Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Measuring patrols done without new page reviewer

@Kudpung:, per your recent declines: Not questioning any of them, but they won't be able to mark any pages as patrolled, or use Page Curation, without being a new page reviewer. By removing the patrol functionality, moving forward we cannot easily see when a user has tagged new articles, even added speedy deletion requests, nor can we easily determine contributions they've made to new articles they found via Special:NewPagesFeed (or Special:NewPages). We can see the Twinkle CSD/PROD log, if they've enabled this feature and they are using Twinkle (obviously), same for general Twinkle edits (such as tagging new pages for notability issues). That only works with tools like this if they use a standard Twinkle-like edit summary. So we can ask users who we've declined to do N number of patrols to new pages, but just know that we can't accurately determine that they've done so — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal. THese are technical problems, not mine. The WMF will have to find a way of making the appropriate logs and they've had plenty of time to do it. That said, patrolling without the right is perfectly possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I don't think you understand. The logs were the patrol log, which was removed with the introduction of new page reviewer (per your proposal). At the very least, don't ask that declined users use Page Curation to make reviews, as this is no longer possible. They can still see the feed of new pages, if that's what you mean? Perhaps consider rewording the declines to not be as misleading. Kind regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To further clarify, the log still exists, but is only populated when new page patroller do patrols. Other users no longer have a log. We will have to devise a different way to evaluate if they are fit to be a new page patroller, not relying on them using Twinkle which is by no means required. For those that do use Twinkle, their CSD/PROD log (again, if enabled) will do well, and also doing an edit summary search. Finally, you could also review their deleted contributions to see if they tagged any articles for speedy. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As we have already confirmed, the New Page Reviewer Right is useless as long as any user can still use Twinkle to patrol pages. I don't really think we should therefore be encouraging people to use Twinkle, and the creation of Twinkle deletion logs is not mandatory. Just to recap, the whole exercise was to:

• Prevent inappropriate pages from being accepted by inexperienced users and socks
• Prevent good faith users from being bitten
• Reduce the load on admins, above all the impossibility of expecting them, or someone (who?) to monitor the quality of New Page Patroling/Reviewing.

What we have to do now anyway to achieve all that is enact ACTRIAL, but that's another story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Bullet point #1 has been done. #2 is impossible to do, period. If we disallow a non-NPR user from adding {{db-g12}}, this is bad, because it might actually be a copyright violation. Even if we do disallow it, they can still add "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" to the top of the page, then yell at the user on their talk page. #3 should be better, since we have hand picked our new page patrollers to mark pages as patrolled. Pages with rubbish tags added by new users will still be re-reviewed by new page reviewers, and appropriate actions taken accordingly. ACTRIAL is a different story, and so is restricting Twinkle tagging to New Page Reviewers. That requires it's own RfC. All Twinkle does is make adding {{db-g12}} (and other tags) easier. Anyone can add the tag, without Twinkle and without Page Curation. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Unprocessed requests

Something drew me to the archives of New Page Reviewer requests today and I noticed that there appear to be quite a few requests that were never processed. Not my problem anymore, but perhaps MusikAnimal or someone could look into it, And the backlog on the current page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Could you provide some links? I'm not sure where you're talking about. On quick glance I don't see any improperly archived requests for November 2016 (approved, denied) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't make a request for a registered user

When I'm logged in as my registered user and visit the request page I see a message that I can only make a request with a registered user and that I need to make an account. Here is a screenshot: http://tools-static.wmflabs.org/algo-news/static/request-confirm-status-screenshot.png Would be great if I can get confirmed. Thanks! Fako85 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fako85: that does seem strange, but since this post is your tenth edit, you should now be autoconfirmed.—Odysseus1479 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a bug in the css logic here, will look in to it and fix it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Message left at User_talk:MusikAnimal#Wikipedia:PERM.2FSubpage. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've turned off the per-user type notice until we can get this fixed up. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Please i need to become an account creator (to add a request for account creator in the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator)because i'm involved in an education project wich needs creating accounts without restriction of 6 accounts per IP adress. For more details about my project please see this link My IP adress is 41.231.148.237 Ibrahim Ben Khalifa (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the right page to request additional rights. You can add the request for account creator at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@DRAGON BOOSTER: that page is semi-protected, so new accounts (to enWP) can’t post there. I think it would be best to leave this request for an admin who works with permissions or educational programmes, even though it‘s not the proper venue. (I suppose the alternative is for one of us to post the request there on the user‘s behalf, but I don’t know how well that would be received, and it would make any needed dialogue very inconvenient.)—Odysseus1479 10:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Odysseus1479: I was not aware that the talk page of the Account creator is redirected here. I think it would be better to suggest Ibrahim Ben Khalifa to wait for four days and make atleast ten edits so that he can add his own request. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC).

HI evry body, happy of your responses. I would clarify that i could not add a request in the page of the Account creator, I like to have the account creator permission on this wiki, because of my educational project, please i need help very soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim Ben Khalifa (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ibrahim Ben Khalifa: English Wikipedia administrators cannot grant you account creator for arwikibooks. It would most likely have to be granted by a Steward since local admins and crats do not have the ability to grant it. (@Xaosflux, Ajraddatz, and Mardetanha:) — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89 and Ibrahim Ben Khalifa: accountcreator access exists on arwikibooks, and should be able to be requested at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Miscellaneous_requests. A local discussion to show community support should be had on arwikibooks first. arwikibooks only has one (seemingly inactive) administrator, so posting at a community discussion forum may be sufficient. (Note:I am not a steward). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite correct, though in requests for the account creator permission we usually replace "local consensus" with just a "local announcement" and proof of some sort of event happening. The second part exists above, so all we'd need is the announcement and an overview of how long this event will happen for. @Ibrahim Ben Khalifa: if you can provide that information here, I'll fill out all the relevant forms on Meta and grant the permission. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: I'm an IT teacher from Tunisia. I am in the process of completing an education project about adding an article in the ar.Wikibooks. The biggest obstacle that I face is the inability to add accounts for my pupils, beaucause of using a single IP adress in the classroom wich is 41.231.148.237 where we can not create more than six accounts. I request the permission to give me the permission of account creator to be able to establish the number of 40 account at least in this wiki (with the knowledge that IP adress, which I use is 41.231.148.237 as the project runs from 24 / 01/2017 to the end of April 2017); of course after reviewing the pedagogical project details that you will allow. With thanks for the assistance.--Ibrahim Ben Khalifa (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving delay

Can we please have MisaBot set to archive not sooner than 3 full days (72 hrs). Requests are being archived before the applicants have even had a chance to read our rejections. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:? I've tried to figure out Mizabot but I can't get my head round it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Good ping - While this talk page is done by MisazBot, but the actual request pages are done by User:MusikBot so MA is the one to tweak this. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It is currently set to archive 36 hours after the last comment, as specified by User:MusikBot/PermClerk/config (archive_config - offset). This is how long KingpinBot waited to archive, so it's been like this for many years. Three days seems a bit excessive to me, personally. Anyone else have any thoughts? How about we try 48 hours first? When PERM pages become very busy this could easily become a problem. You can always use {{archive now}} to force archiving on-demand, but the point is that the system is automated. Another option is to leave a message on the user's talk page when their request has been denied. This apparently is what SoxBot X did way back in 2008 — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If leaving them a decline and using PermaLink - it will always be good. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Users are clearly told that they need to keep looking at the PERM page to check on the progress of their application. And rightly so. Admins need less workload, not more. Pleaese leave the rejections up until the weekenders have at least had time to reads why hey are wasting our time - otherwise we are wasting our time telling them why their application has been rejected. Or is that so hard to understand? Or, one could of course create a script as part of the helper script system that says: You request for ... has not been accorded. Please see the page at ... for the administrator's explanation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've set the delay from 36 to 72 hours - lets see how that goes? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure we can give it a try. Also if it is important the user see your response, regardless if you declined or accepted, you might consider pinging them. The echo notification goes to the diff itself, so even if the request has been archived they still have a direct link to your response — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

86.168.37.235 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ricardo peel Bradford city academy professional football player from 1969 to 1974 Right footed player generally inside right wing to winger,went to Sheffield Wednesday and retired 18 years old .

