Jump to content

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


RfC for New Page Reviewer

[edit]
  • This RfC (request for comments) will run for 30 days and be closed by an experienced, uninvolved user.
  • Notifications: Users who have previously participated in related discussions are being notified manually within the policy at WP:Canvass; apologies for any omissions. Related projects are also being informed. This RfC will also be notified on RfC Cent, the WP:VP, and on users' Watchlists.
  • Please note that while this proposal adds a function to the sysop brief at WP:PERM, this is NOT an RfC that seeks to arbitrarily expand the powers of administrators.
  • This RfC is not for discussing the entry threshold for new New Page Reviewers. This will be the subject of a further RfC if and when consensus here is reached for the user right in principle.
  • [The mentions of Twinkle in this RfC are an illustration only. Primarily we are asked to discuss the introduction of a user threshold for NPP (new page patrol). Policy dictates how Twinkle is used - Twinkle does not stipulate how policy will be interpreted.] - 11:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC is not for discussing the software technicalities of the proposed right. In the case of a consensus this will be addressed at Phabricator.
  • Alternative proposals: Please start your own RfC rather than detracting from this one to make your point.
  • Please remain civil. This page is not for discussing personal disagreements with other contributors.

Introduction

[edit]

New Page Patrol is a major cross-Wiki critical issue provided for by Page Curation/NewPagesFeed, a core MediaWiki software funded by the Foundation. Due to unfinished Foundation business at the time of its roll out, the intended creation of a new user group for its use was put on hold, along with the software that was under development to replace the Article Wizard in the aftermath of WP:ACTRIAL.

New Page Patrol is the only firewall (WP:ACTRIAL was rejected in 2011) against unwanted content in the form of new articles and it must be done responsibly and accurately.
It's also the place where first-time good-faith article creators get bitten, and regular, competent users get harassed by incompetent patrollers. It is accepted knowledge and has been for many years that NPP is in urgent need of many more experienced, competent editors.

  • New Page Patrol is a critical, essential process. Done incorrectly it passes unsuitable (or even illegal) content into the encylopedia, deletes articles with potential, and bites good-faith new users. The complexities of the tasks for New page reviewers is described in detail at New pages patrol.
  • Compare: WP:Articles for creation (AfC) is neither a formal nor a strictly mandated process - it's a compromise that allows a) non-registered users to create an article, b) a review of articles that are created by new users, c) a review of articles moved (mainly by New Page Patrollers) to the Draft namespace for further development.
  • NPP does not require the least demonstration of competency or knowledge of policies or guidelines to operate the PageCuration dashboard.
  • Compare: AfC, with an intake of around 100 - 150 pages per day, has a list of active reviewers that is constantly monitored. Users who do not meet the criteria or who fail to perform appropriately, are regularly removed from the permission list (40 this year).
  • NPP has absolutely no control of, and no tools to provide information on who patrols pages, when they patrol, or the accuracy of their patrols. None t-banned, none blocked, possibly several dozen asked by various admins to refrain from patrolling.
  • Compare: AfC requires users to have a 90/500 threshold plus appropriate experience to use the helper script. (see WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants)
  • Compare: WP:Stiki for vandal patrollers requires a 1,000 edit threshold or the rollback right for its use. (see: Wikipedia:STiki#Using STiki)
  • Compare: Page mover, something new page reviewers sometimes need to do (move to Draft), requires 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history

14:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

[edit]

It is proposed therefore to ensure that users are suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring it inline with the requirements for the WP:AfC (see WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants), and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions).
Note: Not proposed here: The numerical and experience qualifications for users to be authorised to patrol new pages. This will be determined in a subsequent RfC if this RfC gains consensus, and as such is not up for discussion here.

  • Patrollers who have effected 200 uncontested patrols between 27 March 2015 and the date of consensus (if any), and who have a clean block log will be grandfathered into the right.
  • The right will be requested at Requests for permissions in the same way as all other minor rights are granted by admins.
  • The existing NPP userbox will be deprecated and users will be notified by newsletter (in preparation) that they can reapply.
Twinkle
with the exception of WP:U1, in the same way that some scripts (e.g. blocking, protection, etc) are visible only to admins, all CSD, AfD, and PROD functions will only be visible to users accorded the New Page Reviewer right.
some features of Twinkle which were forgotten by the developers of page Curation will be added to the Page Curation tool, along with some new ones. (This is NOT up for discussion here)

Background - please read this before commenting

[edit]

New Page Patrol is a critical issue. It is the only firewall against unwanted content in the form of new articles and it must be done responsibly and accurately.

In 2011 due to a massive backlog (around 35,000) and the Foundation's refusal to implement WP:ACTRIAL, we lobbied the Foundation for software to make the task of patrolling new pages easier for experienced users. In direct collaboration between the community task force and the WMF, the new New Page Feed and the Page Curation tool were developed. Five years later, due to its still needing absolutely no knowledge or experience, NPP remains a magnet to younger and/or inexperienced users and an area of little interest to more experienced users because they perceive NPP as a never ending battle.
Further developments in content 'growth' over the following years however, has demonstrated a dramatic increase in the use of Wikipedia for advertising and promotional purposes. Such pages are now very subtle and are hard to detect even by experienced patrollers, as evidenced by the massive Orangemoody onslaught which is probably only the tip of the iceberg. It is therefore essential to encourage more users to take part in the reviewing of new pages while nevertheless insisting that they are adequately experienced for the task.
It is at NPP where all the 1,500 or so new pages that arrive every day get rightly and wrongly tagged for deletion, and rightly and wrongly passed for inclusion. It's also the place where first-time good-faith article creators get bitten, and regular, competent users get harassed by incompetent patrollers.
See:
Guidelines for granting
  1. The editor should be a registered en.Wikipedia user with a number of mainspace edits and a period to be determined by a subsequent RfC. Edits and/or user status on other Foundation projects are not taken into consideration.
  2. The editor should have made edits (to be determined above) to mainspace of a kind that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control.
  3. The editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines.
  4. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying.

The above items are guidelines. An administrator may grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent or may request experience above and beyond the above minimum criteria.

Criteria for revocation

The user right can be revoked for violating any of the above conduct standards and for other misconduct. Additionally, it can be revoked at any time by an administrator without any process or prior notice in any of the following circumstances:

  1. The editor demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial reviews without first determining consensus.
  2. The editor demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in new users being offended or discouraged.
  3. The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes, COI, or other disallowed inclusion criteria.
  4. The editor performed any blatant vandalism (not limited to page reviewer vandalism).
  5. The editor failed to report to an administrator after noticing unauthorized use of their account or otherwise neglected account security practices.
  6. The editor has been inactive for 12 months.

Additionally, the right may be removed immediately at the request of the editor.

Recent patroller statistics, backlogs

Current backlogs

[edit]

IRC, offline, and other discussions at Wikimania and meet ups suggest that due to the increasing need by experienced users to monitor the patrolling of less experienced users, experienced editors are less interested in devoting their time to basic patrolling:

Backlog
  • 13 July 2016: 7,000
  • 1 August 2016: 9,000
  • August 2016: 10,472
  • 16 August 2016: 11,500
  • 28 August 2016: 13,158

