It seems like we are once again seeing users adding commentary to other users' requests on some PERM pages. While legitimate comments from a user familiar with the user making the request can be informative, random users commenting on other users' PERM request rarely, if ever, are helpful, for the simple reason that making these comments does not absolve reviewing admins from doing the due diligence themselves before deciding whether to grant the request. However, when I have tried to address this issue in the past I fear my blunt manner of speaking may be more off-putting than intended. So, I guess what I'm saying is maybe someone with a more soft-spoken nature would care to construct a template for use in these situations, something that communicates "thanks for your contributions, but perhaps you'd care to contribute where your efforts would actually be helpful". Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing Beeblebrox. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the second time I've seen this issue/concern brought up in as many days (the other being on IRC) so clearly something needs to be done (though personally speaking I do not see such clerking on the PERMs that I regularly watch); happy to work on the technical side of anything that might need implementing. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm usually not a big fan of templated messages when they aren't necessary. They are impersonal and I can imagine them being a not insignificant issue for editor retention when used poorly. Basically I agree with WP:Don't template the regulars. Perhaps an essay about this issue explaining why this help isn't helpful would be better? --Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been noticing this too. Rather than a personalised template warning, I've tried adding a section to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header and Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions discouraging general remarks. – Joe (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing this, hopefully it helps. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ToBeFree and Xaosflux: Per WP:NOTBURO, I'm not strongly against this approval. However, my personal view is that administrators do not have discretion to grant the extended confirmed right to editors who do not meet the 30/500 threshold on at least one account on the English Wikipedia. A precedent like the one here could encourage more applications from experienced editors on other projects, and as a community, I don't believe we've ever discussed allowing some editors to bypass the extended confirmed requirement on a discretionary basis and not others. In other words, for future requests like this one, where is the minimum bar set? TheStriker may be a checkuser on hewiki, but what about non-functionary admins or non-admins with years of experience? The extended confirmed restriction was specifically designed to be mathematically defined, not one where admins could become gatekeepers. And thus ends my two cents. Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't thought that much about my suggestion to make the request that led to the granting. Mz7 has a point; perhaps TheStriker would be fine with relinquishing the permission until it is automatically granted. In case this doesn't happen for technical reasons after 30 days and 500 contributions due to manual removal, I'd re-grant the permission on a quick talk page request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mz7 conceptually I think that once arbcom recently decided to disassociate their remedies from actually being about "500/30" to just being in this community managed group - it has become much more of an admin discretion capability. I didn't think that was a good idea, but they insisted that is what they wanted so I've rolled with it. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also used it for certain x-wiki users that wanted early access to WP:CX prior to that (warning those people to stay away from arbcom areas). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference here — xaosflux ^Talk 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) That's a point. WP:A/I/PIA still refers to "500/30" in its introduction, but this summary needs updating (case wording; partial summary update). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, I expect that change left a lot of out-of-sync references. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ARCA link is excellent. Looking at the full discussion ([1]) might resolve remaining concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ToBeFree thank you, was trying to find that quickly - wasn't sure where it was indexed :D — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no problem; I found it by searching for the section title at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification_and_Amendment_requests#2022. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xaosflux: Sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks for providing a link to that ARCA. I hadn't seen that thread before; it must have missed my attention. You do have a point now that the language at the ArbCom decisions has been changed away from specifying 30/500 and more on having the flag itself. Mz7 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mz7 no rush, back to the original question, for the most part I'd decline this for xwiki editors unless they are quite well established and have the opportunity to chat with them to ensure they understand that these protections are often in place for reasons that are quite sensitive and that people can easily be blocked and sully their otherwise good xwiki reputations if they carelessly edit or don't observe special restrictions on contentious topics. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen a few admins at WP:PERM/NPP say that they are look for some experience in article creation before granting (@Rosguill, HJ Mitchell, and Spicy:, probably others). This makes a lot of sense to me: knowing written policy is one thing, understanding how it works in practice is another. I can also see how it could be demoralising for editors to have their creations rejected by someone who doesn't have substantial experience in article-writing themselves. But it isn't actually part of the guidelines for granting, and doesn't seem to be applied consistently.

Should we make article creation an explicit part of the granting guidelines? A nice and clear requirement could be to say NPPers should either have autopatrolled or be eligible for it. It doesn't make much sense to say that we trust someone to review other people's creations but not their own, after all. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the de facto criteria for autopatrolled like 25 articles created in the last year? I wouldn't have qualified for NPP with that requirement and still wouldn't without intentionally grinding out some species articles. I do not think it is a good idea to make the prerequisites for NPP be so high, as the prerequisites are already quite high (demonstrated AFC/AFD/CSD experience, 1 month trials, etc.) I will share some more thoughts if this idea gains traction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically the mininum is 25 articles total. My estimate (that query still needs work) is that about a third of current reviewers wouldn't meet that standard. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seem to remember some autopatrol declines due to not having 25 articles created in the most recent year, but perhaps I am mistaken. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's always admin discretion at PERM. I tend to look for recent creations as well as 25 total, yes. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Injecting a little extra cynicism, the conviction that "my own articles are so good that they don't need a second look" is not necessarily a mindset conducive to alert NPP work. I'd rather trust people who are keen to have others check their work, than those who have applied to specifically be exempt from such checks. Requiring some article creation sounds reasonable, but I don't think autopatrolled is a reliable indicator of what we need. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree—I removed autopatrolled from myself for that reason—but the suggestion is "have autopatrolled or be eligible for it". – Joe (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer that NPR applicants have at least some experience with content creation, but I don't agree with restricting the permission to users that would qualify for autopatrolled. In my view, there are two ways that editors can demonstrate knowledge of the relevant policies and guidelines - one is by adding content to mainspace that is compliant with WP:N, WP:V, etc. and the other is by appropriately participating in deletion processes. A deficiency in one of these areas can be balanced out by the other. My main concern is with applicants who have done a negligible amount of content work and spend a lot of their time churning out boilerplate AfD votes and slapping tags around in what seems like a deliberate attempt to make themselves look like a good candidate for the perm. These users are often inexperienced, overly eager and come off as being more interested in adding another hat to their collection than improving the quality of the encyclopedia, which tends to lead to poor outcomes. Sometimes they're UPEs. I think patrolling administrators should consider the applicant's editing history as a whole and use their discretion. Spicy (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay so if not autopatrolled, what's a reasonable minimum level of content creation? I think the most important thing is that we avoid a situation where you might need significant article creation experience to get NPP, or you might not need any at all, depending on which admin reviews the request. That seems to be what's happening now. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not averse to adding content creation as a requirement but I think it should be kept somewhat vague, e.g. "a reasonable track record of content editing" or similar. A minimum number of articles doesn't seem like a good idea to me as it would exclude editors who haven't created many articles themselves but have expanded existing ones. Spicy (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could get behind that, but isn't it specifically article creation that's relevant? You can turn any number of existing articles into GAs and FAs without ever having to worry about say, how much coverage gets a topic over the GNG, or how to respond to a deletion nomination, or how easy it is to take it personally when someone says your work "isn't ready for mainspace". I've occasionally come across editors with long and impressive editing histories that have had a rude awakening when they try to create new articles. Or conversely, I've seen people who write really good articles struggle to align their own high expectations with the actual minimum standards required by policy. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd speculate that notability and content creation are mostly different skillsets. Notability is tuned through things like NPPSCHOOL and AFD, and content creation is tuned through things like summarizing sources and knowing the MOS (knowing what an article is supposed to look like, how it's supposed to be organized, etc.). I'd argue that CSD and notability, not content creation, are the bread and butter of NPP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a general rule I think that most people who are capable of bringing articles to the DYK or GA level have a broad understanding of what content is and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia and how to work collegially with other editors. I'm not saying that I'd grant the right to someone who has a bunch of DYKs but has never voted on an AfD - there has to be some experience with quality control processes - but I don't think that we should be looking for perfection, just evidence that the candidate is more likely than not to do a good enough job. I've created articles, but I've never had one draftified or nominated for deletion, so you