Jump to content

Template talk:New page reviewer granted

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novem Linguae reverts

[edit]

@Novem Linguae:

  1. Regarding this, you are very welcome to invite people to your Discord channel and I can see that adding this link here has saved you a lot of time. But this template is shared by all admins and I think it's inappropriate to force all of us to recommend a particular piece of commercial chat software. How about we make it an optional parameter?
  2. Here, Kudpung's old "accuracy not speed" maxim is repeated (paraphrased) in the header of Special:NewPagesFeed, which is one of the first pages linked in this message, so there seems little value in repeating it here.
  3. And Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a search engine) for compliance with the general notability guideline – is something you added last July, so please be mindful of WP:BRD. I removed it because it is general patrolling advice rather than a specific thing the recipient can do now, and as such I think it's better presented together with other such advice on a community-vetted guideline page (i.e. WP:NPP). Otherwise, why pick out these specific points? Why not "remember that G4 only applies to AfD'd articles or "remember to check for compliance with Wikipedia:Article titles"? This is especially true when reviewers might disagree on whether it's good advice – remember that this template is putting words in the mouths of other people.

Bear in mind that it's not the norm to regurgitate guidance in these messages. That's not an effective way to emphasise it. Rather we should tell the recipient plainly what has changed, what to do next, and where to get further information. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm not too inclined to make it an optional parameter. Making it opt in means no one would ever use it, since this template is almost always placed by user scripts that wouldn't use the opt in parameter.
  2. I can't remember if I originally wrote this bullet or not, but I'd like to keep it because it falls into the category of "patrolling tips" that I'd like to emphasize, and not just have buried in the NPP tutorial. New patrollers feeling like they have to make a decision on every article that crosses their desk even if they are unsure feels to me like it might be a common thing, and something that we can give a pro tip about to keep them out of trouble.
  3. This is also one of the "patrolling tip" bullets, again trying to keep new NPPs from patrolling poorly and in a manner that could generate complaints and get their NPP revoked. Copyright checks and evaluating sources are the bread and butter of NPP, and it doesn't hurt to give this a little emphasis. I'll also add that I don't consider this bullet/text to be a bold edit anymore (the "bold" part of WP:BRD) since it's been stable for 8 months.
I see you reverted #2 again. We can leave that out for now as a compromise if you want. I can live with the template in this current state. Otherwise I think we need to place some please see links on other pages and get more editors involved in this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're kind of stonewalling here, Novem. You haven't responded to my point about why other admins (myself included) should be expected to recommend the commercial chat service that you like to use or pass on the arbitrary tips that you've found important. Saying "I like it this way" is not really conducive to reaching a consensus. If you revert good faith changes, you need to be prepared to give a reason.
By you reverted #2 again do you mean this? I reverted that (for the first time) because I hadn't removed the text you objected to me removing, I just moved it out of the bullets – it's still there, at the bottom. Are you not able to see edit summaries at the moment? I have not reverted any of the other reverts you made yesterday. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're kind of stonewalling here, Novem. Replying to you point by point, in detail, and in good faith is stonewalling?
Are you not able to see edit summaries at the moment? You're right, of course. I did miss that you basically moved it into the footer. My bad. But I'll bet you could have thought of a nicer way to say this. Please try next time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a straightforward question. I thought maybe you were on mobile or something.
Anyway, I'm about to process a bunch of PERM/NPR requests, and you've still not given me a reason why I ought to recommend your chat room or pass on your tips when I do so. In the interests of compromise, here's what I'll do:
  1. Make the Discord point a parameter
  2. Make a space for a additional remarks where you can put your patrolling tips
You're raise a good point about User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager, but it must be possible to modify the script to allow individual admins to customise the template call. Otherwise, this template has a pretty limited number of users: if you think one of these should be the default, I suggest we do a straw poll of the admins actively working PERM/NPR to see what the majority prefer. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the optional parameters. No one will use it if it is opt in. It's not worth the extra complexity. Let's just hash out the content dispute on this talk page by inviting more people to join the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one will use it if it is opt in – the classic argument for why something shouldn't be there in the first place. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I judge these complex, non-standard parameters would not be used is that user scripts do not provide a mechanism for opting in to these. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... well... there are two ways to use the params... 1. you can technically clone the userscript into your own userspace, and edit line 32, 'New page reviewer': 'New Page Reviewer granted', to 'New page reviewer': 'New Page Reviewer granted|param1|param2...',. Theoretically it should work just fine (at line 266). templates[] is referenced a couple of times in the script, but the array is used mostly as boolean checks. (it is theoretical because I was processing the logic in the codes mentally, rather than doing an actual test. heh.) 2. Have MusikAnimal update the userscript to load a predefined array in your common.js. – robertsky (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to your user page, you've written 21 user scripts from scratch and contributed 100 patches to Twinkle. So I'm sure you would have no problem opting in, when you use this template yourself. By implication what you're worried about is that other people won't pass on these messages for you, if you give them the choice. Which really says it all. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If my choices are to make other people update their user scripts to support complexity that you've unilaterally added to a template, a template that is in a series of other templates that don't have this complexity, or just come to a consensus on a talk page, I choose consensus on a talk page. How many times do I have to explain this to you? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

See above section for additional discussion.