March 2015 - March 2016

[edit]
Username First edit Edit count Last edit Number of curations (in time range) First curation (ever) Last curation Comment
User:(aeropagitica) 20041120224638 25164 20151023191041 2 20150921074346 20150921074346
User:001Jrm 20120831205939 8323 20160315054406 11 20140622062244 20150528031006
User:114BryanKurt 20150908065128 210 20151119015931 74 20151102031105 20151112073107
User:1974TR6 20150624133034 20 20160315235740 1 20150629191923 20150629191923
User:1Potato2Potato3Potato4 20150412164631 1040 20150704183840 215 20150416164843 20150421190636
User:220 of Borg 20111112125345 27721 20160327204813 27 20130111023548 20151127034438
User:3 of Diamonds 20150323212212 3815 20160216221758 8 20150409211013 20150507170118
User:333-blue 20140820135046 5876 20160327232710 180 20150114075443 20160306074342
User:3family6 20100822161746 17777 20160326160118 2 20160224021838 20160224230432
User:5 albert square 20090419203719 54167 20160327101028 1 20121105005506 20151227012238
User:77jj 20160206143746 10 20160206143905 1 20160206143958 20160206143958 Blocked sock
User:78.26 20090416041711 36015 20160328023000 6 20121003202435 20151008212405
User:A Certain Lack of Grandeur 20130411221726 2557 20160319020004 77 20150717021329 20160223224727
User:A8v 20140625142356 1194 20150921185706 8 20141224113925 20150913104034
User:AAshortfin 20141201235513 67 20151126223050 5 20150103074841 20150805191837
User:AC325 20150512030351 432 20150908021920 76 20150525174527 20150908021920
User:AKS.9955 20140115152912 21866 20151221080754 27 20150802064545 20150812054914
User:AMLNet49 20080623221035 3004 20160327011124 5 20141121211723 20160226063841
User:APerson 20120418144223 17670 20160322012254 8 20130618182837 20150806030928
User:AR.00148 20150322165539 1633 20151122140613 9 20150501135813 20150501204330 blocked sock
User:Ababcdc1 20150608234838 222 20160310095310 24 20150615000844 20150618002851
User:Abandad 20140423105801 39 20151228102210 8 20150208124514 20151228102209
User:AbrahamFernd 20150504075901 97 20150815213718 17 20150516180203 20150815213758
User:Acroterion 20060722013104 141252 20160328000806 1 20120924125535 20160125215100
User:Action Hero 20150806164440 974 20150919135013 18 20150914152320 20150917141212
User:Ad Orientem 20101019082145 9851 20160327184135 3 20130601041749 20150815232806
User:Adam9007 20150416235415 7770 20160328024456 441 20150421234154 20160328000319
User:Adem20 20150831145653 28 20160325133957 19 20160318143323 20160319084323
User:Adirlanz 20130706062410 2511 20160325021824 29 20130807015823 20151111042931
User:Admiral Alvin 20150730114923 274 20160102091034 122 20151212090412 20151212144108 blocked - legal threats, block evasion
User:Adog104 20150811220132 2876 20160328011235 45 20151003023640 20151113010854
User:AdventurousSquirrel 20110819011729 9694 20160325104205 18 20130127074427 20160114005154
User:Aghenajio3 20150702113511 26 20150725125832 1 20150725030032 20150725030032 blocked - checkuserblock
User:AgnosticPreachersKid 20080111094636 29548 20160327195851 4 20141115075204 20151204104058
User:Agtx 20030528213104 6498 20160324211754 81 20150505162212 20150623023904
User:Ahecht 20060828022513 17303 20160327154552 3 20140404212936 20150612174707
User:Ahwiv 20081228140201 712 20160227122734 1 20130114143825 20151020192350
User:AirCombat 20060913010039 871 20160325145210 133 20151110173555 20151113000730
User:Airplane Maniac 20150506165958 668 20150620032902 49 20150520233530 20150522002614
User:Ajraddatz 20100112021711 9627 20160328023824 22 20130118181111 20160312203433
User:Akashtyi 20150523182053 20 20150605164642 87 20150523182155 20150818093204 blocked - Orangemoody
User:Alcherin 20071206130210 1259 20160326145853 5 20160225151858 20160225203414
User:Aleena Afrah 20150427145208 18 20150527153143 4 20150501150136 20150507145223 blocked sock
User:Alex3yoyo 20100117215708 484 20151202032431 8 20130826191257 20150611025722
User:AlicePeston 20151010193056 38 20151024150312 8 20151021221105 20151022003530
User:Allahomora 20160220163854 127 20160320083306 4 20160318093423 20160319174331
User:Allthefoxes 20151130160915 8978 20160328015057 479 20151201164910 20160307183730
User:AllyD 20050509195404 37591 20160327172930 50 20120907174105 20160324151001
User:Alpedio 20091110141228 396 20150703154719 12 20121031184028 20150703154718
User:Alpha Monarch 20140616204708 3045 20160128195155 57 20140716213641 20151012101109
User:Alphaguy000 20150106004133 51 20150520062159 1 20150520062157 20150520062157
User:Alsee 20060919111652 2997 20160327090524 52 20140917174629 20151110085518
User:Alsikoip 20151215141640 18 20151220155039 2 20151220153402 20151220154730 blocked - Orangemoody
User:Altamel 20060628201812 6653 20160324190249 6 20120916023918 20150908154839
User:Altenmann 20031113042944 164760 20160327023204 7 20130313002434 20151125074137
User:Alvin the Almighty 20151122110756 472 20160109050717 244 20151212144710 20151226105054 blocked - block evasion
User:AlwaysHappy 20140511191331 210 20151101194509 55 20151004105945 20151013013049
User:Amitbanerji26 20140519023043 38 20160327205801 15 20150814051041 20150814052645
User:Amockens 20150109211454 175 20151130142613 19 20150406140727 20150406173014
User:Amoffit 20040630165331 607 20160304030224 5 20160122050651 20160122052014
User:Amortias 20140503123507 24028 20160327155441 5 20140508222022 20151016234321
User:Anarchyte 20150402082203 9229 20160327105425 1053 20150504114322 20160313090528
User:Anders Feder 20030129155733 4518 20160326084220 2 20150930015333 20150930015336
User:Andise1 20070715213019 3670 20160327151303 14 20140426200751 20151027015925
User:Andrew Gray 20041030204147 50372 20160326000412 15 20121009083933 20150802155606
User:AndrewWTaylor 20050907155557 9487 20160326124558 6 20160323145258 20160323145824
User:Andyberluski 20150825151328 58 20151129165156 5 20151126091927 20151129162531 blocked - Orangemoody
User:Anentai 20150426131643 280 20150619094826 14 20150523023432 20150524052946
User:Angelgirl1992 20150501121921 67 20150726181310 3 20150629193346 20150629193401 blocked sock
User:Angus Guilherme 20100202172410 838 20160217001512 118 20150405025017 20150421142833
User:Animalparty 20131012054010 33124 20160328010258 671 20140127205750 20160327074033
User:Anjana Larka 20140716121445 1694 20160302090031 1 20151116085747 20151116085747
User:Anonymouspoutateoh 20160121113627 1036 20160322131755 139 20160217114108 20160222091153
User:Antigng 20150204065001 574 20160327141823 104 20150209003616 20150626133027
User:Antiqueight 20110214225358 13687 20160327235513 138 20131005152227 20160303173150
User:Anupam 20060518033809 22775 20160327043822 283 20140503095810 20160213034655
User:Appable 20150124061444 2278 20160328015024 258 20150405024334 20150601185837
User:Arbustum 20141115152703 2228 20160321193227 120 20141216172350 20160321101119
User:Archanine 20141113022449 268 20150815030439 77 20150126022634 20150624003334
User:Arendedwinter 20070629164050 4373 20150503071350 50 20150501033644 20150503071349
User:Arials101 20140715103724 2069 20160324182043 9 20141229231919 20150930024159
User:Aricooperdavis 20090904235143 485 20160324164655 6 20150424005650 20150424122606
User:Arthistorian1977 20150111093446 5945 20160327204707 2403 20150208145119 20160327114945
User:Arystanbek 20120524153648 226 20160322042313 4 20131106061957 20160220153750
User:Ascánder 20040715051300 1951 20160325081341 2 20160325080713 20160325080713
User:Asd123jkl 20150227071318 13 20160129054125 1 20160129054040 20160129054040
User:Ashorocetus 20130428004534 2120 20160327191236 17 20151102154638 20151103210723
User:AsianHippie 20160108143829 151 20160315080023 6 20160108234443 20160108235159
User:AssortedLiquorice 20130615091012 631 20160304065601 171 20151125095800 20151204125028
User:Astha willim 20150315104617 36 20150405065933 2 20150403132942 20150405070629
User:Astros4477 20111125184350 21952 20160307171110 8 20150718042029 20150718194039
User:Asukite 20110129051349 3884 20160324150115 19 20130815221008 20160324145928
User:Atchom 20060603131819 1407 20160307233336 2 20150426073142 20150426073143
User:Athikhun.suw 20150521005003 591 20160324111129 38 20150628075229 20160226085551
User:Atlasowa 20111101190256 1159 20160324201058 10 20130311231513 20150825051851
User:Attaboy 20080130034447 1291 20160121235150 64 20150914172023 20150914183440
User:Aus0107 20110518223057 463 20150816041721 17 20150504013234 20150723193539
User:Avgr8 20110728182710 889 20160210133645 38 20151204211411 20151220192211
User:Aximilli Isthill 20060104191639 94 20151205072604 14 20151020174032 20151020181430
User:Ayub407 20140821190356 4176 20160320055156 115 20150729155059 20150730133700
User:Azealia911 20150122224058 12780 20160328004616 3 20150617201921 20150829174829
User:Azgar 20090725144329 93 20160219135231 7 20151128214206 20160117201543
User:Azure Anteater 20131011051903 145 20160206204252 2 20151112003646 20151112003737 blocked sock
User:BU Rob13 20150607183938 19843 20160327235138 105 20150611212354 20150813113010
User:Bajohnson006 20150629190021 12 20150724180223 1 20150717215927 20150717215927
User:Baligema 20140925055152 153 20150811183323 89 20150612042322 20150722170705
User:Banej 20090713091336 5358 20160326192941 43 20120907071716 20151014081710
User:Baseball Watcher 20101213234655 16544 20160328012758 11 20121215170519 20150630012723
User:Batternut 20090916094822 1122 20160317213043 2 20150619103635 20150619103636
User:Beach drifter 20080206045040 7367 20160326003302 1 20130213190006 20150730035528
User:Beastjb 20150601040124 243 20160301043407 2 20150618233847 20150618233848
User:Belghinsia 20150227170537 67 20150614092722 1 20150506190507 20150506190507
User:Belinrahs 20070505001430 2748 20150915133350 11 20150711040033 20150714204523
User:Ben Ben 20080614143606 38192 20160322195434 2 20120930185108 20150703202223
User:Benboy00 20091005193035 2037 20160111033515 20 20130901003049 20150927111450
User:Bendodge 20070123043418 67 20160105171020 2 20150610151510 20150610151511
User:Bensci54 20070920230557 2128 20160309174635 4 20130101200631 20160309175407
User:BeowulfBrower 20100516165025 827 20160310061252 442 20150909024900 20160209081736
User:Berek 20011207185418 13013 20160327120342 366 20121025113339 20160131071718
User:Berti118 20160225192716 38 20160321183034 8 20160317190517 20160320205913
User:BethNaught 20140217111757 26324 20160327205711 8 20140221123747 20150918182840
User:Bfpage 20070330011348 17487 20160327104249 80 20140716170006 20151011203342
User:Bharatiya29 20150821163649 777 20160324063607 4 20150922083203 20150923180306
User:BiH 20050903181909 19569 20150913162513 177 20140111071642 20150902050753
User:Biblioworm 20140806194005 9796 20160327180518 1 20140825160035 20150607234153
User:Bihco 20081028124823 10955 20150725140559 1 20130605121056 20150601162157
User:Binkydarling 20120522040236 70 20150915173209 17 20151027085744 20151105221704
User:Blackguard SF 20090307025718 8413 20160327073757 19 20140808045136 20160218044018
User:Blackhat999 20150218222931 665 20160313023512 13 20151107030149 20151127204823
User:Blasher 20151218080504 156 20151230010444 9 20151222065532 20151228123914
User:BlockyMan1 20150403205711 44 20150502122925 15 20150418232853 20150419012756
User:Blonde Bond 20151102170925 58 20151114163127 31 20151114151304 20151114152055 blocked sock
User:BlueworldSpeccie 20141007195052 330 20151119054814 4 20150506135902 20150506162728
User:Blythwood 20130131184039 16711 20160328023252 1547 20151215073344 20160326183519
User:Bobtinin 20150218083921 670 20160327224925 190 20150804211800 20151214024750
User:Boccobrock 20050330190939 4749 20150917010709 1 20140102005208 20150910195902
User:Bonewah 20071114033033 11973 20160325161222 1 20160325161057 20160325161057
User:Bongan 20141008232116 1952 20160325114251 22 20150927205217 20150927215412
User:BorgHunter 20050228235509 6509 20160220030141 2 20150723224358 20150724001458
User:Boson 20030621202444 15172 20160327233705 3 20130310221050 20150906005135
User:Botend 20090520202343 1234 20160321103723 1 20140312231005 20150823114329
User:BoxOfChickens 20150311222125 4203 20160224233629 92 20151210194223 20151211201836
User:BoxofPresents 20120214033918 181 20160325172103 25 20150409161927 20150416025033
User:BoyBoom 20150727213729 454 20151223000911 57 20150801001504 20151215021911
User:BranStark 20060606104131 23710 20151222120507 2 20141110165011 20150424120210
User:Breamk 20120102231144 439 20160109002926 2 20151226165928 20151226165928
User:Brian heim composer 20150819132326 411 20160201212007 103 20150915135609 20151229033731
User:BrillLyle 20130426185014 24187 20160328015434 1 20151123172649 20151123172649
User:BrunoMed 20131118142907 768 20160327093750 51 20150920101555 20150925062839
User:Bunty Pathak 20150305032309 140 20150602100004 17 20150413234540 20150414004941
User:Burklemore1 20140501060429 11196 20160328030429 2 20140707081252 20150422064150
User:BusterD 20050722190515 28395 20160327104718 6 20120907210806 20150906195839
User:Buttons to Push Buttons 20061002151913 18469 20160308160644 13 20130522040228 20151102172600
User:Byfserag 20130717030841 31 20150828084543 7 20150709122014 20150709122551
User:C.Fred 20050928034611 145564 20160327194840 14 20140730165248 20150718214244
User:CAPTAIN RAJU 20150617182928 31518 20160327224513 219 20150928170337 20160318183223
User:CFCF 20061006150738 17773 20160327142457 1 20160117170811 20160117170811
User:CGM 20 20130629114214 1339 20160325152844 17 20150907131057 20150909164447
User:CLCStudent 20150930200522 9536 20160325200539 37 20151202181004 20160317175110
User:Cadillac000 20121002021501 2454 20160321231000 1 20150216074511 20160127102751
User:Cahk 20060407170855 24747 20160327203740 55 20150329231443 20160320085311
User:Calaka 20070331070639 18297 20160326150346 674 20151016123109 20151017115009
User:Callinus 20071218121700 12641 20160327183225 1 20150519181001 20150519181001
User:Callmemirela 20130417012840 11305 20160327210518 26 20150207214047 20150604002824
User:Cameron Scott 20081008192830 17788 20160327195855 2 20160327193739 20160327193740
User:Capitalismojo 20070616011747 14997 20160222010253 8 20130209064632 20150405164340
User:Carbinga 20140130142837 499 20160323171032 253 20140605155006 20160323171032
User:CarlosWagners 20150401153723 114 20151107154432 27 20150409005608 20151105230622
User:Casprings 20090504224845 4607 20151230224449 1 20150502164806 20150502164806
User:CatcherStorm 20131231223840 8993 20160202172242 2 20151201064812 20151201064813
User:Catherineneg 20140828195218 70 20150716205744 4 20150409210245 20150409211409
User:Catmando999 20150819061545 1412 20160310014913 103 20150917084950 20160210053202
User:Celestialghost 20150715011807 319 20160315182653 2 20160223073956 20160223074015
User:Celestinesucess 20150509144751 260 20160326130211 214 20150704145440 20160326130341
User:Celosiakitty 20140902223329 41 20160325155418 20 20151210182206 20160325155418
User:Cenarium 20071127193608 25105 20160328010303 1 20130629024342 20160109220034
User:Ceyockey 20050109041757 61371 20160327013249 37 20130714013638 20150803025705
User:Cgt 20110108215001 3722 20160323174054 12 20120924131744 20151009141902
User:ChamithN 20140726221429 16590 20160328031429 2 20140922063832 20151015114325
User:Champion 20101023012555 9074 20160328031437 4 20120916071040 20160301004806
User:Chazchaz101 20060318230127 385 20151219193115 23 20151116125225 20151116145831
User:Checkingfax 20100324210354 21279 20160328011003 1 20130807060248 20160102073754
User:CheeseCrisps 20130114164041 223 20160325220846 80 20160108164807 20160208164734
User:Cheeseman Muncher 20061008163114 1016 20160315151633 72 20140513131402 20150731110633
User:Chelb 20150728230847 2199 20151021000717 1 20150929173149 20150929173149
User:Chess 20110524223650 4505 20160326031815 5 20140319222112 20150605033959
User:ChicXulub 20040322010845 10169 20151226233001 292 20140814201656 20151107182700
User:Chris troutman 20130302024935 15475 20160327224350 49 20130503000714 20151115220120
User:Chrisfow 20061015003757 821 20150621202601 1 20150615224119 20150615224119
User:Chrism 20031026195902 17290 20160325001646 4 20130903163901 20150812180448
User:Christian75 20060423171951 55320 20160327202943 16 20140216190403 20160227223819
User:Chsh 20050413014308 891 20160222204212 35 20150501053321 20150501153629
User:ChunnuBhai 20131226005119 333 20160327052941 2 20150720154100 20150720154103
User:Cibili 20080410160809 15 20150831211000 1 20151008131624 20151008131624
User:Ciridae 20150801154646 2033 20160327170347 1 20160301085040 20160301085040
User:Class455fan1 20121007100308 2028 20160228190415 2 20160225172545 20160225172546
User:Clpo13 20060307212007 21221 20160328000440 1270 20131204054236 20160117214711
User:Clubjustin4 20140403113835 1118 20160326133529 3 20150106143237 20160318104118
User:Co9man 20141009111326 970 20150817113114 15 20150530160528 20150530164001
User:Coderzombie 20050822074653 10197 20160327140731 8 20140402191619 20160226081653
User:CoffeeWithMarkets 20121026211420 7742 20160328005031 771 20150913034422 20160223083546
User:Compassionate727 20150422170940 12753 20160327212936 5292 20150507133019 20160324185444
User:Conifer 20111127225627 10733 20160327201334 271 20120909163618 20151101050038
User:Conradcnn 20151130113016 42 20160128214227 14 20160126105833 20160128230732
User:CookieMonster755 20140926233758 4434 20160315032048 17 20150207043002 20150529220817
User:CoolKoon 20060324183156 1962 20160219110638 35 20150821060840 20160104150313
User:Coolpug05 20150116165349 178 20151219003823 2 20151219003822 20151219003823
User:Cranberry Products 20140511060820 706 20160326000238 8 20140928183141 20151209040806
User:Crh23 20111208154204 2427 20160327170603 47 20150603124957 20151210103629
User:Croup 20131206041755 23 20160114060841 1 20151016040752 20151016040752
User:Crow 20130928230314 13449 20160325170803 21 20140612144709 20160319171913
User:Crumley 20060315201115 638 20160316160138 2 20150418151634 20150418151927
User:CryOCed 20150517164109 449 20150530175303 218 20150527185402 20150530031722
User:Crystallizedcarbon 20140810170308 14904 20160323071518 860 20141015193640 20160229233502
User:Csimpdef 20150226161447 72 20150429193847 1 20150428161530 20150428161530
User:Cubbie15fan 20130628152745 2706 20160318195519 151 20151221213450 20160203142547
User:Cupoftea155 20160203014553 336 20160326034820 23 20160305175202 20160306035728
User:Curro2 20151215105110 5473 20160227040333 26 20160125071136 20160202060739
User:CyberWarfare 20150720143436 1477 20151018234828 22 20150724212934 20150904131631
User:Cyberdog958 20100630200851 1194 20160305062909 2 20140514052511 20160220072727
User:Cyfal 20070614102708 12771 20160324224814 2 20160203192622 20160203192622
User:D T G 20051113144603 3599 20160320172633 4 20150426174632 20150426175243
User:D'SuperHero 20151109115050 3099 20160326142516 1016 20151121073612 20160219130532
User:DGG 20060905090545 189958 20160328020329 460 20120921035530 20160313202328
User:DN-boards1 20150205000509 1949 20151031000345 31 20150310204407 20150725231352
User:Da Drewster 20150312223528 833 20150701213748 29 20150609051117 20150609210202
User:Dalliance 20060604084254 6872 20160323132736 5 20130423115053 20150908212949
User:Damibaru 20141220185211 579 20160327223036 63 20160222042426 20160309031024
User:Daniel322111 20140420072902 188 20160114101220 26 20151222065200 20151222071930
User:DanielDelMarko 20150301103607 50 20150628054708 2 20150608064952 20150608065224
User:Danielj27052705 20120806211000 636 20151013092403 12 20121016143104 20151013092403
User:Danielklotz 20100419162107 1347 20160317155545 71 20160130140519 20160130143930
User:Darafsh 20110704235902 4762 20160317211918 1 20130825042734 20150729092541
User:Dark Cocoa Frosting 20150621120855 3964 20160327195302 2 20150814192454 20150814192729
User:DarthWriter 20150624193346 35 20150708192146 32 20150625101323 20150625130329
User:Darylgolden 20120328111204 6533 20160313133426 105 20130914050718 20151229132143
User:DatGuy 20151118145724 8724 20160316182640 228 20151212104015 20151222233255
User:Datbubblegumdoe 20150509145249 3841 20160327181423 2 20160106025012 20160106025012
User:Dawnseeker2000 20060827214814 115704 20160328001935 8 20140315130738 20151110230048
User:Dcmacnut 20061111193052 14491 20160104144941 40 20151217154215 20151218163353
User:De la Marck 20150426025224 2723 20160322221947 450 20151013003012 20151113043632
User:Decent Dan Moore 20150719140816 60 20150808175212 1 20150723185147 20150723185147
User:Deepanshu1707 20150709072104 1347 20160311142234 22 20151026152504 20151212093519
User:Deertine 20150403014939 116 20150412045108 4 20150408133631 20150408133741
User:Delibzr 20140318031552 888 20150527111611 5 20150109235643 20150421163330
User:Delusion23 20110114213945 69457 20160327214001 10 20120925153448 20160224202924
User:Delzem 20150815092815 85 20151025121009 36 20150904153925 20151017183942
User:DemocraticLuntz 20080810174937 57601 20160305184422 48 20150428191035 20150528162640
User:Denimadept 20060814055002 12854 20160328012650 97 20140820230055 20150622004816
User:Denizyilmaz2013 20140429172209 53 20160111095909 8 20150820142605 20150820190040
User:Denver20 20150508133331 390 20160320142352 288 20150508192238 20160320142352
User:Derek Andrews 20050917221344 8475 20160308235937 5 20140223153156 20150903133719
User:Deskolinsore 20150228180613 294 20150820190015 30 20150630173744 20150820155848
User:Dewritech 20100420075812 73625 20160322192025 11 20130207073345 20150829162400
User:Diako1971 20100825172656 2604 20160327210526 8 20150930083219 20150930084008
User:Diannaa 20091008010650 153333 20160327192046 62 20120910000754 20160225144710
User:DiscantX 20141124105609 3926 20160327193902 104 20141209130846 20151111031914
User:Ditto51 20110508095648 4928 20160326211101 2 20150612102104 20150612102105
User:DivaNtrainin 20070320041636 2058 20160113005157 7 20131031002728 20150625040254
User:Djembayz 20100228044224 27200 20151115014754 18 20121015025059 20151109004406
User:Dl2000 20060211055043 311666 20160328023726 4 20160103194447 20160103200351
User:Dopyknowned 20140805141215 13 20140920153343 225 20140805142651 20150826165207 (blocked - Orangemoody)
User:Dr. Kadzi 20130623205919 944 20160315174140 10 20130712185517 20160120193059
User:Dreamyshade 20011006204159 5944 20160324044115 2 20150926233149 20150926233251
User:Drew7890 20150419212108 2051 20160323021307 4 20150614071224 20150619213610
User:Dschslava 20121014030757 2198 20160327214332 129 20151225225213 20160323185228
User:Dspradau 20050812113620 9508 20151210073407 4 20150724042705 20150724042948
User:Duarte Vader 20150307202224 122 20160325002827 4 20150716214416 20150823174744
User:Dudek1337 20101030132537 5700 20160328000934 6 20131109143119 20160110002220
User:Dwayne 20080824001534 7132 20151231135708 15 20121111072539 20151231135708
User:Dylaidh 20150831145431 32 20151011074420 2 20151001051431 20151011074135
User:EChastain 20141013203348 2665 20150509180657 12 20150408151853 20150411190044
User:Eastlaw 20060308012744 78512 20160327072956 8 20120908110846 20150705073217
User:Eat me, I'm an azuki 20150620054848 2662 20160325105916 10 20150630010624 20150704113219
User:Eclipsed 20050719121234 24553 20150826090100 1 20121004095127 20150807100316
User:Edderso 20090517181249 7647 20160118153104 1 20121110215213 20150408200844
User:Eddie6705 20070106194724 6137 20151207220050 4 20151108105031 20151108204616
User:Egghead06 20061212075647 43489 20160327155643 10 20121004071250 20151121091210
User:Elaenia 20160308033613 651 20160327172647 4 20160313025609 20160313025809
User:ElectricController 20150914235405 402 20160306175803 16 20151013231016 20151013234626
User:ElementBroccoli 20160113220603 373 20160225003246 38 20160130052052 20160202173442
User:Elie plus 20070410130556 11216 20160327231754 31 20151226223058 20151227184946
User:Elreysintrono 20140712194337 48 20160319155522 2 20150813030135 20150813040623
User:Elzbenz 20120911050054 689 20160328002757 12 20151103184802 20160215061556
User:Emergencyninja 20031214042044 797 20160326213228 47 20131003020719 20150509173000
User:Empire3131 20081225025537 1206 20160117075133 5 20160101105031 20160117075133
User:Emptyviewers 20100708192217 244 20160314005424 2 20151215032710 20151215032752
User:EngiZe 20151219170756 54 20160326181953 20 20151226092104 20160312083633
User:Enj481216 20130603052833 60 20160320190628 32 20150714041011 20150715054458
User:Enna25 20150722035455 165 20151029150307 20 20151014035140 20151029150059
User:EoRdE6 20140930182929 9648 20160302042835 11 20141113054602 20150602152418
User:Eranrabl 20060804203337 3739 20160327115752 9 20150719065036 20151022033439
User:EricCable 20080517133558 3575 20160324173714 2 20160225042255 20160225042256
User:Erick Shepherd 20131230012623 836 20160326233701 440 20160322020411 20160326234408
User:ErikHaugen 20050325185831 15070 20160310184005 1 20150713091023 20150713091023
User:Esquivalience 20141101192801 8073 20160328024936 232 20141228213220 20160327162503
User:Esquivalience (alt) 20150411200158 155 20151019133416 4 20150611164835 20150618165758
User:Etamni 20101003051726 2110 20160316120723 9 20151105045728 20151105052854
User:Eteethan 20141104124639 10098 20160319032245 37 20151207214926 20160118010826
User:Euphoria42 20110916011324 1396 20160325193705 65 20140720194032 20150904210818
User:Eurodyne 20140820015001 3726 20160326021647 20 20141008220454 20150930234631
User:Eustachiusz 20131026004245 2308 20160323232637 42 20140201223816 20150922004525
User:Evemahmoud 20150207155147 133 20151028130708 5 20150623214603 20150623220058
User:Everymorning 20130127200042 68643 20160328025337 7 20130827184704 20160131051424
User:Ex Parte 20150908211218 474 20151015023027 16 20150912001859 20150916012844
User:Eyesnore 20130101053013 22702 20160327104329 30 20130118011640 20160118182748
User:F 20050920101123 5193 20160311024828 10 20130108100334 20151025083822
User:FOX 52 20121002142930 5646 20160328030019 2 20150408041308 20150408041312
User:Faizan 20121108133354 41503 20151204142113 6 20130608155946 20150623150253
User:Falkirks 20110820140420 3012 20160310204937 7 20130521133636 20150517150758
User:FallingGravity 20121117215612 4335 20160327205356 349 20121214050324 20160311070740
User:Fauzan 20101229155059 4895 20160313104737 1 20131012075727 20150611074652
User:Fbdave 20060801011917 10443 20160327231801 284 20120915232029 20160320031117
User:Fdizile 20130217173556 729 20160315215641 15 20160315020707 20160315212137
User:FeatherPluma 20100926182919 37040 20160326150327 2 20150418223842 20150419180311
User:Fedrickson43 20150327164407 97 20150625180936 1 20150509150034 20150509150034
User:Feedintm 20110329204942 4789 20160326225128 1 20140322203916 20160326224631
User:Feinoha 20080125101025 14992 20160321134639 2 20121022020442 20150929212130
User:Fern 24 20081031134833 467 20160323152636 1 20150606161137 20150606161137
User:Fetler 20060720132918 262 20160210220837 1 20150412095107 20150412095107
User:Fiachra10003 20061008160851 3071 20160327170504 42 20140813200025 20150827180504
User:FiendYT 20150914030711 2522 20160328005703 23 20151202054528 20160203054528
User:Figure81 20150906121724 54 20150924101659 3 20150913114901 20150913135720
User:FindMeLost 20151017054724 636 20151026035358 134 20151021162146 20151026033956
User:Finnusertop 20130528065859 13910 20160327220625 6 20140802231000 20151006012052
User:Fisheriesmgmt 20150216042711 1513 20150517232744 65 20150221210713 20150517230510
User:Fitindia 20160218201243 354 20160327130246 22 20160325195800 20160327153112
User:Fitnr 20060726194254 4003 20160326151541 84 20150701180601 20150707182608
User:Flixtey 20130110145518 1341 20160222144935 633 20150321145951 20151228125008
User:FloNight 20051011002941 18508 20160325023704 2 20160130063544 20160130063544
User:FoCuSandLeArN 20120510003317 62245 20160328005357 4 20120924145249 20150807142221
User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20131012065736 6780 20160327220710 3 20160314124255 20160314124401
User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20160312181059 205 20160325053054 2 20160317015419 20160323081807
User:Foxyhues 20130107160430 111 20151109024009 10 20150403160720 20150403171440
User:Fraenir 20151012122138 355 20151201071658 16 20151111050011 20151201075003
User:Fred Gandt 20100428174433 5992 20160328030704 1 20160217224440 20160217224440
User:FreeRangeFrog 20081009190551 34528 20150826224250 1 20121030220946 20150522003321
User:FreeatlastChitchat 20141215050209 4641 20160327135057 2 20160111031143 20160111031144
User:FriendlyGhostUser 20160219062233 81 20160323181214 2 20160312042843 20160312042844
User:FunSlush15 20150524072552 5809 20160327190721 1 20151204174628 20151204174628
User:Fuortu 20160119183930 141 20160326152352 9 20160206215107 20160307100204
User:FuriouslySerene 20060720183451 2975 20160327150247 27 20140206213202 20160225190115
User:Fyddlestix 20140207141429 5721 20160327231103 2 20150115014716 20150529233119
User:Fylbecatulous 20111210200706 23209 20160327165337 66 20121104115305 20160325145305
User:GLG GLG 20140620185523 3319 20160227170645 39 20150606191655 20150711001243
User:GabeIglesia 20120920041730 8809 20160328011335 2 20151122143414 20151122143414
User:Gaelan 20150609020432 1185 20160320022705 31 20150613050544 20150827060856
User:Gaff 20051014182558 16973 20151030214839 3 20140904231302 20150327023423
User:Gaijin42 20060510194914 20293 20160327211010 18 20121029154840 20151013180747
User:Galobtter 20130813040617 120 20160328025538 5 20160306085705 20160306115851
User:Garagepunk66 20121027054324 23699 20160327202042 4260 20151025010131 20160327202022
User:Gareth E. Kegg 20050614170345 46230 20160327231453 2 20120914214556 20160323170204
User:GarrettHeath4 20070423020207 54 20151013155204 3 20151013154448 20151013155204
User:Gbklyn 20150107164717 80 20150616154218 2 20150410203601 20150410204215
User:GeeAichhBee 20160116095342 508 20160226154523 38 20160124133757 20160226155111
User:Gene93k 20070804010455 425004 20160328025010 5 20140320222811 20160226193510
User:General Ization 20060206193325 50374 20160328011817 2 20140102174926 20151226224108
User:General534 20130702205956 861 20160327163033 262 20150910030134 20160201225952
User:GeoGreg 20040502215537 3647 20160322014022 3 20150916204002 20150916204303
User:GeoffreyT2000 20140526222958 9842 20160327165816 272 20150617010839 20160326181527
User:Geohakkeri 20150103160917 98 20160223155651 74 20150424145241 20150519133244
User:Geordiex8 20080124202323 643 20160129125634 1 20140417193854 20151218150458
User:Germblaster76 20150619182201 99 20160125201018 81 20160107214650 20160125050250
User:Geryhall31 20160124132049 191 20160203221237 2 20160202212609 20160202212610
User:Gharouni 20150614123121 115 20160324104311 2 20160212123333 20160221142905
User:Giannobi 20151202170143 123 20160129150612 18 20151208162420 20160129150450
User:Gilderien 20101130203327 16166 20160325221206 3 20121012200032 20150711183042
User:Gioleganni 20150225173337 117 20150430191048 12 20150312143507 20150430190954
User:Giooo95 20151115234424 463 20160308224818 2 20151212070929 20151212070930
User:Giso6150 20120401205303 28748 20160328022650 10 20150101183247 20160227200041
User:Glane23 20080423180537 51009 20160325201340 12 20120928002807 20160304214028
User:Glass2580 20150627120434 62 20160202061237 1 20160202093034 20160202093034
User:Globe Trekker 20120110140003 1159 20160312165356 3 20151025175758 20151025200812
User:Gmcbjames 20110616182538 5521 20160323015701 92 20150426055303 20151021002021
User:Gnomeably 20150307093832 19 20150610075345 5 20150609173249 20150609173353
User:Go Phightins! 20110206204725 20250 20160327033048 1 20120924202451 20160123190227
User:Goblins77 20101101091730 327 20150526034603 36 20150404105857 20150416220316
User:GoddersUK 20070325154845 2599 20150917090146 24 20150826154603 20150826161409
User:Godsy 20141202054357 9045 20160328021830 5 20150812203642 20150813232314
User:Good afternoon 20140518080302 1053 20160323120914 4 20150917130829 20160101145149
User:Goose121 20150919222353 107 20160114003317 3 20151021211313 20151021211344
User:Gorthian 20110821210441 9679 20160328014229 71 20151230184852 20160111034557
User:Gowhar Nabi Wani 20150907091158 2258 20160101103649 15 20151104095233 20151104174313
User:Gparyani 20110702011632 6678 20151215201617 4 20150504140149 20151003043716
User:Graeme Bartlett 20040115220132 76111 20160327221547 92 20120911123434 20150713043449
User:Green Zero 20130610104649 166 20160219160515 2 20150717223842 20150717223843
User:GregNGM 20120813210017 54 20150625193904 1 20150625193903 20150625193903
User:Groyolo 20050903155818 4068 20160321233239 4 20151105220507 20151105220904
User:Guerillero 20091107020625 16791 20160321035807 13 20121005024803 20151008233422
User:H.dryad 20151203155527 7720 20160327225146 832 20160126163216 20160303150819
User:HMSLavender 20140525134745 11390 20160328004743 2 20150602001847 20160223013637
User:Hammersoft 20070322222250 49086 20160327152534 7 20150827130559 20150827182833
User:Hampton11235 20141114223848 3075 20160326223236 3 20150731125153 20150731130051
User:Hamtechperson 20090603005551 7086 20151117190719 8 20130725043453 20151114220546
User:Happy Attack Dog 20140206214322 2163 20160323153949 3 20160218140955 20160219165911
User:Happy Wisdom 20150304195019 57 20150731130323 22 20150608172044 20150626002350
User:Happysailor 20070502124243 44401 20160326130202 4 20130401195052 20150922201231
User:Happysquirrel 20150115020945 3659 20160320201640 120 20151109034443 20160206055038
User:Hariboneagle927 20090628130856 17455 20160327080550 10 20130926053707 20160317044846
User:Harrias 20051224002941 31486 20160317200944 1 20150719204713 20150719204713
User:Harsh 2580 20120426140214 3466 20160327203821 1 20120924142732 20150528175435
User:Harshhussey 20120317152232 4758 20151025153035 16 20150826140828 20150905033220
User:Hashima20 20130908213639 745 20160326175857 5 20140802224317 20150909185116
User:Hawkseraph 20100523015221 135 20160310143830 6 20160131171441 20160131175044
User:Haykam821 20140331203028 104 20151101020749 2 20151023210708 20151023210709
User:Heartfox 20150204232446 1457 20160325211048 318 20150605223913 20160124022921
User:Helenabella 20070808050441 2600 20151125085532 137 20150421165759 20151125061241
User:Hell walker guy 20150625160215 72 20151028043916 11 20150701000009 20150814165456
User:Hellbrix25 20150313183154 351 20150831185154 43 20150406123015 20150831170048
User:Hermera34 20150113144719 2136 20160327150521 363 20150909164604 20160316110254
User:HgandVenus 20130508061401 1351 20160327161930 25 20140515100745 20150416051455
User:HighFlyingFish 20090207054701 2015 20160321232017 1 20150914041309 20150914041309
User:Highfever2015 20150208135946 50 20150511023432 1 20150419165229 20150419165229
User:Hiplibrarianship 20060816002053 2165 20160313195447 2 20150419021827 20150419021830
User:Hippychickali 20060115222437 476 20150724232832 2 20150724221716 20150724221723
User:Historywiki11 20160203103749 21 20160327145020 1 20160313135641 20160313135641
User:Hobbes Goodyear 20091107185423 6566 20160326185716 3 20140310032145 20151212135437
User:Hog Butcher 20151017134247 57 20151027190725 17 20151023133656 20151024163650 blocked sock
User:Hooney555 20160310201136 16 20160325143520 3 20160316200927 20160316201018
User:Hot Pork Pie 20160103143845 1115 20160126165126 125 20160110162407 20160122185422
User:Howicus 20121218041948 12182 20160327203940 6 20130105203832 20150804003235
User:Hroðulf 20060727111129 14823 20160103094601 2 20150425150151 20150425150159
User:HueSatLum 20120121154931 7937 20160326154015 1 20120914222518 20150719174005
User:Human3015 20150106182832 17436 20160320182432 742 20150628201517 20160115153946
User:Husain007 20130223053552 566 20160228100240 47 20140902022332 20150418161036
User:Hydronium Hydroxide 20150627031738 1662 20160328031256 80 20150822182908 20160307124047
User:Hódmezővásárhely 20150920144053 14 20150920145343 3 20150920145050 20150920145500
User:I JethroBT 20060813021022 21188 20160327073228 10 20120926023457 20160215110820
User:I dream of horses 20090513204638 199003 20160328025429 4445 20120924143105 20160326030638
User:I enjoy sandwiches 20150308200349 1945 20160316082903 8 20160204190520 20160205080244
User:I73jl 20160129103354 10 20160129103740 1 20160129104016 20160129104016
User:IOW Editor 20151016103656 265 20160321160811 58 20151127165014 20160308154043
User:IagoQnsi 20140308190129 4193 20160328031354 60 20140310215829 20160327043531
User:IamNaqvi 20150412103716 74 20150430000830 9 20150425005822 20150426074524
User:Iamoctopus 20150811124051 241 20160326113232 120 20151227141815 20160325130032
User:Ian.thomson 20061015181521 39119 20160327231736 14 20140212233506 20150627195847
User:Iantheimp 20130626100420 2346 20160302225008 3 20150425212217 20150605221600
User:Ibadibam 20060325135735 9922 20160326063645 2 20130403185027 20160301013546
User:Ibicdlcod 20120423112320 669 20160325145456 9 20160303125649 20160303130039
User:Ibrahim Husain Meraj 20130625044139 5566 20160327111711 12 20150909133233 20150909134518
User:Icarusgeek 20070808174423 52712 20160327165024 1 20121004183632 20160212091851
User:Icebaby88 20160216120911 104 20160326024841 2 20160319023348 20160319023349
User:IdreamofJeanie 20070603222249 4561 20160327211229 8 20141112110116 20150616152656
User:Ies 20150509162444 62 20160326075659 6 20151206101035 20160321144637
User:Ike1x 20140504012047 412 20150604122234 4 20140513220554 20150601135955
User:Ikhtiar H 20140806043937 1867 20160324104416 3 20160303150854 20160303152120
User:IllogicMink 20150417061129 236 20150713011307 4 20150614002545 20150614002659
User:In Transit 20081204143655 3470 20151128091144 2 20131012203839 20151126184222
User:Incledon 20151224155348 156 20160105143408 6 20160101192913 20160107231353
User:InfernalH 20140914184017 1871 20150811123114 41 20150524225645 20150607005656
User:Infernus 780 20140910175706 365 20151005143154 4 20140925191203 20150515151519
User:Inks.LWC 20071025063333 19093 20160318160028 16 20121025073037 20150608061602
User:Inomyabcs 20061119152417 1310 20160324115318 46 20150813065803 20150823062707
User:International Editor Shah 20150824103415 1748 20160327143632 9 20151010164357 20151220102103
User:Into The Fray 20070705000041 8423 20150723212906 213 20150703054700 20150708004640
User:Ionutzmovie 20090618125106 3157 20151214104634 1 20150730164803 20150730164803
User:Ipigott 20061102101734 70432 20160327160429 3 20151010073633 20151013072455
User:Ireneshih 20130806050607 1457 20160209064059 138 20140115061938 20151215074037
User:Ironholds 20080402194610 79696 20160327191545 84 20120910165045 20160316164516
User:Israelife 20150605162419 51 20150809160717 8 20150809160205 20150809161022
User:IsraphelMac 20120414025821 2315 20160315004236 10 20150903173421 20151031015641
User:Ita140188 20090213212813 6693 20160323032838 489 20150910083133 20160318024218
User:Itsalleasy 20131024181041 2023 20150823180948 144 20131208064119 20150823165840
User:Ivanvector 20091008221147 12295 20160327133953 1 20130410032438 20150410032254
User:Izno 20070107201914 16821 20160328013000 2 20120925225046 20151022164545
User:Iñaki Salazar 20100404220928 6257 20151231162951 2 20150104153159 20150808001054
User:JHCaufield 20050715144417 8367 20160324194845 49 20120930135514 20160324194845
User:JJ1214 20160103212742 1024 20160322200525 4 20160128071040 20160131010841
User:JJMC89 20150418004253 29288 20160328031252 13 20150424013252 20151224071212
User:JLOPO 20150524015747 273 20160228055048 24 20150711064756 20150711193907
User:JQTriple7 20141013064934 1819 20160317080701 45 20151110091925 20151205233846
User:JSFarman 20120131044441 7580 20160326001656 30 20131228053306 20160313030251
User:JZCL 20111031203203 3524 20160308200129 2 20150220155822 20150512155828
User:JaJa0N11 20151015210212 496 20151030223508 2 20151028181541 20151028181543
User:JackTracker 20111015121451 3287 20160327202210 991 20150620175149 20160122163012
User:Jackmcbarn 20130712213453 27152 20160327213833 1 20130726225445 20150625184854
User:JacobiJonesJr 20130402171827 2671 20151106011329 23 20140523231020 20150914015336
User:Jacobmacmillan 20140601121914 170 20151127142252 6 20140911152510 20150404203706
User:Jacque FDS 20160220085320 120 20160304193215 32 20160226112442 20160226113253
User:Jadeslair 20121026014605 1207 20160222043256 4 20150616132323 20150616142749
User:Jaladhi2020 20091219093658 502 20160321141959 23 20141216131006 20160311135300
User:JamKaftan 20140104061952 6571 20160328025627 8 20140225140323 20150501171635
User:JamesChen2003 20151020195559 80 20151109172639 64 20151027161017 20151109172639
User:JamesG5 20090331034741 1900 20160328030352 1089 20151114053338 20160328030335
User:Jamesbushell.au 20150201033902 336 20160328030812 63 20150625115853 20160128110612
User:Jamesmcardle 20061022022610 4455 20160327222518 135 20150909052548 20151014100042
User:Jamesmcmahon0 20121211115601 17290 20160318201234 29 20130519153534 20150409152634
User:Jamietw 20101217200824 7159 20160101142104 8 20120916150452 20150428060058
User:Jan Arkesteijn 20080709183021 4649 20160327115441 2 20151022152809 20151022152813
User:Jasonzhuocn 20050129142143 410 20160215095644 2 20151202080259 20151202080302
User:Jaywardhan009 20150830093342 3644 20160328030949 225 20151205051215 20160325024712
User:Jbhunley 20110221185250 13344 20160327123624 1736 20150217154740 20160210205953
User:Jcc 20090627125615 3250 20160322201855 143 20130506173204 20160225181009
User:Jcmcc450 20071203175519 1038 20160107231846 4 20150825230139 20150825232103
User:Jdcomix 20150410210129 4286 20160328025001 29 20160229030728 20160229222249
User:Jeblat 20140212094221 1764 20160325030428 4 20150811030944 20150811104750
User:Jeff G. 20061221180326 95940 20160327120731 78 20120924141934 20160115184917
User:Jeraphine Gryphon 20110424074815 21379 20160327130457 2 20150419155332 20150419155334
User:Jeremyhick45 20150403173013 57 20150703135512 1 20150510192649 20150510192649
User:Jerodlycett 20150228204333 5168 20160313021819 388 20150321120312 20150907141249
User:Jersey92 20090408180301 3996 20160328014619 100 20141117033544 20160320185954
User:Jgreene1333 20070123142914 495 20160314183505 8 20160223162149 20160224201920
User:Jhona43 20111020172620 2599 20160314165253 1525 20140314115741 20160314164812
User:Jianhui67 20130630053652 9557 20160319040436 1 20130802122857 20150609100229
User:Jikaoli Kol 20151207082810 956 20160325163656 119 20160107160716 20160325163557
User:Jilllyjo 20160126013800 540 20160222151204 6 20160214065028 20160217064835
User:Jim.henderson 20060917021719 55760 20160328013153 2 20150911000855 20150911000856
User:Jimfbleak 20030203151152 104624 20160327153331 10 20130518154641 20160118080328
User:Jjjjjjdddddd 20131106045404 757 20160312000341 116 20131111222415 20150806224457
User:Jknappe 20150519100617 94 20150726175430 12 20150618154540 20150618164819
User:Jmatazzoni 20130508231426 166 20160324174553 7 20160129195153 20160319005913
User:Jnanaranjan sahu 20111023145729 4679 20160319190035 5 20140207102751 20151113091828
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus 20120904235109 12740 20160327205533 15 20150523142945 20160131202417
User:Joel.Miles925 20151211163314 670 20160318141913 326 20151216192331 20160309142721
User:Johanna 20141023183357 6427 20160321191111 27 20141227031107 20160216000910
User:Johnsmith2116 20070915133000 8473 20160328010515 23 20140724203614 20160114202530
User:Jonas Vinther 20131213010016 21338 20160327194347 101 20150731120414 20150801154416
User:Jorm 20060523040039 901 20160327064807 143 20150515203059 20160226025658
User:Joshua 20060720135350 6745 20160327092912 3 20150124075310 20150520072725
User:Josve05a 20100331142648 76483 20160328031427 17 20130320152726 20150730194838
User:Jppcap 20131014193034 2680 20160314223725 503 20140121223206 20160314223726
User:Jsharpminor 20081110024745 6849 20160308165441 5 20140523000758 20160120203121
User:Judae1 20060511012152 2156 20151202192958 13 20150729131354 20150804120836
User:JudasDeLias 20150803092017 36 20151023062627 6 20150907105537 20150907105719
User:Judasblue 20080415051408 58 20150611070817 4 20150610082702 20150610083852
User:JudgeRM 20160321173547 62 20160326172019 2 20160326165209 20160326171614
User:Julietdeltalima 20140921042015 5799 20160328002943 566 20150319203134 20160325220342
User:Juristicweb 20120705155130 300 20160120045534 2 20151120051119 20151120051318
User:JustAnIng 20150110020713 65 20160314213822 167 20151115221806 20160309021843
User:Justinzilla 20150131105746 47 20160122053008 2 20160122051503 20160122052128
User:Jéské Couriano 20060803074811 24528 20160327081157 2 20150929050242 20150929050243
User:Kabahaly 20140103152123 165 20151104183700 326 20151103120059 20151104151953
User:Kaffe42 20140910092227 630 20160327212302 1 20160110192520 20160110192520
User:Kagundu 20110719114645 6375 20160318063956 225 20120926112717 20160315002616
User:Kaldari 20040419030332 54439 20160328030205 4 20120906215432 20150529002329
User:Kansiime 20140404033358 625 20160119065417 77 20140722043615 20160118172735
User:Karlhard 20140929225554 980 20150330145917 36 20140930185102 20150330142110
User:Kashmiri 20060117212257 9753 20160310223249 13 20151210121252 20151210124905
User:Katrinamoris2014 20111020132327 1678 20160218101652 1130 20140318154457 20160218095130
User:Kavdiamanju 20130311170328 2662 20160327112627 1591 20140717002909 20160325191622
User:Kayser Ahmad 20150614033043 469 20160324014518 8 20160302145713 20160305044321
User:Kebabpizza 20130731193327 587 20151005132627 40 20130804192553 20150916163954
User:Keihatsu 20120905235919 904 20150526024221 3 20121024024627 20150522023739
User:KennyFromSouthPark 20130803230542 575 20160325053801 14 20150910190721 20150910205514
User:Kethrus 20141018003647 6824 20160315111835 80 20141105175716 20151027233644
User:Kethrus II 20150919205731 524 20160110145656 1 20151023163034 20151023163034
User:KevCor360 20080302212444 440 20151204004312 27 20150402065758 20150402075013
User:Kevin12xd 20120913014803 7501 20160112184347 35 20130224023241 20150709132137
User:Kges1901 20140624220054 15177 20160327232130 472 20140629190422 20160326161411
User:Khamar 20131120193935 2191 20160327013242 9 20140226074205 20150504024135
User:Kharkiv07 20130718180100 13151 20160327035049 11 20150221194221 20151012001848
User:Khocon 20090705013125 1121 20160327174424 121 20150502035921 20150707144830
User:KieranTribe 20150515182404 450 20160318142325 9 20150520134958 20150602114521
User:Kieranian2001 20050614111837 479 20160106142940 6 20120907122238 20160106142939
User:Kimdime 20061208022012 1206 20160314004648 1 20150611000203 20150611000203
User:Kimon 20050927162320 17231 20160302224206 1 20130703122530 20150929153345
User:Kiranjitdas 20150420102834 149 20150927062117 30 20150901144056 20150927062052
User:Kitcher45 20151103230715 121 20151214230633 1 20151214193505 20151214193505
User:Kiwi128 20100507224253 6573 20160324094225 78 20150820040654 20151231100557
User:Knyzna1 20131106134641 2133 20160327105608 1 20140304132408 20150919060909
User:Konveyor Belt 20130830013728 4216 20150822181826 6 20130930225053 20150604032152
User:Kotivalo 20120116184400 278 20160325090933 10 20150731163757 20150731164108
User:Krj373 20090303195421 3041 20160309225512 3 20160225154909 20160225172946
User:Kudpung 20061018080920 74209 20160328031241 674 20120907121331 20160312182750
User:Kurousagi 20150727005712 2655 20160103184311 3 20150805024658 20151204115053
User:Kwisha 20120726050958 1581 20160203054614 137 20130420040502 20160113110920
User:KylieTastic 20130901211014 89558 20160327231609 19 20140131225109 20160312191813
User:L E X commons 20100207163628 200 20151216092552 1 20150724133301 20150724133301
User:L235 20130707223812 11796 20160324134939 1 20140517051410 20150417024803
User:LaMona 20060823220400 12795 20160328023733 66 20151107184909 20151112012027
User:Laberinto16 20140222230039 295 20160202154045 6 20140503003348 20160126043618
User:Lakokat 20110509152803 640 20151126152418 1 20121102122743 20151114150122
User:Lakun.patra 20131019021933 20712 20160327143207 489 20150122081941 20160326102530
User:Lange.lea 20130118153548 655 20160324020342 1 20160318180542 20160318180542
User:Lantay77 20070903171519 1205 20151102003445 131 20151022014002 20151027014953
User:Largoplazo 20061116155101 53358 20160327233830 25 20130815120327 20160323014231
User:Larsona 20110527032414 909 20160122161715 354 20151114220742 20151202205009
User:LavaBaron 20150112203557 9335 20160323181414 277 20150519011551 20160125050031
User:Lbmarshall 20140212154328 588 20160324150353 4 20160220142703 20160220144312
User:Legacypac 20071102095949 30497 20160328022358 15 20150107063724 20151122111656
User:Legendiii 20131125182942 180 20151212140913 26 20140609171315 20151102185432