 Not done This is not the right place to request an edit, please see the Talk: page of the article you want to change. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A question

Who has permission to fully edit any wiki page? Why just a few if it is an open project? Who chooses them and how? Do any body else can get qualified , if yes, how? Thanks. Elsid-h (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Elsid-h: I moved this here since you posted originally on a WP:REDIRECT page. A full explanation of how protection works is at WP:PP. The short answer is that anyone can edit about 95% of Wikipedia pages, but sometimes we have to restrict access due to either deliberate vandalism or content disputes that are disrupting an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

hi i want to be a administrator to write some of my one articles that is usfull for all web designers and it was not free.but now i want to make it free for all people to share and use it,because i am old and now a want be usfull for all. tanks ای میهن (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@ای میهن: Here's a good place to start, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages

Should our assessments of autopatrolled requests consider whether an editor creates talk pages for their new articles? I would have thought that it's not part of the criteria, but maybe it is as suggested by Beeblebrox. Schwede66 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, autopatrolled doesn't do anything for the user who gets it, its only purpose is to lighten the load on new page patrollers. Nobody actually needs it, so it's not quite like other user right requests. If I cite something as being part of a group of reasons I saw why a certain users' creations might benefit from being patrolled a while longer, it's not a big deal and I believe within the realm of administrative discretion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Doncram

Beeblebrox, regarding Doncram, I had just started to look at the user's contributions. Do you have a link to the previous discussion? I'm wondering because wouldn't this be a good place to discuss whether the previous concern has been resolved? Schwede66 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid all it says in the log is "per AN discussion" with no link, but I'll see if I can find it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, had just checked the log myself. That'll be good if you can dig it out. Thanks for that. Schwede66 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare removed autopatrolled rights at 02:02, 21 June 2011. That was shortly after this discussion closed at 8:14 pm, 20 June 2011. Schwede66 22:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, right after I wrote that my wife asked me if I wanted to go out to lunch and that took priority due to the presence of fried oyster po-boy sandwiches. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to consider this "on hold pending more information". I've been doing some work recently at WP:RESTRICT and I suddenly remembered seeing this name there. This eventually went all the way to WP:ARBCOM and a formal restriction on creating certain article types was passed. Here's where it gets complicated: it looks like arbcom reviewed this case last year and temporarily suspended the restriction. They were supposed to either re-impose it or lift it later, and it looks they did neither of those things, so I think we'll end to ask them to clarify that status of the restriction before considering returning autopatrolled. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Beeblebrox. I think we'll better leave this alone until Arbcom have decided how to proceed. Schwede66 01:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears the RESTRICT listing is a bit off, and the restriction will just expire on it's own in just a few weeks. It also appears that Doncram doesn't really want autopatrolled back, or at least doesn't want it back like this, so yeah, I think we should let it go for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

I'd like to have access to be able to use AWB to assist in making general corrections, or for finding and replacing tasks to improve wiki articles. Dawood Khan (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not the correct page, in order to place a request, I suggest following this link else reading into Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser — IVORK _Discuss 13:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are new-enough to need to use a semi-protected edit request to make an edit, you are probably too new to be given AWB access. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Make new Rollback grants a one month trial

Hi everyone, I recently had to handle a few instances of rollback being utilized inappropriately, a number of them being with users who had recently been granted the tool. Given that we now have the ability to set limited time permissions and that currently with permissions like rollback once you get it there is essentially zero oversight unless someone notices something odd, I wanted to get people's thoughts on making new grants of the Rollback permission subject to a one month trial period. Assuming all was well with a user's use of rollback we would then extend to permanent however it would provide a valuable opportunity for a user's usage of the tool to be evaluated and for feedback/education if rollback was be being used in circumstances where it should not be.

My suggestion in a nutshell is:

1. Keep WP:PERM/R the same as it is now but change all new grants to one month (auto-expiring.)
2. At the end of that one month, a user would then post on a new subpage asking for the right to be made permanent.
3. An admin would review their usage of the tool and provide feedback.
4. An admin could then decide to make their access permanent, revoke if serious misuse was found, or extend for another trial period (month, week, etc.) for reevaluation.

From what I have seen, I don't think there are many instances of willful misuse of Rollback however given its ability to quickly remove edits, it being required for usage of Huggle, Stiki, etc., and the relatively low bar we have for giving it out, adding another step to help educate and provide feedback to new Rollbackers can only be a good thing as they are in many ways the first people a new editor/IP would encounter. It also might help in borderline cases as there would be room for re-evaluation after a month (or less if needed) as opposed to concerns of granting a permanent permission. Thoughts or feedback? Mifter (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really opposed to a "trial" as opposed to a "not done" for borderlines cases; but for anyone that would have already been "done" this seems like excessive process. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not convinced for either case: For the ones which otherwise would not have that right granted, one month (or any other timeframe) is completely arbitrary and no better than manually removing it. For the ones which otherwise would have that right granted, it means more work (to prolong the duration) and unnecessary process. Generally, I think that MediaWiki's reliance on automatic (and thus arbitrary) expiries is often a bug rather than a feature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would be very hesitant to support policy creep of this nature. While intended to be something that lets more users have access, I can see this quickly becoming more restrictive then enabling. The automatic expiry feature has some very specific uses, on and off of enwiki. We don't need to invent new things to do with it just because it is a thing now. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User group EXPIRATIONS are now live

Hello All, phab:T159416 has been executed and EXPIRATION dates for user groups are now available in Special:Userrights. There is still a little work to do regarding the echo notifications for these groups, but they are otherwise functionally working. The usergroup that this will most frequently apply to here on the English Wikipedia will likely be account creators as it is often given "for an event". But others that have requested a "temporary" access can be used as well. Please note, our "default" for normal groups is indefinite "Does not expire" and should continue to be used for normal group changes, baring a new community discussion. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps setting an expiration for confirmed if the user is expected to automatically meet the requirements after some days? –xeno^talk 18:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

IPBE and the oft-used-elsewhere-user-right-"flood" seem like excellent candidates for "turns off at a later date". Perhaps also bots testing and preliminary 'granting' of user rights (for a later review period and possible indefinite later rights-granting). --Izno (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

enwiki doesn't have "flood" — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A fact of which I'm aware, hence the wording I used. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that; even for say a month - that should be enough time to amass 10 edits! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible for a user to have both confirmed and autoconfirmed? How does the interaction work - does autoconfirmed still get added if a user is confirmed? Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it happens all the time, confirmed is never automatically removed, admins clean it up from time to time. For the most part, being members of multiple groups just gives you the benefits of each of them. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: An admin bot could easily be written to do that task. With this new feature, would one be helpful?--v/r - TP 15:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: If we actually change the practice of using an expiration on "confirmed" (being a stop gap for people that will be editing soon) then it is already automated and won't need anyone (person or bot) to go look after it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The "best" use case here is account creator. That user right is routinely granted for use on events and then removed from an editor who we wouldn't otherwise give the right to. This is a big boon for those who grant that permission. Thanks to all those involved in making this happen! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed and account creator seem like good candidates to me seeing as they are needed for a determined amount of time, as would some cases of IPB and admins/bureaucrats testing permissions. For all other permissions, we'd be dealing with mostly arbitrary and meaningless timespans so I don't see any use there, and some conflict potential. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, most of the others won't be useful here (maybe occasionally edit filter manager when we have someone requesting temporary access to export to another wiki or something). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Who of the above wants to put together a really brief RFC for, oh, use with account creator, IPBE, confirmed, "self-testing", and possibly "limited experimentation with non-self users"? I think those should be relatively painless discussions. There might be others but I expect those others will be more of a "let's discover them as we go" type thing (which is why I included the last category). --Izno (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't think we really need an RfC for account creator related to events - we manually remove that one after the events already so there is no really difference. As far as IPBE, Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption has had lots of discussion about use of that permission - I'd start there. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That practice of removal of ACC (I believe you when you say it is normal practice) doesn't appear to be documented at WP:Account creators or at WP:PERM/ACC, else I would have made a bold edit in response to your comment. Is it documented somewhere? --Izno (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen the practice of removal documented specifically, maybe FastLizard4 might know for sure, but I can confirm the removal process is SOP. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Account creator#Other information: Per this 2013 request for comment, the use of the Account Creator permission was clarified as extending to "Active account creators" in both the ACC process and the education program, "while they are performing their duties." This does not mention event coordinators but it's even more relevant in that case, as many coordinators are otherwise very new users who just need to get around the account creation throttle for an isolated event. Internally within PERM, this practice is documented at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator/Administrator instructions — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have amended the instructions for event coordinators. Indeed, that use is also not described at WP:ACCPERM. I will add some brief text around the WP:ACCPERM#Becoming an account creator section. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have also spent some time editing WP:ACCPERM. Please review my changes for correctness (especially the insertion of "only" into the first sentence of WP:ACCPERM#Other information). --Izno (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Policy is meant to reflect best practice, not the other way around. We don't have to codify all of our best practices. Some get codified when we want to make them concrete and enforce them.--v/r - TP 15:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Not sure of your point, I agree that policy should strive towards best practice, My point was to verify that the removal process mentioned above is how it has been done. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

