Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Bar for joining the NPP team

It is often mentioned that there are not enough reviewers for NPP and maybe lowering the bar would help? At least in my case it was rather time consuming and also a bit discouraging to join it. I was only definitely accepted in November 2022 after I mentioned that I received an award for the most active fresh reviewer for September and two awards in the October Backlog drive. Before I was granted the rights twice temporarily for a month, with both times not being made aware of significant mistakes but me approaching other more experienced NPP members when I became aware of some uncertainty.

The very first time I applied in May 2020 I didn't feel confident enough and then withdrew after an encouraging answer didn't follow after three days. Maybe a bit impatient that time, but a first encouragement to go to NPP school might have helped adding members to the NPP team. The second time in 2020 I was more patient, but I was declined after more than 15 days after my request and this good faith edit as an answer to what I have learned and you'd probably have received just that, as I am currently reviewing in about the pace mentioned in the request.

I believe formalizing the NPP process, like granting the rights automatically after editors reached a certain bar of experience like passing the NPP school (great that this exists), having created an considerable amount of undeleted articles or made 5'000-10'000 edits would help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Good food for thought. I went ahead and added your idea to my NPP reform notes. I think passing NPP school is currently a de facto auto assign (these folks are always accepted when they apply). Consider cross-posting this to WT:NPPR if you'd like wider discussion -- I'm not sure lots of NPPs have this talk page watchlisted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

When I am aware of someone passing NPP School, often by Atsme if it's not my own student, I am very happy to grant the PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Passing the rigors of NPP school has just proven to not be any real "de facto auto assign" at all. As was just demonstrated in my case. Though I do feel we should probably change the "500 edits" requirement to probably "5,000" edits or more, I do think passing NPP should be sufficient. I was rather surprised that it was not. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 to the comment by Moops. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

While I empathize with the general sentiment, I'm not sure we have a problem right now as far as being too stingy--the NPP backlog is solidly under control right now, so I don't think there's a desperate need to lower the bar or make the application process easier. It's also a permission that is frequently sought out by editors trying to game the system for UPE (or to pad out their super-user resume for a future admin bid). As for the specific suggestions, I don't think it's realistic to expect all queries to receive a response in under a week. Setting auto-grant guidelines for it is also difficult, as a lot of normal editing activity doesn't clearly demonstrate a general knowledge of notability requirements, even when it includes significant new article contributions, but often just shows familiarity with a handful of subjects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Rosguill has written. Especially the part about the need to safeguard against determined UPE editors with this PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet we have a NPP coordinator as a RfA candidate who mentions the lack of active reviewers in an answer to Q12. MB More reviewers will likely also provide with some more time to observe WP:BEFORE which was one of the most cited concerns during the RfC. Also, editors who assemble 10'000 edits throughout a year, create a GA, or are known to save articles from deletion are hardly to game the system for UPE. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*@Novem Linguae, Barkeep49, and MB:, and Atsme out of courtesy because she was mentioned here without being pinged. As one of the initiators in 2011 of today's NPP system and creator in late 2016 of the much needed New Page Reviewer right I'll say this – though more modern ideas may disagree:

Over 750 users have been granted access to the NPP tools. The vast majority of them (around 97%) are inactive and we do not have enough sufficiently qualified ones. The few active ones do 90% of the patrols between them, and many of them are admins who have the right anyway and are not counted in that 750.

The assumption is that the round 700 inactive ones either found NPP too challenging, or they were hat collectors. Access to NPP is already governed by the policy I wrote (AfC by contrast, is not). Based on the first assumption therefore, the bar to NPP should be raised, not lowered, and heaven forbid that it should be automatically granted - several reviewers have already been exposed for abuse of it for their own agenda and the undetected ones are possibly many more.