User:Lemnaminor 20121127132603 14439 20160306224922 5 20140914230826 20160205190113
User:Lemongirl942 20151119163124 1584 20160328030112 237 20151227062326 20160327184242
User:Lemonmelonsuperstar 20121013130021 840 20160131195544 7 20131224152732 20150624122029
User:Lesnail 20051204204837 5915 20160307043106 2 20120920165410 20160307034036
User:LethalFlower 20150330025755 321 20150630190719 19 20150331232051 20150404031131
User:Leugen9001 20150622231450 47 20160202034641 1 20160125222400 20160125222400
User:Lgcsmasamiya 20121024023237 9372 20150513015223 226 20121205064702 20150510023503
User:Liance 20140904230639 6416 20160327162926 32 20150207004820 20160212212652
User:Lib arts premed96 20150429023308 154 20160328025412 71 20160328003108 20160328023907
User:Liechtenstein96 20151201162110 157 20160326165702 111 20151228215350 20151231110219
User:LightiningShadow 20150727055922 44 20151129193600 30 20150731065020 20151129193735
User:Limesave 20111106214024 457 20160315004708 3 20131030061339 20150327060032
User:Lionratz 20100810032612 6999 20151110114717 3 20120911060256 20150822154006
User:Lithopsian 20081124201308 6549 20160327234715 243 20150923113225 20160228214236
User:Lithorien 20040828053243 939 20160307015244 3 20151225023742 20151225034610
User:Lockley 20050308234940 101225 20160327234534 34 20120925200012 20160112222514
User:Loeba 20110816163629 7017 20160324184612 2 20151114195422 20151114195428
User:Logical Fuzz 20091103153711 19374 20160327093835 5 20121013001707 20150706204046
User:Logical1004 20130723145641 7533 20160327100857 46 20131229192824 20150619014538
User:Lor 20140326223554 7511 20160116111353 19 20140424021048 20151013204541
User:Lord Subro 20140927142259 201 20160113075126 8 20151028192452 20151219105404
User:LordMathe2 20140922171804 15 20151213221843 3 20150724103347 20150724103431
User:Loriendrew 20111120054510 27461 20160327222046 7 20130825135315 20160225203154
User:LoudLizard 20141228214143 2648 20160320212232 332 20160215144958 20160320110450
User:Louieoddie 20131021085934 3399 20160327154827 167 20150826081233 20150829134204
User:LourdesAngeles 20151212032731 31 20151231190337 2 20160112204336 20160112204341
User:Loveoffood007 20130923162552 1088 20160102172144 5 20131015132418 20160102172116
User:Lstanley1979 20080129203643 5114 20160130130035 25 20141002193024 20150406192949
User:Lucifero4 20061121221518 4447 20160312215542 4 20121101134536 20151007163042
User:Lucky102 20120827102614 2691 20160327175845 55 20150421180628 20160205135156
User:Luis Santos24 20150523015633 2750 20160324195923 19 20150528114301 20150812225439
User:Luxure 20130728102039 3282 20160318061410 40 20141115085813 20150626082931
User:Lwarrenwiki 20130826202619 4504 20160321214825 13 20140611183317 20151105230148
User:M2Ys4U 20070711215059 2185 20160215221814 41 20151224104858 20160201005355
User:MB298 20150324035849 16524 20160328030936 261 20151006233232 20160325012501
User:Mabalu 20080917114638 16597 20160326134914 95 20121218071646 20160124135933
User:Macaddct1984 20050131043249 9807 20160313231239 2 20120924204822 20150812233248
User:Macbookair3140 20081224141420 1507 20160314235740 5 20150530034142 20150612055056
User:Maestroso simplo 20081102025755 2158 20160307212355 11 20150319040002 20160113001311
User:Magentic Manifestations 20120510083955 8217 20160327125214 5 20160206193828 20160207043855
User:Magicsan 20150911160238 162 20150919053607 11 20150917084300 20150917160307
User:Magnolia677 20121222152400 23137 20160328031434 4 20140519120343 20151225014214
User:Magnus bjerg 20141205210623 134 20151204140914 6 20151201215116 20151201220326
User:Maharayamui 20150328052611 97 20160323032724 38 20160318063239 20160321152346
User:Mahensingha 20111006075651 5215 20160327210528 6 20151207165433 20151221151757
User:MahuCG 20150511202834 207 20160323212004 3 20151021014105 20151021014353
User:MainlyTwelve 20060525203424 20774 20160326201755 6 20160326002718 20160326162844
User:Majora 20150811050453 5134 20160328025007 69 20150820030648 20160127041954
User:Malachq 20160108172510 198 20160328005300 4 20160328004725 20160328005300
User:Malcolmxl5 20070409231813 85918 20160327214258 10 20151114183211 20151114184537
User:MapleSyrupRain 20150909182321 235 20160311215224 17 20150918064316 20160202215536
User:Maplestrip 20141015155439 9563 20160327221302 1 20151117094633 20151117094633
User:Marcosoldfox 20140116101743 942 20160324051134 21 20150509074426 20150510130644
User:Margalob 20150209153247 297 20160328024418 135 20160203154717 20160328024417
User:MarkYabloko 20150923152050 2983 20151125172530 1008 20151111054842 20151125162747
User:Martinogk 20150319014256 172 20151216134518 199 20151024213320 20151126052700
User:Masonpatriot 20050926064758 42621 20160327033737 14 20150806162935 20150806173230
User:Masssly 20120821213403 21498 20160325213519 4 20150713134217 20150713134547
User:Masum Ibn Musa 20131130045535 17581 20160316141111 18 20150329145832 20150402035337
User:Matey Babes 20150710174323 24 20150719140443 3 20150718231926 20150718232052
User:Matt Fitzpatrick 20050609012717 2069 20160326100720 1 20141012232704 20150912115744
User:Matt.T 20080611062332 6026 20151028030650 5 20151023021658 20151023031205
User:MatthewHoobin 20130124134446 4094 20160326184701 71 20130902152940 20151115190759
User:Maurizio.morandi-1970 20120608222604 119 20150821070233 58 20150814132618 20150818133647
User:Mautam 20150626231928 81 20160319220632 5 20160311042041 20160327033705
User:Mavrikant 20140120102555 129 20160223185949 1 20140527125243 20151121210553
User:MaxBrowne 20070127225601 4676 20160327104233 4 20130323003942 20151027055450
User:McAang 20140119114252 26 20160120151836 2 20150829193053 20150829193055
User:McGeddon 20050925164213 97718 20160324232740 551 20130711140659 20160317220349
User:Mcmatter 20100603165837 13747 20160327151048 18 20150903193204 20160221041614
User:Md Hashim azmi shaikh 20160223133235 209 20160322074138 93 20160303103708 20160318112400
User:Md.altaf.rahman 20110214002141 31657 20160328001304 2 20151122112157 20151122112319
User:Mdann52 20120201110638 27322 20160224100927 23 20120916074158 20150829154633
User:Mduvekot 20060510200541 4423 20160327141147 29 20140101213042 20160310145607
User:Meamemg 20040904180339 1132 20160325024247 3 20160129031833 20160129034903
User:Megalibrarygirl 20110508163436 15672 20160328001015 48 20150829050335 20151203050149
User:Melaen 20041117134734 21269 20151127214538 192 20130722092529 20151127214543
User:Melmann 20081024155839 2539 20151020150902 36 20131010032021 20150917140305
User:Mhhossein 20140409060058 7259 20160327104944 5 20141120050410 20160202055650
User:Michael Powerhouse 20151019140937 273 20160324230139 8 20160322233631 20160323172208
User:Michał Sobkowski 20070913065114 787 20160304124112 2 20150608085332 20150608085334
User:MichellSoriano 20130521070604 23 20151203110225 9 20151203094539 20151203110225
User:Micojack 20150202181431 67 20150711050118 19 20150510202550 20150711050127
User:Mike1901 20060111154610 6579 20160327211327 71 20130729123046 20160114223737
User:Mikeo34 20110104180944 596 20160307013244 1 20121212163552 20160303180039
User:Mikesmith01 20130521064949 30 20160204135210 1 20160104070613 20160104070613
User:Mintsmike 20090508212310 218 20151225021235 18 20150626112821 20150721105541
User:Mippzon 20090121093531 23 20160123223359 5 20160123223114 20160220223030
User:MirandaKeurr 20140309151833 1251 20160327213414 3 20150808023127 20150808023640
User:Missionedit 20121110154817 11692 20160326010811 1049 20130317214943 20160303191247
User:Mobsdarkby 20140703175413 22 20140708102159 31 20140708100309 20150813011713
User:Mokshjuneja 20060622114343 1238 20160207072321 266 20160109082025 20160207072321
User:Molly tharrington 20140807130858 141 20160309165936 1 20150616180503 20150616180503
User:Montanabw 20060331160108 84028 20160328021100 17 20150901053910 20150918061601
User:Mr RD 20130423180537 3329 20160327203649 1129 20131221142640 20160327194957
User:Mr. Guye 20120520173701 12531 20160324190357 57 20140520220935 20160319034047
User:Mr. Smart LION 20131222161058 4259 20160327125354 46 20150329045158 20150601161638
User:Mr.Luther34 20151213103406 213 20151223130540 56 20151218173947 20151223124503
User:MrMarmite 20060609142113 7449 20160322232932 14 20130503173740 20151220002123
User:MrMoonshine 20070706101844 163 20160214000923 2 20150910114537 20150910114538
User:MrScorch6200 20130723211051 8805 20150808011810 12 20130819052516 20150728005834
User:MrX 20100420234735 63532 20160328024216 108 20121018175614 20160327124021
User:Mrhoontar 20141011212807 25 20160318173335 4 20160310185229 20160310190402
User:Mscuthbert 20051003202641 7686 20160327223826 12 20120924041511 20160319151345
User:MuZemike 20080531175239 70082 20160326054524 39 20120930232814 20160206230251
User:MurderByDeadcopy 20150129100428 1210 20160216195924 28 20160121181329 20160204224034
User:Murmeldjuret 20150226145857 220 20160205092037 1 20150517145358 20150517145358
User:Murph9000 20150620090425 1511 20160303215107 40 20160116145221 20160123130018
User:Musa Raza 20150512005824 6096 20160328030258 927 20150515100636 20160201220515
User:Musalepc 20110813112741 64 20160301174819 4 20160301174540 20160301174818
User:Musamies 20070731015751 5454 20160326040421 1227 20121022094855 20160325125104
User:Music1201 20160319040654 821 20160328030936 104 20160325075421 20160327065634
User:MusikAnimal 20110706025228 96502 20160328013628 3 20130326034311 20160121033928
User:Mwenzangu 20150116101223 304 20151223153337 47 20150116103247 20151223153336
User:Mww113 20080402015329 2288 20151030003406 71 20150921060239 20150924023628
User:My name is not dave 20130526095920 12389 20160327075913 1 20130531123500 20150828075624
User:Mydreamsparrow 20121116080832 4169 20160324102959 8 20121224063715 20150627220015
User:Myxomatosis57 20120225100450 24664 20160327200241 120 20130407110928 20160122173314
User:Mz7 20100314144551 29318 20160318231759 55 20120916210432 20160220204400
User:Müdigkeit 20100215223504 1825 20160326114746 211 20120919165959 20160326114743
User:NC4PK 20130106220329 484 20160301223733 18 20140215135311 20151215004211
User:NFLisAwesome 20120630222007 10290 20160324183328 1 20130806170224 20150917181629
User:NHCLS 20130107233907 1905 20160306043823 196 20140222004410 20151124022741
User:Nannadeem 20130907112009 2158 20160324153026 4 20150524155148 20150802145934
User:Nathan2055 20110629232112 8355 20160316022003 15 20121125183235 20160120183708
User:National Names 2000 20140719230332 1829 20151002010402 186 20150402135916 20150424072119
User:Naturenet 20040923132120 4059 20160326155049 5 20150901110202 20150901130235
User:Naypta 20150626193522 1458 20150902120332 136 20150701125321 20150726094206
User:Nbfreeh 20150606101049 13 20160219055358 1 20160326074441 20160326074441
User:Ncmvocalist 20061025160826 26663 20160326034058 1 20141221171225 20150405194832
User:NearEMPTiness 20100628222416 6030 20160327212008 169 20140713133807 20160327153301
User:NeedAGoodUsername 20130118152458 285 20160226182643 526 20160109014211 20160226182642
User:NeemNarduni2 20160104002549 10003 20160215151622 1 20160111125738 20160111125738
User:Nepaxt 20150824020330 743 20160326181650 12 20151012224106 20160110183507
User:NetworkOP 20141226163948 414 20150619155909 7 20150102221428 20150619123654
User:New Media Theorist 20150820002454 1512 20150928170929 3 20150910051724 20150910052428
User:NewMutants 20150919174442 223 20151002145825 1 20150929122513 20150929122513
User:NewYorkActuary 20150818093315 1748 20160327190407 2 20160131010649 20160131010649
User:Newrunner769 20150325215046 385 20160218192639 276 20150407210738 20160218192639
User:NextGenSam619 20140701085744 2697 20160327172928 11 20150522010853 20150808174404
User:Nicky mathew 20140812150732 3504 20160327161810 923 20150120124349 20160327161810
User:Nidayue 20150624114310 54 20160121155504 63 20160121144031 20160121160002
User:Nielsonharris 20150222165922 319 20150613192153 57 20150417180855 20150613191923
User:Ninjastrikers 20110313072026 1196 20160327041539 1 20150915082049 20150915082049
User:Ninney 20110806102543 16148 20160321091715 1282 20140107095631 20160121001338
User:Niteshift36 20071107050451 32713 20160328002447 30 20160215215142 20160223064017
User:Nizolan 20130903151619 2480 20160328031237 1 20160215144622 20160215144622
User:Nobelhesty 20140901154019 16 20140903202902 13 20140901153835 20150727152917
User:Noian 20071215195107 8256 20150725044139 8 20130506203607 20150607060127
User:Nolelover 20081030190933 14884 20160322162023 1 20120926145141 20150412230831
User:Nomader 20060302023347 5048 20160324201135 1 20150720184203 20150720184203
User:Non-dropframe 20080317032409 21482 20160320221335 37 20150507213006 20151013124028
User:Norden1990 20060801115833 20845 20160328014831 2 20151112211148 20151112211152
User:North of Eden 20150725034319 592 20150822025348 50 20150731160411 20150817040041
User:NorthBySouthBaranof 20130509181451 16760 20160326091142 39 20130513220317 20160118010821
User:Northamerica1000 20110608122252 384714 20160327155119 53 20120919095033 20151229111041
User:NotAnOmbudsman 20150603200047 2288 20150721182616 6 20150704024938 20150704031259
User:Notecardforfree 20070112080053 5811 20160328000544 3 20151019012027 20160128170706
User:NottNott 20130605232425 10778 20160327135116 7 20151002205432 20151002210009
User:Novusuna 20110319220346 3156 20160227094043 7 20130826005633 20150902203217
User:Noyster 20130724154620 15296 20160327125248 51 20150825132645 20160327103120
User:Nrwairport 20150611052041 772 20150819025344 396 20150816044145 20150817012129
User:Nsteffel 20130219230329 7734 20160322154836 263 20150428145535 20160114213212
User:Nz101 20100827095903 1434 20150923044659 106 20140507024055 20150919051617
User:OGfromtheGut 20160123053232 37 20160304020203 6 20160130135010 20160210230841
User:ONUnicorn 20060329205924 10152 20160317140808 673 20150114161810 20160212205153
User:OakleighPark 20110428234315 1364 20160322044748 5 20130928081411 20150803094748
User:OccultZone 20130823035736 221751 20150531234723 1675 20140216063114 20150531235653
User:Oceangreenn 20120708015720 128 20151017231613 155 20140727164005 20151120035125
User:Ochib 20080608205816 766 20160327125708 1 20151227150416 20151227150416
User:Officialjjones 20151022232341 727 20160309010157 1418 20151104001224 20151219014728
User:Oiyarbepsy 20140716035829 17332 20160327022113 1189 20140721005419 20160306024235
User:Okamialvis 20151101114533 289 20160315144610 158 20151122141412 20160315144134
User:Olowe2011 20111021141337 1570 20160220015413 60 20121012203503 20150927175021
User:Oluwa2Chainz 20150512095324 10556 20160327230747 1406 20150613111115 20160312135647
User:Omni Flames 20160217061937 1992 20160327233613 43 20160229055355 20160314023222
User:Onel5969 20091106035109 89248 20160328001148 835 20150410230152 20160228133905
User:OrangeYoshi99 20131019221724 64 20160225161022 9 20160207201823 20160207231307
User:Orduin 20141016231258 5286 20150925220803 45 20141212003025 20150924235022
User:Orenburg1 20090803181130 24534 20160327170951 13 20160104104916 20160104193824
User:Ormr2014 20140525191032 1467 20151030130435 316 20140804220215 20150517154539
User:Osarius 20080221134039 8920 20160327163719 8 20131206164937 20150930145321
User:Oscarthecat 20051018142608 18987 20160211210421 121 20121009221317 20151115224643
User:Oshwah 20070105085140 85623 20160328002418 1 20141123000218 20150816105930
User:Osplace 20080807023109 16192 20160325143748 6 20150831005957 20150831010139
User:Owais Khursheed 20140522203916 12225 20160326044543 10 20141030130652 20151019140121
User:Padenton 20120309015915 5214 20151129044207 2 20150311233111 20150429001746
User:Pahazzard 20100129205634 4360 20160202213711 296 20131221165747 20151227164416
User:Paine Ellsworth 20090227191748 93903 20160325070943 25 20151023000328 20151211034606
User:Paisarepa 20140530012409 451 20160228172406 19 20160201022045 20160202014443
User:Pakistani User 20150322235437 150 20150329200810 52 20150327231512 20150329162843
User:PamD 20060609223741 106919 20160327191550 14 20120910191448 20151119172118
User:Pancho507 20150127003856 830 20160318155616 48 20160127205512 20160129151909
User:Paramountair 20150715163410 96 20160125115553 4 20151005145224 20151005151343
User:Parrotz1461 20090908010206 315 20160304032329 22 20151104035518 20151104060516
User:Paulbrock 20070423135043 5695 20160303014750 1 20150423101515 20150423101515
User:PawanAhuja 20150515053654 236 20150609190951 107 20150608184229 20150609183939
User:PeRshGo 20060606015628 2185 20160317160914 1 20150825045306 20150825045306
User:Pepper 20090301230317 23703 20160326215525 14 20120918103801 20160205053154
User:Peppy Paneer 20150721143348 3309 20160210162925 36 20150731065500 20150811071830
User:Pesco 20050729142544 2626 20160327145500 6 20160210012003 20160213185722
User:Peter SamFan 20160204161937 1804 20160328021707 16 20160302194617 20160309162635
User:Peter nio 20150224165153 44 20150423065943 2 20150226160744 20150422202051
User:Petronas 20060710151517 656 20160312192858 15 20160205183432 20160221123325
User:PhantomTech 20130125210708 7020 20150704195317 1 20130127034203 20150412021826
User:Pharaoh of the Wizards 20061003081033 73754 20160326102712 14 20130205103523 20151214223612
User:Philip J Fry 20120517233625 24894 20160328004613 3 20150827092157 20150827093314
User:Phill24th 20140216121847 1203 20150929114544 15 20140224080220 20150403165913
User:Phoebe 20030813010219 15659 20160326023950 4 20120911055710 20150903020645
User:Physikerwelt 20130610140820 159 20160322130025 2 20160222130632 20160222130632
User:Pichpich 20080114235146 55144 20160328013226 336 20120926182751 20160328013732
User:Piels 20050922044650 136 20160311204812 2 20160311204811 20160311204811
User:PigeonOfTheNight 20151231044408 840 20160325031542 8 20160219175936 20160219204059
User:Pilarbini 20150808133336 209 20160313073219 1 20160106145605 20160106145605
User:Pinguinn 20151217002359 103 20160309021545 18 20160205200645 20160226052531
User:Pipetricker 20150815125556 382 20160327004153 23 20150828124726 20160320225706
User:Piterkeo 20100614213414 226 20160325033123 13 20150919015628 20150920131540
User:Pixarh 20150108200049 949 20160204163019 300 20151010142007 20160125162513
User:Pjposullivan 20100308182308 13686 20160326015003 5 20121123220835 20151224223750
User:Player072 20120106220834 123 20160323220907 44 20160125052059 20160320220636
User:Pleiotrop3 20050308220100 3650 20151230090432 107 20150603044408 20151109010017
User:PointyOintment 20060529025344 615 20160326034701 7 20150609004343 20150609010339
User:Pokechu22 20130325212620 1262 20160307050018 23 20150718192216 20150807011115
User:Pokéfan95 20150830091356 652 20160328020927 227 20150831014027 20151216025816
User:Poltair 20070315195802 2025 20160322225208 8 20150619110513 20150619155812
User:Porterjoh 20060705214459 2811 20151129145126 3 20120924133105 20151129145231
User:PotatoNinja 20140718202852 3062 20160221132736 11 20150719141102 20150721142238
User:Poti Berik 20130524111504 857 20160322200759 12 20150322143109 20151001055822
User:Prad Nelluru 20150111211501 270 20160324000940 72 20151111072211 20151202115014
User:Prestonmag 20070512200457 5814 20160325133915 105 20120929204751 20160307221456
User:Prhartcom 20061117063309 14369 20160328003103 7 20130602054639 20160301042725
User:PrimeHunter 20051103234652 40367 20160327230009 1 20150410205513 20150410205513
User:Prisencolin 20140222040948 22678 20160328014739 13 20140628013937 20160203024728
User:Productable Khan 20150904163131 208 20160229144007 5 20151216074538 20151216080001
User:Prof tpms 20071124152725 6474 20160328001910 558 20160213101026 20160321152626
User:Profesjonalizm 20120615061242 1065 20160321194232 17 20121111180408 20160120015544
User:ProgrammingGeek 20151020054936 226 20160327224551 1 20160222231006 20160222231006
User:Proscribe 20101223113735 14109 20160327181235 2 20150414072447 20150414073410
User:Psemmler 20120816212044 2268 20160327201247 43 20140630132608 20160326151003
User:PsychoticSpartan123 20121123071847 1233 20160312184700 6 20150622224421 20150622225002
User:PureRED 20070411230234 2594 20160229190806 151 20150515130220 20150526145749
User:Pyrros 20150428115354 23 20160327232523 2 20160120170938 20160120170939
User:Qasaur 20111107161203 274 20160131002720 57 20140512074610 20150613204118
User:QatarStarsLeague 20121022222149 3668 20160214195337 30 20130507182529 20150629054408
User:Quadraxis 20050619012538 618 20160130024913 2 20151222231434 20151222232017
User:QueenCake 20080715171912 12724 20160327215652 54 20150922203930 20151021205309
User:Quimuck 20150719122457 12 20150723185018 1 20150724223648 20150724223648
User:Quoth-22 20030820015448 3144 20160327091837 2 20151006231325 20151006231737
User:Qwertyus 20050220192405 31582 20160309031404 214 20130510113849 20160226121540
User:Qzd 20151127203402 7949 20160219230507 34 20151205014442 20160129173625
User:RA0808 20100129055522 43975 20160327202520 9 20150905201615 20150923161813
User:RL0919 20050710214002 25576 20160327145128 1 20160124233316 20160124233316
User:Racer Omega 20130919165957 3308 20151217020513 11 20150118152243 20150914212907
User:Rahuloof 20091027144437 2067 20150620163631 30 20150428103920 20150620160220
User:Rahusk 20160225144442 44 20160326122542 6 20160319113521 20160319113637
User:Rajeshbieee 20100925103454 19226 20160321084925 26 20151115111222 20151117054516
User:Ramanquah 20140901191609 47 20151219233025 56 20151217202443 20151219233024
User:Rambunctious Racoon 20150710121554 466 20160317222214 129 20150722111608 20151211191234
User:Rampage470 20140711210413 191 20160322161135 120 20160303164539 20160322152230
User:Randykitty 20121108115415 61962 20160327202427 3 20121205122537 20151206095052
User:Rarkenin 20120224143402 603 20160125125621 26 20121118201219 20160125125621
User:Rasel lio 20150228155021 469 20150729042917 114 20150314181842 20150729042612
User:Rasimmons 20160204224209 517 20160324212232 261 20160212054217 20160323220724
User:Ravendrop 20090330213925 6553 20160313040232 3 20121009045206 20160313053433
User:Rayukk 20100716170859 2680 20160313095952 131 20151104113651 20160202112004
User:RayvnEQ 20080901093904 838 20150513204209 15 20150512191846 20150512225328
User:RbAxM33320 20150802235525 120 20150820001614 9 20150813054408 20150813060543
User:Rberchie 20130302132709 9089 20160326125530 4024 20150318161126 20151017192114
User:RedSaint1983 20150821055524 41 20150825123337 6 20150825122847 20150825123336
User:Redalert2fan 20120811164854 4741 20160326143007 2 20120924141725 20150703132846
User:RegistryKey 20140923182851 3804 20160123040645 24 20140930033603 20151113123055
User:Relentlessly 20150203212100 4498 20160324165024 2 20150403174554 20150403174556
User:Renzoy16 20080628084007 15406 20160312152819 5 20130121194743 20151129181250
User:Rhumidian 20150304213443 2772 20160328001156 929 20150526190521 20150811180349
User:Rich Farmbrough 20040502203416 1044669 20160327220630 1 20121027200512 20150813005910
User:Richard Reinhardt 20120408081659 950 20160309092658 24 20150310183531 20150521125533
User:Richard-of-Earth 20080130202340 5356 20160327062756 2 20130417072349 20150526064046
User:RickinBaltimore 20060523193325 23494 20160325195546 1 20150610125312 20150610125312
User:Ricky81682 20041029052232 149665 20160327232911 1 20160322000206 20160322000206
User:Rider ranger47 20140815012549 1806 20160301185732 34 20150124142141 20150519115959
User:Rigsofrods 20150831170540 159 20151114130105 1 20151008195124 20151008195124
User:Rijinatwiki 20110617092754 5496 20160325164335 4 20130811062429 20151223051007
User:Riskyishwar 20110218050113 424 20160220181919 1 20160220181916 20160220181916
User:Rjlabs 20061005052447 1496 20160130210739 2 20151023201542 20151023201543
User:RobertsBiology 20150612155940 654 20160215201422 129 20150630185552 20151207002722
User:Roborule 20131013202348 1056 20151126134913 58 20131017213330 20151126132652
User:Robvanvee 20120224171325 9177 20160327213652 1008 20150528154246 20151030224929
User:Roches 20110512055140 1743 20160323003036 262 20150422061857 20150821135718
User:Rocksanddirt 20070614183953 5910 20160217211053 2 20151230232408 20151230232408
User:RohithKumarPatali 20131028100014 186 20160310144013 33 20151126134656 20151127190653
User:Rojasyesid 20100126042503 47 20160106221724 8 20151201031929 20151205163354
User:Rollingcontributor 20151006184235 789 20160327154649 275 20160206175901 20160326163152
User:Roomsthinker 20151123013817 24 20151210050103 6 20151209151057 20151210050108
User:Roscelese 20051114202513 30353 20160325165922 1 20140221151803 20160211050402
User:Roshan014 20150206140551 1280 20150527153316 669 20150410172209 20150517182150 blocked sock
User:RotubirtnoC 20150421183216 196 20160316012901 64 20160209170052 20160219193840
User:RoyalFool 20040913040432 298 20160107182112 3 20130515014256 20151216231401
User:Rswallis10 20140326205638 4833 20160328010335 595 20150722201708 20150725203232
User:Rubbish computer 20141105220439 55019 20160327200804 4 20150714163841 20150714171402
User:Ryanyusnu56 20150501124239 28 20150929035410 2 20150929035501 20150929035512
User:Ryn78 20070118085412 1145 20160324103610 1 20130304204452 20160327235531
User:Rystheguy 20070413052024 6470 20160320102747 8 20130717144236 20160131142655
User:SA 13 Bro 20141119075636 2226 20160325200040 2 20151223102648 20151223102649
User:SD0001 20140604152233 2654 20150406075900 1 20150215100442 20150330070957
User:SJJM4EVER 20090616225215 2289 20160323213518 43 20150919175322 20160220144332
User:SKG1110 20151120173603 67 20160201202133 6 20160110095352 20160110100645
User:SL93 20090427223349 32532 20160205014701 4 20130211013357 20150501225018
User:SSTflyer 20150618130229 58143 20160328015336 12 20150628094736 20150808171025
User:SStephens13 20150125235850 1043 20160322233551 38 20150210191404 20150618205331
User:SYSS Mouse 20040610172739 4978 20160216034456 9 20130527023103 20150825154854
User:Sachinvenga 20100703074504 5922 20150915125259 22 20150902112418 20150904053632
User:Sadads 20051112210125 97317 20160327044221 42 20121014163848 20160308030911
User:Safehaven86 20111005174821 16017 20160327152631 1 20150707200849 20150707200849
User:Sahehco 20100103164304 1317 20160223185508 15 20151225134235 20151226155725
User:Salimfadhley 20040520233723 4228 20160214175816 166 20121121222413 20151212044348
User:Salvidrim! 20100730021534 18987 20160328000340 12 20130109052738 20151014185136
User:Sam Sailor 20130625173536 48056 20160326005422 22 20130713081307 20151227122633
User:Samtar 20080725111854 10932 20160317200742 411 20150809220213 20151125185703
User:Sander.v.Ginkel 20120107143836 56821 20160327164033 13 20130529160023 20150821143217
User:Sandgem Addict 20090227024152 3427 20160327041304 24 20160204022730 20160326120645
User:Sandvich18 20150809190753 163 20160326190245 17 20160312184413 20160326194934
User:Sanskari 20140605170501 7826 20160320165356 4 20141022135639 20150817141312
User:SantiLak 20140202022208 7901 20160327233312 5 20140829033140 20150805040756
User:Sanya7901 20140319174729 462 20160228203902 1 20150518161150 20150518161150
User:Sarahj2107 20061121001124 15154 20160325225347 27 20121104223415 20160112153604
User:Sarr Cat 20141109183224 4303 20160327191653 4 20151020021209 20160318030114
User:Satabdirayi 20151212144928 606 20160216151209 85 20151214143849 20160216150522
User:Savonneux 20090508035036 1700 20160323180656 82 20150827114006 20160113160034
User:Savourisblue 20151225134531 66 20160309075628 4 20160103112615 20160103112630
User:Scarce2 20120124112905 953 20150715055728 47 20150204104759 20150420101635
User:Schetm 20090119145424 5155 20160319053053 853 20150304051702 20160319053011
User:Scope creep 20050722220532 11054 20160222173358 157 20130610184048 20151029212729
User:Scribbleink 20100311075301 865 20150906162406 14 20150407053959 20150415164332
User:Seacactus 13 20120630012930 10924 20160328011132 7 20140202160123 20160309015112
User:Seahorseruler 20090927025653 4954 20160320020732 6 20150505214105 20150913074840
User:Sebbe 20040716005042 1588 20160321212043 63 20130304145012 20160102161637
User:Sehry Riene Blocked sock 20160206080918 10 20160206081037 1 20160206081151 20160206081151
User:Selinamoore 20150413170410 115 20151129160439 18 20151120153523 20151129160304
User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao 20060104205810 1588504 20160328025640 1 20150908092717 20150908092717
User:Serialjoepsycho 20091031035637 5090 20160325162318 8 20150619225724 20150620063207
User:Seth Whales 20070708184224 13336 20160328011117 90 20150929214049 20160121122756
User:Shaminda Attygalle 20150915053209 22 20150915053209 5 20151116083918 20151116084347
User:Shanata 20070212105849 1205 20160105174729 31 20150206213110 20160105174138
User:SherwinDPrakas 20151128185953 42 20151220125815 2 20151129072341 20151129072344
User:Shibbolethink 20140818164553 2467 20160325204454 16 20150320060449 20150418201110
User:Shivamsetu 20130402174313 4324 20160301104119 4 20130726103517 20160112161806
User:Shootingstar111 20160306222128 173 20160327222845 5 20160326001612 20160326002305
User:Shoy 20060706145601 10085 20160325140922 75 20150812162002 20151218185202
User:Shrikanthv 20100709145907 3836 20160310134920 6 20141121070939 20150615082928
User:Shuvokhan123 20150309051036 368 20160304190706 16 20150408175016 20150409180003
User:Simeon Dahl 20120127134933 1886 20160328031352 3 20121022185312 20160219111536
User:SireWonton 20151018013549 215 20160315184727 33 20151110032507 20151110234454
User:Skamecrazy123 20091213192737 12011 20160217212621 13 20121210143118 20150825070900
User:Skyllfully 20150827165607 2853 20160325023822 76 20151106011049 20151107171043
User:Slashme 20050923094501 18185 20160324175829 388 20121104132523 20151205231219
User:Smd75jr 20091213221912 102 20160125160042 2 20120911163010 20150612020459
User:SmileBlueJay97 20121202074023 6058 20150826150809 8 20130811093254 20150811145031
User:Smileverse 20110814192932 576 20150727191633 91 20150612100044 20150722094251
User:Smokey2022 20140605185324 245 20160122145858 6 20140620143458 20150406133136
User:Sn1per 20110930010123 1637 20160325024909 4 20150620214736 20150620214925
User:Snowswrenx null 10 null 9 20150515171303 20150515171647
User:Snowycats 20140503203838 591 20160123151502 141 20141129135437 20160123134643
User:Soccer-holic 20080523215321 28036 20151019083243 102 20140113211405 20151015100504
User:Solomon7968 20110817165504 12108 20160327113456 4 20130724182729 20151008113901
User:Sonic N800 20141030170512 438 20160327213348 1 20150430025714 20150430025714
User:SouthernNights 20050414203826 14012 20160321003259 122 20151220220845 20160117020137
User:SparrowHK 20140604083700 731 20150501031839 14 20141212143549 20150501024059
User:Spartaz 20060624150614 33391 20160327231401 11 20120908093246 20160206144607
User:Spencer.mccormick 20121115002925 764 20150415014547 7 20121121201057 20150415015021
User:Spirit Ethanol 20151124163221 3124 20160327224533 27 20160128125646 20160128175210
User:Spirit of Eagle 20120527010447 10896 20160327045956 559 20140227035535 20160219063655
User:Spliff Joint Blunt 20151011125544 722 20151106224720 19 20151030215328 20151031213726
User:Squiddaddy 20141006224849 1135 20160328024013 1 20151105234831 20151105234831
User:Srijankedia 20140224203153 104 20160203165540 3 20150616181309 20150616185339
User:St170e 20131227175256 4068 20160103172401 2 20140925221552 20150811142514
User:St8fan 20060911002145 661 20160301010615 21 20150901014957 20150903071741
User:StarryGrandma 20120125214557 5445 20160328024340 1 20120926201444 20150401000123
User:Stephenb 20050609123312 54205 20160324220353 1 20150918205600 20150918205600
User:Steve Lux, Jr. 20120613223013 1519 20160325223134 17 20140804174243 20151216133559
User:Stewwie 20120823190554 1228 20160227235356 2 20150802194630 20160202234647
User:Subtlemammoth 20150228020241 415 20160322120338 14 20150915200200 20150915201458
User:Sulfurboy 20111122034014 17117 20151118205018 3883 20130523094823 20150731200230
User:Suman420 20150207070534 562 20160116201423 60 20150618083007 20150619211349
User:Supdiop 20150302024713 7749 20151206003809 429 20150414075843 20151110093815
User:Supdiop 2 20150504020706 151 20151113233658 27 20150509163446 20151101065235
User:SuperHamster 20070903224346 30174 20160326191712 31 20131227021416 20160224231723
User:Supercarwaar 20120516181239 799 20160327094333 12 20151215191610 20151217153029
User:Supercunnin 20151122192307 284 20151210195738 148 20151127155426 20151211180730
User:Supergabbyshoe 20090614093809 19414 20160327162546 2 20160317084731 20160317084739
User:Susana Hodge 20150924131519 128 20160301090759 7 20160119074029 20160119081020
User:Swirlspawn 20150312112308 17 20150322194657 15 20150322193540 20151002135535
User:SwisterTwister 20080720111348 99723 20160328014122 61420 20150611052332 20160327231533
User:Swordman97 20110828195409 279 20160319070214 35 20121009223017 20151110202105
User:Swpb 20060804183102 33511 20160325202918 951 20140829181732 20160325165822
User:SymmetricalMegalomania 20130522172749 267 20160307212352 2 20150620015239 20150620015658
User:T.seppelt 20120825173551 713 20160325114834 3 20160218144001 20160218144542
User:TFunk 20060609222518 5180 20160328025359 1 20150516030435 20150516030435
User:TJH2018 20160211042409 2036 20160328015110 21 20160306224338 20160311160311
User:TTTommy111 20141214172452 310 20151014222708 1 20150813054129 20150813054129
User:TYelliot 20100918140405 12624 20160229143134 534 20120909175556 20150505090249
User:Tachs 20050912113543 56603 20160327145722 11 20141203181610 20150609160226
User:TallCorgi 20150117185220 2178 20160317013317 16 20150629200130 20150706032418
User:Tar-Elessar 20140801023929 53 20160117062412 1 20160117060712 20160117060712
User:Tarheel95 20080112212736 6564 20151024172251 1 20120907210434 20150714015120
User:Tashi 20150422131335 686 20160325114845 1 20150918164636 20150918164636
User:Tastelessoreo 20140514051252 103 20150827013607 4 20140612232526 20150427215327
User:Tatafornowalligator 20140425232014 66 20150508231207 20 20140514001813 20150507222100
User:Teb728 20050619091226 33899 20160328031025 2 20160307123341 20160328004042
User:Teblick 20131223201100 14988 20160328025853 10 20140718204533 20150703193246
User:TejLuchmun 20140924094957 15 20150512145511 4 20150512145507 20150512145608
User:Teknad 20140715134124 51 20160327171720 1 20150912223923 20150912223923
User:TeriEmbrey 20130307212917 15231 20160325212351 13 20140710142656 20150717173740
User:TerraCodes 20150727162652 1037 20160327234351 33 20151219234052 20160325033717
User:Thalassaxeno 20151217235918 699 20160211052452 546 20151225191116 20151231062848
User:ThatKongregateGuy 20150529013429 304 20150714193457 43 20150602202647 20150619123938
User:The Amazing Spiderman 20150615152714 233 20151007144449 3 20151003161249 20151003161659
User:The Avengers 20150918104637 2704 20160317085747 14 20151216100525 20151217161702
User:The Average Wikipedian 20140911144324 2972 20160327154457 1 20150314144421 20150418153935
User:The Fab Five 20150802172514 194 20150813201441 89 20150808001323 20150808015547
User:The Pancake of Heaven! 20150813153926 930 20160327124713 13 20160320104858 20160324133832
User:The Pastafarian Church 20150707163933 288 20151020123247 14 20150709021629 20150809074016
User:The Raincloud Kid 20150629204841 678 20160325220950 10 20160109164559 20160213150729
User:The Voidwalker 20160204232657 1201 20160328010205 30 20160212215541 20160316224054
User:TheBlueCanoe 20121007140147 1307 20160326191759 3 20121024013855 20151128231821
User:TheCoffeeAddict 20141025002948 1856 20160327120952 6 20141112081046 20151225090304
User:TheEpTic 20131115002937 2694 20160228022645 2 20131214175150 20160228001209
User:TheGalacticMan 20130727162452 75 20150527214926 12 20130801034650 20150509190724
User:TheInformativePanda 20140209050746 611 20160216043936 758 20151126081445 20151210235604
User:TheJack15 20150823163152 268 20151230171002 78 20150902011312 20151225085536
User:TheLongTone 20090922192738 29639 20160326153636 1743 20120925084345 20160321155531
User:TheMagikCow 20140722131654 3384 20160325204405 38 20140729114642 20150826104044
User:TheMesquito 20091021122837 5049 20160309190551 2 20140426072415 20150622050801
User:Thebetterindian 20131015214623 17 20150529025242 11 20150529024230 20150529025306
User:Theoden sA 20101101191658 64 20160327224832 1 20160307134258 20160307134258
User:Thereppy 20140612190445 326 20160324180323 18 20151124011306 20151204043136
User:Thesixthstaff 20131228162642 426 20151221162705 22 20141018201526 20150805174623
User:Thine Antique Pen 20110921162618 63213 20160116142015 4 20120925163613 20151129000333
User:Thompson.matthew 20090810094708 3816 20160301141032 9 20120916154224 20160122191933
User:Thparkth 20040506193449 5119 20160327224510 4 20151114083726 20151114084005
User:Thursby16 20150616220612 828 20160327221315 53 20160322230136 20160327221313
User:Tiggerjay 20070529060927 12641 20160324031639 3 20160105230958 20160105231033
User:Tigraan 20130627162543 675 20160327103432 25 20141217140829 20150416092250
User:Tigress223 20150717221258 2898 20160327054407 273 20150906013656 20160327054407
User:Timtrent 20060329214957 67395 20160321224535 2 20130203100455 20150415122334
User:Tinss 20100126205228 1042 20160323135131 12 20150430061336 20150430065715
User:Titusfox 20130201200441 2672 20160320152831 1 20140225205656 20151205114122
User:Toirdhealbach 20080421222257 134 20151106104518 68 20151105092304 20151106104518
User:Tom Morris 20060211141417 64816 20160325131408 60 20120917171347 20150914073852
User:Tom29739 20150711213024 830 20160327160131 43 20160101165147 20160110192542
User:Tomandjerry211 (alt) 20150514192656 2059 20160322214346 1 20150915104443 20150915104443
User:ToonLucas22 20141208204326 10574 20160325151701 3 20150307174456 20151123155859
User:Topbookclub 20091014012344 1207 20160127045429 7 20160114060521 20160114072724
User:Tortle 20150818231035 3214 20151016224855 4 20150823093648 20150823094227
User:TravelKing40 20150803214023 120 20160101174624 70 20150908212106 20150914182518
User:Trim02 20150316144327 595 20151107212112 27 20150507181149 20150919191457
User:Tris1313 20140506075957 363 20151030072640 40 20141101040348 20151029101338
User:TritonsRising 20150131040858 872 20160316200902 45 20150904234754 20151007023425
User:Trivialist 20070919214734 85438 20160328010005 1161 20120926001655 20160323222223
User:Trout71 20150411015013 633 20150601185008 21 20150516182750 20150524162337
User:Trurle 20081214061457 4627 20160325061232 6 20151222085441 20151222090427
User:Tulsi Bhagat 20141001022928 274 20160325085640 12 20151017092656 20151018092404
User:Tutelary 20131027235400 16218 20160302042619 7 20140331191955 20151012003106
User:TutterMouse 20080330134800 20892 20160327065858 2 20130820190706 20150409092410
User:TvojaStara 20130125212057 339 20160315210608 14 20150128191716 20160207085916
User:Tyrannosaurhex 20150209143628 70 20150805132423 53 20150426195616 20150430070928
User:UY Scuti 20140204084618 27466 20160325194613 342 20150330170322 20160308200251
User:UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ 20150708193250 334 20160310232343 1 20150728011454 20150728011454
User:Uamaol 20140811231235 935 20160327151616 2 20150705000932 20150705000933
User:Uanfala 20091204080333 2449 20160328002750 1 20160212001123 20160212001123
User:Ubiquity 20020924203702 17367 20160327215016 2819 20140814191200 20160325162428
User:Ueutyi 20140311215011 4456 20160328005146 2026 20151201044323 20160309051652
User:Ugion 20160110121410 687 20160324201644 30 20160114183757 20160312085014
User:UkPaolo 20050516212941 12485 20160316073204 133 20151115105248 20160208195007
User:Umais Bin Sajjad 20110615102209 14867 20160325142712 16 20140112071932 20150905180053
User:Underscorre 20141231181930 394 20160124231940 11 20150331110649 20150402164932
User:Unit388 20150203065646 434 20151015022408 18 20150207054415 20151013225526
User:Upasana98 20150505122948 13 20150529031632 1 20150529031800 20150529031800
User:Upjav 20140506143135 1202 20160215043117 46 20140623175746 20151123152604
User:VQuakr 20071027011351 29742 20160327191736 92 20120907030804 20160327191448
User:Vadgt 20120804070739 456 20160321234928 32 20150222232028 20150616214118
User:Vague 20080619030715 1127 20160217231913 9 20160217032143 20160217033551
User:Valentine Westing 20151027183716 150 20151201185514 4 20151110151353 20151110152111
User:Valereee 20060804102942 5169 20160324175338 4 20140405185825 20150719142827
User:Valoem 20060305042434 9520 20160327213001 3 20150430003953 20150430004204
User:Vanamonde93 20121219133104 19764 20160328021632 109 20140506005958 20160325022515
User:Vanjagenije 20061011210915 57725 20160327230714 691 20130723020401 20160319234455
User:Vansockslayer 20150815113630 1418 20160112130121 113 20150820040146 20150905112631
User:Variation 25.2 20150722194412 607 20160314041141 85 20150726193425 20160129093122
User:Varnent 20061203172632 30250 20160326211010 72 20160323200052 20160324071105
User:Velfrixcon 20150226145800 98 20151031173741 13 20151031072845 20151031173727
User:Verbal.noun 20150126122330 863 20160326181654 4 20150203155619 20151018190948
User:Veritas77777 20120117121214 845 20150912191733 139 20140627084247 20150831132141
User:Vgenapl 20150413045603 1632 20150514103238 1018 20150427094637 20150514101529
User:Vibrantmatter 20130226134558 137 20160320074908 1 20150712150002 20150712150002
User:Viewmont Viking 20120605210737 4289 20160327034119 10 20141124015450 20150710003100
User:Vince Vatter 20050415171535 398 20160311212945 3 20151128221941 20151128222032
User:ViperSnake151 20050826014935 47117 20160328015849 3 20150324154355 20151111230557
User:Virophage 20141126102702 80 20160325024754 9 20150119091629 20151021010330
User:Vishal0soni 20100125075256 2967 20160326012133 5 20150804064722 20150804065412
User:Vozul 20140112013552 329 20150604212639 10 20150520061825 20150530081834
User:Vítor 20140929092601 876 20160315182614 2 20151025042801 20151231233506
User:WMartin74 20120822105450 2859 20160323163857 1283 20140130132121 20160323163857
User:WadeSimMiser 20050116003928 31030 20160328015035 1 20130905222525 20150623202030
User:Waggers 20060203140541 39004 20160322085317 74 20140808145137 20160211134027
User:Walter Görlitz 20041022022704 138301 20160328003421 7 20140206025930 20160222151846
User:WannaBeEditor 20151223145704 1042 20160311170357 135 20160101093110 20160301031435
User:Wanyna 20151126155541 36 20160318153812 11 20160106023734 20160313093858
User:War wizard90 20060902000041 9954 20160226003720 19 20141205033610 20150711033727
User:Warpozio 20040823093009 16408 20160320095444 1 20150824185638 20150824185638
User:Warrickball 20060921101314 453 20160301210936 3 20120926064831 20150607110853
User:WayfaringWanderer 20151107234352 1103 20151211002754 1 20151120045400 20151120045400
User:Waynejayes 20120606101518 8163 20160327165203 16 20140701081814 20150912053328
User:WelshWonderWoman 20150105133241 203 20160311163526 2 20150926000356 20150926000357
User:WereSpielChequers 20070409125951 137834 20160327230408 3 20120910214634 20160320145729
User:Westroopnerd 20150815222501 671 20151004021936 251 20150816024339 20150821021649
User:Wgolf 20110119042944 100867 20160320234346 20572 20140125010239 20160320234420
User:Whalestate 20150212192157 5224 20160108014934 107 20150415073443 20150727163729
User:White Arabian mare 20150814214109 2203 20151111005556 1 20151004211309 20151004211309
User:Wiae 20070208141951 60508 20160323204123 10 20150307153417 20151205055207
User:Widefox 20060610211504 47466 20160327160818 1 20130423230603 20151102011702
User:Widr 20110215180856 200520 20160327231552 27 20121229235706 20160101042833
User:Wieno 20070213051046 674 20150605011025 31 20140203015332 20150604202058
User:Wiki Guide 20151219044904 434 20160103100310 61 20151220151318 20160102154053
User:WikiBulova 20150225161653 2114 20151220012924 181 20151130155213 20151214020656
User:WikiDan61 20080618154236 71214 20160326220754 4 20121031184940 20150915133426
User:WikiEditCrunch 20150625222313 604 20160211124411 530 20151113193636 20151116143230
User:WikiOriginal-9 20140312231957 72223 20160328012718 1027 20140316000045 20160312001247
User:WikiWisePowder 20140225184116 462 20160318203629 43 20160126225635 20160305230735
User:Wikicology 20140603160522 8639 20160328000231 342 20140620233834 20160103084205
User:Wikimpan 20130606195848 134 20160317062032 3 20151216230036 20151218005648
User:Wikipediaismadebypeoplelikeus 20150511164151 48 20150814174343 13 20150814164921 20150814174401
User:Wikiuser13 20130417161605 5309 20160308124857 7 20131003093821 20160304171239
User:Will2022 20150409195446 272 20160307185036 34 20150928161223 20160203204734
User:William2001 20131212215727 1546 20160304064752 67 20141108225048 20160128211344
User:WilliamThweatt 20050914204235 9516 20160327201027 2 20151128100528 20151128124746
User:Winner 42 20100305235828 26088 20160320001529 1559 20141023122927 20160112234315
User:Winterysteppe 20151027132529 3159 20160328021456 1 20160321201314 20160321201314
User:Wisdom89 20040907194039 31938 20160327212110 4 20151014212234 20151015144649
User:Wittylama 20051012012815 8979 20160323101909 52 20120926045201 20151216115853
User:Wizardlis54 20160228190900 54 20160321021651 3 20160318192942 20160318193052
User:Wombnodes1 20140928204412 20 20160202223951 5 20141129151152 20160202223952
User:Woohookitty 20041229220543 609250 20160324160251 124 20140903101105 20151112125827
User:WordSeventeen 20140614041339 7194 20151211053415 178 20141113232612 20151118231228
User:Wt is this 20080218154137 1670 20160226075056 9 20151130071624 20151130073857
User:Wugapodes 20150320062636 1844 20160328024431 81 20150617153048 20150628012211
User:XXN 20120722064504 5732 20160327232537 1 20140217203111 20160316225255
User:Xanthomelanoussprog 20130716092305 5692 20160327083559 848 20151104092811 20160128221305
User:Xaosflux 20051015140323 32181 20160328030851 1 20140816153308 20160102151817
User:Xender Lourdes 20151202152042 2600 20160323002800 2 20151208160458 20151210145053
User:Xenomm 20130829230724 356 20151019234449 3 20130907011828 20151019230900
User:Xezbeth 20040724140516 162429 20160327191817 3 20120926165408 20150808101449
User:Xmp 20050103023424 247 20160222193442 5 20160222193121 20160222193442
User:Xpctr8 20140629044532 475 20151115192846 3 20140705202547 20150625035919
User:Xt1080 20151104135800 15 20151104153117 2 20151104153116 20151104153117
User:Xupin 20120410011620 24 20151110135749 3 20151110135747 20151110135842
User:Xwejnusgozo 20110924133436 13111 20160327173854 27 20150819110523 20160228225910
User:Xx236 20051107141421 18997 20160325105814 36 20151013121205 20160325070104
User:Yaqooder 20151116145235 14 20151116233816 90 20151116145434 20151125160117
User:Yinon 20040726121329 60 20151101150208 2 20151101150207 20151101150208
User:Ymblanter 20110517183205 73618 20160327194259 47 20121006155831 20151218231611
User:Yny501 20130711054126 273 20160302033310 17 20150830070012 20150906134320
User:Yoshi24517 20131208233344 1317 20160316185900 2 20150120222634 20160316052917
User:Ypnypn 20101121011155 4632 20151217143923 2 20121122183822 20151013203804
User:Zacchaeusbarbour 20141101153805 29 20151115165930 3 20151111201843 20151111202052
User:Zakhx150 20070528131633 1300 20151214144544 22 20140425160533 20150901100717
User:Zamaster4536 20150823112513 558 20160326125247 9 20160218111045 20160218122144
User:Zarghun11 20130209090621 637 20160309084829 39 20150515183131 20151129145916
User:Zeke Essiestudy 20150401112419 3225 20160319103215 254 20150404015731 20160220064936
User:Zhaofeng Li 20120130025354 4819 20160326114044 2 20120907141706 20151216125603
User:Ziad 20120823095801 72 20160115200550 3 20150525204037 20150525204142
User:Ziyan Khan 20160225130946 45 20160326120823 31 20160308105602 20160321061713
User:Zjschulman 20130901010337 19 20160111170706 2 20150707172930 20150707172931
User:Zpeopleheart 20150923043809 3121 20151221123257 422 20150930030011 20151119122212
User:Zppix 20140926190735 2921 20160324185519 113 20151110150628 20160315204802
User:Zyc1174 20151118033018 462 20160305141016 32 20151211114347 20151219123600
User:Zziccardi 20130117183236 6469 20160323015716 1 20150204024039 20150917023822
User:ȸ 20130817213707 746 20150712225533 3 20131109055440 20150712225847
User:Σ 20090621012646 46150 20160320014641 301 20120907071509 20160122040843
User:ԱշոտՏՆՂ 20141102073934 1011 20160324111529 113 20150526183411 20151002130857
User:آرش 20110708221939 389 20150909103321 2 20150806155029 20150806155030
User:बिप्लब आनन्द 20140420072601 789 20160327101659 18 20151012012821 20160224090838
User:♥Golf 20140317164429 23072 20160322141517 1 20160101094534 20160101094534
User:風中的刀劍 (old) 20141211024307 1226 20160222092046 1 20151205145737 20151205145737

