Misplaced Pages

:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MusikBot (talk | contribs) at 04:42, 8 December 2016 (Bot clerking: archiving (1 approved) (4 open requests remaining)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:42, 8 December 2016 by MusikBot (talk | contribs) (Bot clerking: archiving (1 approved) (4 open requests remaining))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Requests for permissions
Common
Uncommon
Logs
Special
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by MusikBot (talk) and will hide when there are fewer than 3 requests and they are all under 7 days old.

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. (add request · view requests) Shortcuts See Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Reviewers for the granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, have a demonstrated need for the right, and that they have read and fully understood the tutorial at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol.

User:Johanna

I've been on a semi-WikiBreak for a bit and didn't realize that this user permission was created. I've been on WP for roughly two years, and NPP and CSD/PROD have been some of my main maintenance work (see User:Johanna/CSD log). In my earlier days, I was very active at AFC as well. Thanks to any patrolling sysops for taking the time to review this request! Johanna 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Johanna: I am seeing many overhasty nominations on the A7 criterion. Editors do not have a chance to put any claim of importance. I recommend at least a 30 minute delay before tagging with A1, A3, A7 or A9 to let the editor say what they wish to put down in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for taking the time to reply. Based on the CSD criterion for A7 and Template:uw-hasty, I was under the impression that this consensus tended to apply more to A1 and A3 than anything else. In addition, the 10–15 minute guideline is what I tend to use as opposed to Of the potentially problematic speedy nominations (that I can access), there are only two A7s in the past year that may fit this pattern. One of them was tagged nine minutes after creation, and one of them was done after Wgolf put a serious tag on the article, which led me to (perhaps mistakenly) assume that I could use my best judgment as well. Both of these were eight months ago. For any other articles, I tend to apply A7 quickly only when nothing on a source search seems to be able to save the article, when it's an A7/G11 that's obviously a COI, and other similar issues. Hope that helps. Johanna 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof

I am a longtime, experienced editor with a number of created articles and DYKs and a thorough understanding of policies including notability and BLP, and have been occasionally active in page-reviewing when I get the itch :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please explain 1) how there is "unacceptable conduct" in that diff (which isn't even an edit by me?), 2) what in the wide, wide world of sports an edit to Jimbo's talk page in July 2015 has to do with a request for new page reviewer permissions. This sure looks like you just have a random vendetta against me. I trust that reviewing administrators will review this request in keeping with the guidelines of set by the RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Beside the point that PERM is not a vote, I don't see how these concerns have anything to do with NBSB's ability to review new pages -- samtar 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Xyzspaniel

I have been interested in maintenance tasks on Misplaced Pages since I became semi-retired this summer (as I’m never going to be a great content creator, except for when I see red links that I might know something about). I currently review the few articles with edits awaiting review that come my way per day, use the rollback rights if and when required, and classify maybe 30-40 edits per day on STiki - I am careful to notify editors either through this programme or Twinkle if I find more problem edits on the editor or IP’s history. I always try to err on the side of assuming good faith. I had started NPP around September this year and continued until the new rights came in and as such I am familiar with the Page Curation Tool, understand that it is not a race and to give the article time (except hoax, attack pages etc.,), don’t bite newcomers etc., and that many of the articles are going to be OK with a little TLC - maybe add a ref if I can, clean up with ReFill or add a cat. I had received auto notification to apply for NPP permission mid Nov but wanted to wait the month that admin Kudpung previously advised. I can confirm that I have carefully studied the new guidelines and would like to initially start on the large backlog from around July 2016, if permission is granted. XyzSpaniel Talk Page 22:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Prestonmag

I have been reviewing new pages for several years but have lost this ability. On the "new pages" from the ""Recent Changes" link I no longer have a review option nor the list of reasons when when I navigate to the page itself. I would like this restored. Prestonmag (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: User has made only 97 mainspace edits in the past 12 months.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 Not done In addition to Kudpung's note above, I see a few cases where you nominated articles for speedy deletion as per WP:A1 or WP:A3 very shortly after their creation. This can have the effect of biting the newbies. I wouldn't necessarily let that one thing stand in the way of a request normally, so long as you agreed to improve going forward, but you would need a truly stellar record for me to approve with so few mainspace contributions in the past year. I'd recommend reading WP:NPP, helping out at WP:AFC, and then coming back in a month or so with a more substantial history of recent editing in this area. ~ Rob13 23:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ramaksoud2000

I have a good amount of experience on Misplaced Pages, and have been patrolling new pages for a while. I was not active when the new user right was created, but now I'm back and would like to regain the ability to mark pages as patrolled. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 05:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done -- samtar 18:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Marvellous Spider-Man

I normally nominate articles for deletion through Twinkle. My speedy deletion tagging is for template spam and ProjectSpace spam.

I will not have any problem, if I don't get this right as I can work at WP:PROD and WP:AFD without this right. I am very strict about Notability. I am not going to mark non-notable page as patrolled.

Few days ago Kudpung asked me not to patrol pages with Huggle. Huggle has a button to nominate articles for speedy deletion. This Huggle function should have been modified to be used only by those with WP:NPP rights. As we can't use Huggle and Stiki without Rollback rights. After that I don't use Huggle to speedy delete any article.

I have read the page WP:NPP. I scrutinize the oldest articles, here, to find articles missed by other patrollers. If you find that I have patrolled any deleted article, then it can be seen that I used Twinkle to nominate it for deletion.

I am also careful about WP:BITEing newcomers. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - for now. You've racked up the vast majority of your mainspace edits during your short 4 month tenure using automated or semi automated processes with Twink,uHiggle, and Stiki. This and other issues does not convince me that you have had sufficient exposure to content to fully understand the requirements of New Page Reviewer even if you have read th instructions. NPR may use some interfaces and templates, but it is more than just tagging for deletion; essentially it's an in-depth manual review - quite different from the cursory glance that is needed to revert vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Smileguy91

Been doing NPP for years and patrolled pages before the new user group was created. Would love to continue assisting the Misplaced Pages community at NPP. Thanks! smileguy91 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC) smileguy91 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Darylgolden

I have previously been doing NPP and reviewing AfC, and would like to continue reviewing new pages. Thanks! Darylgolden Ping when replying 01:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Category: