Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Editnotice wording

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

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

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)

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)

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)

AWB and bot access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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