Summary

[edit]

This means in effect that:

  • 1165 patrollers in sample period
  • 8.4% [1] (that's nearly 10%!)(98) indeff blocked. Several of these were directly related to Orangemoody (which of course is ongoing).
  • 39.3% (458) joined Wikipedia during the sample period
  • 11.3% (132) had less than 100 edits
  • 28.4% (331) had less than 500 edits
  • 9.87% (115) had 501 to 1000 edits
  • 36.2% (422) had more than 5,000 edits
  • 48% (558) made only 1 - 10 patrols
  • 12% (139) made only 1 patrol. 70.5% of these are accounts over 2 years old, many of them very old (including several admins), suggesting that these are established users just looking in to test the system.
  • Not many admins among the 'regular' patrollers:
Kudpung 674
DGG 460
Graeme Bartlett 92
Ymblanter 47
Randykitty 3
-DGG and Kudpung of course are the two users mostly concerned with monitoring and investigating the performance of the NPP system
Summary of technical changes
Technical Permission Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached.
  • 1 Remove the (patrol) permission from the Autoconfirmed group, the Confirmed group, and the Pending changes reviewers group.
  • 2 Create a new user group Patrollers (localization name: "New Page Reviewers")
  • 3 Give the new New Page Reviewers group the (patrol) permission
  • 4 Give administrators the ability to add or remove membership for users to the New Page Reviewers group
Script and Tool Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached.
  • 5 Adjust Twinkle to make some options only available for New Page Reviewers
  • 6 Some missing features of Twinkle which were forgotten by the developers will be added to the Page Curation tool, along with some new ones.
  • 7 Add some features from the "Articles for creation helper script" to the "Page Curation tool" that would be useful to New Page reviewers.
  • 8 Expand the number of filters in the New Pages Feed to enable Reviewers to be more selective in their patrolling
Marvellous Spider-Man, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:Twinkle has been notified of this discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Very slight support I'll have to support this. Inexperienced/otherwise incompetent NPPrs are, indeed, part of the problem. However, I am a bit hesitant. One of the conflicts I ran into with my previous, now-long-abandoned accounts was that I started out as an incredibly incompetent NPPr. I've learned from my mistakes. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Thanks to the folks who prepared this RfC for the comprehensive background information and relevant API queries. I find myself concerned that over a third of the patrollers during the sample period had less than 100 edits. Of course, editors with this minimal level of experience will make some correct decisions during patrols, but I know I would have made a lot of errors because it takes more engagement than that to understand how policies and guidelines work in practice. In the interest of promoting better quality patrolling and also reducing discouragement from newer editors seeking to contribute, I think this proposal is a step in the right direction. I JethroBT drop me a line 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, I'm going to patrol some of that crazy backlog; anyone else want to help? I JethroBT drop me a line 07:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I spent nearly 40 hours on NPP last week, but that was only a drop in the ocean. I'm very slow at it - practicing what I preach, I probably spend too much time on each new page, and also get distracted a lot by following suspicious leads to socks and COI. Which I suppose is what NPPers should be doing and why they need very sharp perception. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support the proposed changes. My sole hesitation is regarding the proposed Twinkle changes. In particular AfD and PROD-tagging have a significantly wider usage than New Pages only, though some of the CSD criteria beyond U1 also come up fairly frequently outside NPP, especially among vandal-fighters. On the other hand, so long as the templates themselves will remain available for use, people with the necessary experience to know of their existence and use ought to be able to find and use them, and deletion-tagging by users who don't understand where and how to find and use them quite probably is exactly the kind of tagging we need less of.
    (I would, however, oppose a proposal to make deletion-templates wholly unavailable for non-NPPers, as there are too many good and somewhat frequent reasons someone normally not involved in patrolling may need to CSD-tag, PROD or XfD-list a page). And yes, Jethro, I was just thinking the same.AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid points about Twinkle (esp. AfD and PROD-tagging), and noted. Thanks. Yes, It would need some fine tuning later if consensus is reached in principle for the user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Yes, exact fine-tuning can wait until it's clear whether consensus for the user right exists. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict) Support However, I too think that the Twinkle changes would be over the top. If you made it so only users with the new patroller right could see and click on the [Mark this page as patrolled] button in the bottom right corner of a un-patrolled page that would be enough. Then even if a user not in the user group tagged a page with a CSD, PROD or AFD template (using twinkle or otherwise) it would still come up at Special:NewPages highlighted yellow and would remain so until a patroller (a user in the new group) patrolled it. Twinkle would still be useful for many CSD criteria and starting XfD discussions. If only patrollers could start a XfD discussion — WP:AFD for example — we would probably end up with a lot of complaining and it would increase bureaucracy. Let's say a user without the patroller right found a page from five years ago that clearly failed WP:GNG it would be a lot easier if they could start a AFD discussion using twinkle than if they had to find a patroller to do it for them. The main idea behind this proposal is sound. Often new users see NPP as a easy way to increase edit counts or boost some of their stats. Once an article gets "through" NPP it may only get seen a few times a year by editors. We need to get the first "stage" right so only a very small amount of bad new content works its way on to Wikipedia. I think that the Twinkle issue should be discussed in a separate RFC if this RFC passes and you should explicitly state in the introduction text that that is the case. In summary, I support the general idea of a patroller user group but think more discussion is needed about the specifics, which has been stated by the proposers of this RFC. Thanks to Kudpung and Marvellous Spider-Man for initiating this RFC and their comprehensive evidence. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for consistency with the other user rights listed: to be ready to check the work of others you need to have done significant primary editing yourself, to know the ropes and learn from mistakes: Noyster (talk), 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support with the exception of the changes to Twinkle, per above. NPP is often the only pair of eyes new articles get so mistakes (whether letting through spam or being too bitey) are very costly. It shouldn't be left to hat-collecting newbies, and hopefully this will also bring more experienced editors' attention to the flood of SPA- and COI-written spam that is threatening to turn Wikipedia into LinkedIn. It would also be good if the user right could be applied to AfC, which essentially serves the same function. Joe Roe (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Making NPP a user right helps ensure patrollers have the communication and interpersonal skills required for the role. The ability to distinguish users who are not here to improve Wikipedia from genuine editors and acting accordingly is also essential. If I recall correctly, the Orangemoody sockfarm was patrolling its own new pages. This measure will help curb this type of abuse. MER-C 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I oppose the changes to Twinkle. MER-C 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. A WP:PERM-style gatekeeping function at NPP is a good idea, as it will help ensure that newcomers have their articles reviewed by experienced, qualified editors. /wiae /tlk 12:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Of the four posts on my talk page I recall ever receiving from patrollers, three were made by inexperienced users who didn't seem to know what they were doing. In two of these cases, the patrollers had placed blatantly inappropriate speedy deletion notices, and if I were a new contributor then I imagine that would likely have discouraged me from further participation. Now, my experience is hopefully not representative but NPP does seem to attract a fair share of newbies, who act overconfidently and do long-term damage to the project. Uanfala (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support; it's currently far too easy for people to abuse NPP. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support NPP is really Wikipedia's only quality control. If an article gets through NPP without being put in appropriate maintinance groups, and often even then, it is likely no editor will ever see it again. A user permission will allow us to know that a reviewer has sufficient clue and experience to identify and manage poor or sub-standard content while avoiding major prat-falls.