I will be sharing with volunteer developers at the upcoming Wikimedia hackathon about various development opportunities in the area of machine learning. Thus, I'm interested in learning how the Huggle tool works for which I need rollback permissions. Thanks! SSethi (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've added your request here Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback and marked your account as confirmed so you can edit those pages now. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

Mhaherganta (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm requesting for your confirmation

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Helper scripts

The helper scripts, mostly developed by MusikAnimal are more than just an optional aid. They have become an essential feature of the processing of PERM requests. By using the Assign permissions link, they carry out important functions which would be tedious to do manually each time, such as according the right to the user's account, automatically notifying the candidates, populating lists and cats. The scripts cut down the admin load by two thirds, but there is no one around any more to mop up if it is done manually and some functions are left uncompleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

When I submit the wiki page in draft it came with the username included in the title like "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dhruva21/WIN-911_Software". Actual article title should be "WIN_911 Software". Can you please remove my user name in the article title. Dhruva21 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Ping Dhruva21 for courtesy. Izno (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Helper scripts

The helper scripts, mostly developed by MusikAnimal are more than just an optional aid. They have become an essential feature of the processing of PERM requests. By using the Assign permissions link, they carry out several important functions which would be tedious to do manually each time, such as according the right to the user's account, automatically notifying the candidates, populating lists and cats.

The scripts cut down the admin load by two thirds, but there is no one around any more to mop up if it is done manually and some functions are left uncompleted.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh. I thought that the helper script can be used for both 'done' and 'not done'. I set it to 'not done' just now, but that doesn't seem to have worked. Off to work now; can someone please tidy up after me? Or else, I'll do it tonight (in half a day's time). Schwede66 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. I've taken the permission away again and notified the user accordingly. What else needs doing? Schwede66 08:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WP database report: eligible editors for autopatrol

Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege —usernamekiran(talk) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66 and Xaosflux: did you guys see this? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Question is – what do we do with this list now that we've got it? Take Neddyseagoon at the top of the list, for example. There's no way that I would grant autopatrolled to that editor, but the reason why should be recorded somewhere. Maybe we should have the user names transferred to the WP:RFP/A page in bite-size batches of ten, and we'll then work our way through the list? Schwede66 18:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No way on batching them in to be forced reviewed. However perhaps people in WP:NPP may be good to do the vetting and nominating. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it is a computer generated list of possible candidates. They can be vetted by anyone and nominated at WP:PERM for administrator review. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Schwede66: Nope. A lot of editors shouldnt become autopatrolled. I didnt see how this list was genereated, but apparently that program first of all looked for editors who have created more than 25 articles, then how many of them were deleted, and then how many of them have maintenance tags. Then there was this incident. Kindly take a look at my comment after Kudpung declined the grant. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Resnjari In the exact same way, the program must have looked only for current stats, and tags; and not the previous tags. All these editors' page creation needs to be checked before nominating them for the autopatrolled. I can start doing that after 2-3 days from now. Whenever I find somebody trustworthy i can nominate them. But i think instead of putting our time in finding prospective autopatrolled, we should find and ask responsible editors to become NPP/R. I have already found two such editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

May we please change the page name "Marliyn Salzman Webb" to simply "Marilyn Webb" as she is known? Searches of "Marilyn Webb" never bring us to this current "Marilyn Webb Salzman" page but rather direct us to another page entirely about "Bethel Heights Vineyard" (for some odd reason) which is not related at all to the subject. This change is being requested by Marilyn Webb herself. No one can find her information through a simple search as it stands now! Thank you so much. :) Erica Karlin (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is the page for requesting the page mover permission. Please make your request at WP:RM. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for permissions page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled and proper English

Should proper English be a pre-requisite before we assign autopatrolled? I've just denied two users this right, with shaky English the main reason: 1 and 2. Balabinrm suggests that it's not such a big deal. What do others think? I'm happy to go with the flow. Schwede66 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Minor issue: Vanamonde93 suggests it - Balabinrm agrees, but does not believe he has a right for an oppinion on this matter ) --Balabinrm (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Balabinrm is quite right, I suggested it. I think it's entirely a matter of degree. If an article contains a couple of grammatical errors or typos, it is not, in my view, a big enough deal to deny the flag. If the language issues are severe enough to raise issues about readers understanding what is being said, though, then yes, we should absolutely not grant the flag. All I'm saying is we cannot expect perfection; but if the basics check out, then giving the autopatrolled right is a net positive, because it allows time at NPP to be spent on more urgent matters. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I tried to collect some facts: if my calculation is right, out of 30 articles 2 were corrected (mostly, English articles and typos) before being marked as reviewed. --Balabinrm (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just to make it easier for other editors to figure out whether or not this is a problem, here are diffs for a couple of articles that I copy-edited: 1 (ignore dash fixes and date format, but look at the remaining copy-edits only) and 2. Thanks, Balabinrm, for looking through article history. It's one thing to say that NPP should pick something up, but quite another if it rarely happens. Schwede66 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to get further opinions on this matter, so shall ping admins who have recently been active on the autopatrolled page: Kudpung, Beeblebrox, Swarm, xaosflux, Widr. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Schwede66 18:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled should be given to users whose creations do not require major copy editing, so if poor grasp of English is obvious, I would not grant the flag. Widr (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My basic criterion is that if articles have any problems (other than 'orphan' and minor layout issues) that would cause a patroller to add any maintenance tag, then I don't grant. So that includes poor English, too many typos, etc as a regular feature of the Editor's work. Up to 25 articles I check them all; over 25, I do a random check of at least 25, maybe more. On the premise that very short articles do not demonstrate a broad kowledge of article creation guidelines, and that they don't take long to patrol, I don't grant the right to users who only create short stubs. I admit that while not pedantic, I'm possibly stricter than most admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of article patrolling, just not one of my specialties, and as such I don't process this particular permission much except for requests from editors that are extremely over qualified, conversely I rarely decline on this permission - leaving it to other admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree that proper English should be a prerequisite. This is an encyclopedia. The MOS certainly requires a fairly substantial understanding of the English language. If lack of ability to write in even basic English is evident, that alone should make it a quick-fail. Swarm ♠ 04:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Kudpung, Beeblebrox, Swarm, Xaosflux, and Widr: Apologies for the mass ping, but with due respect to Schwede, I do not think they phrased the question accurately. Nobody is saying folks with poor English should be given the flag. The question here is whether an occasional typo or grammatical error counts as poor English. Specifically, would you deny the flag based on articles on which Schwede needed to make changes such as this and this? If so, I can respect that consensus, but I do want to note that there are many folks with the flag who make more mistakes in their new articles than shown here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody would argue that occasional typos or grammatical errors count as poor English. Anyone, no matter how competent, will make mistakes. However it's pretty easy to distinguish human errors from a fundamentally poor grasp of the English language. If we're talking about situations like the provided diffs, we're not talking about "occasional errors". We're talking about demonstrated inability to write in basic English. Swarm ♠ 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Helper scripts

The helper scripts, mostly developed by MusikAnimal are more than just an optional aid. They have become an essential feature of the processing of PERM requests. By using the Assign Permissions link, they carry out important functions which would be tedious to do manually each time, such as according the right to the user's account, automatically notifying the candidates, populating lists and cats. The scripts cut down the admin load by two thirds, but there is no one around any more to mop up if it is done manually and some functions are left uncompleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• True. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Kudpung: I see you're regularly posting this here. If someone is not using the script and you think they should you might consider pinging them or writing on their talk page — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe using {{noping}} when mentioning the scripts author - FlightTime (open channel) 15:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging people, FlightTime, is an important feature of communication in today's environment of electronic collaboration. So important, it seems, that the WMF has invested thousands of dollars in the priority development of its project Echo (Notifications), rather than in essential software required to keep the encyclopedia free of junk. New Page Patrollers in particular, are the people on whom we rely for maintaining our only firewall against that trash and other evil exploitations of our voluntary work. Their requests for permission to use the tools they need are processed here.

A downside of written messages is that they do not convey the important part of communication that is contained in the spoken word. It is human nature to interpret the worst in a message, indeed some people even deliberately attempt to identify a negative slant whether it was intended or not - my talk page and its archives are a classic example of the way my words are distorted and taken out of context in deliberate attempts by my readers to want to feel insulted; I'm sure that you as a OTRS agent are aware of the need for tact and diplomacy (when they matter). Our admins are no different when it comes to providing them with information. That's why I don't address them directly. To do so would only result in the type of thoughts such as "Oh, Kudpung's throwing his weight around again" whereas I'm only trying to reinforce the advantages in using some of the excellent time saving tools developed by MusikAnimal and letting him know that his work is appreciated.

