User talk:Peteforsyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Handshake icon.svg
The Good Friend Award
For COUNTLESS good neighbor gestures and expert guidance and direction! ! !

Screenshot of user contributions[edit]

I like File:User contributions detail.svg but it was removed from Help:User contributions today as outdated.[1] Can you make an updated version with the red and green numbers described at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters? Also, "diff" and "hist" have swapped positions. An often overlooked detail is that the arrow at a section edit summary is a link to the section. It's a minor issue but perhaps this could be mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk)


autopatrolled and new page reviewer[edit]

I noticed you granted autopatrolled and new page reviewer to two [2] [3] very new users who have not requested any of those rights at WP:PERM or expressed an interest in contributing to reducing the backlog at WP:NPP. Am I missing something? Vexations (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And extendedconfirmed ?? Have they been thoroughly warned about not doing anything that will get them sanctioned for violating 500/30 rules now that there is not a technical control? — xaosflux Talk 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW @Vexations: the new articles (created/moved to main from draft) do appear to be in decent shape, so 'autopatrolled' could be appropriate here. — xaosflux Talk 17:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I trust her not to do anything harmful with any of those privileges. Unless there's something you're not telling me, she hasn't. Autopatrolled, in particular, should help keep good new articles that don't need review out of the backlog. Amy has gone to unusual lengths to learn about Wikipedia standards, her new articles may not be perfect (nor are mine) but they will not violate any important rules. If there's a problem here, I'm not seeing it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You should explicitly warn these users that you have removed a technical control that will keep them out of trouble related to articles restricted by the arbitration committee to users with 500+edits and 30 days experience since you are insisting on adding extendedconfirmed early. This is generally only done for very odd edge cases (such as users working on specific interwiki translations) as it is a flag that is automatically added when the criteria is met. As far patroller (new page reviewer), if these users are going to actively be patrolling new articles please be sure they are aware of all the expectations and perhaps complete Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/School and learn about the Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, if they don't intend to actually patrol other peoples articles there is no need for that flag either as it will do nothing to help them edit better. — xaosflux Talk 18:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith, but I am concerned that they won't even know what NPP is and think that it may be appropriate for them to start reviewing new pages when the page curation tools pop up without having acquired the required knowledge of policy and experience. I don't think anyone should be given new page reviewer unless they ask for it and they meet the minimum requirements at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#New_Page_Reviewer. I see no signs that anyone has even told them that they have those rights and what they entail. Vexations (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's not get carried away...I haven't "insisted" on anything. If there's a problem, I'd like to understand it -- all I meant above is that so far, I don't. That doesn't mean I'm not listening. I'm going out for most of the day, so I'll respond further at a later time, probably tomorrow. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! My tone on that came out wrong, stricken. Regarding the early ECP this would cover for example articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As newer editors, they should also be sure to take care with medium-high risk templates - even the ones that don't fall under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restrictions. Regarding patrol access: there have been some recent technical changes to the Special:NewPagesFeed that will prompt the page triage controls to pop up for 'new page reviewers' where it didn't used to (and they don't require a 'publish' action, just a click. That is why I suggested that if you want these new editors to be using page triage (really the only reason they would need the patroller flag) they should thoroughly review the patrolling directions and guidelines. Basically, my caution is to not set these newer users up to be bitten and possibly discouraged from contributing if they wonder unprepared in to areas where competence is required (and expected). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 19:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, no worries...Internet communication is always a little tricky :) After some thought, there are two general things that influenced my decision...or maybe 3:

  1. This was not a conscious part of my decision, but I've been reflecting on the feedback you've both given, and I think it played a role. My general concept of "the wiki way" -- one of the big advantages I see with wiki software is removing impediments to doing stuff, and only introducing them when it becomes necessary. If you have a moment, please read this note I posted about my experience working on the Open Directory Project, aka DMOZ, after having been immersed in the wiki world for a while.
  2. My lack of understanding of the full implications of each of the user rights. I try to follow technical developments as best I can, but I'm always a bit out of date...and I very well might be missing important nuances. So I welcome the opportunity to learn, and I thank you both for bringing it up.
  3. Number 3 is a little different, but closely related to #1. In my extensive work training new users -- including teaching several courses, etc. -- one thing that is consistently weird for new users is when they get a notification that their new article has been "reviewed." I think the intent behind the notification is good, but the result is (at least in my experience) not what is intended. If somebody has taken the trouble to learn about Wikipedia's standards and so forth, getting a notification that their submission has been "reviewed" is usually off-putting. There's no accompanying feedback, and it usually leads to questions like, "why are people looking over my shoulder?" For somebody who has not taken the process of starting an article seriously, maybe it's an appropriate step; but it seems like extra friction for those who have.