    I often see new users who think NPP is 'a good place to start' and then proceed not only without a firm grasp of our content PAGs but sometimes with their own "special" ideas of what is good content. Preventing this can only benefit the project. JbhTalk 14:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • As a point of interest as of now the NPP Tool is reporting, via the filter function, that all 13019 pages in the queue are from new users which means none of them, save the ones made by socks and paid editors, were created by editors familiar with our content guidelines. JbhTalk 15:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ay, Jbhunley, I'm glad you mentioned that; I think it's gotta be a bug. For instance, I personally have 19 pages in that queue--I'm certainly not an old hand, but I am at least extended confirmed, so I strongly suspect the filter's marking everyone as new right now. I'll mention it at Page Curation talk; if anyone else has a better place to direct this query, please do. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support WP:CIR for NPP, and new users doing this quite often aren't. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support As per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Noobs are fine (and essential), but the task of greenlighting or red-flagging new starts on notability grounds is not something that newcomers should be doing. It takes time to learn these ropes. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Proposers make what in my opinion is a compelling case that this would be beneficial because it would 1) reduce the # of editors doing NPPs incorrectly and for this reason would also 2) draw more users to it because they would not have to worry as much about newbies messing things up. Another big reason I'm here is because this is (as proposers also noted) more important than AFC, yet there are no requirements to be able to do this like there are for AFC. Everymorning (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support; my approach is based on pragmatism. Although I do share some of Monty845's concerns stated below, I can comfortably state such an approach would offer some benefits in the long run. We've had a relatively safe system at AfC since we implemented the minimum requirements a while back. It's not a fail-safe system, of course, but it does reduce the number of editor abuses we've all come to know, while allowing a stricter control of current acknowledged editors. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, including restricting Twinkle and hopefully Page Curation. People call Wikipedia an unreliable source, and we have not done anything significant as of yet to remedy our poor reputation. It is a peculiar matter on Wikipedia that we allow people with as few as four days of editing and ten edits to control what articles enter the most-used reference work in the world. Many poor articles and utter garbage have passed through our new page review system, to the embarrassment of Wikipedia, just because of poor-quality patrolling. We strive to be a serious reference work, but that does mean that, even in the spirit of openness, we allow almost every registered user to patrol articles. This must be done ASAP to salvage whatever openness people have to changing their minds regarding Wikipedia's reputation. And to address the issue of restricting Twinkle, editors with fewer than 500 mainspace edits and 90 days should be doing content or simple maintenance work. Esquivalience (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Absolutely! Way too often that I see newbies marking unsourced BLPs as patrolled with no more than a "refimprove" tag, do not tag blatant spam, or place inappropriate CSD tags. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support the page review, oppose the twinkle restrictions. As I admit myself I tried page curation as a new editor and screwed up a lot. It is a very good tool, but as with all things this tool should perhaps be kept to only those who know how to use it, and will not abuse it. Iazyges (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support the overall concept, although as with many others I'm a little leery of modifying the Twinkle tool access. I think simply making a restriction on who can mark pages patrolled is adequate; if Twinkle is being misused (poor CSD tagging, for example), I think that falls outside the purview of new page patrolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PGWG (talkcontribs)
  22. Support, BUT don't modify Twinkle. You can still paste in the templates without Twinkle without tool access, so no technical ability is stopped rather everything just becomes more of a chore to apply for tool access. Otherwise, I can get behind this. -NottNott|talk 17:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, strongly, yes. Firstly I want to thank the large number of New Page Patrollers who are doing a sound job, as I really don't want to discredit any of the hard and essential work they are doing, but poor NPP by newbies who really don't know what they're doing can be disproportionately harmful - bad patrolling can be very discouraging in a manner directly contrary to Wikipedia's attempts to attract and retain new editors (If I had a penny for every CSD A1 or A3 nomination I've seen slapped on within seconds of creation and then never another edit from the article creator... in fact, I recently saw one that had A1, A3 and G11 all slapped on within seconds, and all wrong.) I also want to thank those who have worked for years to try to improve NPP (especially my old friend Kudpung) and have stuck at that thankless task despite a number of setbacks. The main opposition (all bar one of the six !votes so far, if I understand them all correctly) seems to be concerned with proposed modifications to Twinkle. I'm personally somewhat ambivalent about that, as I tend to think that the same knowledge and experience proposed for the new NPP right should be pretty much what people should need in order to use Twinkle anyway. But if the Twinkle changes should present a difficult hurdle in getting this proposal accepted, how about putting them off for a future RFC - if this one is approved, we'll hold another one to decide what, if any, restrictions should be placed on Twinkle? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. (edit conflict) Support along the lines of NottNott's comment; that is, such drastic changes should not be made to the Twinkle interface. Doing so would make listing articles at AfD a real pain; as someone who manually listed some before installing Twinkle, I can vouch for the fact that the process takes about ten minutes, which, compared with the one or two minutes using Twinkle takes, is alot of wasted time. Unless the requirements for Twinkle are going to change altogether (e.g., raising the level needed for installing Twinkle from autoconfirmed to 30/500), portions of the tool should not be restricted to certain user groups. That being said, this proposal does accurately describe the major shortcomings of NPP; while new users are discouraged from patrolling, many do so anyway, with the expected adverse effects of poor content getting through or articles being incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion. As such, the idea of a required approval/minimum experience level is welcomed. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support as one of the people who was at the heart of the ACTRIAL situation I have long known this to be a huge problem. The number of users who plainly have no business attending to these new pages is staggeringly high, and creates immense amounts of extra work for those of us who actually know what the hell we're doing. AfC has limits for people wanting to use the AfC helper script, so there's no reason why NPP should be any different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - and I've got no problem with the Twinkle changes either. I'm a bit bewildered at the large number of remarks that are variations of "I never want to file an AfD manually again." Really? So how's this for a fix? Apply for the flipping right. If you're too lazy to take the thirty seconds it'd take, and too impatient to handle the day it might take for approval, then you probably aren't a good fit for the requirements of deletion policy. Ravenswing 21:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The proposed changes to Twinkle are a net negative ("Don't break what's not broken"). The rest of the proposal (the first part) is a good idea. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now. That's just parroting a shibboleth for the sake of parroting a shibboleth, especially given those who think that unrestricted access to quick and easy tools to delete in the hands of inexperienced editors or sockpuppets IS broken. Ravenswing 01:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    <sarcasm>And here I thought that it was the admins that checked and verified every CSD tag that was applied. If I knew that I could delete things with Twinkle I would have been far more careful! </sarcasm> Shockingly, anyone can still apply the tags manually. Nobody is stopping a troll from quickly applying hundreds of {{db}} tags before they are caught. --Majora (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite true. Certainly, of course, we ought not be falling into the trap of failing to enact procedural changes just because means of vandalism the proposals might not explicitly thwart exist. Ravenswing 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - this is a good one. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. General support, but I would like to see some discussion if this right has to be requested or can be automatically conferred based on time/edits. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support The proposal makes sense and Blade of the Northern Lights' position is one I can easily concur with. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support for the sake of progress. A bar for admission was a good idea at AfC and it's a good idea for NPP. The Twinkle changes need to be re-thought, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Makes sense. Personally not overly concerned with the twinkle changes, but if that is a major sticking point then they can be easily tweaked. I do not think they should impede what is otherwise a well thought out proposal. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strongly Support. I ran an unscientific test in April 2015 to see how four short new articles on valid subjects by a new user would be received. They all got nominated for deletion right away. See User:Bymatth2/New article test and the very long resulting discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 121#Discouraging biting the newbies. I am less concerned about whether a given new page gets rejected by an incompetent reviewer than whether a potentially productive contributor gives up when some idiot rejects their page. Given the damage that abuse can cause, NPP should be a privilege that must be earned and can be revoked. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, BUT without the proposed changes to Twinkle deletion functions. Frankly, the inclusion of this point makes little sense. All deletion processes have a safety check (administrator, AfD discussion) to minimize mistakes. Building an artificial hurdle, that contradicts the "manual" handling outside of Twinkle, is not necessary and counterproductive. GermanJoe (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support There seems to be a default 'Delete' mentality when a new article is being built. Not all article writers are comfortable with perfecting the entire work in their Sandbox and then uploading it, preferring instead to release it in stages. In particular, this affects the person who writes their first article, unsure of whether it will upload or how it will look. The 'Delete' mentality is particularly harmful to such newbies. See Patricia Farr which I wrote and was immediately tagged for deletion, and was later crafted into a decent article as more editors found good reliably sourced info from sources that were not available online to me. Akld guy (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I do however believe that it's not entirely necessary. Any user could just use a speedy delete template, so maybe an edit filter will have to come in to play. Music1201 talk 03:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Music1201: This proposal would put further restrictions on patrolling pages. The act of marking a page patrolled is intended to indicate that it meets our most critical polices and act as a checkpoint for new content (further explanation can be found at WP:NPP). Therefore, something is being taken away from users, as those who haven't been granted the new right would no longer have the ability to patrol a page. A page cannot be patrolled with a template. The main focus of this proposal is not to slow down or limit the ability of users to make deletion nominations, rather it is a side effect due to a portion of it, which I would argue (and do below) doesn't belong in this proposal.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support , as a first step. This cannot be expected to completely solve the problem of screening incoming articles, but it's a necessary first strep in developing a rational way of doing this. The key requirement is that it be done by experienced people. The preliminary to recruiting more experienced people is getting the beginners and the unskilled out of the process. Bas work at this stage requires an immense amount of followup, at every quality control and editing process; as our follow up will never be complete;, it leaves a good deal of junk in WP. Much worse, if the very first step is not done correctly, m=new editors will be discouraged--and once discouraged, they are never likely to return. Since the survival of Wikipedia requires a continuing acquisition of new editors, failure in this will gradually lead to our stagnation and obsolescence. I don't think we should concentrate now at whether this should be done by modify Twinkle, except that whatever we do, Twinkle must be compatible with it--it is designed to adjust to whatever review policy is, and can be adjust that way. Twinkle is not intended to set policy, but reflect it. I hope that whatever we do will eliminate some of the many loophole being used, sometimes in bad faith, to bypass the present review system. I think the proposal should not have specified twinkle--it's a red herring, and should be amended--we may want to use it--we may not. It's not the key factor. The key factor is adopting high and enforceable requirements for NPP, and only that . DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Reluctant support As this is probably necessary to stop the poor patrolling at NPP these days. I never particularly thought that making a new user right for patrolling pages was a good idea, but I think it's better than continuing to allow the "bad" patrollers to continue with what they do there. Omni Flames (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, with conditions. Twinkle doesn't need to be touched. I think this should be similar to the extended autoconfirmed right where users automatically get it after x amount of edits and y amount of days, some possibilities could be 1000/90 or 1000/60. 1000 edits along with 2 or 3 months would make it so more experienced users are patrolling. I started patrolling before I reached those milestones, and I'll admit to having made some mistakes (I'm not saying everyone makes them, just my own personal experiences) early on. Having a barrier would hopefully mitigate the errors made. I am 100% against the restriction of CSD, A/XFD and PROD tagging. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Conditional support. Without the Twinkle part I'm fine with it. --Pgallert (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support (with the expectation that Twinkle will be left alone): Some minimum cut off appears sane, and the jump in unreviewed pages is indicative of a serious problem. I'm not at all convinced, however, that this is the right first step to manage the flow, or that by adding friction to the process, particularly if the right has to be applied for rather than being granted automatically at some point, you're going to get higher total quality participation rather than lower (which is why the friction should be on page creations). On the other hand, you could lose all casual NPP-ers and it wouldn't make that much difference because the distribution is very much geometric:
    • For the entire complement of patrollers, the top ten had more than everyone else combined, and the first (with 61420 patrols total [PT]) had more than the next nine combined (49724 PT). The second and third combined (25864 PT) had more than the fourth to tenth combined. Of the top ten patrollers, four had patrol/edits of > 0.4, and 9 had patrol/edits of > 0.15. Two of those started patrolling within 2 months of their first edit.
    • The #1 patroller started during the period. Of the other 715 members (70185 PT; 77 with more than 200 patrols [>200]) who started patrolling during the period, 425 had more than 500 edits (62079 PT; 71 >200), 339 had more than 1000 edits (52663 PT; 55 >200), and 200 had more than 3000 edits (40185 PT; 40 >200)
    ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak support There is a problem with biteyness and driving off new editors, but perhaps until AfC and NPP are integrated or some other blue sky thinking proposal is adopted- as you point out , there are major differences in a new editor's experience depending on whether they publish their article in Draft (first contact AfC reviewers) or straight onto the mainspace (first contact NPP patroller)- but until that happens, or there's a major reversal in the Foundation's stance towards ACTRIAL, I think that this proposal might work- but I strongly disagree with any restrictions to Twinkle, especially restricting deletion tools. I'd much rather leave Twinkle as it is- from my experiences over zealous Twinkle tagging from inexperienced editors is actually quite quickly discovered and they are talked to at the appropriate venues; and restricting Twinkle to try and stop that would stop the useful editors that nominate articles for deletion using Twinkle. I understand that this RfC is definitely not about Twinkle, but I think it does play a significant part in whether this proposal is adopted or not. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Conditional support - I agree that experienced users should be the ones patrolling new pages. However, I vehemently disagree with rolling Twinkle CSD/PROD/XfD access in with this right/group. Admins have to review any CSD, expired PROD, and XfD discussion, so there is your safeguard. There is a header at WP:Twinkle which explicitly states that all editors "take full responsibility for any edits [they] perform using Twinkle." Penalties for misuse and abuse include the threat of being blocked – blocking happens to be among the penalties for all users who abuse the encyclopedia. I have never tried to create an AFD manually because the process is too damn complicated, and I don't understand why I should have to apply for the right to patrol new pages in order to nominate old articles for deletion. If, however, the Twinkle changes will not be removed from this RfC, you can count this as a vehemently oppose. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I missed the hidden section where it was stated that any modifications to Twinkle would take place in a separate RFC. I will readdress my concerns there if/when it occurs. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support the basic concept of restricting the "patrolled" checkbox to users who demonstrate a certain threshold of competence. That said, I have qualms about almost everything else about this proposal. I have never used Twinkle, so I have no opinion about that, but the fact that so many people who do use it are having conniptions tells me this proposal was poorly-thought out. Moreover, many parts of the proposal are vague and abstract, with a "we'll figure it out later" vibe. This RFC seems to be aiming for a consensus on the basic idea, which I support, but it might have been a better idea to come forth with a more through plan to alleviate confusion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support the idea that NPPrs should have some minimum qualifications. Obviously admins could confer or rescind the right to do that. Withhold support for any particular implementation. Withhold support for any particular set of qualifications, but would support automatic right for EC users.Constant314 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support NPP is one of our most important functions, and yet we currently allow anyone to do it, without any qualifications, without any training, without any supervision. My only hesitation would be to ask if enough people will apply for the new user right and actually do new page patrolling? If not, the backlog could go from bad to overwhelming. Still, I think incompetent patrolling is worse than no patrolling at all, so I support this proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Do I understand that the Twinkle proposal would make it impossible to tag articles for CSD or PROD, or nominate them for deletion, unless the tagger has the New Page Patroller right? Or that it would still be possible, but only manually (without using Twinkle)? In either case I oppose that change. We come across articles all the time, outside of the NPP process, that should be deleted. People need to be able to do that without having a special permission. (I assume that admins like me would automatically be granted the right, but I am speaking for the thousands of competent regular editors, who may not want to bother applying for a new user right just so they can nominate articles for deletion.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your question, Twinkle does not allow a user to do anything they couldn't do manually. Manual CSD is easy, prod is pretty easy, AfD is a bit of a pain, and something newer users may screw up, but is totally possible as well if you can follow the directions. Monty845 19:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done all of the above manually, but it is a pain in the you-know-what. Forcing everyone who doesn't apply for this new user right to go back to manual tagging - that is pretty much a non-starter in my view. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. support Jianhui67 TC 18:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strongly support the first part (Tech. changes 1–4); oppose the second part (Tech. changes 5–8). The first part of this – requiring a minimum level of competence/time-on-the-project for NPP is of vital importance. I do this acknowledging some of Opabinia regalis' points; but even if she's correct with her #4, so what? – bad NPP'ers are still maiming this process, and even if experienced editors don't rush to fill the void of kicking the no0bs to the curb, this proposal is still worth doing... However, I join nearly everyone else in opposing the Twinkle part of the proposal – that part needs to be dropped from the proposal/RfA, posthaste, and either reformulated as a later separate, add-on proposal, or just dropped in its entirety. Frankly, converting Twinkle access to something like AWB access (i.e. requiring permission to use them) would be a better idea than what is proposed here... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak Support– I think the Foundation severely overestimated any chilling effect ACTRIAL would have had on new editor retention, and I don't think their research supported their estimation. Obviously, page creation is where the main problem lies, not page patrol, but at the very least this proposal will prevent sockfarms from patrolling their own articles. I'm not convinced of the rationale in its entirely, per OR below, but I think this is a positive step to take. Even I can see that there's consensus here to leave Twinkle alone so I won't include that as a condition to my support. Are extendedconfirmed users automatically granted the patrol right? I think applying for it is a bit much. If this proposal fails, can we transclude the entire text (or at least the scary templates and lead paragraph) of WP:NPP to the top of Special:NewPages? I think most newbie patrollers, for all their incompetence, are acting in good faith, and might not be seeing those warnings. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I only have AfC experience, not NPP experience, but I've seen what happens when an inexperienced reviewer gets in a dialogue with a new author (at one point, I was even that inexperienced reviewer). Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak support: I like the idea of a 90/500 requirement, but I don't think that Twinkle should be restricted only to people with the userright. I think the userright could come with a new button or allowing the "mark as patrolled" link turn up. In concept, I sometimes wonder if a small bundled toolset could be automatic at 90/500 or 90/1000, of which this could be part. Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Very weak support: I like this idea in general of having a requirement, but users should be automatically added into this userright if they reach this boundary, instead of making people applying to them. I do not support restrictions on Twinkle if users are not automatically added, however. Ueutyi (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support for creating a Patroller user right restricting the ability to mark an article as patrolled. This is a hard need to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. The reservations many of the opposers have regarding bundling CSD are heard, and seem reasonable. I recommend striking that portion of the proposal as a related, but less critical, issue. VQuakr (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Some articles never get far past NPP, be it through authors being scared off by biters, or pages being deleted for various reasons. Yes there are tons of legitimate things that don't belong on Wikipedia that NPP finds, but newer editors looking to contribute to the project may not necessarily understand AGF and the like yet, so this is why we need this check. As to the Twinkle bits, I will wait for that RFC. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 05:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, along with desire for Twinkle to be able to UNpatrol pages, and seeing some overlap (grandfathering?) with Autopatrolled. Generally supportive of Kudpung's longstanding efforts to improve NPP. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I have been occassionally patrolling pages recently, and the its been really sad to see a number of potentially good articles and contributors get bitten by folks who don't understand the growth of articles, and their potentiality. This is not a place to be drawing inexperienced editors in, and is as Orangemoody demonstrates, actually could have very detrimental effects on the community. I am against restricting how Twinkle is used for deletion tagging, however -- it makes the processes much, much, much more reasonable for folks who don't want to dive into template gobbly gook, Sadads (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support due to both the BITE potential and the potential to let slip in content that should not be here, NPP requires a certain level of experience/competence.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support understanding that there will be further discussion of specifics. - Reidgreg (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - This sounds like a very reasonable proposal indeed. There needs to be a balance between removing inappropriate new content on Wikipedia and biting any honest newbies. Note: I have never used Twinkle (or really much of any other automated editing programs beyond ones that specifically help with reference formatting), so I can't comment on the potential impacts to those kind of tools by this proposal. Guy1890 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support This proposal is an improvement over where we currently stand. I'm sure it can be improved further but we need to start somewhere. I don't assume this will help NPP backlog problems. I'd rather have a bunch of pages marked as unpatrolled than have a few pages incorrectly marked as patrolled. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support changing vote to oppose as I no longer believe this is the right means of creating a revocable user right, though I still support that aspect Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) as to the establishment of revocable user right; neutral on Twinkle as I have zero experience with it. On the user right, the fact is I don't quite share the perception that new users are wreaking so much havoc (I understand how they could, I just haven't witnessed it particularly), but I have seen users at a variety of levels of experience recurrently conducting patrols in an unconstructive way, and I think it'd be very helpful to have an simple manner of putting a stop to that. That there were 40 people removed from AfC this year but none could be removed from NPP seems like something to be rectified. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support with the exception perhaps of any immediate changes to Twinkle - there appear to be some valid explanations why this might possibly not be such a good suggestions; indeed, as DGG states: I think the proposal should not have specified twinkle--it's a red herring, and should be amended--we may want to use it--we may not. It's not the key factor. The key factor is adopting high and enforceable requirements for NPP, and only that. The opposition appears (at least on first sight) to come possibly from users who would easily get the right if they asked for it or who are admins or even highly influential members of Arbcom, who are possibly not fully aware of the full extent that uncontrolled patrolling is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia on the one hand, and discouraging good-faith new editors on the other. WP:AfC which, as those who have taken trouble to read the RfC preamble, demands at least 90/500 plus demonstrable experience and the performance of the reviewers is heavily monitored by their peers. I fail to see why NPP should require any less competence and/or would not need to be controlled. .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To this point, I'll add I was actually surprised to learn via the preamble that NPP didn't already require 90/500; the instructions refer to 90/500 and make the comparison to AfC, and have for more than a year without drawing any controversy I could locate (if someone knows otherwise please correct me). Doesn't seem especially radical (and by contrast, rather helpful) to formalize that benchmark. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Numerous articles I've created have been patrolled by completely inexperienced editors who shouldn't be involved in NPP without a certain level of understanding re. policies; potential for problematic patrolling. Cloudchased (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support as per above at least this will stop misuse of NPP. I also want to add that newly created pages become patrolled automatically when we add any tag using Page Curation so it will be great if we can fix that as well. GSS (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Qualified support I generally think it would be a good idea to have some basic requirements for editors doing new page patrol. However, I worry that these requirements will be too strict. I also absolutely oppose limiting the functionality of Twinke. It has many uses outside NPP. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - this is an obvious control mechanism that has been sorely missing from the project, and is present on most other similarly important tools whose proper use requires relatively experienced users. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support We can't keep letting incompetent editors to let incorrect material pass by. It defeats the whole purpose of having a New Pages Patrol in the first place! FiendYT 03:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. I understand the concerns around the proposed Twinkle restrictions, and perhaps that should be a separate discussion. But there is a strong case for NPP being a user right and I support that proposal. WaggersTALK 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support This makes a lot of sense to me. NPP requires knowledge of a lot of different WP policies and is an important feature that protects the project from a wide variety of inappropriate pages. I've come a cross a few approved pages that should have been tagged or marked for deletion. Most reviewers do a great job so this only would affect a relatively minor subset of users, so I don't anticipate this hurting the backlog, which anyways is a less important concern than protecting from other issues inherent in new articles. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support w/ comment (agree with editors #12, 23, + 36 above) - This is one solution to a problem that is difficult to control. I don't know if it's the best possible one, but it seems viable and I've never come across something better. My only concern is that it might actually allow more inappropriate pages to be created, since fewer editors will be able to do anything about them. I wholeheartedly agree with the underlying idea, though: making sure thinking editors dedicated to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia are the ones performing edits, at every step of the process. Perhaps there could be some sort of mentorship program for new editors wishing to get this right, but with little experience? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, but I have a comment to make. Rather than making people request this right like they have to request Autopatrolled or whatever, could it automatically be given to all editors with say, 5,000 edits or more? Surely somebody with that many contribs would be reliable enough to use it. That would also hopefully keep the backlog from getting too huge. White Arabian Filly Neigh 01:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The existing rights system supports that, just like how extended-confirmed is set up (automatically on 500/30; may be revoked by admins, may be granted by admins) - so it could be by application and by automatic criteria (need to be defined in terms of #of edits and/or length of account) if there were support for such a setting. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. I've seen some crazy-ass new-page patrolling. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per Esquivalience. Yintan  22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support although most NPP are very hardworking and do a great job there are a few who seem to be on a power–trip and like to bully new editors for example bombtagging, inappropriate csd and replacing prods that have been removed by the creators, removing cited content and even removing all references ( including reliable sources) before asking for deletion. I think this proposal will hopefully reduce those sort of antics. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Inexperienced editors that harass experienced editors is the main Wikipedia problem. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support — I am somewhat inexperienced in policy matters and don't look at many new pages, despite how Wiki-old (if that's a word) I am. I'm astonished new editors are allowed to serve as gatekeepers for new pages. That makes no sense. Skeptical of the Twinkle restrictions idea, but I only just started using Twinkle (!), so I don't have much to say on that. — Eru·tuon 06:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support — I've done a bit of this and it can be hard work. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support — per the above. (I do not support removing any Twinkle functionality as that tool is used in a broader context than just NPP.) Etamni | ✉   13:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support This addresses a gaping hole that too many problematic patrollers have found or fallen into. Meters (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support New Page Patrol requires skill, familiarity with Wikipedia policy, and good judgement. New page patrolling requires enough self awareness to skip pages outside the patrollers competency. At a minimum, New Page Patrolling should be a right granted only after a certain level of experience on Wikipedia is reached. (I just tried new page patrolling for the first time, over the past week. I read over two hundred new pages, but felt comfortable in marking only a few dozen; a handful with speedy tags, a dozen with clean-up tags...) — Neonorange (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A good point about knowing-when-to-be-silent. It is also an area where enhancing the Page Curation tool could assist, for example allowing the reader who declines to Patrol (as for example I do for articles I see are about Baseball or Idol Band people) to allocate the article to a pull-down of WikiProjects, thus structuring the backlog data to allow a second person with area knowledge to complete the Patrol. AllyD (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support sloppy deletion tagging is a huge problem and loses us a lot of newbies. Re the lapsing of the userright, 24 months rather than 12 would bring it into line with adminship ϢereSpielChequers 18:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support with conditions 1) Don't touch Twinkle (for reasons already stated by many); 2) Must be automatic at a reasonable threshold (90/500). re my #2, the last thing we want to do is have people apply for this right (unless they don't yet meet the threshold) as this would unnecessarily restrict the pool of folks doing the work. If someone can't do NPP after 90/500, something is wrong. But certainly, an admin should be able to grant the right to anyone before they reach the threshold, given their presumed good judgment on an editor who has demonstrated proper experience. Also, certainly, users misusing this right can have it stripped per the proposal. Overall this is a sound proposal. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, 3) No lapsing. If one has editing knowledge in the Wikipedia, how does that go away just because someone has taken a long break? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I don't really think of myself as a new pages patroller as I am not very experienced, but I look at new pages and sometimes fix small errors. However, I will agree with many above that changing Twinkle doesn't seem like a good idea to me, mainly because it seems to mostly serve as a convenience tool (removing the features from the tool wouldn't stop someone from placing tags or otherwise making changes, it would just make it more difficult), and it has many applications outside of New Page Patrolling. Otherwise, I have personally tried to make edits to new pages in something similar to a patrol capacity, but found out that it takes more experience to do it effectively, so I think that this is a good idea. Gluons12 talk 19:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  83. I've tagged over 6000 pages for CSD. I've closely followed the development of this and have offered some of my own data-driven findings and proposals. I can't disagree with anything and I'm glad that at last we're seeing some sorely needed change. Σσς(Sigma) 01:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support to prevent occasional chaos made from mispatrols. However, since one can also tag CSD, AfD, and PROD manually, Twinkle restrictions should not be established. The only restriction that should be applied to TW is that it will not automatically patrol pages unless you have the (patrol) right. NasssaNser 08:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Support This is sorely needed. Inexperienced users need to be prevented from patrolling pages so that new articles with issues are properly deleted or tagged for improvement. Inexperienced users are more likely to incorrectly tag new pages, which can be harmful to new editors who we need to retain, especially with respect to incorrect CSDs. It will also put up a barrier to paid editors like Orangemoody. No, it won't be able to entirely contain the problem, but it is better than what we have now – nothing. Yes, the backlog could increase even more, but it is better to have articles properly patrolled than to have a smaller backlog. NPP is our front-line defense against articles that don't meet our content requirements, so it needs to be done by editors with experience. I've seen some comments about an automatic user group versus one that will get admin review at PERM. I think admin review at PERM is necessary or it will be more likely that paid editors and inexperienced users who meet the required number of edits and account age requirements but are not sufficiently versed in our policies and guidelines end up patrolling new articles, which is what we don't want. While I don't agree with the proposed Twinkle restrictions, that isn't important in this RFC. Some Twinkle restrictions may be needed, but that is a discussion for another time. If Twinkle functionality is restricted, I'm sure it will be forked. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - This seems like a good one. I gotta admit that I also have NPP problem before because I was lack of NPP experience that time, leading me to "not-very-good-faith" edits. But I don't really think changing the Twinkle options is a good idea. Per some others, the user can just add in the template easily. And also Twinkle is only for autoconfirmed users only, so no worries about it too much. NgYShung huh? 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose restrictions on Twinkle. Your not removing the ability to do anything with the restriction, your just making it slightly harder while reducing the likelihood a new user does it right. More generally, I think we would be better served by focusing on the act of marking a page patrolled, not tool access. Treat it like the auto-patrolled right, it doesn't grant any extra privileges, it just removes your new pages from needing to be patrolled, likewise we would assign the patroller right to New Page Patrollers when we feel they are good enough to not require a second look after they have patrolled a page. Monty845 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. I know that I was incompentent before when I was editing under in a IP when I first started editing in December 2015 but in March 2016, I was being blocked from editing from an IP for being incompentent. And so far, I learned from my mistakes, blocks and the ANI disscusion when Winklevi has concerned that I was evading a block when trying not to. I'm autistc and I make some mistakes. Most knowingly, "The Autistc Korean Girl!" KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 14:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose Leave our Twinkle alone. That is my only sticking point. I do not want to have to apply for user rights. I do not want additional user rights. Even if I meet the requirements for them. Even if I would be "grandfathered" in. Leave our Twinkle alone. To have to apply for this right just to CSD or PROD things is insane. I work in the file namespace. Something that has absolutely nothing to do with NPP and something that doesn't even show up on the page curation tool. To have to get this user right just to CSD bad images easily is a nonstarter for me. Remove the Twinkle restrictions and you have my full support. Otherwise, strong oppose. --Majora (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Your plan for Twinkle doesn't only affect NPP it affects all CSD, all PROD, and all AfD. You're suggesting making it impossible for a user without the right to CSD, AfD, or PROD an article with Twinkle. Now, you can still do this without Twinkle using the correct template, e.g. {{db-g3}} but you're making this needlessly difficult for Twinkle users like myself. Imagine, seeing an old article just hanging around that has clear copyvio's in it, you don't do NPP and don't have the ability to use good ole fashioned twinkle to tag the page, now you have to spend 10-15 minutes trying to find the god damn bloody template cause you forgot what it was on account of using Twinkle for so long. Why not make this simple; remove the ability to mark a page as patrolled unless you have the NPP rights. CSD is checked by admins anyway, AfD can be snow closed, and PROD can be challenged by anybody. Right now, I vehemently oppose the suggestion on account of the Twinkle suggestion being massively beyond the intended scope of the proposal. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose the consequential parts of the proposal: I don't disagree with the diagnosis relating to poor outcomes resulting from inept NPPing. However once one gets past the Badge aspect of the proposed remedy (and one minor misgiving is that some people seem to just love collecting badges), the consequences seem far wider and deeper. Let's take an editor who lacks the new right: they spot a Copyvio but can't use Twinkle to flag CSD G12; they spot what they recognise to be an Attack page (not always evident across cultures etc) but can't use Twinkle to flag CSD G10. Really: is impediment to quick action on these concerns at all consistent with the project's priorities? AllyD (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @AllyD: Yeah, then you would have to CSD, PROD, AFD it by manually taging it which also a waste of my time. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for the idea of getting something done, but having great reservations about this proposal I worked in deletion for three years (12,000 edits) without using Twinkle - or working in NPP. I worked in Special:Edits by New Accounts (or something like that). I also don't think I've ever marked a page as patrolled (except by something doing it automatically for me and not telling me...). Quite a few of the pages I nominated for CSD already had been patrolled, so I had little faith in it and checked everything I felt like checking regardless of patrolled status. Something does need doing about the tagging, though. I signed up to Wikipedia to remove some rubbish, and I've been involved with that ever since. If I'd been faced with the proposed apply for rights thing, I probably would have gone elsewhere, (Who said "Pity you didn't!"?) Mind you, I worked with the CSD page open on my computer, and learned the templates in time, so I'd have been OK where I was. I only started to Twinkle after getting my mop. Something I'm not sure about is the qualification for getting this right. I learned the rights and wrongs by tagging and taking in what got declined, and the explanations from some admins of how CSD worked. You're still going to be faced with this when someone gets the 'patrolled' right and is able to Twinkle tags - but still doesn't understand A7, A9, copyvio, and what is advertising. And what is an attack - more than once I've deleted something as spam when it had been tagged 'attack'. AllyD has made good points just above this overlong screed, and so have others. What is needed is education, possibly something like the 'New admin school'. But it would be good to be able to stop a totally inept tagger who simply won't listen, but who isn't guilty of bad-faith vandalism. I'll have a think, and come back when I've thunk. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, I am against restricting Twinkle. Won't help at all. Peridon (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Modifying a script to disable access to common tasks that editors remain free to do manually is terrible policy. Since editors don't need to seek permission before adding new scripts to their user space, I suspect many editors—experienced as well as naïve—would simply import their own versions of Twinkle, as they would have every right to do. That said, I support a technical change that reserves to a particular user group the right of marking pages as patrolled if and only if it applies no matter how the editor accesses the article (e.g., new pages, recent changes, or by chance; with the Page Curation tool or the "mark this page as patrolled" link). Rebbing 23:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Majora for mostly the same reasons. I patrol new files, which have nothing to do with new page patrol. I use Twinkle so I don't have to manually go through the 7 steps at FFD to get something up for review. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose due to the proposed changes to twinkle. "All CSD, AFD, and PROD [Twinkle] functions" are not exclusive to patrolling, in fact, far from it. They have widespread applications outside of patrolling new articles (which is what this proposal hones in on, though other pages can be patrolled). Any user is entitled to nominate an article for speedy deletion, articles for deletion, or prod it. As long as that is the case, we shouldn't take a step backwards and de-streamline the process making it harder. "In the same way that some scripts (e.g. blocking, protection, etc) are visible only to admins", it isn't the same because non-admins aren't given the ability to block or protect, while they may make deletion nominations. If the Twinkle changes are stricken, I'd probably either support this proposal or remain neutral.Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose proposed changes to Twinkle per Godsy. Twinkle's deletion functions are not exclusive to New Page Patrol, and moreover, I think any policy change in this area should not single out one user script, instead being stated generally to apply to all user scripts. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose the proposed Twinkle modifications. I can understand restricting access to the actual "mark as patrolled" button. However, it's far easier to deal with abusive AfDs, CSDs, and PRODs, since by their very nature they must be checked by either the community or an administrator before they are actioned. My impression is that restricting these Twinkle functions in the manner proposed would actually hinder legitimate efforts to participate in the deletion process. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) (Note: I will likely move to support if the Twinkle aspect is struck from the proposal. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  12. Strong oppose. After consideration, I've concluded that this is a bad idea as formulated. Oddly, although I know this idea has been floating around for awhile, the RfC as written seems under-prepared. As I understand it, the argument is that 1) there are a lot of inexperienced people doing NPP; 2) inexperienced people perform poorly; 3) it is possible and feasible to exclude those people; and 4) experienced people will find the task more interesting/compelling/worthwhile if this is done. To unpack that one-by-one:
    1. The statistics on offer do suggest there are a lot of inexperienced people using the Page Curation tools (more than I would've expected). However, my anecdotal opinion is that more experienced people are more likely to use the more flexible and customizable Twinkle for tagging and deletion functions. The source of the data is understandable - the Page Curation tool produces better logs - but, as can already be seen from the discussion, mentioning Twinkle only as a bundled-in afterthought has already caused distraction and made the proposal look unprepared for all the relevant use cases. (Surprisingly, the proposer has notified quite a few individuals about this RfC [2], but it was someone else who posted on the Twinkle talk page [3].)
    2. The second step of the argument seems to have been omitted entirely. It's a plausible hypothesis, and I suppose the proposers simply took it as a given, but it's a shame to have collected the relevant data and then not actually tested the hypothesis before going on to propose a substantial change in policy on this basis. Of note is the fact that the top curator in the list has been to ANI at least twice for performance issues (1, 2), so experience isn't everything.
    3. Apparently can't be evaluated here; we've been explicitly asked not to discuss feasibility of implementation. (Compare the Page Mover RfC, which instead explicitly listed the technical changes required to implement the proposal.)
    4. Another untested hypothesis, which seems much less plausible to me. If experienced and qualified editors aren't doing this task now, why would they be more willing to do it if they have to go cap-in-hand to an admin in order to be granted a right to do something they could have started any time they liked? The introductory text says this RfC is not intended to "expand the powers of administrators", but of course it does; it takes a tool currently available to all and requires that in the future only users approved by admins may use it.
    I happened to notice a couple of comments leading up to this proposa, either requesting that feedback be sent in private [4] or criticizing the way feedback was offered in public [5] (lest the "anti-admin brigade" get ahold of it). Given the unappreciated unintended consequences - see some of the comments above about working with files and getting attack pages/copyvio/etc tagged quickly - it all gives an impression that the proposal has been a bit isolated from critical outside feedback.
    All that being said, though, this identifies a serious issue facing the project. Better, I think, to back up a bit and have a broader community brainstorm about how best to reorganize our approach to the incoming stream of new articles. (I'd suggest one, but we're not allowed to do that here... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For lack of a better place to put it, just adding a link here to a thread on my talk page that has grown out of this comment, involving batting some other ideas around on better new-article management. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to understand how you get to strong oppose just by poking holes in someone else's good-faith proposal to fix a perceived problem. You've offered no compelling evidence that a/ the problem doesn't exist or b/ the proposal would not be an improvement over where we now stand. Your statement sounds well reasoned but it seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Their !vote clearly doesn't fall into that category. Your support !vote is much closer to an WP:ILIKEIT than theirs is to the converse.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough but I'd still like to see a reason for opposing the idea, not just a deconstruction of the proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion on an RfC, provided of course in the best case scenario, that theit comments are objctive and based on an understanding of the mater under discussion. I am therefore at a loss to understand Opabinia regalis who while recognising that 'this identifies a serious issue facing the project does not feel it personally to be so, criticises the research and preparation of proposals being carried out by small groups, particularly where most of her work on Wikipedia is carried out in utmost secrecy and reaches decisions over which we less privileged editors are not allowed to exert any influence. Perhps she simply regrets not having been specifically invited to be part of the NPP reform team - she could have been of course and her amazing talents for rapidly compiling statitics and charts would have been highly appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Something must be done; this is something; therefore this must be done." ;)
    Poking holes in arguments (including my own) and finding which parts are in need of better evidence is a major component of my real-life work. It's not personal criticism. The fact that there are serious issues that need to be addressed is not an argument in favor of this specific approach to addressing them. If I were in your shoes, I'd go back to the drawing board and start by gathering the relevant evidence - from the current proposal I get the sense that you had an idea, decided it was a good idea, and then went to look for evidence in support of it. That tends to lead to untested assumptions making their way into the final product. For example, as I posted somewhere below, I think the people here talking about Twinkle are somewhat missing the point of your proposal, but I also think it's clear from their reactions that you need to do some more thinking about implementation and workflow. If you look at the "influx" to each deletion process, how many of those articles are recent enough to have been nominated by a dedicated new page patroller and how many were identified some other way? As another example, there are plenty of kinks to be worked out in the new ORES system, but perhaps a similar classification could be applied to new articles in order to prioritize the high-risk ones for review.)
    As for the "NPP reform team", I would've said no thanks, I'm already short on time as it is :) But then, I can't seem to find anything about this "team" on-wiki, and I think I remember comments about meeting in person - at Wikimania, maybe? - which isn't really my thing, since I prefer to keep my internet hobbies mostly on the internet. (But I could be wrong - is the "team" the group of people you notified? That's not really such a small group...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was notified (accidentally, after I already gave my opinion here) but have no relation to the team (I am not even sure it exists). I guess I was notified because I am doing NPP on a regular basis and understand typical problems with NPP - in contrast to some other voters here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Opabinia regalis. I will write more about Twinkle in the comments section. BethNaught (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Majora. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Opabinia. A wider discussion would indeed be preferable to this. I also echo all those pointing out what a terrible and ill-considered idea the proposed Twinkle changes are. --Begoontalk 09:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Opabina. This is a terrible idea. Is there any actual reason to exclude CSD, PROD, and AfD tagging per twinkle to anyone who doesn't have this user right? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose All nominations for speedy are reviewed by an admin anyway, and I expect that erroneously nominating and having the error explained by the rejecting admin is likely an important initiation ceremony for patrollers. So there's no problem there.
    Conversely, erroneously reviewing an article that is grossly out-of-line with policy is a different and more serious issue, and seemingly the particular one this is intended to address. A simpler and less burdensome solution, if we're trying to think outside the box, would seem to be the creation of an auto-confirmed reviewer group, dividing patrollers into two groups based number of correctly reviewed articles (ignoring CSD nominated ones as irrelevant) .
    • New reviewer group: New patrollers do not review articles; instead they semi-review them. That review is then confirmed by an experienced user (not necessarily an admin). Users with X number of correctly reviewed articles are auto-confirmed into the next group.
    • Auto-confirmed reviewer: These users wouldn't necessarily need to see any change in functionality. Some of the articles they review will have been previously semi-reviewed by newbies. If they agree, it adds to the newbie's "good job" count toward auto-confirmation. If they disagree and nominate for speedy, a notification would also be automatically posted on the newbie's talk, so they can try to adjust their reviewing accordingly.
    This would add no additional burden on admins. It would add some level of hidden burden to reviewers (articles which now have to be systematically reviewed twice), but would ensure that 100% of decisions made by a new reviewers would be vetted, either by an admin (CSD nomination) or by an experienced patroller (semi-reviewed). It would also ensure that the reliability of patrollers is based on the most important metric: how reliable they actually are in their patrolling, rather than somewhat more subjective assessment of their experience level by the permission granting admin.
    Alternatively, a full semi-reviewed icon/status could be added (say, a yellow semi-reviewed check box in curation). This could notify auto-confirmed reveiwers that additional guidance may be needed if they find a gross error. This could also make possible a semi-reviewed filter, for those who only want to see, or do not want to see new articles that have been semi-reviewed. TimothyJosephWood
    @Timothyjosephwood: how would these alternatives protect against future Orangemoody-type attacks? VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Any solution offered is going to be a balance between ratcheting up the inconvenience of gaming the system, against the inconvenience of good faith editors. Anyone who wants to engage in malicious incognito reviewing is at least going to have to go through the trouble of 1) achieving the requirement for semi-review (be that auto-confirmed or 30/500), and then 2) achieving the requirement for auto-confirmed-reviewer (X number of correct reviewing decisions).
    We could also, I'm sure, add in some requirement for overall accuracy, and not just amassing correct decisions, for example, so that one could not simply review 300 articles, with the expectation that 100 of them would be confirmed, thus reaching the threshold. Instead one would have to reach X number of correct decisions, along with Y accuracy measured in some way. Alternatively, or in concert, we could add a longevity requirement similar to 30/500.
    Obviously someone who is determined to game the system could satisfy these requirements given enough effort. But, like a locking door with a window, the medium level deterrent may likely be enough to dissuade the majority of would-be nefarious actors. TimothyJosephWood 12:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per OR. shoy (reactions) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Per OR's point 2, I haven't seen the RFC presenters offer any evidence that this proposal would address the problem of WP:BITE. shoy (reactions) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, BITE is why I like at least the concept of a revocable user right my main reason for supporting my mainly favorable view of this proposal (adding reservation in comments Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC) and as oppose vote Innisfree987 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC) ); it seems to me that the revocation criteria (specifically item #2) for any admin to remove a reviewer from the NPP user right group will would make it much, much easier to address any such problems. Have read a bunch of related ANIs lately (including the ones OR cited in point 2) and things really seem to be breaking down in terms of resolving such issues promptly and constructively through that mechanism. This portion seems like a very welcome alternative. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose but only because of the Twinkle restrictions. The only restrictions required is access to new pages feed and the mark as patrolled button. We don't need to restrict anything else.
  20. Oppose I use Twinkle for CSD, etc. and I sometimes do NPP as well. I don't think Twinkle has anything to do with NPP and people who use Twinkle for CSD,AFD, will be left in the lurch. I am also curious about the terms required for NPP. I don't have a clean block log but that is to be expected with being here for over 10 years. Does that mean I can't patrol? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose in the strongest possible way until the Twinkle restrictions are entirely dropped. I don't want to pave the way for removing these options from non-reviewers. I would support without the Twinkle restrictions. ~ Rob13Talk 17:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. What a stupid proposal! Just to prevent all users except a small number of patrollers from using any automation when nominating pages for deletion? Are you serious? Moreover no attempt has been made to notify all users (possibly thousands) that currently utilize these scripts. It seems that the authors of the proposal just want to perform a fait accompli before any users have a chance to understand what they going to lose. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose NPP is difficult, thankless volunteer work. It's certainly hard enough without them another hoop to have to jump through. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Fully explaining my POV would take a couple of days so I'll just vote per Starblind. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose As proposed, this doesn't seem workable. If access to Twinkle is restricted, then people will just start constructing workarounds. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose no reason why use of Twinkle should be restricted. Do any new page patrollers actually use Page Curation anyway? SSTflyer 03:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they do. IMO since it came in, the standard of patrolling has dropped, but I can't produce any statistics to prove it. Could be personal bias, as I found it quite horrible when I tried it. Once again IMO. PC's use of db-significance rather than db-a7 or another specific criterion is misleading. It seems to imply lack of significance applies to anything. Peridon (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that PageCuration is under-featured, both if one wants to maintain a CSD log and in explaining to the contributor on why their page has been tagged for speedy-deletion. Coincidentally, I CSDed with Twinkle at the same time as another user with PageCuration this morning: this User Talk page shows significantly different levels of information, with Twinkle much superior. So I use Twinkle rather than PageCuration for Patrol+CSD, which activity is missing from the RFC data, significantly understating NPP activity by longstanding users, as I've commented below. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Opabinia regalis. I'm most concerned about the biting of NPP, and I don't see this as being particularly solvent for that. The Twinkle restrictions, as others have said, are throwing the baby out with the bath water, and this whole proposal advocates for an added level of bureaucracy that it doesn't really justify. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose At a time when Wikipedia struggles with attracting active editors (File:Highly_active_editor_graph.png) it seems baffling we'd try to push people away. Despite the amount of people who maybe make bad reviews imposing a restriction would be a net negative. Same goes for restricting Twinkle. Pinguinn 🐧 16:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see on WT:NPP the backlog now stands at an all time high of 13,158 unreviewed pages but yet not more than a couple sentences down is the urging that NPP should be restricted to a small subset of editors only. So the solution to a growing backlog is less editors handling it? To quote Charles Babbage, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question". Pinguinn 🐧 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An incompetent or malicious patrol is worse than one not yet done and sitting in the queue. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pinguinn: A backlog does not mean that we delegate the work to newer editors. Quality is what matters. See Orangemoody, where hundreds of accounts, due to our granting of patrol rights to every Tweedledee and Tweedledum, held businesses' articles for ransom. And we still grant the right to patrol articles to editors with ten edits! What's worse than a growing backlog is a proliferation of irredeemable articles into mainspace—our readers rightfully give no whits about whatever backlog we have and the few thousand bad but obscure articles there may be; they care about the quality of our content and patrolling. Esquivalience (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - With all of the bureaucratic scope creep and increasing amount of restrictions you want to put on users, why don't you just get rid of the volunteer aspect of Wikipedia and hire professional editors? Supposedly Wikipedia is dying because not enough people are willing to do tedious tasks, but you want to make it even more difficult. This proposal flies in the face of the open-editing and volunteer ideal and seeing as how Wikipedia has existed just fine for 10+ years without making NPP a special "user right" (in other words, a hat for a Wiki politician to collect). GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Oppose Why is it that every time that some crisis of our own design comes up on this site the immediate reaction is to make it even harder to address by levying new restrictions, creating new rights, disallowing editor and contributor participation, etc? Wikipedia is a dying project, dying precisely due to the fact that it is no longer free and open for anyone to edit, and decisions of this nature only severe to exacerbate the issue by adding quality fuel to an already eternally burning flame. For God's sake just let us voluntarily contribute like we did on the old days, otherwise your going to subdivide everyone so much that each person is going to be island nation unto themselves. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. I do NPP once in a while, but I use Twinkle routinely for AfD/CSD/templating purposes. There's no reason to jack up Twinkle for this purpose. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. oppose NPP was one of the first activities I participated in when I started to contribute more frequently, recently I have began to focus on it, and I was just made aware of this RfC, thanks to my watchlist. I was accused of biting the newcomers when I began doing it, but now I understand the consequences, so 1: I believe that new contributors should be given a chance to participate in NPP, this was a great learning experience for me 4 years ago. 2: The modifications to Twinkle will be a problem for regulars at XfD like me, even if we need another RfC for that. I would not support it without the Twinkle restrictions. Best regards, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm not going to say now anything that adds to the discussion, but I simply can't resist wondering if you realise that your great learning experience might have resulted in many potential contributors being turned away from the project. Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Champion: You might want to move this up to the oppose section. Best Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: Done - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. As someone who has recently started NPP, I have made the occasional bad judgment call, and have been advised accordingly. The way to help newbies like myself is NOT to give us hoops to jump through before we're allowed to volunteer our time and efforts. Apart from anything else, I don't see that this will stop anyone who wants to from adding tags etc. manually. Killer Moff (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Killer Moff, for many newbie content contributors, a patroller is the gatekeeper to wikipedia and one ill-advised placement of a CSD tag, for example, creates pointless hoops for this newbie to jump through and leaves the impression that the environment here is incompetent, arbitrary and hostile. And this does drive people away. The stakes are simply too high to allow NPP to be a learning area. Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Uanfala, perhaps I misspoke or wasn't clear. I was referring to newbie patrollers, not contributors. How can we learn to patrol without patrolling? And if anything, I've had more hostility from new contributors demanding I remove CSD tags from unreferenced BLPs and Company articles than other patrollers. Killer Moff (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You were perfectly clear, Killer Moff. My point was that for any single newbie patroller that we give free reign to learn as she goes, we are letting down a large number of newbie contributors. As for the hostility on part of editors who want their page here at all costs, I know that very well (I still receive death threats by email because of an AfD I started). But I was referring to something else: the inadvertent impression of hostility that newbie contributors are left with if a page of theirs is inappropriately tagged for deletion.