As a side note, the editor(s) of the monthly admin newsletter could also take the initiative to use their bulletin to disseminate tips and information of this kind to their confrères. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: That wasn't my point. My point is maybe the reason MusikAnimal mentioned the above is because each identical message you leave is pinging him, which would be annoying. Either way my comment was semi-joking so please disregard. P.S. I've been here over 8 years, I now all about how important pinging is. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered by pings, but I have been pinged with this exact message many times... not a biggie though :) My point was I'm pretty sure Kudpung is posting this because some admins working at WP:PERM/NPR are not using the script or are forgetting to add people to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list. They may not see the message here, which is why I suggest you ping them or write on their talk page. As for the admin newsletter, I think we like to announce new admin-related scripts and bots, but this one is not new, and only benefits the small group of admins who work in this area — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Was lurking, Kudpung what problems are you seeing here? If it is just list mailing list maintence, JJMC89 bot run some task similar to that and may be able to solve the problem programmatically, if so leave an ask on JJMC89's talk with what is needed and they can tell you if it's an easy win. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be retired from micro-managing NPP and I'm getting fed up of manually having to spend an hour or so every 15 days to go through the recent allocated permissions and send the canned messages to the users and enter them on the mailing list. MusikAnimal did an brilliant job of designing the script but although its link is blatant enough, some of our most experienced and respected admins won't use it. xaosflux, no fixes are needed except for admins to fix their eyes on something that is staring them in the face :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung the scripts are good, but I don't think everyone knows about them and may be relying on the links shown on the page. If one of the main headaches has been missing adding new patrollers to the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list, I just made a code update to the template links - on the NPR request page there is now a link to the mailing list for each person to encourage this action. Hope it helps! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2017

update text and update photo gallery Johncsurfin3 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @Johncsurfin3: this does not have a clear description of change you are requesting be made to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal

Hi, I have just applied for AWB access, however I found I have current access listed under User:Aguyintobooks - my old username. I had my account renamed, this did not get reflected on the checkpage. I earlier today recreated an account matching my old username and found it had full autowikibrowser access (this ought to be disabled). I assume anyone could have recreated this account, so anyone who is renamed should have their old username removed from the list. I don't know exactly how feasible this is, or whether it is a relevant security risk, but I thought I would mention it. Dysklyver 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• I too stumbled upon this issue (see User_talk:Ks0stm/Archive_17#AWB). It appears that the bot only renames users on the checkpage if you don't recreate the old account after renaming. –72 _(talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, this is about two weeks after I did the rename, and it was still there. I only recreated the account today after noticing it was still on the checkpage. Dysklyver 21:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm, I guess it's still a feasible way to bypass requesting the permission, although it likely wouldn't go unnoticed for long. Pinging MusikAnimal as the operator of MusikBot II. –72 _(talk) 22:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The bot goes by the rename log, so it should handle the above scenario. For example, in June Mlpearc was renamed to FlightTime. The same day, FlightTime recreated the old account, and the bot still correctly updated the CheckPage a few days later. So maybe something is broken, because it should have updated the CheckPage at most one week after Aguyintobooks's rename. Even if the bot ran every hour, you could still recreate the old account during that time and bypass the PERM process. Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to prevent that — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Permission update needed

Hello - I was recently approved (see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Approved/October 2017#October 18) as a user of AWB as User:Jabberjawjapan. Earlier, I had also requested a username change on 11 October, which was just approved today (see Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations). I was wondering if my AWB permission could be transferred to my new and current username. Thank you. JabberJaw talk 09:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih^Talk 10:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

2405:205:A008:911A:0:0:2570:E0AD (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir, i requst you for you can please unprotected Riyanka Chanda I want changed television becuase she has done his work in Vighnaharta Ganesha but this show that prease- but she has not workin preasent on the show Thank you.

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled review request

Not sure there's a more appropriate place to have a public discussion about this, but I'm not totally sure that User:Александр Мотин's auto-patrolled permission couldn't use a bit of review, perhaps a good deal of advice, and possibly at least temporary removal. I just went through about the last twenty article creations, and all or nearly all of them needed some form of cleanup, and/or had some sort of cleanup done by others. The article that caught my attention Yandex.Drive, was an unmarked, unsourced, and with no stub or project sorting, which is really the kinds of thing that NPP needs to be reviewing. (Courtesy ping for User:Ezhiki, although it doesn't look like they've been online in about a week.) GMG^talk 14:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: WP:AN is normally the forum to discuss removing another user's account flags. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I was hoping to avoid that. I don't think this is really a major behavioral issue that necessarily needs to be dragged out in front of God and everybody. GMG^talk 16:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018

Hello, I'm helping run the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Otis College of Art and Design. The event is on March 15, 2018. While participants are encouraged to make accounts in advance, we expect a some new editors will participate in a training at the event, we want to preemptively address the IP block. I'd like to request account creator privileges for this account. Thanks so much. LHR2LAX (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@LHR2LAX: I've copied your request to the proper page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

Please can you change Wikipedia page title Draft:Mary Njoku to 'Mary Njoku'.

Many thanks Maria MariaWimbart (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the super obnoxious edit notice with flashing stop signs on it that popped uo when you editied this page. This is not the place to request edits to articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC) I did submit the draft o WP:AFC for review. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

sir i Nimesh prajapati i have youtube Channel Gujarati Pipudi , sir i creating artical about of my channel so please sir give me some rights to write artical Gujarati Pipudi (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Again, please see the giant obnoxious edit notice that popped up when you editied this page, the one with flashing stop signs and giant bold letters. This is the talk page of the whole request for permissions process, it is not the place to actually make any sort of request of this nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Request not being attended to?

I want to know why my request isn't attended to here I applied on the 28 February 2018 but everyone that has come below is attended to and the new one who applied today has been attended to. Please help what going on? Chabota Kanguya (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icem4k: someone will get to it - the Administrative backlog is huge. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

userRightsManager now allows you to enter an expiry

Hello all, I wanted to let you know that the userRightsManager script now allows you to enter an expiry. For now this is presented only as a date selector, which I hope will suffice? I suspect you rarely are granting for less than a day. If you want to also enter a time, I can make that happen (there's supposedly a DateTime widget), I just figured the simpler the better. I don't plan on hacking in a dropdown to select "1 day", "1 week", etc., unless you really really want that =P To grant the right indefinitely, just leave the expiry field blank.

In addition to this, I have modified {{account creator granted}} and {{rollback granted 3}} to accept an |expiry= parameter, so that the message left on the user's talk page will indicate it was granted temporarily. userRightsManager will pass in the value accordingly. Please feel free to copy edit what I've added, and add the code to the other templates too, if you want. Make sure to also update the template documentation :)

