Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New page reviewer

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
Please read the guidelines for granting this right before making a request.

User:Tesleemah

After I was granted the right some weeks ago, I have been reviewing new articles and since it expires in 6 days, I would like to request for an extension Tesleemah (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 21:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back and forth better had elsewhere
Noting that someone has privately expressed concerns about this user as an AfC reviewer / NPP. I'm not personally up for a deep dive at the moment, but I wanted to mention it so that the processing admin can make sure to be thorough with a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wiki to be an open space, except confidential, I believe concerns about my AFC review/NPP should be publicly expressed. You might as well attach links here if possible. Tesleemah (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Private communications are allowed. I simply made a note to encourage a thorough review before granting, based on some feedback I received. If I had time to investigate myself I would have, but I wanted to respond because it popped up on my watch list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I think Tesleemah is absolutely right to expect that criticism of her editing be expressed openly and with evidence. Nobody is stopping you or anyone else talking about other editors off-wiki, but non-specific "privately expressed concerns" carry about as much weight as a fart in the wind and I do not think it was far for you to cast a shadow on this perm request like this. You could have just told whoever's whispering in your ear to comment here themselves. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having encountered this editor at AfD, I checked out her page reviewing. A cursory check shows some problematic reviews:
All could have been draftified or nominated for deletion since sources present did not support notability. I'll leave further assessment to others but I do think these raise questions about judgment on sourcing and notability. Not saying this is a reason not to extend the perm, but it might call for some New Page Review coaching. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment @Dclemens1971
I only got to know I should only mark as reviewed if they are no issues at all few days ago after getting the tool 25 days ago (I have been using the tool for less than a month now). My previous thought was that all new articles can be reviewed while I add tags where neccesary. Although these are not enough as excuses but I can assure I have been doing better and improving if you check my recent NPP. I'm open to coaching if anyone is willing to do that while I pay closer attention to the discord page. This has been helping these few days! Tesleemah (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding that some articles including the ones you listed here such as Battle of Karangres, this this, this and this. (while unfortunately some editors removed the tag for the last two) I do add the notability tags and indicate if there are just one sources as I was a new NPP (right has expired already) and I don't want to outrightly dratify or nominate for deletion with just few weeks of using the page curation tool.
I'm just adding this to show I have tried my best and it can only get better if I am given a bit of more time helping with backlogs Tesleemah (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah: Your first thought was correct. Whoever told you that articles should only be marked as reviewed if there are "no issues at all" needs to reread WP:NPP and WP:IMPERFECT. Please do continue to follow the on-wiki guidelines rather than what people tell you to do on Discord, which is an unofficial channel with little to no oversight. If you have any questions there is WT:NPR, or my talk page is always open.
@Dclemens1971: "Sources present did not support notability" is neither a community-approved reasons for draftification or reason for deletion, so criticising Tesleemah for not doing this is not very fair. Similarly, if and how to tag an article for cleanup is a judgement call. In particular, {{one source}} is not there to be slapped on every article that has one footnote, it's supposed to draw attention to articles that rely on one source and as a result has "problems with verifiability and neutrality", which I'm not seeing here. Similarly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with primary sources that means NPPers always have to flag them. I do hope you're not being this indiscriminate in your own reviewing. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: For what it's worth, your positions are supported by the majority of reviewers. Do not take Joe's criticisms to heart, as they are not widely adopted views. These views expressed are typically done so at the wrong venues and not discussed / adopted at the relevant NPP talk pages. Keep doing what you're doing, you're doing great and your care towards reviewing is appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to Joe at my talk page to keep this PERM discussion on-topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Josh I've literally just paraphrased the policies, guidelines and template documentation that are linked. If the "majority of reviewers" do not support this, we have a problem – but do you have any evidence of that? Or did you mean to say "the majority of my Discord pals"? – Joe (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Get a grip lol. Clearly you don't want to have an actual constructive discussion about it when you're dismissive like this and point towards Discord. Start a discussion in an appropriate location regarding this if you want to discuss this further, again, if you're feeling like actually being constructive instead of dismissive. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to add here: I said that Tesleemah could have draftified or nominated for deletion; I offered those options as examples of what would have been within discretion. But I'm not criticizing her for not doing that. I was criticizing her for marking the articles as reviewed; none of those articles met the standard for a reviewed article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Am I understanding correctly that you don't think that these articles meet the standard for a reviewed article because they only cite one source (in the first two examples) and they only cite primary sources (in the second two examples)? If so I am very curious where you have derived this standard from. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe 100% that is what I think. According to both NPP flowcharts (1 2), page reviewers are expected to check for notability. Considering the GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources, a page that has a single source or that has only primary sources prima facie does not pass GNG and therefore requires a WP:BEFORE. When I review, I do a BEFORE on any page like this. If I find sufficient sources, I tag "Sources exist", mark as reviewed and move on; if not, I draftify (if appropriate under 90 days) to allow the page creator a chance to add sources, or I send to PROD or AfD. While the NPP guidance does not require patrollers to do a BEFORE, it still makes clear that notability is a key part of the assessment, and that reviewers who are not able to make a clear determination should leave the page for someone else: The NPP Assessment of articles in topic areas with highly detailed SNGs is best left to reviewers familiar with those areas and guidelines. The notability maintenance tag (and its more specialised subtemplates) can be used to mark articles on topics of uncertain notability for further review in the future. But since topics with a single source or with only primary sources fail GNG, there is nothing says that a page meeting this conditions should be marked as reviewed unless a search indicates the topic is notable or unless an SNG applies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation continued elsewhere. Collapsing section. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Joe (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back and forth better had elsewhere
Thank you, I will take note of that Tesleemah (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you ping me about something I forgot about and then don't give me a chance to respond? I do not support your granting of this perm based on the information sent to me. Period. Your views of NPP are your own and not widely supported, as I know you know. It makes the work the rest of us do that much harder when you push a narrative and go cowboy on your own like this and frankly makes me want to not even try at NPP sometimes. Please try to work more constructively with the rest of us moving forward @Joe Roe. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give you a chance to respond... what? You're responding now. You specifically said above that you weren't going to review this request (I'm not personally up for a deep dive at the moment, but I wanted to mention it so that the processing admin can make sure to be thorough with a review.), so why would I wait for you before reviewing it myself?
Frankly I do not know how do respond to the rest of this bizarre comment. How are my "views" on NPP relevant and their alleged lack of support relevant to you, an admin, repeating aspersions about a newbie new page reviewer during their perm request? What is this "information"? What is the "narrative"? Who are "the rest of us"? This chip on your shoulder seems very out of character. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation continued elsewhere. Collapsing section. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reconrabbit

