Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 4 September 2018

New page reviewer

• WP:PERM/NPR
• WP:RFP/NPR

User:Yutsi

• Yutsi (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

I've had an account on Misplaced Pages for a little over 9 years and used to be very active. I reviewed a lot of new pages and am familiar with all of the associated guidelines. I'd like to get back to editing Misplaced Pages more often and would appreciate new page review rights as it is one of my favorite forms of editing. ☣Yutsi / Edits 19:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: user has made only 132 mainspace edits in almost 4 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• The activity issue is a concern but Yutsi was a highly experienced and dedicated reviewer back in the day, and a spot-check of their patrol log looks fine. I think that if they truly desire to return to activity in what used to be one of their favorite areas of involvement, and which continues to very much need the help, they will be a great asset to the team. I'm inclined to grant as long as Yutsi can assure us that they will thoroughly review and re-review the guides on New Page Patrol and Page Curation before they resume their patrolling activities. Swarm ♠ 21:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. As someone who also took a long hiatus, the PAGs haven't changed dramatically over the years and NPP is a good way of getting back into editing. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done For a month, we'll spot check to be sure, and then send them back on full permissions if warranted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Aghachi7

• Aghachi7 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

Hi. I'm the most active editor on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria team. I've been created 100% of the article requested for 2 months now. I need this privilege to scrutinize pages created by new users and users with less experience. I hope I get considered Aghachi7 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My concern is you have no experience reviewing articles, plus in July, you had deletions for CSD G11, A1, A7 on Dipo Awojide, Ademuyiwa Adebola Taofeek and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog. What happened with those? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You are also using blogs for sourcing on BLPs Diff of removal. Can you explain that? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually  Not done. I just went through Samson Olatunde, and the majority of stuff that was in the article wasn't even stated in the sources. That, and I should have seen a mile away that it was G11 material. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG

• JFG (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

Insertcleverphrasehere kindly invited me to NPP last year. I considered it but was intimidated by the big huge flowchart. Now there's a simpler one, I feel like giving it a try. I have been a page mover since this permission was unbundled (honoured to have been the first grantee). My participation at move requests and move reviews helped me get a feel for the nuances of closing discussions in the face of diverging opinions within policy. I'm also a template editor. I have grown a reputation of fairness in sometimes acrimonious editing domains (ouch, politics!) Here's hoping I can spend some more distracting time on the wiki, as if I did not spend half my life here already. — JFG 22:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You look like you have a solid understanding of Misplaced Pages underneath you, and thank you for your contribs so far. NPR often requires reviewing articles, sources, and text while sorting against many of Misplaced Pages's policies. Taking a look and correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't see any actual page reviewing history from your past. No CSDs, no draft space, no article creation. AFC is a good precursor for those who do not have prerequisite experience in those areas. It's also a good way to dip your feat in the water and see if you like the job while giving us an idea of how you are going to review pages. I'm going to leave this open for now, in case i'm missing something, but i'm leaning towards declining for now with no draft-related space experience. The reason why I take prior experience so seriously is because you would have the ability to mark a page as reviewed, it be a BLP, it be forgotten in a corner of Misplaced Pages, while containing false information that gets indexed by google. This can cause real damage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: just to be clear, it doesn't have to be "review" experience, anything you can point us to that will "clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control" will work! Swarm ♠ 02:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I generally don't comment here, but I have a direct working relationship with JFG. I worked extensively with JFG on the FL review of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and on later revisions of that page, and we have also collaborated on a few other pages. The sources on that page are mainly stewarded by JFG. JFG's work stewarding the Donald Trump page must also be commended, and the cool and levelheadedness he brings to controversial pages always impresses me. I have always found JFG to be knowledgeable about source requirements and WP policy and most of all friendly and willing to chat calmly with other editors even when he disagrees. I think he will be make a great reviewer. — Insertcleverphrasehere 03:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. At the risk of overstepping, I see no reason to be hesitant. Because with all due respect, the prerequisite that are being mentioned here are more applicable to newer editors, not exactly suitable when it comes to extremely experienced editor already entrusted with higher risk permissions. I know this is more of a liberal view not shared by every administrator patrolling PERM, so this will go on the record as my discretion. JFG is a longtime and trusted Wikipedian, I'd trust them more with page quality control more than I trust myself. Alex Shih (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

All due respect Alex, but if I went by the standard of experienced users, we'd have a lot more of a mess on our hands. I have a case in point with a 18k editor which we can talk about privately if you wish where experience doesn't dictate how they review. I am not saying I have doubts that they would preform well, I'm saying there is no evidence of it. I was looking more just for something like what Insertcleverphrasehere put with non-lists, all I was asking for. I can be convinced. But i'm not going to pull it back, as it's your discretion range. I'll let this be. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Amanda. I guess I am just frustrated (not exactly related to this request but in general) about when people I have worked with and know that they would perform well are offering to help, we are still putting them through a rather rigorous process when it should not be a huge deal. Perhaps I simply still live in 2007. Alex Shih (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Amanda, we haven't met, and I understand your concerns. Rest assured that I will tread lightly to avoid mistakes. Thankfully we have a big hairy flowchart to guide us precisely when the requisite action is not obvious, and I'd rather wait and ask a colleague if I'm not sure of the correct interpretation of the rules. @Alex Shih and Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for your trust and support. @Swarm: It's true that I don't do much article creation, I'm more of a gnomish maintenance person. I am however very familiar with issues of sourcing and BLP, especially given my major focuses of interest in international politics and spaceflight, both places where misinformation abounds. I have also occasionally participated in discussions to rein in abusive if well-meaning editors, for example pushing their own "scientific" OR or bitterly defending their personal essays (non-rotating skyhook, quantum field of magnet). In that context, I have sometimes helped remove copyvios that had been sneaked into otherwise legitimate articles and had lingered there unsuspected for years. Finally, I enjoy helping sincere newbies up the ladder of our byzantine policies, guidelines and culture. For recent examples, see User talk:JFG#Why Can't add a self-made list as a source., User talk:JFG#Removal of valid WP:GF content. or User talk:JFG#What is encyclopedic tone? — JFG 07:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the followup, in spite of the fact that you’ve already been approved! You have my full confidence. After all, you’re talking to someone who was promoted to adminship without ever having done anything beyond gnome work. Swarm ♠ 08:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool stuff. My first try this morning was balanced: busted a copyvio and approved a stub + gave some advice to creator. Hoping to do 2–3 a day. — JFG 13:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

My comments echo Swarm's. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Accesscrawl

• Accesscrawl (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

I am qualified for this user right. The more my watch list grows the more need I am in need of this user right. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: Can you explain what you feel makes you qualified for this user right? It's not immediately clear to me from a cursory review of your edits. For example, you don't appear to have experience in page moving, which is one of the requirements. You're an article creator, but several of your creations have been deleted via AfD discussion, and at least one has been deleted for copyright violations, so I wouldn't count that. You don't seem to be involved in anything having to do with reviewing new articles, article development, or article quality control. Also, can you elaborate further as to why you're "in need of this user right"? It's hard to understand what your watchlist has to do with the tasks associated with user right, as well as how receiving this user right would assist with the tasks you're currently involved with. Swarm ♠ 07:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The article was deleted for "copyvio" but it wasn't a copyvio really and it was reinstated. One was real copyvio, while I was not aware about copyvio. As for the requirement points that you have raised, I will work on them and make a request here after some weeks. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per the above. More experience is needed. Mz7 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)