Not to slight the admins who work the PERM pages nowadays and generally make good use of the new probationary period process, If I were still active (and I will be leaving Wikipedia for good very soon because after 17 years of it I've had enough of the drama, the toxic environment, and unresearched comments on various RfC for improvement), I would even propose a system like RfA for appointing patrollers. It's that important, not only due the required near-admin knowledge of notability and deletion, and the need to sift hat collectors out, but also because it's totally unfair to hold the NPP coordinators accountable for the deficiencies in the system. The coords are constantly striving to improve the software and its other tools and it's shameful how they get insulted and are targets for WP:PA with impunity for their efforts. That said, Paradise Chronicle, and your suggestions are noted, but sorry to say, I do not think it is appropriate to use this venue to attract more attention to a RfA which you have opposed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, over 10,000 editors have exceeded 10,000 edits. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000 A good guess would be that 20,000 have exceeded 5,000 edits. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also suggest raising the bar to get NPP, rather than lowering it. Right now, since the backlog drive, the queue has been stable at 1000-2000, which is the range I think it should be in. There is no doubt that we could use 10-20 good editors who commit to reviewing 10 or so articles a day, but they also need to be quality editors. I would probably not be sad to have everyone who wants to get the right go through NPP school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Compared to the difficulties I had, this measure would actually mean a lowering of the bar, but I agree with you, much more since you are one of the NPP teachers and potential addressee. How about going through the NPP school AND add a formal trial phase. If experienced editors come, they also get a formal trial phase? There would be no approvals without a trial phase. If their reviewing wouldn't lead to issues to the NPP process during the trial phase, they are in. Then as an additional and optional measure to encourage NPP team members to also review a certain amount of articles, their NPP flag could be removed if they do not review a certain amount of articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Rosguill and Onel5969. When I created the NPP school back in 2012, I did it for a purpose, and since I created the user right in 2016 we have a much better standard of reviewing than we had before when every newly registered user with no experience at all could pass articles for inclusion or tag them for deletion (ironically they can still tag them for deletion or dispatch them to AfD - perhaps getting that changed might be an idea for the focus of your argument - one which I would support). I have strongly advocated for a couple of years the removal of the right from inactive reviewers but for some reason the community refuses to entertain it. The bar needs to raised much higher. NPP needs more reviewers of the calibre of that handful who are already doing 90% of the work. The ANI cases brought against reviewers by disgruntled article creators and RfAs of those who are actively engaged in improving the system should not be turned into an ugly quagmire based on claims of 'enthusiatic deletionism' and refusal to observe policies that don't even exist. Even WMF staff have today stated 'NPP should not have to shoulder the weight of the world by themselves' and that 'They should get to do their main job without being asked to do everyone else's job'. - which means that the vague and misty assumption of BEFORE is not strictly in their remit and if perchance it were, they would not get their work done. That said, 'The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.' is a very, very clear policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think that's a wonderful idea, Paradise Chronicle. Whoever is the NPP school trainer could oversee their work for say3 months?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd see something like this as helpful. Now if experienced and trusted editors apply I'd also support to give them a trial from start. But only a trial, not an approval from start. But I believe the ones who apply for NPP in good faith, should be shown the possibility of the NPP school.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The backlog is at its lowest point in years - I hardly see the value in lowering the bar now. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea espoused by some editors and admins that passing NPP school is an automatic entitlement to gaining the permissions. It is not difficult to grind out a few assignments and this can be, and has been, abused by bad actors. Spicy (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If the bad faith actor is willing to grind out enough to pass NPP School they're likely in enough control to not otherwise reveal their bad faith enough to show in a review of actions. So while I agree that passing the school shouldn't be an automatic grant it is a huge presumption in favor of a grant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Many of the NPP school curriculums are quite difficult, taking around 3 months of effort, and I've noticed that the teachers aren't afraid to terminate the NPP school early if the candidate is found to have big issues. I am comfortable trusting NPP school to help with the WP:PERM/NPP screening process. For my own education, feel free to elaborate about any UPEs that have gamed NPP school in the past, and I'd be happy to re-evaluate my view. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As a recent graduate of the NPP school—with the excellent teacher of Atsme—I was just put on a trial after the graduation, I would say that a discussion on the matter related to requirements and NPP school really ought to continue. There seem to be disagreements among admin and whether or not you are granted this perm does indeed appear to be somewhat up to whom is granting that day and who is not. It should be more objective than that in my view. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I only applied after User:Red-tailed hawk left me a talk page message inviting me to apply - by that point I had enough experience that I was accepted without going through NPP school. I think we should follow that example and reach out to recruit experienced editors who can be trusted with the permission. I don't think there's a need to lower the standards for assigning the permission to editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Encouraging editors with certain editing characteristics to apply is something ICPH and I did while coordinators. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