could argue that I'm unfit to be an NPR since I can't empathize with those whose creations are subject to deletion processes. In practice, I don't think it matters all that much. Spicy (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I agree with Spicy's view. When conferring the permission, I try to look for some form of evidence that the editor is familiar with notability and content guidelines; this can be in the form of well-sourced articles, but it can also come in the form of solid AfD participation, or extensive rewriting of existing articles. And frequently, it's a mix of both, with one picking up the other's slack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too am opposed to the notion of requiring some form of content creation for New Page Reviewer rights. My main reason for feeling this way is because there are other ways to prove knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures than creating content. Take me for example. I haven’t created an article, but I have a strong knowledge of our policies due to my experience in NPP School, which helped me a lot. Especially with the increasing backlog, making things harder for new, completely qualified users to become New Page Reviewers is a terrible idea. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to mention that the criteria “The editor should have 500 undeleted edits to the Wikipedia mainspace that clearly demonstrate proficient knowledge of articles and page quality control” Wouldn’t creating articles just be one way to prove that? I don’t think we need to restrict it to only article creation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the 25 articles for autopatrol is backwards. IMO most people who create 25 new articles in modern mature Wikipedia are the ones most likely to need scrutiny rather than be removed from scrutiny. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, I don't think content creation is needed, as I can write an article, but I actively avoid doing so as I don't want to. If someone is firing out 25 articles very quickly they should be scrutinised. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also opposed to autopatrolled giving an extra point for NPP applications. Most (if not all) of the top article creators are autopatrolled and yeah, I wouldn't approve many of those articles. In fact I also draftify some, if I come across some I believe are not ready for main space. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have mixed feelings on it. Those with the autopatrolled right may have their own niche and they could possibly start with patrolling in that niche area. I think it should be considered, but not necessarily to the point of being worth mentioning in the requirements. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's enough objections here that raising the NPP criteria would be a bit controversial. To change the official criteria, I think I'd like to see an RFC with an exact proposed wording change, and wider attendance than just the watchers of this talk page (including notification of WT:NPPR), if we are to move forward with anything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I started this thread with a question and a suggestion. Clearly the suggestion (link the criteria to autopatrolled) is a non-starter. But in terms of the question, the PERM-patrolling admins that have responded have confirmed that they already do consider content creation (vaguely defined) to contribute to be one way of demonstrating knowledge of articles and page quality control, which matches my initial observation. Considering that these information pages are supposed to document practice at PERM (not the other way around), I think it should be uncontroversial to update them to reflect that? – Joe (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's your proposed criteria/wording change, and on what pages would you like to make the changes? Perhaps we can start a subsection to discuss that. If there's multiple objections to the new proposal, then I'd suggest it needs wider discussion. This has been RFC'd before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made some changes based on the above discussion. Thanks all for the input. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't love that the mention of AFC was removed. I think users with experience in that area really are some of the most qualified to be a part of NPP and a mention of that may push a few users into giving it a shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn’t appear that the mention of AFC was removed. Could you check again @Hey man im josh? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I just moved it to its own bullet point. – Joe (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow I'm blind. I did ctrl+F for "AFC" and missed the extremely obvious "Articles for Creation" under point 2. Sorry about that. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’re fine. We all have those days. :) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks fine to me, especially if it's a somewhat-widely used unofficial guideline. I'm a little hesitant to tighten guidelines with the backlog going up as rapidly as it is, though... we need help, but it needs to be beneficial help as well. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, it's one thing among many that I look for. A lack of article creation wouldn't disqualify someone, but might make a stronger case for somebody who doesn't have a lot of obvious patrolling experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured as such. The granting guidelines are already explained as being only guidelines, and "An administrator may also grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent" is in them, so I don't think adding a non-disqualifying factor to the guidelines is a problem. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]