Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk | contribs) at 11:44, 21 April 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

User:MarkH21

I have made several PROD and a few CSD tags on new articles over the last year or so, in addition to regular AfD activity, and have recently been monitoring the New Pages Feed. I see new page patrolling and reviewing as a natural extension of my AfD service (really a pre-emptive version). Being able to formally mark new articles that I review will help the large backlog.
Thanks for taking the time to read and process this! — MarkH21 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You only have three CSDs, and we need people who are very familiar with deletion to a "near-admin level" (WP:NPP). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: Perhaps I totally misunderstood the criteria here so I'm asking for a bit more clarification. Aren't the basic criteria 500 Mainspace edits and 90 days tenure? I understand that granting rights is also up to admin discretion, but RfA-level requirements would mean that the backlog will continue growing well past the 6000 articles it has now. Here are my AfD stats which should provide evidence for my familiarity with deletion, plus I've seen multiple successful requests here with fewer than 3 CSD tags. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is (some of) the minimum requirements that you need to have a chance of getting the right. (It's not worded the best to be honest.) At the bottom of the paragraph, it also says "For more details, please see New pages patrol". My instructions also include more requirements in the section below. But because this allows pages to be indexed by google, you understand that we have to be careful about where it's handed out. There are some very subtle ways that people can make articles look real, but they could be attacking the person.
Where I got the near admin level from was this sentence at WP:NPP "Reviewing needs a near-admin knowledge of deletion and notability policies." Also anyone can nominate something for AfD and it won't affect much, whereas nominating very new articles has a particularly big impact on new editor retention. So AfD while it's good showing you know one part of the deletion process, I'd be more comfortable with being able to review at least 30 CSD nominations, with some A7 and G11 included (the ones that can be most easily abused). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Sure, I understood that the five criteria that I have met are minimum requirements, but my point was that using "near-admin knowledge of deletion and notability policies" and "at least 30 CSD nominations" deviates from the typical experience required in NPP requests here: e.g. February (although both were eventually blocked), January 24, January 19. Note that I am not arguing against these criteria (and I accept the decline) but I am pointing out that the granting of requests by different admins here is inconsistent. Maybe this belongs in the discussion page though. (@Swarm, Oshwah, Amorymeltzer, and Kudpung: courtesy ping because I mentioned their actions) — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't deny there is inconsistency, and I'd be happy to join any talkpage discussion, but given the potential consequences is why I have my mark so high. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replying since I was pinged, but I'd agree that the bare minimum are too low in my book. I, like DQ, am looking for proof of understanding of appropriate content policies; lack of experience in one area but stellar in another can be sufficient as long it's clear there is an understanding of the policies. I'm less interested in counts but rather look for the right sense of policy. I don't mean to put words in DeltaQuad's mouth, but this decline seems not to be about not being qualified but rather not having enough of a track record that we can review. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that. I'm not hardlining any numbers, nor am I saying that the user is not qualified, just there is not enough for me to review in the area that is most critical to NPP. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing both Amorymeltzer and DeltaQuad's comments. The 500/90 rule was adopted to prevent totally inappropriate requests, but also so that at least the RfC to create the user right stood a chance of passing. Thus 500/90 is not a passport for immediately obtaining the right. I have worked at PERM for years and created this user right; while other admins come and go, I find that there is generally fairly good consistency among the admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:9H48F

I've been a Wikipedia editor for while now and would like to expand my work and start tackling the large backlog of new articles. 9H48F (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Not familiar with deletion process (No CSD, AFD all after request) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nihar POPS

Fairly active recently. I think I have a decent track record of being civil and working with other editors. I should have over 1,000+ edits. I create an article every now and then. I believe articles should be well-sourced. I have read the rules/guidelines, and I believe I can abide by them.--Nihar POPS (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Nihar POPS (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spyder212

Re-applying after nearly two months. Have been active on Wikipedia since 2008 (mostly as an IP in the past and more recently with this account I created some years ago). Have been involved in page creation, modifying main space articles, including moving pages, counter vandalism and disruptive editing. Looking to expand contributions and interested in new page reviewing, particularly those related to extended biomedical field, biographies of notable scientists, etc. It would be lovely to help with marking new pages as reviewed when they are notable and not candidates for deletion as I monitor the new pages feed. Spyder212 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 00:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If your monitoring the new pages feed, why have we only seen 2 CSD requests in 2019? Also, New page reviewing is not something to just dive into, as it requires a specific skillset, one which has yet to be shown here. With no AFC/Draft space expirience, I'm going to say  Not done. My recommendation is work with PCR for now, eventually go for rollback, then dab into AFC/CSD, then come here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dusti

Part of my anti-vandalism work, I frequently patrol new pages. Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA

I have been helping with AFC's backlog and I have also being patrolling through new pages. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=893447100"