Pinging likely interested people, @Xaosflux, TonyBallioni, Cyberpower678, Swarm, Amorymeltzer, Mz7, and Beeblebrox. If you don't use this script, I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to sell it to you. So... try it! Especially at WP:PERM/NPR it is useful because it does the extra step of adding the user to the mailing list. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: Just used it for the first time, works like a charm! Great job as always. Swarm ♠ 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Hi, all. I am looking for consensus to add an additional rule to the guidelines for granting for Page Mover and Template Editor. I think the request for these two user rights should stay open for at least 3 days (with the exception that obvious unqualified requests should still be declined right away). I am not sure if a full-fledged RfC is necessary, but please voice so if that is the case. My rationale is that these two are sensitive user rights and should ideally stay open longer to potentially involve opinions from different editors and administrators, instead of relying on the discretion of a single administrator. I invite comments from fellow editors and administrators. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As there is emerging consensus that it is unnecessary to leave PM and TE requests open for 3 days, I would like to propose an alternative suggestion for consideration: 24 hour hold for Template Editor requests. Alex Shih (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am not opposed to the suggestion, count me in as a supporter. I think this discussion should be considered as well: Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Raise the bar?. It was a plain opinion discussion based though, which later became inactive. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Neutral. These permissions have scope to cause large scale disruption - especially template editor (e.g. Template:Infobox is template protected). The messes made by extended moves are more involved to tidy up, but disrupt on a smaller scale. However, at the same time, we're talking about user rights with less than 200 members each. I'm inclined towards NOBIGDEAL as a result... hence the strong neutral. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, these are not "sensitive permissions" (though template editor would approach it). There is no evidence given of systemic misuse of the permissions that would be corrected by increasing the standards or requirements for granting the rights. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose it also leaves room for turning them into a consensus making process like a mini-RfA where people go back and forth as to whether or not they think their friend (or on the flip side, the person they don't like) should be given the flag. Request for permissions is not a consensus based process. It is an exercise in individual admin discretion. At PMR and TE there is often more discussion than there is at other rights, and we do tend to be stricter, but any admin can grant them at any time if they feel the editor can be trusted to do so. On the flip side, there are plenty of requests that can and should be declined quickly without the need for discussion.
  I'd also oppose a quick fail criteria as a way to solve that last point: it'd be overly bureaucratic and unneeded. Page mover and TE work fine now. Page mover we've started getting stricter on collectively than we have in the past, which leads to more complaints for declines, but I don't see how turning it into a consensus based process would help that: instead you'd turn the page into a mini-RfA oppose section. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Opposed to this, the guidelines are enough to ensure some basic checks, but I think we've got two things working in our favor. The first is that, sure, some damage can be done, but not too much too quickly, and it's really easy for any sysop to quickly remove a bit even as a precaution while things get sorted. The second is that the archiver doesn't go off for 72 hours after approval, which gives a few days for someone with concerns to comment. I generally think the system of rough guidelines, anyone can give out/take away works pretty well. I'm also wary of the RfA-ishness that Tony brings up. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think that template editor is such a sensitive permission. Also, per Special:ListGroupRights Page Mover is not by any stretch a sensitive permission. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Who decided that these were sensitive permissions? It seems that some are very protective of allowing certain roles without any evidence of them causing major issues. I can imagine that template editor could be misused (as unprotected templates were a few months ago), but allowing someone to move pages isn't going to throw wikipedia into chaos. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Page mover is sensitive because it allows the deletion of pages (which is what redirect suppression is) without any oversight. Whether that be through the RM process for moves between mainspace or through an admin having to view an R2 when sending something to draft. We have had users with no move experience use this in a less than competent way, which is why SMcCandlish raised the issue on the page mover page. While it may seem ridiculous to those who are not regulars at RM or RM/TR, things as trivial as capitalization can be very controversial (see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_March#Jungang_Line for an example of a capitalization case that is currently subject to a contentious move review.) The sensitivity here is that there are very few reasons to actually suppress a redirect, but it also gives people the ability to move around the standard community review process for moves with virtually no oversight. There is a reason those of us who are more active in RM are more cautious in granting it. Additionally, our standards aren't high: meet the guidelines and show an actual need, and not being able to move a page once is not a need. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Nope. Page mover only allows moving of pages, which isn't the same thing as deletion since a) the page is still visible just under another title and b) anyone can undo it. Even if a redirect is suppressed, the former title still prominently displays the move log (see Topic Disability for example) and where the page was moved to. Oh, and both are logged in the same place and show up on watchlists, histories etc. in the same way. A suppressed-redirect move can be scrutinized in the exact same fashion as a regular move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Redirect suppression is the exact same thing as speedy deletion: that is what it replaces from non-admins (see WP:PMRC). That is the whole point. You are preventing the creation of a redirect that would otherwise have to be deleted under a CSD criteria, or the case of round-robins you are replacing tagging a page for G6 or placing it on RM/TR for an admin to G6, and the number of requests that go into RM/TR that are declined and sent to discussion is not insignificant.
        Part of the point of the RM and TR process is that there are a lot of obscure pages on Wikipedia that do not have many active watchlisters. The article naming policies strive for consistency across titles among other things, and familiarity with what is and isn't controversial is needed to decide whether it would be better to take it to discussion (see the caps example above.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • No, it is a specific type of speedy deletion that unlike others is seldom controversial (and easily repairable). Contentious moves are usually moves that are contentious, not leftover redirects. Move discussions can and are often closed by regular editors; no special permission needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
          • It's not just seldom controversial, it's required to be uncontroversial. Tony's point is that when someone with PM uses their permission, what they are technically doing is moving a page to a new title and deleting the redirect that is left behind under G6. It shouldn't be an issue (hence, the permission) but any pagemove&delete is definitely open to abuse; hence, for example, the prohibitions against such deletions in G7 and R3. I clearly think G6 is ripe for abuse, but I don't think you two are really disagreeing here, just swapping semantics. The end result is still a paper trail, but one that's harder to put back together. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
            • The issue isn't that it's technically dangerous, as much as that it gives the technical ability to preform potentially very controversial actions (both in terms of moves and in NPP) without much in the way of a second set of eyes. I think the change that we've seen recently at PERM/PMR is that instead of handing it out just on the numbers, we are now treating it more like other PERMs and looking to see if someone actually has put in technical requests beyond the one they put in 2 hours ago that made them think they should apply for this permission (when title changes are the stated reason for needing this).
              We do this at rollback with vandalism, we do it at NPR in terms of work with new content/AfD, and we do it at autopatrolled to see if the 25 articles would need a second set of eyes. Do I think that means we should make this a consensus based process? No, I think admins are perfectly capable of approving and declining requests on their own, and that we are capable of asking for a second opinion if needed or if the request becomes contentious. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As noted above making editors wait 3-4 days is a bit much and again as noted is similar to an RFA - I understand the whole logic behind this but to me if it turns out an editor is untrusted then they should have it revoked with the disruptive edits reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for page mover, Neutral for Template Editor. PM really isn't that big of a deal, and it is already easy-go as needed by any admin (and blocking is always there for disruption). TE's can cause mass disruption to a lot of readers if misused, but I'm not seeing there is a problem to fix (admins too speedily processing these), in many cases TE requests are already left open for feedback, q/a, other admin inputs and the processing admins seem to be pretty good about this. Now here is the real kick for this, while it is the normal process, policy doesn't require these requests to go through PERM at all - so unless we are going to require that they are only processed via PERM, there is a gaping hole in this. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: True, and since the revocation criteria are clearly defined for both PM and TE, technically it should never be a huge concern (reverting the relatively rare misuse doesn't take much time usually). And I agree that the TE request process already receives adequate comments and attention. And the final thought is haunting; I think we should never require all process to go through PERM (IMO private requests usually involve users that the admin already knows well I think), so I am unable to address this concern. Alex Shih (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wholeheartedly agree. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well intended Alex Shih, but I have to oppose on mainly two reasons: 1) It would turn PERM in to a RfA-style process with newbies themselves coming in to 'vote' like they already not infrequently try to do, and 2) the requests often need more admin eyes. I made a mistake recently (the first in 1,000s of requests I've processed here) by according someone a user right off-PERM, only to be pointed out that there was already a raft of admins opposing it at PERM. So I had to eat some humble pie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Page mover; Mild Oppose Template Editor. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support because these tools are hazardous, and have already been granted to too many people who have (in the PM case) a long history of RM-related disruptive or anti-consensus behavior, or (in the TE case) insufficient technical experience to do the work properly (or who may be prone to just doing what they want to protected templates which are often protected specifically to prevent consequential changes without a consensus discussion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've aware of the situation with this supposedly sensitive right for a while now and I've got to admit I don't understand why it's being treated as if it were the crown jewels. GreenMeansGo makes a good point here which I agree with, but in addition in these interrogations of whether someone's need is sufficient or not we are losing sight of the fact that this is a collaborative encyclopedia and whether a trusted user only makes one mainspace -> draft move a month or a day doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if they can be trusted. Most importantly- I've seen references to users who have had the right taken away, but really what percentage is this of all users who have been granted the right- and the fact that the right can be revoked with a few clicks just goes to show that this isn't a big deal. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, definitely for Template Editor at least. I can't actually believe people are trying to say that Template Editor is not a sensitive right. The damage Page Mover can supposedly cause is minuscule compared to the damage bad editing in the Templatespace can cause. I'm not sure if everyone actually realizes that. TE is and should be a very sensitive user right, much more serious than any of the other rights. Very, very minor mistakes in the Templatespace can cause very widespread damage to the mainspace. More damage than any vandal could cause, and damage that is not easy for most editors to figure out how to track down and fix. Handing out TE is like handing out the keys to the kingdom when it comes to templates—there's now no buffer between your individual judgment and the most important, sensitive templates on the project, even the ones you shouldn't be editing. We just trust you to never break anything. And a bad TE grant resulting in damage is an embarrassing debacle for any granting administrator. A slight increase to the level of scrutiny for this right sounds like a great idea to me. If all it does is block a couple of borderline cases every once in a while, that would still be a positive result. And I don't think RfPP receives enough outside attention to become an RfA-like (i.e. drama filled) process. Any admin who works this board knows that we have very straightforward, uncontroversial standards that guide the way we do things. There's no drama in this department. We don't care about petty opposition, we just judge whether they meet the criteria. Outside commentary is only heeded if it specifically helps us determine whether they meet the criteria, otherwise, non-admins commentary is told to bugger off. I don't see this changing at all if we imposed a brief waiting period for discussion, like they do with readminship requests at WP:BN. They have a 24 hour hold on all requests, even if uncontroversial, to allow for discussion. @Alex Shih: I know I'm in the minority here, but many of these opposers seem noticeably more open-minded to this idea in regards to Template Editor. Perhaps a scaled-back proposal would have a better shot. 24 hour hold for Template Editor? Swarm ♠ 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: That sounds good, I'll make an alternative proposal based on your suggestion. I suppose the opposing argument for 24 hour hold for TE would be somewhat along the lines of unnecessary bureaucracy when TE requests already receives a good amount of scrutiny usually; but on the other hand, I think a 24 hour hold cannot possibly do much harm, and hopefully would encourage multiple reviewers to become productively involved in each request (which really is the intention here). Alex Shih (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: so are you still fine with any admin giving this our under discretionary options without going through this whole process? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand the question...which process are you referring to exactly? Swarm ♠ 06:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  FWIW I would read it to mean a formal request here, as opposed to a talk-page/e-mail/IRC request, or a spontaneous grant from observation of good work that would benefit from the right.—Odysseus1479 06:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: if I read you correctly, you want any requests at WP:PERM/TE to stay open for at least 24 hours. However, are you aware that TE requests can be made anywhere and don't have to be done on this page at all? They can be done by email to individual admins even. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  I haven't really thought about it, but I suppose the proposal would inherently discourage discretionary grants outside of PERM and this would need to be addressed. I wouldn't necessarily advocate anything that prevents administrative discretion, but would like to see it as granting guideline instead. "Due to the sensitive nature of this user right, admins are encouraged to direct Template Editor candidates to the Requests for Permissions process, and to allow at least 24 hours for discussion." Something like that would be reasonable IMO. Swarm ♠ 14:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, and oppose the new alternative. Let's try to avoid the tendency for bureaucracy to expand. An important point is that these permissions can be revoked as easily as they are added. If any administrator sees a problem, go ahead and shoot-first on the revoke button. You can ask questions later. If a non-admin sees a problem, ask an admin to hit the revoke button. As long as an admin doesn't approve a vandal or severe case of CIR, there's not going to be a difficult cleanup just because someone had these permissions during the proposed 1-day / 3-day review period. Alsee (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose--Needless bureaucratic creep looking for hypothetical solutions to non-existent problems.In-spite of this saga, which seems to be repeating itself periodically as to RM, I am yet to see example(s) of editors who were granted the flags with laxity and after receiving it, went aboard a mission-of-destruction, leading to subsequent revocation.If it ain't any broke, don't replace it.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm at best, mildly sympathetic about TE.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think the consensus is fairly clear at this point, and I will invite any uninvolved administrator/editor to close this discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer

Moved here from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Alex Shih (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: If any admin feels like proactively going through the 83 names I painstakingly assembled as lacking NPR but being active in AfC there is a list Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC#Qualification Alignment Each user should be checked but the linked discussion provides some background and many of these users are easy approvals. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I started going through the participants list on my own a few weeks back, but, yes, thank you, this would help. I'll post there, but I can start digging in this week. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

Sachdevpuneet (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

New PERM requests

Alex Shih, Amorymeltzer, Beeblebrox, kelapstick, Primefac, Schwede66, TonyBallioni, xaosflux, a large number of requests are now arriving for New Page Reviewer from an initiative of other users. While this may be as useful as it is pro-active, I'm just letting you all know that any I come across on my watch will certainly receive the same level of due diligence I carry out for all PERM requests. While AfC reviewers may be perfectly competent, they may not be aware of the complexities - yet - of NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note @Kudpung:. I don't do too many of the NPP's unless there is a backlog, also I'd want to make sure the people on the page actually want this flag (e.g. nominations of others) mostly so that they will use it well!. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, making sure people actually want the flag is important for nominations of other users (except autopatrolled, where it isn't really for them.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed yes. I had pre-investigated a few folks and asked them directly, but I'll try and help clear the queue a little bit later today. Like Kudpung, I think I lean towards a higher bar. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

change page name mireillemiller to Centennial of Suffrage Mireillemiller (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Mireillemiller, you can make a request at Special:GlobalRenameQueue or at WP:CHUS. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

Hello! I'd like to request to change my username from Paxtonfletche to Paxton Fletcher. I didn't realize how I put the username as until I created the am account and now it looks importer with my name as "Paxtonfletcher" instead of "Paxton Fletcher". If you could change it, it'd be very apprcaiated! Thanks! Paxtonfletcher (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paxtonfletcher: There are two things that you can do now. Either you can just abandon your current account and create a new one, or you can submit a request here, but this will result in additional complications. I hope this helps and if not or you still have questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paxton Fletcher: I've renamed your account. There are no "additional complications" to renaming accounts these days. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

HI - I'm trying to get the page I created Ciera Rogers to move from a draft to being published. can you assist? Christinagirgis (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Christinagirgis: the easiest way would be to get the article reviewed via the articles for creation process. If you tag the article with Template:AFC submission by placing {{AFC submission}} at the top of your draft, it will be reviewed by an experienced editor who will move the article to the mainspace or give you feedback on how to improve it. NiciVampireHeart 20:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, is there anyway you can assist? I see there are 1700 pending pages and it could take up until a month. we are trying to get he Wikipedia page up so she can be verified on social media as there are so many imposter accounts for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinagirgis (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not my area of expertise. NiciVampireHeart 20:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Account creator

I will run an edit-a-thon in 2 weeks from now in a school. We expect 70 students. The main teacher will attend sessions with the students a few days prior to the edit-a-thon itself, to create the students accounts and to discuss the topics that will be chosen by the students (I will not attend this session). What is the best way for her to create smoothly the accounts ? Obviously, 70 accounts will go above the 6 accounts limit. Is it better to

• create all 70 accounts through : https://accounts.wmflabs.org or
• give her temporary permission to be an Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator, given that she is brand new to the project.
• or what ?

Anthere (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anthere: with plenty of notice and an controlled audience the "best way" would be for all these new editors to create the accounts themselves (such as at home, or from mobile devices not all on the same wifi) - outside of that, yes its temporary account creator status. Another option would be to get fancy and use the program and events dashboard in advance, then have somone (like you) do the "approve and create" option, but that has a learning curve you may not want to jump on right now. If you know this teacher it may be helpful to ensure she is autoconfirmed or give her confirmed status in advance, and also possibly temporary ip-exemption for the days of the event. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Xaosflux. The option from home is not an option. This is a boarding school, so students live there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So same IP anyway. I do intend to use the dashboard, but there is definitely this learning curve (well, I did not know the approval could be done from there... so obviously... I need to explore and test that option). Ok... Trying to get the teacher info so that she gets at least auto-confirmed. ip-exemption for her would be awesome... Anthere (talk)

Hello User:Xaosflux. So Afroditi created an account for that purpose. User:EdtechRsy. Would it be possible to give her auto-confirm status as well as temporary creator status (from asap till 18th of May included). Thank you Anthere (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anthere: done per your endorsement. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Xaosflux. Anthere (talk)

@Anthere: There's guidance on meta wiki about getting an up exemption: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_patterns/Six-account_limit If you know the IP address and put in your request at least a week in advance there shouldn't be any problem. Having a plan B doesn't hurt though. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

B, C... always best to have several options. I'll try to get IP info tomorrow. Thanks. Ant

Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Please add {{Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator}} in WP:PERM, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done (not yet) @Hhhhhkohhhhh: this process is not live yet, may be later this week. We are tracking the need to update it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay! Go ahead. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done by L235 —usernamekiran(talk) 18:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

AC to EVC conversions

As we get requests for people to become EVC's, if they are currently AC (e.g. RexxS) the old group should probably deprecated. These will mostly need to be reviewed case-by-case. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, yes, I was thinking about this as well. I also think that we could do a review of these and proactively make the switch for people who aren't aware of the change. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe someone can spin up an "event coordinator granted" template too.. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Appears to already exist, see User_talk:RexxS#Event_coordinator_granted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Added to MediaWiki:Userrights-groups-help/Templates. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and TonyBallioni: I think i took part in the RfC that created EVC, but i am not sure. Is the account creator flag going to be deprecated now? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It will still be used by non-admins who are part of ACC. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Xaosflux: Stwalkerster told me that this would probably be the most helpful thing if we wanted to do a review of all current account creators to either switch them over to event coordinator or remove them if they no longer have a need for it. The usernames aren't on-wiki usernames, but they usually correspond. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  quarry:query/27009 is a dump of all the ACC's with some stats. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  It is probably safe to ignore all the ones expiring soon, unless they want to actually make use of the +confirmed capabilities that they don't know how to use.— xaosflux ^Talk 19:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Agreed. I'll try to work on this today and tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Xaosflux: new list generated by Stwalkerster of people with accountcreator permanently granted. I'm currently working through it, finding those who would not qualify for permanent EVC, removing the right, and notifying them where they can apply for it using the text at User:TonyBallioni/acrmv. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: be sure to read over their rights logs. There are a few left-field people that have this just for things like mailings (for noratelimit access only). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, always checking TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism ACC -> EVC in bulk?

