer. Similar to the ability to move, the ability to review depends on the ability to edit, and if a reviewer cannot edit an ECP page, they cannot review the page either. This was never a concern for PC1, because the reviewer usergroup has editsemiprotected and autoconfirmed to ensure all reviewers can review PC1 pages.
As for possibly reviewing all the reviewers, this was suggested in proposal 15 of the 2014 RfC, arguably for the PC2 at reviewer-level autoacceptance, a course of action still not mentioned at the RfC, but I personally do not believe to be necessary. — Andy W. (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If the RfC closes with consensus, I think we'd have no choice but to either (a) request changes in the MediaWiki software to prevent non-extendedconfirmed reviewers from reviewing extendedconfirmed pending changes, or; (b) remove the reviewer right from all non-extendedconfirmed reviewers. It's entirely nonsensical to have reviewers able to review edits from non-extendedconfirmed editors when they aren't extendedconfirmed themselves, especially when we haven't reviewed the edits of reviewers for that purpose up until now. ~ Rob13Talk 05:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Again, see Special:Permalink/746379799. Non-EC reviewers cannot review PC2 (proposed) pages. — Andy W. (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh. That is distinctly different from what I've been told in past discussions. ~ Rob13Talk 05:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi BU Rob13, I came across as curt there, sorry, really didn't mean that (long day) Yeah, it's interesting, by allowing greater autoacceptance (by ~23K), there's a tradeoff of fewer people (~2K by Xaosflux's count) being able to review... I personally doubt a new backlog (there is none currently) given the scope.
KrakatoaKatie, I believe Cenarium might have plans in early 2017 to suggest PCR removal after inactivity, don't have further details. — Andy W. (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, Cenarium doesn't believe the changes (including WP:DC2016) will effect Special:PendingChanges much, either. Neither do I. — Gestrid (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not worried about the backlog, more about the technical aspects and the way we have been handling granting this user right vs. how we'll have to handle it in the future. It's good to know that it's not technically possible for an AC reviewer to decline an EC edit. I kind of like the idea of removing the user rights after inactivity. We do it for admins, so why don't we do it for the rest? Something to think on. Katietalk 00:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  • From a quick skim through that list of editors who have the reviewer right but who are not extended confirmed their accounts were mostly created around the 2006 era. I really doubt if many of them are going to fail on the 30 day part of the extended confirmed criteria, and in a month none of them could. There could in theory be some without 500 edits, but I really doubt there will be many, most of the people who were given the reviewer right will already have done rather more edits than that. I suspect that all, or almost all of the editors on that list are dormant or retired editors, and those who return will get the extended confirmed userright automatically the next time they make an edit. I often see this on my watchlist as long dormant editors return and become extended confirmed. ϢereSpielChequers 00:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be ok with pretty much any userright (Well, ones I've looked into, anyway.) being removed if an editor doesn't use it for an extended period of time. However, I would prefer some sort of warning be sent to editors (perhaps via a bot) who would be about to lose a userright. Also, I feel something like taking away userrights like that would require an RfC, especially because it would effect way more than just PCRs. I also feel it may require an adminbot just to take away that many userrights, especially on the "first run". — Gestrid (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Call_for_any_objections_to_allow_phase_2_of_the_patch

Please see and post at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Call_for_any_objections_to_allow_phase_2_of_the_patch if you have concerns that phase 2 of the patch should be further delayed. — xaosflux Talk 23:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deferred changes RfC update

While the does not, I believe, effect WP:PERM directly, it does effect one of the permissions listed here. I'm not sure, but some changes may need to be made behind the scenes. The RfC introducing Deferred Changes into the Pending Changes Reviewer system has passed in its entirety. See the closer's remarks for more information about implementation. It's too much to copy and paste here. — Gestrid (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: not to worry. Cenarium already has a plan for implementation — Andy W. (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Andy W.: I'm not worried. Just letting people know it passed so they know about the changes coming to PC. Thanks for pointing me to that page, though. I knew about the Phabricator tasks, but I didn't know about that page. Personally, as a PCR, I'm looking forward to this change. We need more ways to look into vandalism as it happens. — Gestrid (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it may drive more applications for pending changes reviewer. — xaosflux Talk 05:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
It could, I guess. I, among others, don't really think these changes would be too much for PCR to handle. There's never much in the queue to begin with. Right now, there's ten pages in there, and they'll likely be gone soon. I'm examining most of them right now. — Gestrid (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not worried - just the "something new - sign up!" editors may come by. — xaosflux Talk 06:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Technically it's not something new. It's something being added to something old, but I know what you mean. — Gestrid (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for removal of permission

I don't believe I am quite ready for the NPR right. I ask that it be removed for the time being. — Gestrid (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

NPP

I followed the discussion on making NPP a userright, but I don't understand if it's the same thing as NPR. I do patrol new pages sometimes, but I've only used Page Curation once. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 November 2016


Add {{Wikipedia accounts|collapsed}} to bottom of page.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Added.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling without user right RfC

See this RfC clarifying whether editors without the new page reviewer user right may patrol new pages (in the sense of cleanup tags and deletion nominations). ~ Rob13Talk 12:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_7&oldid=1137451842"