Notified: WT:NPPR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WT:PERM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question: the above section mentions admins actively working PERM/NPR. Can non-admins participate in this discussion, or would such input be frowned upon like at PERM? ~ A412 talk! 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably everyone can participate. I'm not aware of any restrictions for editors on talk pages. If I were to hypothetically add an {{RFC}} tag to this section, it would message editors unrelated to PERM or NPP to comment here. Up to you though. If you don't have an opinion, or you feel that PERM admins are the most qualified to opine on this, you are not compelled to post here either :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course everybody can participate. However please bear in mind this is not a guideline page. We're not asking here what is and isn't good general guidance for reviewers; that belongs in WP:NPP. This template is only used by admins who grant the NPR permission (primarily through WP:PERM/NPR), to save them having to write a fresh message to every user. Looking through the last four months of PERM/NPR, the people that have used it more than once are myself (25 times), Novem Linguae (3), Extraordinary Writ (2), Hey man im josh (29), Ingenuity (12), Robertsky (4), Rosguill (11), and HJ Mitchell (12). So my comment above was just to observe that those of us who put our names to these words, as it were, have the most interest in what they say. These numbers give some context as to why I find it a little frustrating that Novem Linguae insists that the template we all use should be tailored to saving his time and communicating what he has found important. I just wanted to a copyedit a template I use a lot to be more concise and not give unnecessary/disputable advice, and it turns into a multi-part RfC... – Joe (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I'm surprised to see I have the most. I'll give this a read through when I get a moment today and give my thoughts. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been a massive help there since you got the bit! I don't think we could have kept on top of the recent backlog drive and invitation waves otherwise. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't you just a sweetheart! Thanks for the kind words :) Hey man im josh (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Looks like there isn't enough support for including an NPP Discord link, so I withdraw my proposal to keep it there. Thank you for your feedback. Please consider also opining in the two sections below, which currently have low participation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Current wording: Consider joining the NPP Discord to chat with your fellow reviewers in real-time