Hi Xaosflux and TonyBallioni, I noticed that the EVC request process began today, and that you are working on moving over some of the ACCs to EVC. A bunch of the people on TonyBallioni's list are Art+Feminism organizers. Is it possible that we could do a streamlined request process? Rather than going to all of our organizers one by one, can we give you a list of A+F accounts to be converted to EVC? Thanks! --Theredproject (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing that may be an issue - ensuring that they are aware of the new rules for the additional access related to adding confirmation. How do you think this should be handled? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We will communicate it to them over email and Slack. And on talk pages if needed. We are going to have to prepare some training materials on adding confirmation, but will probably wait until we can confirm that everything is working the same with user creation through Dashboard (in case we have to redo that training materials). But the reality is that even if we just move them over from ACC to EVC and they don't add confirmation to any users for now, it is still a net gain to get them correctly over to the user perms for the future. And to do it with the least effort for our organizers and for you and the other admins.--Theredproject (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Theredproject: got a list? BTW have you started using the programs and events dashboard for registration? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: yes, we used Dashboard for all event registrations+account creations in March and April. It streamlined sign in at events, especially at larger events (20+ attendees) where new users come in a wave at the beginning. I will get you a list in 24-48 hours. I have circulated the spreadsheet to the other regional organizers, as I want to make sure I didn't miss any users; I want to give them a chance to respond. Thank you. --Theredproject (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Theredproject: that is really great to hear about success with the dashboard, I think some people are still a bit put off that it is "too hard". What "simple" directions are you using for people to make use of it? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you found this to be easy enough? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are two lists of AF organizers. The first are established organizers with permanent ACC status. The second are repeat organizers with temporary status which we would like to request be given permanent EVC status. This is a conservative request as this list accounts for a small percentage of the organizers given temporary ACC this year. TX!

Art+Feminism Training Video

We have created our own training materials for most things. I think the Dashboard training info is towards end of this video, but I can't get it to preview on the network connection I'm on right now... . This is our second year using Dashboard, so a good percentage of our organizers had done it before and were comfortable. And if people still want to use meetups, we can create the accounts retroactively in order to capture the data. We have ~275 events this year, and trying to manage all that via meetups (plus pulling data for metrics) is quite impossible.--Theredproject (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, pinging Pharos who has handled a lot of AF ACC perms, as an FYI. --Theredproject (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Theredproject Per below, I think the same standards should apply for editors receiving this permission who were granted ACC without expiration dates when it was not technically possible. Some of those names on that list of established organizers with permanent ACC status should not have permanent ACC status and likely wouldn't if they had requested it after we had made the change (and I have looked through user creation logs for some of them as well and the permission was either used once or never.) If these people actually want it and will use it, they should request it. I think a basic level of competence in editing Wikipedia/connection to the community should exist before someone is handed a permission permanently, and many of these users aren't at all connected with the on-wiki editing community. Going through the process allows admins to double check for the security concerns (i.e. always emailing passwords), use of +confirmed for a limited time, and other factors. I get that these people are aligned and helping us, but I also think that if the proposal had been to give this permission to someone with one edit who happens to be a librarian with no questions asked even if they've never asked for it and they never used the account creator permission when previously granted was put to the community, the RfC would not have passed.

That being said, I'm for going through anyone who currently has ACC for outreach purposes and switching it to EVC if they are established users, and have done so already and will look through the list and do some who would qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Theredproject: followup here: I've switched the permissions for roughly 50% of the list. I think the rest should likely have account creator removed (or had already removed it before you made the request). Most (and I think all, but I'd need to double check) have ~500 or less edits and haven't used the account creator permission at all or used it more than a year ago. We've been pretty generous in grandfathering people in who ask for it (and I think we should be), but I also don't like preemptively assigning it to people who aren't extended confirmed and haven't used/asked for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would be fine with giving it to people who are established Wikipedians, which for this purpose, I'll just say also have extended confirmed, and who have also actually used the accountcreator permission. I'm not comfortable handing this out to people with 82 edits who have never used or asked for the permission they were assigned preemptively, which make up a lot of the list I posted up above. That isn't within the granting guidelines, and I don't think it makes sense to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support giving the userright to all A+F event coordinators The event coordinator right is for event coordinators. There is no outreach process with more training for event coordinators than A+F. A+F already does more than the Wikimedia community should expect. The bar for getting this userright should be a much lower level of training and support than what A+F already does. Certainly all the A+F coordinators need this userright now just as they have always gotten it in the past. The bureaucracy here has to meet the needs of the event coordinators; we are not creating bureaucracy and then telling people to conform to it.

@TonyBallioni: - we should all talk by video chat soon. I hope you can meet. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rollback user engaged in possible edit warring

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I thought I should mention that ScrapIronIV, who has rollback rights, has been undoing reverts regarding an unresolved matter under discussion here: Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides#Extraneous hyphens. I think that's called edit warring. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported at WP:ANEW. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

that being said, you were both very clearly edit warring, it is literally impossible for only one user to edit war. As you may notice the page is now temporarily protected to stop this behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was trying to revert to the stable version of the page while sending talkback notices to encourage discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP/Autopatrolled

Saw Hzh's recent Autopatrol request and am surprised that this permission isn't bundled with NPP. If someone is scrutinizing others pages surely we trust them enough with their own... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s actually a very intersesting point that is probably worthy of further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The explaination I have always heard is the ability to identify bad content (which is a lot of what NPP is) is not the same as the ability to write good content. Then again, it’s bundled with +sysop and I don’t technically meet the granting criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The autopatrolled are supposed to be perfect with creations. Most of the times they subject specific experts. NPP guys are supposed to have a deep understanding of almost all the policies. Most of the times reviewers just add the maintenance tags, they dont actually resolve the issue. Then there is the issue of COI/UPE. There are few more reasons, but in short: i think it is a wise policy to exclude a-pat from NPP flag. This has been discussed at least once before (i participated in it), but i cant recall where. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerking bot now checks for temporarily granted rights

I'm here to let you know MusikBot's PermClerk task now checks if the user has been temporarily granted the permission in question (which is becoming an increasingly popular practice). When this happens now, MusikBot will not auto-respond, rather it will comment with relevant information including a link to the log entry. At some point I might instead make it check the PERM approved archives and have it link to the relevant request, if present, but saving that for a rainy day.

A second much needed bug fix is to tell the bot to stop auto-responding to a request. This especially happens when someone is requesting removal of their rights. You remove the invalid  Already done comment made by MusikBot, and welp, MusikBot just adds it back. Now you can tell it to shut up by simply deactivating the {{already done}} template, as with {{tl|already done}} Relatedly, I have some generalized ideas on how to make the "request for permission removal" process more foolproof, using bot integration and reconfiguring some of our templates. I will share this with you later :)

I'll be monitoring for stability, but if you notice the bot acting up you can disable the task until I get around to fixing it. King regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this! Alex Shih (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds great as always, thanks! Swarm ♠ 22:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing process for requesting removal of permissions

Currently WP:PERM#Removal of permissions says this is not the place to make such request, but to instead go to WP:AN or contact an admin directly. Yet, we still regularly see people come here to request removal of their permissions, and we process it like any other request. In these cases the bot will first mark the request as  Already done because they have the said permission. When you do remove, you also have to put {{User:MusikBot/override|d}} to override as done (otherwise the bot will get confused because the user doesn't have the said permission). This is confusing for both the requester and the admin.

We can use user group CSS to show a "request removal" link instead of a "add request" link at the top of each PERM page. Through some templating magic, the rendered request would clearly indicate it is a request for removal of permissions. The bot would be able to recognize it as such, knowing that  Done means they shouldn't have the permission -- so you don't need to use {{User:MusikBot/override|d}}.