    How can we learn to patrol without patrolling? I don't think there is so much a specific skillset rather than a broad awareness of how aspects of wikipedia work, and that is learnt through contributing content, improving the encyclopedia in various ways, learning about what projects there are, participating in discussions (particularly at XfD's) etc. Of course, patrolling will inevitably involve learning on the go, but that should happen against an already existing background of experience. Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  34. Oppose, as currently written, for two reasons. I do sympathize with the intent of the proposal, but I have two issues with it. The first one concerns the proposed restrictions to Twinkle, much discussed above. Second, I believe that if a "new page patroller" right is created, users should not have to apply for it, but rather the right should be granted automatically upon reaching a certain threshold (which can be set appropriately high). Otherwise you would be placing too much burden on many experienced editors who only perform NPP occasionally. Making them jump through extra bureaucratic hoops to get the new user-right is likely to discourage them from doing NPP altogether. Nsk92 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per Opabinia regalis. Can't let this become something for hat collectors. JAGUAR  16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - The idea is meritorious, but I have some issues with the specifics. First, the grandfather clause: Editors such as myself who use Twinkle and the new page feed, but not use the page curation tool, and who have reviewed thousands of pages would not be not be grandfathered in. As someone else mentioned, a user who has already made 5000+ edits probably be should grandfathered in as well. I don't see the utility in requiring users to have a clean block log, unless they were blocked for some reason related to new page patrol. I'm not in favor of restricting Twinkle as proposed, but I would not opposed to restricting it for users who have not met a certain threshold of main space edits. My observation is that if we simply prevented inexperienced new users from jumping into NPP, many of the problems would go away. Something along the lines of of requiring 'extended confirmed user' rights for page patrollers could address many of the issues, and be easier to implement and maintain.- MrX 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose although I support in principle the idea of a bare minimum of competence for this task, I am against the proposed solution. Really if established editors are not interested in new page patrolling, implementing this will not lead to them taking up the task. If the only source of new blood interested in doing this job, are relative newbies, then any proposal should not be about dissauding them from patrolling but about building up their ability and competence. Write a better tutorial as to how to patrol, create a wizard, checklist or flowchart to guide them through the process. Choose an article to act as a standard to compare against, archive some failed articles to serve as negative examples of what an article should not be. Maybe someone could create a bot to part patrol a new article:- so many points for pages created by editors with a history of problem free article creation, more points for articles with incomimng and outgoing wikilinks (less likely to be a neologism}, more points if the title produces lots of ghits, negative points if blocks of text show up in google (likely copyvio}, compare blocks of text against any references given, present the bot results as ticks and crosses to help patrollers make up their minds. For longer articles allow the patrolling of sections by different patrollers, we expect and accept article creation as a community, why not article petrolling. If someone is willing to sign off on one section but is unsure of the others let them sign off on the section they are happy about, allow the article to pass once the majority of sections have passed. To get established editors to patrol would it be possible to use the new article bots o break the list into categories, for example new film article, aviation or train articles etc, could the bot then look for editors who have an interest in a particular subject and send them a message "Hi User:abcdef, there's a new ....... article, that you might be interested in patrolling" Please before erecting what will look like a wall to exclude new editors from participating please consider inclusive solutions.--KTo288 (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree that established editors are more likely to get involved if patrolling is subject-specific. I'm wondering if this couldn't go hand in hand with the system for new article alerts (see User:InceptionBot). Uanfala (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I'm opposed to general restrictions on Twinkle. People might still do this without the NPP, and it makes sense to at least let them do it properly. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajraddatz: that is not correct. Under this proposal, it would be impossible for editors lacking the patrol permission to mark a page as patrolled. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not possible for them to mark the page as patrolled, but they could still tag pages for deletion and such. If they are going to do that, better let them have the appropriate tools to ensure it is done properly instead. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Oppose: Only users with a clean block log will be grandfathered in? How many users will be excluded because of a block from over five years ago? People should have "experience with moving pages"? What if you've just never encountered a page in need of moving? Even if requests for the patroller right didn't give much weight to that, the fact is excellent editors who have only moved a few pages will be unlikely to even make a request if they see that listed as a guideline for granting. With respect to #4 what exactly is a "behavioral block"? #1 states "Edits and/or user status on other Foundation projects are not taken into consideration", so an admin from the German Wikipedia who has been editing for eight years won't have that taken into consideration? And a criteria for revocation is "inactive for 12 months"? What changes so much after 12 months to warrant losing the ability to patrol pages? Admins keep their tools after being inactive for 12 years. With respect to #4, no experienced editor does "blatant vandalism" except on April 1st, so all this criteria does is potentially give us a headache every April 1st. I don't see how someone could use the patroller right to "to gain the upper hand in disputes", and I don't see how the ability to patrol pages (which currently everyone possesses) is so sensitive as to warrant losing it for neglecting account security practices. Fundamentally though I'm opposed to this because there is no evidence that any of these granting criteria will weed out problematic patrollers, it seems as though it will just make the problematic patrollers wait longer until they can problematically patrol. I think a better solution would be having a bot locate potential problematic patrollers, put them on an a list visible only to admins for review, and allow admins to indef topic ban them from page patrolling if they violate certain criteria (with the ability to contest this topic ban). M. A. Bruhn (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your "Admins keep their tools after being inactive for 12 years." Nowadays that's "Admins keep their tools after being inactive for up to 2 years." We have desysopped hundreds of admins under that rule since 2011. ϢereSpielChequers 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the correction :) M. A. Bruhn (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. We do not need yet another user right. This is adding a new layer of bureaucracy and hoop-jumping. If there are people who are patrolling new pages in a problematic manner, they should be asked to stop. If they persist, they should be blocked for disruption. I accept that we need to improve the quality of new page patrolling, particularly to avoid biting well meaning new editors, but I don't think this is the solution. WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose broadly along the lines of Opabinia regalis. Let me first off say that the problem Kudpung describes is very real and I have seen it myself enough times to know the poor communication with new users is a problem. However, in a voluntary project, people only flock to what is interesting or fun, and while I don't mind caretaking the odd new article (examples), I can't possibly do that for the flood of pages coming into NPP. The reason we have inexperienced / incompetent reviewers there is because those of us who do understand policy (I'll assume that since I have the tools that people assume I understand policy a bit) also, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, know what we don't know and leave articles alone, leaving others to pick them up. We see this problem all over the place - it happens at AfC, DYK, GAN, ANI (unnecessary closing of ANI threads gets my goat in particular), everywhere outside the basic encyclopedia writing tasks. So while I fully appreciate that something must be done, I really don't think what's proposed on the table here is going to make much difference; in fact I'm sceptical enough to think nothing except paid customer service staff will make a serious dent in the problem. Consider the events at User talk:Ritchie333#IP editing experiment, I'm certain the editor who I was complaining about would be first in the queue for the new user right, yet equally be the sort of person we don't want on patrol (at least, not yet). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Oppose. Generally I'm in favor of new user rights. They usually exist to make sure that the people who need a right have it, even if they are not cut out to be full admins. This seems more like it is intended to restrict things. I see why we need all the bureaucracy we have, but this goes to far. Not to mention the fact that it creates a bunch of new work for the admins. I'd be a lot more likely to consider it if you were talking about granting it automatically at some reasonably sized (500 edits-ish) threshold. The points that are made about needing certain privileges are probably valid, but that needs simplification and streamlining, not this... over-complication. Tamwin (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I've done thousands of speedy taggings patrolling new pages, and I've had literally a handful of declined nominations since I started years ago when I was new. Many of these pages are obvious spam, vandalism, A7, and test pages. Even the newest user could tag most of this stuff, and many do so properly. If they screw up, admins can decline the speedy and notify them. In the few cases where a new editor doing patrolling work is really doing it badly, an admin can pretty easily give guidance or even a warning/block if necessary. I don't see a real need for a new right. A good number of the newbies that're bitten are no loss for Wikipedia from what I've seen. They're usually here to spam or write about some tiny company that started up last week, or about themselves, or some guy who was a local big-shot, not to mention vandals and kids with too much time on their hands. INeverCry 03:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it is far more likely than you might think that somebody writing "spam" about a company or "some guy" are simply seeing that other stuff exists on Wikipedia and think that following suit is acceptable as they have no reason to believe otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    INeverCry, you're not the only one who has patrolled literally thousands of new pages - and it hasn't gone unnoticed. However, today's spammer is a professional PR person with an Ivy League degree in marketing or communication, and just like the SEO specialists will get your web site to Google's first page, takes big bucks for getting Wiki pages through the controls, creates dozens of socks to be able to patrol their own pages, and their creations are so perfect that newbie patrollers will think: 'Hey this ought to be a GA already'. I see these ussues every day. Realy every day. Perhaps you missed out on the Orangemoody fiasco - see, it even has its own Wiki article ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung I'm dealing with their Commons counterparts at the moment. We're currently getting a steady influx of spam services and spambots that upload images and spam the descriptions in order to get by our spam filters for pages in User and Gallery space. Spam blacklisting hasn't stopped them at all. They started up a couple years ago and are mainly coming from dirty webhosts in India, the US, etc, or from scraped public proxies. It takes somebody with a lot of experience to deal with what you're talking about. Why not let the newer patrollers pick the low-hanging fruit in the meantime? There's plenty of it to go around. INeverCry 22:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because newbie Page patrollers are basically messing the whole thing up. Why is it so awful to demand minimum competence from anyone around here who wants to do more than simple editing?! --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a new Patroller right is needed if new patrollers are doing that poor of a job. Maybe things are worse off than I realize. INeverCry 00:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @INeverCry: because letting the fox guard the henhouse doesn't work. We aren't just trying to filter out "newer patrollers"; we are trying to reduce the number of sockpuppets patrolling their own spam/blackmail/etc. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    People who're sophisticated and dedicated enough to use socks/sockfarms for spam and promotion will probably figure out how to get themselves the patroller right quick enough. Spammers have figured out how to get their spambot-created pattern accounts around our filters at Commons well enough. These people get payed to figure out how to get results for clients. INeverCry 00:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So because any barrier could potentially be circumvented we should have no barrier at all? VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would support without Twinkle restrictions