My rights as new page reviewer are set to expire next week as I was granted them for only two months (link). I'd like to participate in next month's backlog reduction drive and believe I've done decent work in patrolling the new pages feed, though I have been overly cautious at times. Reconrabbit 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Great work so far, though I would encourage you to seek deletion (WP:CSD#G11) of blatant promotionalism like Draft:Raydium (DeFi) or Draft:CoinGecko, rather than letting it fester in draftspace. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZyphorianNexus

I would love to help reduce the massive backlog of unreviewed articles. Although I do not currently have NPP rights, I frequently go through the New Page Feed, to view unreviewed articles and enhance them if/where possible before they are reviewed. I have experience creating articles, participating in Articles for Deletion discussions, and I am familiar with Wikipedia's core content policies, including notability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for the usual two month trial. If you would like to continue after that, please make a new request. Thank you for volunteering. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:1ctinus

For the NPP backlog drive. This is my second time participating in one of these drives (hopefully I will be healthier and less busy this time...) -1ctinus📝🗨 02:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bunnypranav

Would like to participate in the upcoming drive and reduce the backlog. Though my AfD contribs might not be that great, I have done 43 AfC reviews. I know that it has not been long since my last decline, I originally thought of waiting a bit longer before requesting again. But I would really love to participate in the drive. I would be thankful if an admin would at least grant me a trial till the drive's end (i.e. 1st Feb). Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 12:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for the duration of the January drive + 2 weeks (so we don't get a rush of reapplications all at once). Thank you for responding to the feedback I gave you on your previous request. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:EF5

The January backlog drive seems interesting and I need something to do over Christmas break/beyond. I applied for a month-long trial a while back, but was having some mental health issues and just didn't use the tools or even re-apply. My AfC log is relatively lengthy over a period of 3 months. A note about my AfD stats, they are inaccurate. For some reason, when changing my name from "Sir MemeGod" to "EF5", XTools bugged out and only shows random AfDs I've filed/commented on (hence the 90-or-so "no vote detected" ones). EF5 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Could you explain what happened with Draft:Artwork at the Pentagon, from your perspective? The history is puzzling. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Sure! I was on an "artwork at the ____" list-making spree (see List of artwork at the United States Capitol complex and Artwork at the World Trade Center (1973–2001)), and I tried my luck at the Pentagon. It would be PRODed for WP:NLIST reasons, which is fair, I didn't know that WP:NOTDATABASE existed at the time, and to avoid it being deleted, I just moved it to draftspace where I could work on it. I guess I forgot about it. I know that doesn't excuse the OR concerns, I guess I just forgot to cite some material, which I'm usually careful about. :) EF5 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kazamzam

Requesting temporary access for the upcoming drive. I worked with DreamRimmer on the Unreferenced Article November 2024 drive and am hoping to go through the formal NPP School process as their student to keep these beyond the duration of the drive. Hopefully I'll be back once I've graduated! Kazamzam (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done indefinitely. You're solidly qualified for this right based on your AfC and article creation experience and have already had one trial so there is no reason for a temporary grant. Thanks for helping out with the drive. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe - cheers, thank you very much! Kazamzam (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CSMention269

I've been an AFC reviewer (probationary since March 24). I was off-wiki for some time to take a long break, but I'm back again. Can I get this right for a temporary period of 7 days? I want to explore the difference between New Page Curation and AFC tools. I will request a few more trials later before taking it permanently. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=1264483957"