+1. In particular, we would significantly benefit from doing this sort of outreach to editors with familiarity in languages and subjects that are poorly-covered by our current team (off the top of my head, Japanese, Chinese, Iranian, Thai, Nepali, Malayalam and Nordic language topics have a tendency to stick around to the back of the queue (for Nordic, particularly because news publications in those regions tend to be paywalled, rather than due to actual inability to translate the language) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Paradise Chronicle. Nothing standardized leads to a subjective and unfair process. I asked for the perm so that I could help ..twice. I was denied twice. Once because of a deletion Tban which did not apply to another deletion Tbanned editor, and the second time because MB used their considerable NPP clout to shut down my request. I was a willing volunteer who is trusted enough to be auto patrolled. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Being a New Page Reviewer is more than a simple question of trust. Admins usually also look for consistency of editing over a period of time, participation at deletion processes, possibility of hat collecting, and social skills. Only admins can accord the rights listed at PERM, and they accord at their discretion and usually get it right. Nobody can use 'clout' to refuse or accept a permission request - PERM is not RfA.

Possibly one of the reasons that there are so few active reviewers is the insistence of so many editors that BEFORE be recognised a policy or guideline which demands 100% observance. Careful research of AfD that were kept will reveal that it can take an hour or more to look for sources which still might not be available. This would significantly slow down the process forcing backlogs to rise again and none of the reviewers would get their job done. Also, backlogs are also caused by existing reviewers passing only low hanging fruit as patrolled due to recrimination and possible sanctions for just doing their job by listing articles for the various deletion processes. For New Page Reviewers it's a no-win situation for what is already a thankless task. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree that evaluating an NPR perm is more than a simple question. And for reasons Kudpung aludes to, I'm also not in love with the recent examples of community feedback about NPR requests. Let the person applying and the admin(s) responding do their thing without meta commentary is something he taught me and which I think serves everybody (the applicant, admins, the community at large) well.

I also agree with Kudpung that NPP face difficult competing pressures. Having NPP who can explain that in a way that in a way that helps the broader community understand and accept - and I see many such NPP in this conversation - is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is very true. Maybe it is not what they intended, but after seeing the RFA for MB I would prefer to kick the can down the road for others to review rather than risking an AFD. And yes, reviewers would pass low-hanging fruits rather than risking deletion process. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Lightburst, unless there's been another time you applied for NPP permissions that I'm not aware of, I find your description of the result of your second permissions request to be highly inaccurate. Your request was declined due to the confluence of a recent tban from AfD, low AfD match rate specifically tied to a very loose application of ANYBIO, and you were specifically encouraged to apply again in the future once those issues are addressed. I didn't raise this during the RfA because it was tangential to the reason for opposing; MB (and Atsme) did lodge comment against your request and only mentioned the AfD match rate, so if the concern was MB's judgment around permissions it's valid, but alleging that this was just a case where rank got pulled against you is absurd. You were an unqualified candidate, and the way you're treating this as evidence of some grandly unfair process, rather than just continuing to edit and re-request a few months later raises concerns that your intent here is purely POINT-y. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill I think my statement is quite accurate that the granting of perm here is political. I said above "Nothing standardized leads to a subjective and unfair process". I am qualified - if I am not you should revoke autopatrol. I have more than 100 articles in main space and my only deletions are primarily G7. I asked, as a volunteer if I could volunteer my time to help the project. The first denial by Joe roe was based on my Tban from deletion. He said I could not properly patrol with a Tban. Another editor was also Tbanned from deletion along with me and they were allowed the perm... so then it really does not have not much to do with a Tban does it? I was Tbanned 6 mos they were Tbanned indefinitely. At WP:ANI - Joe Roe admitted that he made a mistake denying me the perm and he said he would grant the perm if I asked again. So I asked again and the second denial was based on MB (NPP coordinator). Joe Roe did not want to go against the NPP coordinator and said so on their talk page. The background was in the RFA, MB had made public statements against ARS and of course I am associated with them - so yes I see the denial as political. I hope you can see it from my viewpoint. Without a standardized process we get these kind of political denials and the kind PC called out above. You saying I was unqualified either then or now is simply not true. FYI: I am not applying again - two denials is enough. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to equate "qualified for autopatrol" with "qualified for NPP". They are different permissions with different requirements. Autopatrol requires flawless article submissions, a bar which many NPP reviewers do not meet; NPP requires broad knowledge and reliable application of notability guidelines across topics, which many autopatrol editors do not meet. I'm not sure who this other tbanned editor is so I can't comment on that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A minor correction: in our conversation on my talk page, I said that I didn't want to overrule Rosguill and grant you the right. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyhow, I believe some sort of a formal grant might help, as else it is just something on discretion to the admin/s and might cause some undiscussed suspicions as it at least happened with me. The current low number of unreviewed articles is not an issue, but the process of granting the right. I have had some difficulties, Lightburst apparently, too. A good faith applicant as well. The concerns of the bad faith editor do not really convince me. What can a bad faith editor possibly do with the NPP right? Approve an article so it appears on google before it appears after 90 days anyway? For that concern, the auto patrolled right could be controlled a bit better as many of the articles created by autopatrolled editors would have hardly made it through AfC or an NPP review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