[edit]

Those opposing, would you support this proposal without Twinkle restrictions. Vote Support w/o TR or Still opposed. pinging opposers so far: User:Monty845User:KGirlTrucker81User:MajoraUser:Mr rnddudeUser:AllyDUser:PeridonUser:RebbingUser:AntiCompositeNumberUser:GodsyUser:This, that and the otherUser:Mz7User:BethNaughtUser:Wario-ManUser:BegoonUser:ThePlatypusofDoomUser:TimothyjosephwoodUser:Shoy Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support without Twinkle restrictions

[edit]
  1. Support w/o TR Aside from the fatal flaw of disabling an important tool, this proposal is a good one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support w/o - I'm in support of adding more capabilities to the page curation tool, and of splitting the patrol right to a new user group. I don't think requiring changes to twinkle is necessary-deletion tagging is useful for much more than NPP. — xaosflux Talk 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I already stated this in my oppose !vote. Leave my Twinkle alone. Beyond that, I don't have a problem with the user right besides the obvious issue of backlogs. If you can't get people to do it now what makes you think a shiny new hat will make people go do it? --Majora (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a(n unproven) theory that "hat collecting" is actually a mild incentive for editors to do work/additional work on the project. For every editor like me who won't do vandal fighting work to get Rollback (as one example), I think there are several more that will focus on vandal fighting just to get Rollback. In general, I find the reflexive antipathy towards "hat collecting" around here puzzling... So making NPP a "user right" with definable qualifications might actually encourage a not-insignificant subset of editors to focus on improving their NPP-type skills just to qualify for the user right – that's actually a good thing, and is as it should be... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Until the restrictions on Twinkle are removed. I remember when I joined here I was overwhelmed by what does what almost to a point where I considered leaving. Luckily, Twinkle came to my rescue. Everyone makes mistakes initially and it can be corrected with proper guidance and understanding. And Twinkle isn't one of those tools holding the possibility of mass damage if not used thoughtfully. I'm not saying issues won't rise, it will, but to a fixable extent. I'm pretty sure without Twinkle, new editors will be left in the wild. Twinkle is the baby walker of Wikipedia in my opinion. I also believe that removing Twinkle would weigh heavily on editor retention. I'll back this right once the restrictions on Twinkle are withdrawn. Best—UY Scuti Talk 07:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support without Twinkle restrictions (I haven't !voted yet, I hope this is the right place.) It makes absolutely no sense to restrict Twinkle. Socks and such can still apply the templates manually, and CSD and PROD and still reviewed by admins or more experienced editors, and an AfD will have even more eyes, so it's not really like they can do as much damage as patrolling a bad article. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This would make three new user groups added to enwiki within the same six months... Yet another WP:PERM page, update to User:MusikBot, User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js, and whatever other work I have to do... but seriously, this user group does actually make sense. Just remember Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed are two separate things. A page that has been reviewed by clicking "Mark this page as patrolled" isn't going to go anywhere with the current state of the proposal, and any autoconfirmed user is still going to be able to click it. That doesn't mean it won't show up in Special:NewPagesFeed, however. My point is there are two systems and we're only addressing one of them, which fortunately is the most popular. Also just FYI, This RfC is not for discussing the software technicalities of the proposed right. In the case of a consensus this will be addressed at Phabricator. – it is my humble opinion technicalities should be discussed first. If it's not possible to do in the way you want it to, than consensus doesn't matter. The proposal should revolve around what we are able to do technically. Also mw:Extension:PageTriage is an extension, not core MediaWiki software. Finally, I agree that while many new-ish users are trigger-happy with the speedy tagging, it's important they still be able to do it, and Twinkle does not provide this functionality, it merely makes that easier MusikAnimal talk 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To most of us, MusikAnimal (with a 'k'), who are qualified creative writers and/or book authors, or who are concerned with the quality of Wikipedia articles, whether Page Curation is core MediaWiki or an 'extension' is of no more interest than the pitot tube of an airplane to an average passenger who needs to go somwhere. And if the analogy is not understood, lets put it it this way: do commuters at a subway line ('tube train' for readers from my side of the pond) need to know how the doors of a new model train will work before they will use the subway again? I appreciate your work enormously, especially your efforts to clean up WP:PERM the 'clerking' of which was a magnet to newbies (just like NPP) and a headache to admins until you came along with your bot. I do understand however that you will naturally be looking at the issue through the eyes of a software engineer in the same way that I as a PPL holder worry about every change of tone of the engines on a routine long haul flight. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, totally get the analogies! I actually failed to notice the "Summary of technical changes" which answers some of my concerns... As I understood it, Special:NewPagesFeed actually "triages" pages, not patrols them, when in fact it does both. E.g. when redirects become articles they appear in Special:NewPagesFeed, but not Special:NewPages. This means both systems are covered by the proposal, which is excellent. Sorry for not doing some rudimentary homework before !voting, but the same !vote remains :) I am also very curious what the missing features are of the Page Curation tool that exist in Twinkle, but I understand all that is for another discussion MusikAnimal talk 04:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support w/o Twinkle restrictions I think the barrier to entry for reviewing new pages should be kept relatively low, if only to shrink the backlog, but should have a review process to get rid of obviously inexperienced people, socks, or COIs. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support w/o TR Something needs to be done about NPP, but restricting Twinkle is not the solution. Mattlore (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support w/o TR Restricting the ability to (patrol) pages to a new user group is something I can tolerate, to enforce greater quality control at NPP, but restricting Twinkle isn't going to help and may be detrimental in many cases. If someone can't mark pages as patrolled, at least let them make a decision on whether to CSD, PROD, or AFD it so that if they do apply for the new page reviewer user right, admins can see their CSD and PROD logs (which are automatically generated by Twinkle) and make a judgement. Forcing users to manually do the tagging and manually do the logging may keep out inexperienced new users, but it will also keep out inexperienced new users that are actively trying to learn. Also, there's nothing about Twinkle that you can't already do manually; restricting Twinkle isn't going to stop the user that really tries to bork the NPP process and is going to stop the user that wants to help out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @K6ka: Note that Twinkle's CSD/PROD logs are disabled by default and need to be enabled manually, but most of them can be found from the history of automatic notices sent to authors for CSD/PROD. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't address my concern that logs will still need to be manually kept to no benefit of the tagger. As for the point about perusing automatic notices, searching through a user's contributions for CSD and PROD nominations is many times more difficult than if they were all neatly kept on one page, not to mention that not all CSD criteria have notices for the author of the page (G7 for example). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support w/o TR: I support this proposal after seeing so many new editors patrolling new pages right away. But please, don't restrict twinkle because it's pointless because tags can also be put manually. Twinkle is a tool which gives us convenience in tagging pages. Ayub407talk 12:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support w/o TR - I am in support of the basic tenets of this proposal; I think they are needed and overdue. The Twinkle restrictions, however, are a deal breaker; my support is conditionally dependent on this reservation.--John Cline (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support w/o Twinkle restrictions per K6ka. Restricting Twinkle for this could cause problems because many users will have no other choice but to manually tag pages for cleanup, speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or articles for deletion. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support w/o TR As with the above users, I support the basic proposal, but the Twinkle Restrictions are an absolute deal breaker for me. Only way I can support this proposal is if the Twinkle Restrictions are deleted. Safiel (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support w/o TR – The underlying basis for this proposal – to restrict access to the "mark as patrolled" button – makes sense. I think I understand what TimothyJosephWood's alternative proposal is trying to do, but this proposal, if I am reading it correctly, has a built-in mechanism that addresses his concerns (given that we forgo the proposed Twinkle modifications): Newer users can still learn the ropes of new page patrolling by tagging and improving pages, nominating for deletion, and respectfully communicating with page creators – as a new page patroller would now – but by restricting the "mark as patrolled" button, a more experienced user with the NPP user right would have to review the article a second time, checking the initial review. There is no need to create a "semi-patrol this page" button, and I fear that might unnecessarily complicate things. As long as we forgo the Twinkle restrictions, I think this proposal would increase the quality of new page patrolling. It's worth a shot. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support w/o TR - Something that is so useful and so easy to use and access should not be limited unless you're misusing the gadget.CatcherStorm talk 21:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still opposed without Twinkle restrictions

[edit]
  1. Still opposed See thought experiment above on a possible alternative way to approach the issue, that I think would be less burdensome. Additionally, number of edits on WP as a whole is not necessarily any indication that the person understands CSD. I think a lot that a person needs to know about NPP, they are going to get through patrolling, and not through any other way. I don't think restricting access per se is the answer. We should be finding a way to improve quality while still utilizing the motivation of those who volunteer to patrol. TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Still opposed per Timothyjoesphwood. This is just going to keep more editors away from NPP, which is doing less and less to help the encyclopedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Still opposed. We should have a less straightjacketed discussion about the article creation process with (per Opabinia regalis) better data. BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose per above and leave our Twinkle alone. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 20:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Still Oppose per Timothyjoesphwood as well as not knowing if this change would effect patrolling on the File namespace. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Still opposed per BethNaught. This RFC was very poorly planned: the "Proposal" section outlines Twinkle functions to be restricted, but the "Summary of technical changes" section, while repeating these, says that they will be discussed at a future RFC. If script changes aren't intended to be considered here, why are they mentioned in the proposal? If they were meant merely as possible future ideas, they should have been listed under a "Possible future considerations" heading or, best, left out entirely.
    I am also surprised, dismayed, and offended by the suggestion from one of the proposers that many of the "oppose" votes were cast solely on the basis of personal animosity, something I do not see in any of the votes. I look forward to a more open discussion about these important issues at a later date. Rebbing 11:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Still opposed per TJW and OR's point #2 above. shoy (reactions) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Still oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Niteshift36: out of curiosity, why? You only mentioned Twinkle in your !vote above. VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal of this proposal isn't to create hoops to jump through. It is to close an open loophole in our quality system that is known to be causing real-world harm. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal and the effect aren't always the same thing. We view this differently. I stand by my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Still Oppose - My initial vote was targeting Twinkle and was my only concern at the time. However, my opinion of this proposal has further reduced. I agree with much of what Opabinia Regalis said, in essence, I think this is a malformed proposal that lacks the substance to back the proposed changes. The simple approach that should have been taken was to prevent editors without the user rights to "mark this page as patrolled" (other ideas can absolutely be implemented alongside this), instead the proposal seeks to address the problem by using gap filler to cover the walls and leave the gaping hole alone (best shown by the Twinkle part of the proposal). I dislike this approach and fail to see how it will actually work to solve the issue of sub-par page patrolling. Some of the ideas are quite good, some however, I can only describe as being duct-taped to the wall in the hope that it will stick when rammed by a mob. Not good. I want to make this clear, the most crucial aspect of this proposal, which is (or should be) how to implement such a system, has been summarily ignored in the RfC. I'm not going to support any proposal that lacks a foundation on which to stand. The first step should have been to suggest the technical implementation of such a system; 1. How to prevent user's without the right to perform NPP, 2. How to allow people with the right to perform NPP, 3. What considerations need to be taken into account to achieve this (Twinkle, "Mark this page as patrolled", Special:New Pages Feed, Special:New Pages, etc, etc, etc) and then finally 4. Who should have this right. Not the complete opposite. Agreeing to implement a rights system does not to actually implement a system. The inaptness of the current proposal is highlighted by the brute force approach to Twinkle and the wide sprung affects it would have that weren't even considered. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Both the comments by OR and the restrictions on twinkle are sufficient to earn my oppose, with the restrictions on twinkle being a particularly dumb idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I strongly oppose changes to Twinkle (with largely the same rationale as those who've already posted) and less strongly oppose this in general. I don't think this is the sort of thing that barriers should be put in front of. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: Firstly, I oppose any Twinkle restrictions, which is a bad idea. Assuming no restrictions, it is still a bad idea. It is fundamentally incoherent to bemoan the backlog at NPP while also wanting to increase the bar for participation at NPP. As for the comment about criticizing people for coming up with the proposal, I have only one thing to say. "Nothing's so bad that it can't be made worse". Kingsindian   11:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - You will not find anybody with a stronger sentiment about the negative side of the New Page Patrol than myself, where I've been bitten hard and even tried to get consensus on policies regarding those performing this mostly thankless task. It is something that needs some fresh ideas, so I will give credit to the proposer of this to at least come up with something to try and combat the problems associated with wayward PRODs and other efforts to cull Wikipedia. I just don't see this as a proposal that will in the long run work out so far as adding hoops for those who really want to be useful to Wikipedia to step in and perform tasks. The only possible compromise I might suggest is that if this is made into a user right, it should be automatically granted to all users after some standard conditions are met (so many edits, having an account for a certain length of time) and for it to be revoked only when users show signs of abuse. You should not need to go crawling to an admin or bureaucrat to receive this ability to perform this task, but admins and other very experienced users ought to perform regular reviews of those who are active in the new page patrol process and have the ability to perform restrictions on those who are abusive. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'd prefer a focus on education, rather than proactive removal of bad reviewers. If there are issues with specific people, then it would probably be best to write more documentation and give those people a helping hand. NPP is incredibly boring and tedious, and often times there are very borderline cases, so I think we should be encouraging more participation rather than adding a barrier to helping out. And the hat collectors have more than enough extra little permissions as-is. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - notably per TimothyJosephWood, Eridon etc. 's comments.
    If we consider NPP as a diagnosis for deletable pages, a single false positive (incorrect deletion tagging, be it speedy or AfD) is very benign compared to a single false negative (incorrect patrol approval, which will let junk articles survive for a looong time). I see none complaining about too many incorrect CSD or AfD nominations (at least, not in the sense that those issues are severely backlogged), so I would venture that the false negatives as a whole are not a significant issue either. I would gladly support a solution that lets "newbies" patrol and send to deletion while requiring a "veteran" to press the "approval" button.
    The reason is, a false positive is bad, but an unclearable backlog is just as bad. It is fairly clear that the proposal, if implemented, will lead to a much decreased NPP input; I am ready to listen to a contrary argument, but frankly it seems common sense. Even if the veteran input was increased (and I share Opabinia regalis' doubts on that point, see step #4 in their comment), the raw amount of input will fall sharply, and unless the newbies are particularly incompetent at AfD-tagging (i.e. they have a 90%+ rate of false positives), it will not be compensated. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan: In its most basic form this RFC is only asking whether a Patroler right should be implemented or not all of the other stuff is dependent on other RFCs. The essence of this right is that only those with it can mark an article Patrolled it has no effect on who can nominate stuff for deletion or place tags - those things are, Ultimatly, templates which can be placed by anyone.

    The backlog will increase by virtue of the newbie patrollers not being able to remove articles from the queue - that is the whole point of the exercise, to keep articles from being removed from the queue before someone competent can look at them. Personally I care less about allowing editors to tag articles, that is how they learn, than I do about that tagging resulting in removing the article from the queue by marking it patrolled. JbhTalk 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jbhunley: Excluding Twinkle issues, I can see two parts in the page patrol thing: (1) the ability to tick the green check and mark the page as "patrolled" in the logs, removing it from the queue, and (2) the ability to access Special:NewPagesFeed (i.e. the queue) and the PP tool. I was under impression, reading the proposal and comments, that access to both would be conditioned on the "patrol" right, though now that I read the proposal again it is not written. That is IMO a crucial question and not merely a "technical implementation" problem. I am okay with restrictions to (1) (if reasonable) but strongly opposed to pretty much any restriction to (2). TigraanClick here to contact me 07:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Still oppose. My reasons for opposing (set out above) are unrelated to Twinkle. WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it okay that a 4 day old account with 10 edits (auto-confirmed) can click Mark this page as patrolled and use Twinkle for CSD, XFD, Prod.? --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marvellous Spider-Man: It is absolutely okay for "a 4 day old account with 10 edits (auto-confirmed)" to "use Twinkle for CSD, XFD, Prod.", because disallowing them from using it would simply make it harder for them to make nominations, and the nomination itself more likely to have errors (which others have to fix). If you want to propose an edit and account age threshold for making deletion nominations themselves, you can make a much better case for that. It makes much less sense to simply make it harder in an attempt to discourage new users from doing something they're allowed to do. Making users less efficient is pointless, unless their edits are malignant, in which case we have a better solution to decrease it. That aside, users could just implement a similar functionality using a user script, which someone would probably write and make available.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marvellous Spider-Man: Regrettably, we have users of lengthy tenure with thousands of edits who make a mess of new page patrol. Time served and edit count ≠ competence. The solution is to engage with people who aren't doing it right, and teach them to do it better. If that doesn't work, they should be told to stop and sanctioned if they persist. There is however in my view no need for a new user class, particularly one that risks empowering people to feel "above" those whose contributions they will be reviewing. If anything I worry that this new right would make WP:BITE issues greater... WJBscribe (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WJBscribe, I definitely agree with that. I've seen a few editors who make thousands of incompetent edits (but not so blatantly incompetent to earn them a block) and I've seen them get any extra tool they asked for except the mop. So the current proposal for a new user right isn't going to do much about these folks. But I'm not sure anything else is going to do anything. The solution is to engage with people who aren't doing it right, and teach them to do it better. My experience so far has been that this works with editors who are either already experienced enough, or inexperienced but willing to learn. There are editors that just won't listen. To paraphrase John Haiman, talk is so inconsequential that humankind has come up with so many ways of "anchoring" it to reality. Now, if there's a new user right, the ability for it to be revoked is one such method for anchoring talk to reality and giving substance to all these endless and otherwise futile talk-page explanations. Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I seem to be a minority with this, but am opposing because of no Twinkle restrictions. Twinkle makes it easy to hit and run tag, bite a newbie and cause widespread competence-related destruction. A long time ago, when I learned ATL COM programming, I was told to "do everything manually first, then use the wizards and the templates to save time". Doing the code manually forced me to understand what was going on under the hood, so by the time I made a mistake on wizard-generated code, I knew how to fix it. It's kind of the same here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: I disagree that we should restrict Twinkle (as I express above). I agree that learning the manual route is beneficial, but I don't think it is a necessity for those simply wanting to make the occasional deletion or discussion nomination easily. However, I'd love to see a proposal to restrict VisualEditor in a way similar to that what is suggested for Twinkle in this proposal (if only as a symbolic gesture to show further community disapproval of it), based on your line of reasoning. I believe editing in wiki-markup is a necessity for everything but extremely basic editing.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Godsy, I'm all for efficiency but I'm wondering if reducing Twinkle access won't be a good of and by itself. The time it takes to manually add a template to two pages is nothing compared to the time it takes to look for references and figure out notability. If single-click deletion nominations are restricted, I bet we'll see much fewer of those two-word-long AfD nominations by editors seemingly oblivious to WP:BEFORE. Uanfala (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: That argument can be made for XfDs, but this proposal would also restrict CSDs and PRODs, which are simply declined if they're unreasonable. That aside, as I said before, someone could just write and publicize a user script with the same functionality to get around the restriction. I agree that it would be beneficial if users put more thought into nominations, but it would take much more than restricting Twinkle to force them to do so. If a user is continuously making poor nominations, generally someone will point it out to them, and take the issue to the proper venue if it persists.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. No need for a new user right, and we should be making it simpler for users to patrol new pages, not more difficult. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: how will the approach you describe protect against further attacks that take advantage of our existing open patrol system? VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr:I understand the concern with respect to Orangemoody. However, this would not address that situation, for then all a paid editor would have to do is to create accounts that do sufficient innocuous edits to meet the NPP user right requirement. No, I fear that this would simply reduce the number of non-corrupt new page patrollers. It would throw the baby out with the bath water. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: that's not really an accurate assessment or an applicable analogy. Per granting criterion #2 in the proposal, the edits would have to show competence in the skills required for patrolling. That is a massively higher bar than the status quo of autoconfirmed. The humans reviewing WP:PERM are also far better at detecting role accounts than an arbitrary criterion with no man-in-the-loop, which is trivial to game. The motivation for Orangemoody-type attacks is financial gain through blackmail: if the effort required to circumvent our patrols is greater than the potential payoff, the attack method is no longer viable. Meanwhile, experienced patrollers already routinely scan recently-created articles to check for obviously objectionable material such as attack pages, so while the backlog may be in the tens of thousands (it has been much higher in the past), the queue has already been filtered of the highest-priority violations. We want the actual patrol to be done correctly; that is much, much more important than whether it is done immediately. Once the article is marked patrolled, it becomes one in 5.2 million instead of one in 10 (or 50) thousand and finding problematic content becomes proportionally more difficult. But even if I am incorrect and in the future we find NPP hopelessly backlogged, we will have the flexibility to loosen the restrictions on the patrol permission as necessary. That is what, at its core, this RfC is proposing and what is desperately needed - the technical ability to control access to the "patrolled" flag. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Granting criteria two is "The editor should have made edits (to be determined above) to mainspace of a kind that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control." One, it's about as vague as can be, which raises the possibility of worthy editors being excluded. Two, it's so easy to surmount by a determined paid editor that it's ridiculous. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I won't support something which only adds more red tape and bureaucracy to an area when what we need to be doing is encouraging editors to have a go at tackling the problems and backlogs that are omnipresent around here, NPP being one of them. More requirements and hoops (and hats) is not going to achieve this. If somebody isn't doing it very well, or needs some extra help or training, I feel sure that an experienced editor or admin will take them aside and give them the guidance to develop their NPP abilities. That way, more people are doing the work, the backlog reduces faster, and we don't need a load of people managing an unnecessary process for gaining this proposed user right. Rcsprinter123 (interface) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Twinkle isn't a significant factor in my above oppose, so I'll oppose here too. No need for a new restriction/right. INeverCry 03:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, I would support, except for the proposed method of implementation (having to request the new right rather than having it automatically granted, as the default option). To me this is an important point that deserves serious discussion. I feel that the proposed method of implementation will cut off a large pool of experienced users from ever performing NPP, either occasionally or regularly. There are many experienced users, such as myself, who in the past only did NPP rarely, once in a blue moon. I must admit that until recently I never even used the curation tool when I did NPP, and I just worked directly with Special:NewPages. If NPP becomes a user-right that one has to request, then experienced users who don't already perform NPP on regular basis and don't consider NPP a significant part of their editing on Wikipedia are likely to never request this right. I know that I personally never would in this situation. Why exactly should I ask for a right that I don't think I need and for a task that I don't think I plan to perform? The only real way to get into NPP is by trying. Over the last two weeks I did just that, on a few occasions. I played with the curation tool a bit and understood a bit more what NPP really means (although I am by no means an expert). Now, having done that, I can in fact imagine getting involved in NPP more seriously. But asking experienced users to request this right before they acquire any actual NPP experience is rather like putting the cart before the horse in this case, IMO. So my strong preference would be that the New Page Reviewer right be grated, as the default option, automatically, provided that the bar is set really high. Let's say something like at least 5000 edits and at least 6 months of editing. Hopefully, that would serve as sufficient filter against both overeager school-kids who may want to feel like having a "hall-monitor" type arm-band, and against various commercial outfits trying to get some promotional material under the radar. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nsk92 The community could decide to do "both" (e.g. allow anyone to request at WP:PERM, while also allowing an auto-promote-once process at some threshold (even "big" ones like a year and 5000 edits). This is very easy to implement from a technical level if it were supported (it is how extended confirmed works today). — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, of course, but right now the proposal is formulated in rather specific terms, and this aspect seems to me to be a non-minor detail that really matters. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That, Nsk92 is clearly a strawman oppose. When you have had a bit more experience in how our RfCs work, you'll notice that ironically they are opposed by !voters who contend there is too little detail, and you want this to fail because there is too much rather than supporting the parts that you might have understood. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am opposing because there is an important part of the proposal, as the proposal is currently presented, that I disagree with. I would also have supported a shorter and less detailed proposal, which would have proposed a new user-right and said that the actual implementation mechanism of how that right is to be granted will be determined by a subsequent RfC. Nsk92 (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose somewhat regretfully. I think incoming articles do need to be handled differently, particularly to diminish biting. I think a revocable user right would probably help with that, and I even like the revocation standards proposed here. But I'm decreasingly inclined to believe an experience cutoff would help (inexperience has almost never been the cause of the biting I've encountered), and I think making the user right a permission that must be requested from an admin--explicitly so as to make it a hat to wear (not to say, collect)--may actually make biting worse. I don't believe that mechanism will raise the proportion of participants temperamentally suited to or even necessarily interested in obligations that come with being many new editors' first interlocutors in the community. That said, please ping me if I have misunderstood and enacting this as, for instance, opt-in (as at AfC) remains an option for implementation of this RfC (as currently phrased). I do see several support ivoters suggesting things along these lines so perhaps this RfC wouldn't necessarily lock us into a PERM, but I haven't been able to get confirmation one way or another when I asked in the comments, and I notice that the discussion just above this comment is also struggling to pin this down. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I have only been patrolling new articles for a short period of time, but there appears to be a backlog going back to June 2016. Reducing the number of people who can patrol articles would presumably make this worse. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose - Rationale is in the "still opposed without twinkle restrictions" section, putting my name here for an accurate count. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Striking unintentional duplicate vote - mea culpa. 21:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • Consider me parked at Neutral for now, because while I do support this overall proposal, I too am concerned about the Twinkle part of the proposal which would force experienced editors such as myself who do AfD/PROD work, but who are not necessarily a NPP's, to get this new user right just to continue to do the same AfD/PROD work we've already been doing with Twinkle. That just doesn't seem right to me... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Under "Summary of technical changes: Technical Permission Changes" it says "1 Remove the (patrol) permission from the Autoconfirmed group, the Confirmed group, and the Pending changes reviewers group." – Shouldn't that also include the "Extended confirmed group"? Or is that yet to be determined?... And a side-comment: Some of us would also like to see the requirements for 'Pending changes reviewers' beefed up one of these days, so I guess including it in the "drop" list is fine for now, but it's possible that, in the future, the NPP right could be added back to the 'Pending changes reviewer' group if its requirements are increased... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IJBall from a technical point of view, extended confirmed doesn't have this permission today (see Special:ListGroupRights) - from a practical point of view everyone that is extended confirmed is also auto confirmed; groups and permissions are cumulative - this change will require specific addition to this group in order to make use of the patrol right. — xaosflux Talk 17:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the idea, and support the premise of something needing to be done at NPP. I'd love to support this, but the Twinkle restrictions are a sticking point for me -- samtar talk or stalk 16:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Patrols (vertical axis) to edit count (horizontal axis)
  • To illustrate the number of new users jumping into NPP, here is a plot on the right detailing the people who are actually "patrolling" the pages (using Page Curation). The huge lump near the left are mostly Orangemoody and other socks. Esquivalience (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we honestly thinking about restricting easy CSD tagging to only people that have this right? I made this comment in my oppose but I work in the file namespace. Something that have nothing to do with NPP. Are we honestly saying that I have to either get this user right or tag bad images for deletion the long way? Come on. How is that a net positive for the encyclopedia? Seems like someone forgot that Twinkle is used far more broadly than just on articles when they drew up this proposal. --Majora (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, how would you effect this? and two, that is not what the proposal suggests; all CSD, AfD,and PROD functions will only be visible to users accorded the New Page Reviewer right.. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) But that is not what this proposal says. This proposal clearly says that all CSD, AfD, and PROD tagging (only which CSD has anything to do with file space) will be restricted to only those that have this right. As it is written, this proposal is restricting easy CSD tagging on everything. That is insanity and is a net negative for those of us that maintain other areas of the project. --Majora (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem like a lot of people are aware of how ubiquitous Twinkle is across every aspect of this project. Compromise is great, but is impossible unless people know all the facts. Restricting Twinkle, as it is currently written, should raise alarms with everyone. It is a massive blow to people who maintain other areas of the project and it can't be overlooked. --Majora (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I think that twinkle is hard to abuse or misuse and have it be missed, while on one hand the rollback could be abused, the vast majority of the tools afforded by it are helpful, the following tools: easy use of PROD, Easy rollback, and probably most of all the CSD tool, additionally the warn user, overall I am behind the addition of the Page review rights, but leave Twinkle alone. Iazyges (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, the Watchlist notification simply says "Permission groups for New Pages Patrolers are being discussed at Patroler Right Proposal". The consequences go far beyond that and an editor who works only at AfD for example could be left unaware of the implications for their use of Twinkle. Surely the message needs to be extended, for example to "Permission groups for New Pages Patrolers and limits to all users' access to the Twinkle tools for initiating CSD, PROD and AfD are being discussed at Patroler Right Proposal"? AllyD (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping on the leave-twinkle-alone bandwagon, I want to point that out that it's not just a useful for high-volume maintenance jobs. It also means that people like me who don't do a lot of that stuff normally can do properly formatted maintenance tagging without having to look up a bunch of templates and criteria you don't quite remember. I think I once created an AfD in the pre-Twinkle days. I don't want to do it again... Joe Roe (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not use Twinckle and create AfDs on a regular basis (the last one, I believe, yesterday).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's is fine for some people. For the rest of us, forcing people to do things manually or get this right is a negative for the project as a whole. I've listed one article for AfD manually, I will never do it again and if forced to do so for images I would rather just not tag images for deletion anymore. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the people who cleans it up when someone screws up an AfD Nomination, twinkle avoids a ton of issues. We have at least one bot dedicated to fixing the more common problems, but there are still ways to screw up a nomination in a way that requires human intervention. We recently had an AfD open for 10+ months as a result of such an issue. See example Monty845 22:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to consider is whether this right should be requested or automatically conferred based on time/edits. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case just bundle it with EC. Twinkle can be restricted to that level as well. It is already restricted to (auto)confirmed people so I would assume it would just take a quick tweak in the code. --Majora (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would this (especially the TW changes) affect the File namespace? That's where I do most of my work, and not having Twinkle to DI, XfD, and CSD things would severely inhibit that work. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a completely separate note. Twinkle doesn't even need to be used at NPP to begin with. The page curation module can be used to CSD articles. To bring Twinkle into this discussion when it is used on every aspect of the project, not just NPP, is insanity and there is nothing stopping people from placing the Twinkle code directly into their own .js scripts. Restricting Twinkle with this proposal is ridiculous. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Furthermore, it simply makes something individual accounts with no special rights would still be all allowed to do, harder. Starting a discussion to disallow such users to make such nominations, however much I'd disagree with it, would be reasonable. The restrictions in this form are not.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal focuses on patrolling newly created articles. It conflates the process we've established for patrolling pages in the article namespace and patrolling itself. A page in any namespace can be patrolled. Would it be feasible to separate the patrol ability based on namespace? If so: I think a better way of implementing this would be to remove patrolling articles from the 'patrol' right, thus leaving the ability to patrol other namespaces with autoconfirmed and confirmed users, while creating an "'article patrol'" right to be granted with the user right by the name suggested here. This would allow new users to gain familiarity with patrolling without the negative affects it currently has on the the encyclopedia proper. Pages in other namespaces aren't as actively patrolled.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: I think it makes sense, so long as the patrolling mechanism works on titles, not pages, which I believe is correct...? If that's not the case, then a user could move an article to another namespace, patrol it there, and move it back. If it is the case, the scenario I just mentioned can't happen as far as I know (since the article title is not patrollable) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for discussion here (in a future implementation RfC, possibly), but a possible compromise regarding Twinkle is to instead setup two edit filters every time a new user places a deletion template, one disallowing very new users (≤200 total edits) from using deletion templates, and one warning other new users (≤1000 total edits/90 days) about the caution required in using them. The former filter should not discourage most new users, as if a very new user uses a deletion template around their 100th edit, then they are likely a sockpuppet or hat collector. The latter filter would direct most newbies to doing simple maintenance tasks until they reach the threshold (over-eager newbies would likely find the way to bypass Twinkle). The same functions can be built into Twinkle (deletion is greyed out for very new users, and other newbies are warned in the same way). Esquivalience (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit filter of that magnitude would probably be rejected due to the resources required to use it. There is a reason why we switched from an edit filter to a user right to enforce ECP. Filters take up a lot of server resources and they are avoided, or worked around, if possible because of that. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    and in particular the number of edit filters that can be applied without seriously affecting response time is limited; many existing filters are not deployed because of this reason--only the minimum number are used. This is, however, not a discussion on how best to program the restriction, but on having the restriction. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion to restrict parts of Twinkle is not only wildly unpopular but also unenforceable. Since Twinkle is freely licensed by virtue of being legitimately posted on-wiki, anybody with a bit of JS knowledge could make an unrestricted version of the Twinkle CSD/AFD/PROD modules, if not write a new unrestricted script altogether. Now you could manoeuvre it out of gadget-space, but anybody can import anybody else's .js files, so to restrict these functions from users without the user right you would have to make it a wiki-crime for anybody to have a non-Twinkle CSD/PROD/AFD script. This was a terribly thought out suggestion. BethNaught (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In real life, I've previously encountered complex retrofitting of user rights management tooling being advocated rather than looking at the checks and balances already inherent in processes. Regarding NPP, I count 5 possible end-points, listed here with their possible problems: <1> page marked reviewed (possibly missing significant problems with the article in the encyclopaedia), <2> page marked reviewed and tagged (possible detriment to new editor's experience from over-tagging - another experienced editor once objected to my Unreferenced tag on one of the many "X is a village on the Indian sub-continent" one-line articles as excessive for an obvious stub), <3> speedy deletion tag (possible detriment to new editor's experience from over-tagging even if subsequent rescinded by the checking administrator), <4> Prod tag (possible detriment to new editor's experience from over-tagging even if removed by another user or the checking administrator), <5> AfD tag (possible detriment to new editor's experience from over-tagging even if subsequent rescinded as Speedy-Keep or as the AfD decision).
While <3>, <4> and <5> can provide negative experience to the individual editor who contributed the article, these scenarios are already under 100% scrutiny. Guidance can and should be provided to a problematic tagger, escalating to WP:NPPN or WP:ANI on repeat conduct. Hence there are already adequate process review steps in place as to make the Twinkle aspect of this proposal unnecessary (as well as overkill to its use in other processes).
That leaves scenarios <1> and <2>. Again, an identifiable pattern of poor or malign review is susceptible to advice (including cease-and-desist) and then WP:NPPN or WP:ANI, so the question is whether trust is enough aside from that exceptional action. I'd like to think that trust and advice suffice, but also appreciate that the present RFC is based on real concerns that known poor review may be the tip of an iceberg. If a rights-management remedy is needed, it should be specific to the "Mark page as patrolled" function. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is end-point 6 - article improved by the reviewer and can be patrolled without any additional tags. It is unfortunate that most Wikipedia users are apparently not aware of the existence option. I guess it is also not listed in Twinkle.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and seeking/adding more text and references to new pages is where I spend much of my editing time. My <1> to <5> was looking to where bad outcomes can result from NPP, but restricting NPP participation could have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of editors seeking to improve new articles. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been autopatrolled for ages (meaning articles I created do not even show in NPP log), and still on a regular basis I get my articles bullshit tagged within hours of creation (like adding a stub tag during the period I edit every twenty minutes). I wish people could use their time instead helping me to expand article. I have only seen this happening once or twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get an impression your "replies" have any relation to my points. Sorry for that. I am also not sure whom you mean by "creators of this proposal".--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move my comments to a different section. By "creators of this proposal", I mean the people who came up with the idea for this proposal, and wrote it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the creators of this proposal were thinking "NEW PAGE PATROL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ON WP AND NOBODY SHOULD WORK THERE UNLESS THEY ARE PERFECT!". Seriously. NPP also fails to catch many things, and that's one of the reasons that Twinkle is vital: placing deletion tags on stuff that was missed by NPP. (For reference, look at My CSD log. I don't work on NPP, so all the red-linked articles there were missed by it, or I got to it first.) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (as Obapina noted) they seem to think that if "Not many experienced editors are patrolling NPP", the solution is "Make it harder for editors to patrol NPP"? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the "Guidelines for granting" the new permission, items 1, 2, 4 make sense, but I not sure that item 3 "editor should have experience with moving pages" is necessary. The content of the new pages is obviously important, but is the title of the new article so important? If it's wrong, it can be fixed later; in most cases I wouldn't have thought an incorrect article title would be likely to cause a major problem. Do we have a big problem with defamatory or excessively promotional titles? Or inexperienced editors incorrectly moving new articles (from a "correct" to an "incorrect" title)? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we have a lot of problems with cut-and-paste moves, which result in the return of old articles to the unpatrolled queue, but I am not sure whether this is this point which was meant.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure that adding disclaimers to the RFC at this stage, with 55 !votes already, and many comments already added, is a particularly good idea. Will someone go back and ask all those folks how the new wording would have affected their opinion, or is it just aimed at newer participants? Either way seems inadvisable to me, honestly. --Begoontalk 11:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That edit seems to simply be reinforcing the Summary of Technical Changes section people have been ignoring for the last day