This all sounds pretty complicated, but it's mostly busy work to set it up, and I'm willing to do it. Any opposition? — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes please! Asking at AN seems... silly. Maybe consider a caveat that if it's urgent or you're a third party asking for removal, WP:AN or WP:ANI is the way to go? Probably not necessary, but I'm thinking if someone is actively misusing something, it might warrant quicker eyeballs. At anyrate, thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. Swarm ♠ 22:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• It seems OK, keep it very clear it is only for removing your OWN permission though, this should not be another dramaboard. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah. But there already is ANI the dramaboard. I think if the section is updated appropriately like "Youncan request removal of only your permission, for other issues kindly seek appropriate venue" (Maybe a link to AN or ANI), then we wouldnt have that issue. And one off the topic comment: MusikAnimal's perm script never worked for me. Some say its because i am not a sys-op, some say because i was born 1888. Not sure which one is correct. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• If you’ve already done the heavy lifting I think this makes perfect sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Allowing event coordinators to grant extended confirmed rights

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator

Hi, I currently have the Event Co-ordinator permissions enabled (many thanks!) so that when I run Wikipedia Outreach events I can confer on the editathon participants the confirmed user status. However, I also support Translation Studies MSc students at the University of Edinburgh to use the Content Translation tool. This has meant that I have needed to contact Wikimedia UK's User:Richard Nevell to give the students extended confirmed user status for the last four semesters on the basis that I monitor their contributions to make sure they are using the Content Translation tool correctly. The issue now is that Richard Nevell is on sabbatical from Wikimedia UK so I will need assistance from someone else to give the 20+ students extended confirmed status when we run the workshops again in September 2018. More pressingly, I am due to run a How to run a Translation Workshop at the Celtic Knot conference this Thursday morning (11.20am GMT on 5 July) and I will need to be able to grant any new signups with extended confirmed user status there and then. Wondering if my Event Co-ordinator permissions can't be extended to also include the extended confirmed user permissions too given this will make life easier for all concerned and after 4-5 semesters working with the Content Translation tool I hope I have enough of a track record for using this responsibly. Let me know what you think anyway. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done (automated response): This user already has the "eventcoordinator" user right. — MusikBot ^talk 15:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: only Administrators have the ability to grant or revoke the Extended Confirmed group. If you want the ability to do this, you could try an RfA. If you want to propose that everyone with event coordinator permissions, you're welcome to start an RFC on it. Having said that, I'm not sure how Richard Nevell did it, as he's not an admin, and there's nothing in his log stwalkerster (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I just went through the archives of approved requests at PERM as well, and I can’t find any examples of this. If an admin were granting it unilaterally I’d be concerned also: this doesn’t seem to be a usage we would want to give it out for anyway, and I seem to recall us denying it for translation purposes in the past (ping @Xaosflux and Beeblebrox: it may be one of you I’m thinking of who declined a request with this rationale.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: Thanks for reply. Time is my enemy is the only thing. Am delivering workshop on Thursday morning. Need a way for workshop participants to be granted the use of the Content Translation tool without impediments. Providing extended confirmed user status myself would have been the easiest option but I don't really need the other admin permissions. I think I am a trustworthy, non 'fly by night' trainer so not against putting myself forward for admin status when time is right... but I imagine this can take a little time much like an RfC and I don't really want to be too premature about putting myself forward when I only require the extended confirmed user aspect and will happily pay my dues as a contributor apart from this. Any other workarounds we could consider? Stinglehammer (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Yeah, both the options I listed will take more time than you have. Only workaround would be to have an admin on standby, but as TonyBallioni said though, I don't think there's actually any precedent for an admin granting this - if you could provide a link showing where it's been done in the past, that'd be great. If there's no precedent for it, I'd expect it'd probably need a community consensus to be granted for the purposes of using the translation tool, and especially as it was originally introduced on the back of an ArbCom case, I'd expect most if not all admins to be hesitant to be granting it. I think at this point it's probably a good idea to consider the contingency plans you've made. stwalkerster (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer:, @Stwalkerster:, @TonyBallioni: - there is an easy solution for this already, we just don't advertise it much (and with +confirmed it should work fine). Have your participants that are making the translations just put Draft: in front of the page name here, it will let them create the page. If it is article-ready, they can use their newly added confirmed status to move the page to main. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If for some reason the Draft already exists they can just create it as a user sandbox as well at User:USERNAME/ArticleName. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is why they pay you the big bucks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As for precedent, yes we would normally decline someone who asked for ecm for themselves just for WP:CXT at PERM - however there are a few admins that give it out for that, I'm not sure if I have but generally would not for any brand new editors. If giving that out early you basically need to give them a lesson on arbitration restrictions that they could now violate inadvertently. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster and TonyBallioni: Hi both. Hadn't anticipated this being an issue. Richard Nevell WMUK (not sure which account he used however) has worked with me for last 4 semesters to help support postgraduate students on the Translation Studies MSc at the University of Edinburgh. Can understand why 30 days and 500 edits works for someone teaching themselves how to use the tool is a good check to have in place but we teach the students scrupulously how to edit responsibly and monitor their pages all throughout the assignment e.g. this event page. After 2 years of doing this every semester, we are now at the point where we would like other universities and education projects to learn best practice of how students can do this as part of their course of studies. This is where Thursday's presentation at the Wikipedia Language Conference comes in. Fair enough if I have to ask an admin for help on this occasion, but really think this might need looking at again in terms of encouraging responsible translation work as part of the course of studies. Any further thoughts welcome. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Just seen your reply. Thanks! Will check this out as an option. Thanks again! Stinglehammer (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: having watched the Education Noticeboard for years (and before confirmed was required to create articles) using Sandboxes/Draft space was generally encouraged for most student creations, if for nothing else it helps to keep new page patrols away from tagging pages up immediately. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: When the Content Translation tool works well then just I check over the student's submission and allow them to publish to the livespace if all looks well. When things go awry (inc. citations issues esp sfn footnotes, quote boxes, tables misaligning) then we just get them to publish to the draft space in the target Wikipedia. Little faffier given that not every language Wikipedia has a sandbox and not every student had the Move out of Draft/Sandbox option. Hoping that conferring confirmed status on participants will make life easier anyway and will roadtest it myself to see if there are issues with new user accounts.Stinglehammer (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Any opposition on moving this to the talk page? Here it will get logged as a successful request for event coordinator rights, when this is actually a discussion about what event coordinators can do — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: that sounds fine, throw archive wrappers around it. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

MusikBot

I am curious about why MusikBot added a white line monthly on archived page [1] and [2], pinging MusikAnimal. Is it necessary? Hhkohh (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that bug has been there since the beginning! I think I've fixed it. Thanks for letting me know — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

Change "The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts" to "The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days."

The reason for this is because it would clarify to users that the flag is not automatically added instantly upon account creation, but instead after 500 edits and 30 days. It would only add a few extra words so it wouldn't be clogging up the page or anything. Also, the confirmed information on this page actually already mentions that users automatically get it after "10 edits and 4 days," so it makes sense to do the same for EC as well. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @SkyGazer 512: this text is from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header, which you should be able to edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh yes, you're right Xaosflux - I apologize for that. I really should have looked more thoroughly before submitting the edit request, somehow I completely skipped over the fact that most of the information in the page was covered on the editable header. Thanks for the quick response. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Done.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators

I have started a discussion about the new interface administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018

I would like to request rollback permissions so that I can rollback vandalism. I've been working on RTRC and using undo isn't cutting it. Thank you. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 15:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Since you have under 200 mainspace edits, it's unlikely that you'll be given the rollback permission. However, you'll get access to Twinkle after your account is autoconfirmed, which will happen in just 4 days.​ — Newslinger talk 15:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Thank you for the info i'll look into Twinkle when I get autoconfirmed. Thank you. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Expiry in templates

I haven’t been super active around here of late, so I guess I missed this change. When using the “notify” function when granting rollback, it automatically adds the “expiry” field to the template, but doesn’t prompt the user to add anything, so if you aren’t aware of this it posts with basically a broken message. Can it either be changed back or altered so it prompts the admin and allows them to indicate that there is no expiry if that’s what they chose to do? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, when yoiu use the script 'assign permissions' ther is a drop down with a camedadar to select the expiry date. This is especially important for New Page Reviewers where in order to avoid hat collecting and keep the number or active users realistic, we'll be generally according this right on a 3 month trial basis first - at admin discretion of course; naturally if it's a truly seasoned user they can have the right for life, but even then, perhaps 1 year would be good for a start. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)