UPE sockfarms try to obtain the right so that they can approve UPE articles created by other socks in the sockfarm. With our current level of screening, I think it happens a couple times a year. If we reduce the level of screening, it'd probably increase. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The UPE concern doesn't convince me as mentioned before. For this the autopatrolled right should be under a tighter control. Anyway, I mainly brought it up inspired by MBs mention of the small number of reviewers and not having the time to perform a WP:BEFORE. From my perspective this was not ideal for the working process of Wikipedia and I would have liked to prevent a similar mention and its following complaints. For the moment all seems good. The backlog is really low, lets hope it stays like this, and if it doesn't some might remember this discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that is a real and valid risk. I think the significant barrier to entry of passing NPP school should absolutely be sufficient in and of itself though to keep out bad actors etc. Just my own two cents. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about UPE (which is a concern, but we're getting towards "reds under the bed" levels of paranoia). But we need NPPers to be able to accurately identify attack pages/spam/copyvio (which should take care of a lot of the UPE) and less urgently articles with other problems (references, notability, etc). Equally importantly, they need to not mistake good-faith but badly written content for any of the first three. That's why I like to see some track record of deletion tagging in the wild, even with the theoretical background from NPP school. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is not over yet. Moops is an editor with thousands of edits, has absolved NPP school with success and was encouraged by their trainer to apply for NPP rights after being declined before. Moops participated in deletion discussions before and as to what I saw, with success. If one is going on a wrong deletion tagging spree, they can also do it while not being a NP reviewer. I believe the main thing a reviewer can do exclusively as a NP reviewer is tagging articles as reviewed. There comes the UPE concern for NPP, that doesn't convince me. What precedents are there on UPE on NPP, how many articles were affected?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A large part of what a new page reviewer does is separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, meaning that they are expected to flag the articles that are problematic and to mark as reviewed those that are not. For many articles, that's the last time an experienced user will check the page thoroughly for a while, because, after an article is marked as reviewed, it can get swallowed up in the sea of pages that we have on Wikipedia. And while that's not going to be a problem in many cases, in others it will most certainly be. For instance, keeping an article about an insignificant band is not the end of the world, but a negative unsourced article about a living person or copyright infringement are another kettle of fish entirely.
Therefore, we need to ensure that editors will understand the cases where deletion is appropriate and where tagging is enough. Since only reviewers can tag articles as reviewed, we need to examine an editor's track record in deletion-related areas, in addition to their edits in general, to ensure that they are conversant with the most important policies. That and a liberal use of trial periods. But there is also another aspect which in my opinion is relevant: tagging a page for deletion is bitey.
So, at least as far as I'm concerned, when I review a request for this user right, I will not only focus on deletion, but I will take a look at that area as well. And I'd be against granting this flag automatically just as I'm against making passing NPP school a firm requirement. That's one of the many things that administrators take into account, but, in the end, I think the decisions should be left to the discretion of administrators with a set of criteria to guide them. I can support tightening the criteria, so as not to create false expectations, but I wouldn't overhaul the system. After all, administrators have been elected by the community because their judgement is trusted and, while sysops will certainly make mistakes from time to time, for the most part I have found that my colleagues' decisions when it comes to granting or not granting a user right have been reasonable, even when they have done something different compared to what I would have done. Salvio ^giuliano 20:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Weird PERM issue

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

---

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

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

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

Is it worth getting?

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

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

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

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