Technical Permission Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached.

1 Remove the (patrol) permission from the Autoconfirmed group, the Confirmed group, and the Pending changes reviewers group.
2 Create a new user group Patrollers (localization name: "New Page Reviewers")
3 Give the new New Page Reviewers group the (patrol) permission
4 Give administrators the ability to add or remove membership for users to the New Page Reviewers group
Script and Tool Changes - not for discussion at this RfC. If necessary, will be discussed if a consensus is reached. (emp added)
5 Adjust Twinkle to make some options only available for New Page Reviewers
6 Some missing features of Twinkle which were forgotten by the developers will be added to the Page Curation tool, along with some new ones.
7 Add some features from the "Articles for creation helper script" to the "Page Curation tool" that would be useful to New Page reviewers.
8 Expand the number of filters in the New Pages Feed to enable Reviewers to be more selective in their patrolling
Admitedly it is hidden in with all of the other nitty gritty like criteria for granting and revocation and the other section on Twinkle makes it confusing but the new caveat makes no material change to the RFC. It just puts it at the top for editors who comment without reading the whole thing. JbhTalk 12:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. I've never been in favour of any wording changes to an ongoing RFC, particularly when they seem to attempt to address the biggest oppose reason to date by offering a more prominent disclaimer. I feel this discussion section exists for that sort of thing, and if the initial wording was poorly laid out, with important points in collapsed sections, then that's unfortunate, but not something that should be tinkered with as we go along, after many have commented - more something to learn from next time a draft is prepared. Just my opinion - others may differ. --Begoontalk 12:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree it probably would have been better to not mention possible tool changes in the RFC material if they were not supposed to be discussed. I suppose the writers wanted to give some 'look ahead' but the benefit of having people think ahead being far outweighed by derailing the thrust of the RFC. Oh well... JbhTalk 12:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before voting, I did read the statement in § Summary of technical changes that this RFC doesn't cover Twinkle, but, since the plain wording of the proposal says that it does, I chose to take the RFC at its word. It would have been helpful if the RFC proponents had figured out what they wanted to ask and straightened out the proposal's contradictions before putting it up for a site-wide vote, but that's not my business. They wanted a straight vote on their proposal ("Please start your own RfC rather than detracting from this one to make your point."), and that's what I gave. Rebbing 19:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also read the technical changes blurb, but I don't read that text in quite the same way - I think the authors of the RfC have conceptualized this as a generic "NPP user group" and simply expect to be able to direct the Twinkle developers (and the developers of any other user scripts) to implement the result at a later stage. The new addition here, which says that "policy dictates how Twinkle is used", supports that interpretation. I suspect that the people saying "I support except for the Twinkle part" and the RfC authors are talking past each other a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same interpretation. Of course, the obvious flaw in this logic is that altering user scripts in such a way that they prevent "untargetted" users from simplified access to tasks which they are perfectly entitled to perform manually is both wrong and unenforceable. Does the RFC propose that if I wrote my own script to continue adding (in a simplified manner, instead of manually) the CSD tags and image deletion tags which I do add, rather than applying for this NPP right (in which I have little interest, as I don't wish to "patrol" new pages), then I (or others) should be prevented from using it? Of course not. This, in addition to the pointless inconvenience it would cause to hundreds of editors who have and want no connection to NPP, is why it was ill-considered to include such a proposal. --Begoontalk 02:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one question here: will autopatrolled be given (patrol) as well or will they still need this new user right? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that the right should be added to the reviewer and especially autopatrolled groups since they require at least as much competence and assiduousness. Rebbing 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, "reviewer" (i.e. PC reviewer) rights are handed out far too easily, currently, to be useful. Until the requirements for reviewer are strengthened, I would oppose including them in this NPP proposal. (And, fortunately, the current proposal does exclude reviewer...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, curious as well. (A counterargument is that while an editor's own new pages meet a decent standard, the editor is unable to evaluate the works of others...?) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I'm not exactly against excluding patrol in autopatrolled though, but here's another possible counter: folks might rather go directly for the autopatrolled right and gain (patrol) indirectly that just go for the "patroller" user group. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, to get WP:Autopatrolled they'd need to write 25–30 valid (mainspace) articles, properly sourced, with few-to-no maintenance tags, and with few-to-no deleted articles in their histories – that's actually a far higher hurdle than what is likely to result for NPP rights from this proposal... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query on the statistics: The presented table appears to show that I curated 50 articles in the year March 2015-16. This looks seriously out of line with, for example, my CSD Log which had 293 articles in Feb 2016 alone. Now, I use Twinkle for CSD rather than the more limited Page Curation toolbox; does this indicate that the activity analysis only picked up those logged under "pagetriage-curation" and omitted a swathe of NPP activity? AllyD (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Extending on this: The tabular stats presented above to underpin this RFC have missed more than 96% of my activity in the period. Presumably it is the same for other longstanding NPP editors who continued to use Twinkle rather than the "new" Page Curation tool to initiate CSD. Are the statistics then showing merely that new editors adopt Page Curation as have an unquantified proportion of longstanding editors? If the data is significantly understating the level of activity by longstanding editors at NPP by omitting Twinkle-based CSDs, is it fit for purpose here (both in terms of this discussion and any subsequent rights allocation)? AllyD (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AllyD: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the presented table is counting how many times you marked a page patrolled. When a page is created, it is not marked as patrolled. People not using the page curation software will see a little button on the bottom right hand corner of the page that says, "[Mark this page as patrolled]". If you click that, you've patrolled a page. If you are using the page curation toolbar, there's a big green checkmark to mark it patrolled, or doing any action using the toolbar (including tagging for lack of sources, nominating for deletion, etc.) marks it as patrolled. Nominating for deletion manually or using anything but the toolbar doesn't mark the page as patrolled. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD, one of the very reasons why NPP is in such a mess is because there are no mechanisms for contolling it. We actually have no inkling over who is doing it, when, and how often, and how competent they are, We have tools that tell us all this data for AfC, RfA, AfD participation and other areas, and logs of admin actions, etc., but for NPP (Page Curation or Twinkle), nothing, absolutely nothing. Just a few logs which can't be sensibly used by anyone trying to piece all this together. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as it did for a page I just put to CSD, so it is no longer showing in special:newpages; but my reading is that this Patrol transaction will be missed by the query used for the stats here. AllyD (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had hoped to check more, but the Quarry WMFLabs function has been unavailable. However my missing CSDs alone amount to a 0.7% omission in the total data above. Numerically that is almost large enough to be significant, but all the more problematic if it indicates a missed NPP activity pattern whose omission makes conclusions untenable. (Analogy: If a shopping mall's use was analysed by tallying people entering its street doors but not those from its car park, the results would over-assess its proportionate use by teenagers, for example, and could not be extrapolated to support statements about overall usage.) AllyD (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does NPP backlog come into this discussion? It seems like it will be more difficult to address the backlog if we restrict who is allowed to work on it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC appears to assume that once "bad" patrollers have been eliminated (which it assumes the right will achieve), more experienced editors will be "encouraged" to apply for the new user right and participate, and will be "better". It's up to you whether you go along with that chain of assumptions. Whilst acknowledging that the quality and methodology of NPP is a real concern that needs to be properly addressed, and inexperienced patrollers is a big factor, I mostly agree with the concerns expressed about this particular proposal by Opabinia in her oppose vote. --Begoontalk 03:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a credible scenario where the new requirement would increase NPP participation. I do think I would prefer we had a larger backlog to having the work done poorly. ~Kvng (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree. Of course, the problem with much of the 'backlog' in this area is that, unlike AFC, it's not stuff waiting for approval before it gets 'published', but rather stuff waiting to be approved, cleaned up or rejected that is already 'live' and maybe shouldn't be here at all. Not all of it, obviously, or maybe even most, but it's an important distinction in the way the 2 areas operate. That's a separate discussion, and harks back to WP:ACTRIAL etc, but worth a mention, I feel. --Begoontalk 09:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider me Neutral. I haven't used Page Curation myself, but I have patrolled a number of pages. I'm not familiar with the new pages landscape too well, except for the occasional page that has an incongruent DISPLAYTITLE, and the article generally almost always meets CSD somehow. The intent to get more competent editors reviewing pages is very good, and I could mildly support some technical implementation to get this happening. A concern for me is if this results in slower progress reviewing articles though, the group will have failed. The proposed Twinkle changes are questionable in my opinion. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a start, why don't we just bump patrol up from confirmed to extended confirmed and see how that works? At best, it solves the problem and we don't need the bureaucracy of an additional user right. At worst, it locks the newest and least experienced people out of new page patrolling, something we appear to want to do anyway. ~ Rob13Talk 23:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that that would be a good start (though I might want even higher standards than EC). But that would at least cut down on the ridiculousness of editors being able to NPP after just 4 days on the project. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think it's a great idea, but I'm doubtful whether the rest of the community thinks that, whether it's an extension of the scope of ECP beyond what it was intended for initially. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly heretical comments IMO incorrect tagging is a problem, but one that's not too hard to deal with if admins (and experienced others...) will take a few minutes to explain things. (Some may not wish to bump up their 'talk page' to 'creative edit' ratio. I don't care about mine as it's beyond help anyway...) The real problem is the incorrect application of the patrolled button. A possible answer to this would be to scrap the button altogether. This would, I presume, leave everything in place in the list for someone else to review again. Time wasting? Yes, in a way. But so is cleaning up an OrangeMoody type operation. As to locking out the most inexperienced - yes, but... With a driving licence test in the UK there is a practical test and a theory test, and prior to the practical test one may only drive in public places when accompanied. That would be very hard to do here. But without exposure to the nitty-gritty of CSD, how will the most inexperienced become experienced? Would-be admins are preferred to have experience on the fringes of admin work, and there is the new admin school, which I found quite instructive. Would it be possible for an NPP school similar to that to be created? Or again, would it be possible for a two level patrolled button, where things marked by newbies to the area can be separated into another list for a quick review by a smaller number of rather more experienced patrollers with a 'right' granted to them? This could reveal patterns in the use of the patrolled button, and enable alarm bells to be sounded (as well as giving the chance to educate those making errors in the case of genuine good faith mistakes). I'm just throwing these thoughts out to stir people up. But I will reiterate that I think restricting Twinkle is a non-starter - it wouldn't have stopped me doing all I did manually, and PC would have to be restricted too (so they say - open to correction there as I never looked that far into it). Peridon (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon: A two tiered system is basically what I proposed above, with the addition that I would try to make it an auto-confirmation process so as to avoid the addition of a persistent burden on admins. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the "but it will cause a worse backlog!" comments, let's be clear that we're just either pushing a backlog down the road or actively reducing the quality of new articles when we allow bad reviews to happen. The fastest way to clear the backlog would be to abolish new page patrolling altogether, but that's clearly not a viable option because the whole point is to perform quality control on new articles. The same is true here; yes, we have less of a backlog if we allow everyone to patrol new pages, but no, we don't get the same quality control as we normally would have. Whether or not this is the particular solution we're looking for is possibly questionable, but let's not try to oppose the idea of restricting new page patrol entirely to "reduce the backlog" for reducing the backlog's sake. ~ Rob13Talk 16:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An addition has been made to the proposal, Special:Diff/736719900. Concrete changes were proposed to Twinkle. That doesn't fall under illustrative purposes.Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backlog: Kvng, Begoon  While this RfC is not aimed at reducing the backlog - which clearly demonstrates the lack of real interest in the quality of Wikipedia by many of the participants at this RfC - what a lot of people are missing is the very fact that having a hat to collect (i.e. a user right) literally gets people clambouring to do a rights-limited maintenance task. But again, I wouldn't expect anyone who has never worked at WP:PERM or who is not a teacher or social scientist, to understand that. Quite undeniably, for a great many people, as evidenced by their user pages, Wikipedia is a game where the object is to get to the next level.
Ironically, when recruiting for New Page Patrollers, that's not a bad thing - as long as the admins who accord theright also take into consideration the user's editing history beyond simple numerical statustics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, Kudpung, do you think you could be any more condescending? I share your concern that inexperienced patrollers damage the project. I, and others who have commented, do not support the proposals as expressed in this RFC, partly because it relies on a chain of unproven assumptions, and partly because there are options it does not explore. Instead of suggesting that editors who are not as instinctively infallible in their intuition as you feel you are could not possibly understand your great wisdom, you might serve your cause better by, ermm, not doing that. The point you make about "hat-collecting" adding to the appeal is a good one, but the tone of your delivery almost caused me to skip over it. I support efforts to address this issue, and the fact that I don't feel this RFC does so in a way I can go along with does not diminish that. I understand that you are disappointed that the formulation of the RFC led to so many opposing on the "Twinkle" aspect, but that is really not a fault in the opposers... Incidentally, pings like this won't work. From Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events

Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.

But I wouldn't expect a teacher or social scientist to understand that... (See how well that works?) --Begoontalk 04:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IRC, offline, and other discussions at Wikimania and meet ups suggest that due to the increasing need by experienced users to monitor the patrolling of less experienced users, experienced editors are less interested in devoting their time to basic patrolling. In other words: Over a series of off-wiki discussions in which you were not invited, we were able to convince ourselves that we will diminish the page patrol backlog by preventing the majority of editors from patrolling pages. Sure you will. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Geogene, taking comments out of context is not conducive to reaching any conclusions. Based on your contributions I'm not wholly convinced that you are aware of the function of NPP; I may of course be wrong. Apologies if I am. What may come to a surprise to you however, is that a great deal of the preparatory work by volunteers on serious Wiki developments and all outreach takes place in work groups anfd public meetings with those who understand that the electronic part of Wikipedia is merely its public face. There is absolutely no rule at all that absolutely every word of the running of en.Wiki should take place on talk pages here. You will never be invited, no one ever is - the onus is on users to get actively involved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was taken out of context, a group of influential users merely believes, counter-intuitively, that this is a better option than attempting to teach less experienced users. And they want to keep the unwashed off their turf. You are correct that I know little of NPP, and once this becomes a user right-I will not be grandfathered-my ignorance of it will be made into a permanent condition. That is not going to help your backlog in the long term. Geogene (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • School? Would it be possible for an NPP school similar to that to be created? Well Peridon, Opabinia Regalis, that school was created on October 7, 2012‎ at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School following, for consistency, the format of our other schools. It was never used. Such is the interest of wannabe patrollers, and the editors commenting in this RfC. What stands out most with NPP is that its tutorials are the best and most comprehensive among all the maintenance tasks, but empirical evidence drawn by those who take a regular interest in NPP and the quality of what arrives here up to 1,500 times a day, is that nobody bothers to read it until they are told to refrain fro patrolling until they have. Even then, the response from 2-week, 200-edit wonders is often words to the effect (diffs available) 'Mind your own business, don't tell me what to do, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.' That very, much deliberately misused maxim, is what will ultimately destroy what little is left of Wikipedia's reputation for quality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To clarify on the Request for permissions aspect. If this RfC passes, will this necessarily be something that requires a proactive request on the part of an editor (other than those grandfathered in), or is it possible that the subsequent implementation RfC could still decide that, say, extended confirms are automatically included and the only requests would need to be for those who want an exemption or, I don't know, are reapplying after a removal? Studying this closely, I've started to worry that making it a requested permission might deter participation by some qualified people who'd be temperamentally very well-suited to the work, like those specifically not enticed by the perception of achieving a "higher" right. This would obviously be bad for backlogs, but I even wonder if it might perversely be at odds with goal of reducing biting, by taking some of the most low-key editors out of the mix (and meanwhile rather explicitly trying to attract ego-motivated editors? It seems, unless I am misreading?) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is fully covered in the itroduction, Innisfree987, but to recap, it is proposed that permission will be granted at WP:PERM (take a look there if you are not familiar with it) based on a recommended set of numercial criteria, plus a review of the applicant's editing (see also - just as an example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants). Users who have already demonstrated recent competent patrolling would be grandfathered into he right. The right would be subsumed into that of Admin. There is a school of thought that in spite of occasional peaks of backlogs, it is better to let articles stay unpatrolled for a while rather than to bite good-faith newcomers and/or let totally inappropriate articles into he encyclopedia for ever more. Indeed, the earlier system of NPP allowed just that: any unpatrolled articles older than 30 days became de facto patrolled - there must be hundreds of thousands of them. With the extremely low current participation at NPP, it is hardly likely that the new requirement would make the situation worse. Indeed, the way users clambour for other minor rights suggests that with a hat to wear, NPP might even get a boost.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must not be making myself clear because this still doesn't confirm the information I'm trying to pin down. To come at it from a different angle: I'm wondering if I understand this RfC correctly for the way the proposed mechanism differs from AfC, where you do not have to submit a request to PERM--you need only achieve the 90/500 threshold (by which time you're automatically extended confirmed and don't have to ask for anything), then you can add yourself, and after that quality control is done by admins removing editors who are unsuitable. (Basically, you can join at will but might be bounced, instead of having to ask to join in the first place.) What I'm asking here is, 1, do I understand correctly that this RfC is meant to preclude that approach (and instead require an explicit request) as a possibility at a subsequent implementation RfC, and 2, if so, why? Innisfree987 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Innisfree987, The answers are clear to anyone who has taken the time to read the preamble. In a nutshell, this RfC is not about AfC (which also suffers fron the same ailments)) but the comparison is made for those commenting on this RfC who may not even be fully familiar with either process, to help them understand that NPP is an official process, which is even embedded in the MediaWiki software as some kind of extension, API, (or whatever the MediaWiki engineers care to call it) while AfC is a local, volunteer run process, whose Helper Script was a good faith, free contribution by an unpaid volunteer, which incidentally works quite well, but like Page Curation, is only any good when in the hands of an experienced user who has a good knowledge of policies and guidelines. Unlike NPP however, it does not have a detailed tutorial, and reviewers' error rates are arguably higher than those of regular New Page Patrollers.[citation needed]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the idea of creating a two tiered system as has been described by a couple of people already. Not only will it put an extra layer of protection on the new page patrol process, it will also be useful to newbies learning how to patrol pages by looking at the ones that have been 'approved' by a senior patroller. --ABF99 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can safely declare consensus against the twinkle restrictions. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compare: Page mover, something new page reviewers sometimes need to do (move to Draft), requires 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history." It isn't a need. WP:CSD#R3 suffices, which anyone can apply a tag for, even those who choose to edit without an account.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having thought about this, would it be easier if we simply removed the autopatrol from Twinkle and page curation. At the moment, I notice that if I tag a page as potentially not notable, it comes up as patrolled, when there's clearly still work to be done on it. I suspect that this may be the source of much incorrect patrolling. If we simply altered the software so that you could tag, nominate for deletion, etc, without saying it's patrolled, would that work?Killer Moff (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Killer Moff, I think the answer to your question is to ask what you think patrolling is, what it's for. If you tag a page as potentially not notable, that means that you have seen the article, recognized that it has an issue, flagged the issue, but did not feel the issue was bad enough to merit deletion. In other words - the article has been patrolled. Why should it remain on the list for other people to look at when the list is full of articles no one has seen? You have tagged it, and now if someone wants to review articles tagged for notability because they feel like they can specialize in that, it's in a list for them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ONUnicorn, do you think there are many people doing that, going through the templated articles according to their interests and nominating for delete as necessary? Because that would be a good system! I just worry it doesn't happen, so I've actually stopped tagging NPP articles now that I have autopatrol--because if I don't nominate for deletion, I really don't necessarily mean I think an article isn't so terrible; I often only mean I don't want the responsibility of being the AfD nominator. (Because AfD feels so battleground to me, but that's a different conversation.) If I thought I could count on someone else seeing it once I've tagged it, then I'd be happy to help sort like that (in fact, I'd probably do a lot of it), but right now I don't think that's in fact what's taking place, so I worry my tagging something takes it out of NPP and means no one will check what are often still seriously flawed entries. But maybe what we need an effort to invigorate the approach you describe. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Innisfree987, I don't think there are many people doing that, and I think there needs to be more. Back in 2006/2007 I was part of Wikiproject Unreferenced articles which was attempting to systematically clear out unreferenced articles by searching for references for them and either adding references or deleting them as appropriate. Like many Wikiprojects it's largely inactive, and has been working on clearing out Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 since February 2010. That category still has 74 pages in it.
I think part of what Wikipedia lacks is organization. We should have organized drives to clear out the maintenace categories. Something like the Wikipedia:Stub Contest, only for unreferenced articles might be fun and have a good result. Points could be awarded for each article taken from 0 sources to at least 5 sources, each article deleted if sufficient sources could not be found, each unsourced article fully sourced and achieving at least a B quality, oldest unsourced sourced, etc. The same could be done for the articles lacking notability categories, the articles needing copyediting, rough translations, etc. Someone just needs to take the initiative.
Part of the problem with the mainteance categories is that working on them is a lot of work. It's way more work to verify and add sources to a totally unsourced article that you know little or nothing about than it is to write an article from scratch on something that may be of more interest to you, that you already have sources for. Also, there's more "glory" in writing new articles. If you watch WP:RFA people are always looking for "content creators," not "content improvers." If one takes an article that someone else has written and spend hours finding sources for it and copyediting it and restructuring it and basically doing the whole thing over, but it's not good enough to take to GA or FA, what do they gain? It's not eligable for DYK, if they were to run for RFA they would not be considered a "content creator". But if they were to write a similar quality article from scratch the article could be featured on the main page, and they would be lauded as a "content creator" at RFA, and the process is easier.
At any rate, I'm getting off topic here. The topic is supposed to be about improving new page patrol; not improving workflows and motivating people on Wikipedia more generally. Suffice to say that I have noticed people occasionally nominating articles long tagged with notability concerns or lacking references for deletion, and I have noticed myself and others occasionally adding sources and trying to address tagged issues without nominating for deletion, but like with everything else in Wikipedia the process is disorganized and ad hoc, and people do what they want. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ONUnicorn, ok, that makes sense. I suggested it largely owing to the number of people saying that the current system is broken and there's too many problem patrollers. Maybe there would be a way to return it to unpatrolled if the tags are removed without any substantial changes? Killer Moff (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Killer Moff If you tag an article and you don't want it to be marked as patrolled, you can manually unmark it while leaving the tags, but I don't think it automatically returns to unpatrolled if the tags are manually removed by the creator. Annoyingly, articles are returned to unpatrolled status if they are converted to redirects and then back to an article. So sometimes very old articles show up on NPP as a result of redirect vandalism. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure requested

[edit]

Since 30 days have elapsed, I have requested that this discussion be closed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Mz7 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional post about this on the main noticeboard as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.