In this case, both these users are highly diligent. I have worked with them enough to have a high degree of confidence in their abilities and intentions. I'm confident neither will do anything harmful as a result, and if by some chance I'm wrong, I'm happy to take responsibility for that judgment. I did inform them when I granted them these rights, though I probably didn't go into as much detail as you're recommending.

Number two is probably the most important part, and I'd be happy to put some time into addressing it. Maybe a good outcome from this discussion could be improving the page Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Granting and revoking user rights and those it links to, which I find a little difficult to parse.

On each of the rights:

  • Auto-patrolled: I think this is the one that directly addresses #3 above. If somebody is already getting some guidance etc., I like to remove the need to get "reviewed."
  • New page patroller: If that only gives them the ability to review new pages, and they're unlikely to actually jump in and do that, I can see your point that there's no reason to grant it, and I'm happy to stop granting that right.
  • Extended confirmed: It sounds like the use of that protection level is much more tightly limited to highly controversial areas than I had realized. While I think it's highly unlikely either of these users would make problematic edits, I also don't see a huge need for granting that access...and I'm pretty sure both of them will get to that level on their own in due time. I'd be happy to stop giving out that access so freely.

So, maybe you could give me some feedback on whether I'm understanding the technicalities properly? If I am, I'd like to continue giving out autopatrolled access where it seems worthwhile, but I'm much less concerned about the other two, and would be happy to stop giving out those rights unless there's a compelling and well-understood need. What do you (both) think? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi there! If you are dealing with very very brand new editors that you think won't create a mess 'confirmed' can be good (especially if you are at an edit-a-thon!) since it has 2 huge advantages: (1) no CAPTCHAs (2)Can create an article. If you see that anyone (including newish editors) are creating new articles that meet basic acceptance standards, 'autopatrolled' is perfect since it reduces the work of new page patrol - meeting standards is important here because patrolled (reviewed) articles get their indexing flag toggled and search engines will pick up on them right away - if someone is making new articles with BLP issues, etc they should not get this until they learn how to make better articles. So in a nutshell: If you know someone isn't a vandal: confirmed is generally OK; If you know someone knows how to make a basic article without policy issues: autopatrolled is generally OK; pretty much everything else is more nuanced and there are trainings on most of them. If you are working with newer editors that want to work on a ECP protected page, encourage them to use edit requests on the talk page, they are heavily patrolled and processed with little backlog (e.g. User:AnomieBOT/EPERTable is a report). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 03:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Xaosflux for the detailed reply. I have no quarrel with what you're saying, and very much appreciate your helping me to understand the technicalities better. I plan to point this discussion out to Katie and Amy, and if they want me to remove any of the permissions I'm happy to; but it seems to me like the more valuable thing is that I'll have a better idea what permissions to grant in the future, and I'm not particularly concerned about these ones unless they want me to remove the permissions. (Note that both are more than halfway to ECP, with more edits/month in October than any previous month...so they'll be there soon enough anyway.) Does that seem right to you? Vexations, anything to add? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, it seems worthwhile to make sure the guide pages reflect the info you've shared here. I'm happy to do it myself, but would appreciate additional eyes on anything I do around this. I just pinged you both about adding "new page reviewer" to the Admin Guide, and I also wonder whether the guide for Extended Confirmed should mention the Arab-Israeli conflict stuff mentioned here (currently, it reads as a very straightforward right, and to me just sounds like a slightly more advanced version of ordinary "Confirmed" status without significant risks.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, will follow up over there. For these 2, I wouldn't worry about revoking ECP - as it could require manually touching it again. Personally, I think NPR should be removed until such time as they actually want to pursue that area of maintenance. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 21:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Vexations: I was able to check with Amy and Katie, they considered and were not interested in "page reviewer" at this time, so I removed that right. Thanks again for talking me through this. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Peteforsyth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018[edit]