  • Yes. The NPP Discord server is great for new patrollers because they can get questions answered quickly and they can start making friends and feeling a sense of community. In my opinion, it is a warmer and more interactive environment than on-wiki. This is great for retention and quality of patrolling experience. It costs us nothing to add a link in this template. Joe's recent edits ironically made the link more prominent than it was before by giving it its own bullet. Could reduce the weight of this link if needed. I would just like it included somewhere in this template so I don't have to go back to manually inviting people to the NPP Discord via pulling a report and leaving user talk messages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Our work, as much as possible, shall be performed on-wiki, where it is visible, searchable, archived forever, and under control of the Wikimedia Foundation. There are many old farts editing Wikipedia (I happen to be one of them) who do not want to do off-wiki networking for some reasons (e.g., who in practice has the checkuser-like privileges on Discord? who oversees the oversighters there?). Nothing can be done to prevent people from cooperating on their editing off-wiki. However, encouraging such off-wiki cooperation is to the detriment of the Wikipedia itself (witness the unanswered issues on the Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers). Even the current wording shall be removed IMHO. --Викидим (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Викидим: I'm by no means trying to convince you to join, but perhaps I can answer your question and respond to a comment. There is no checkuser like role, nobody can connect accounts or view private info, like your IP address, that's just not a functionality available to server moderators or owners. Are you asking who moderates the Discord server? The server owner is Insertcleverphrasehere, though they do not actively moderate the server. Novem is the only other person with the ability to remove or assign the server moderator role. The only other moderators are myself and ONUnicorn, with ONUnicorn being relatively inactive on server. So, essentially, it's myself and Novem "moderating", but there's not been much moderation or users ever necessary in my time on there. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The NPP Discord server is an unofficial chat room, used by a small proportion of the ~800 current new page reviewers, and not a substitute for discussion on-wiki. Personally, I don't use it—and don't recommend others use it—because it is proprietary, closed source software fully controlled by an American private company with a poor record of moderating hate speech. Given the direction similar companies have gone recently, that makes me nervous. I fully understand that others find it useful, and that's absolutely fine, but it's not appropriate to give undue prominence to selected commercial services in Wikipedia processes and it's not fair to ask other people to recommend it every time they grant NPR just because that saves the operator of the server some time. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Full disclosure, a few months ago I was bumped up to server admin/mod/whatever you call it. Discord isn't for everyone, and that's cool, and that's okay. It's not forced, you should still use the proper NPR talk pages when appropriate, but sometimes it's extremely helpful to get real time feedback and discuss notability guidelines. It reminds me of the days of IRC. Sometimes short question back and forths, with a more natural flow to them than discussions on user talk pages, can help people learn and understand better. That's okay. That should be encouraged. We're a community and we help each other out a lot on Discord when trying to discuss whether a page should be marked as reviewed and what notability guidelines apply and whether that's been met. I see absolutely no negative to including it and a butt load of potential for positive growth and reviewer retention, something we desperately need right now. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You kind of are forcing us to recommend it by including it here, though. That doesn't feel very cool. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, it is shoving it down people's throats more. I recognize my view is, and has been, hyperfocused on reviewer retention and NPP growth, so it may be biased towards what I view as furthering that goal. I also recognize that some people prefer the more minimalistic invite option. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are very good goals, though I wonder how much evidence do we have that Discord is getting us there? What proportion of reviewers are using it? Do they tend to stick around longer than those that don't? Are they more effective? It would be interesting to look into that. My own view here is informed by a feeling (admittedly also anecdotal) that, since the Discord came along, both the cohesion of the NPP team on-wiki and its integration with the wider community have suffered quite noticeably from the formation of a clique there. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this doesn't help at all with the argument for including a Discord link, anecdotally speaking, I've been able to actually recruit a good number of reviewers over the last few months via the main (unofficial) en-Wiki Discord. When compared to my non-Discord recruits, I'm noticing a significantly better retention rate, with a couple outliers of course. Sample size is about 25 at this point in time. As for the proportion, we have 163 users with the "verified patroller" role, which isn't necessarily accurate as we have a few admins who don't actively patrol included and a few users who have multiple Discord accounts included. This is not at all taking into account their activity, I'd hazard a guess that at least 1/3 to 1/2 do not comment in server. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No along the same lines as Викидим and Joe. Communication should be kept on-wiki as much as possible, and this seems like an (unintentional) recipe for the formation of a clique among NPP. We already have periodic problems with reviewers developing a misplaced sense of superiority over other editors, and I'm concerned that this could encourage that. I am skeptical of its utility for growth but would of course be open to changing my mind if evidence is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 13:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I've been a regular of the NPP Discord for a few months, and while I do find it valuable to be able to quickly have a conversation with other reviewers in a slightly less formal setting than on-wiki, it might be sending the wrong message to new reviewers to list that among the primary resources. We already run into situations from time to time where users share information or links to discussions in a way that could appear to be off-wiki canvassing. It doesn't happen that often, and other reviewers are generally aware enough to discourage it when it does, but that's just one of the reasons why it would be inappropriate to advertize an off-wiki forum in this manner. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should "if you don't know, leave it for another reviewer" receive its own bullet?

[edit]

Current wording: If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – ask for help or leave it for another reviewer.

  • Yes. This is a tip for new reviewers that makes it clear that accuracy is more important than speed. It is my reading that the community prefers accuracy over backlog-crushing. I think this needs its own bullet. The urge to just hit the "mark as reviewed" button and clear the backlog may be strong with a new patroller, and this is a pitfall that if we can help them avoid by mentioning it in this template, we should. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I am new to the game, and a bolder reminder would have helped me to gauge the community spirit faster. --Викидим (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as a simple matter of grammar. The bulleted list is introduced with Before you get started, please take the time to.... The fragment if you don't know, leave it for another reviewer does not follow from that. The intention with the bullets is to give a clear list of things the reviewer should do now, because otherwise they're not likely to remember to do it again. Over time it had become burdened with general advice which I thought would be more clearly presented separately, so I moved it to after the list. The intention was not to de-emphasise it—I agree that it's key advice and should be emphasised—and I think that being the last sentence in the message is emphasis. If it's not sufficient, then we could use bold text, or create a second bulleted list, or something. But please let's try to keep things in some sort of order, otherwise people just stop reading. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Current wording: Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a search engine) for compliance with the general notability guideline.

  • Yes. This is a tip for new reviewers that reminds them that they need to check articles for copyright violations and evaluate sources for WP:GNG. This is the bread and butter of NPP and, in my opinion, deserves a reminder. The WP:NPP tutorial is gigantic and a lot to learn, so if we can call out the most important steps of it in this template so that new reviewers don't forget, I don't see why we shouldn't. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Checking for copyright is a core part of the NPP workflow, yes, but "run every article through this specific copyvio detector" is not necessarily the way to do it. "Check every article against the WP:GNG" is definitely not part of the workflow, which Novem Linguae knows full well from numerous discussions elsewhere. He recently added both points to this message, which reflects his own particular approach to NPP as a very exhaustive, notability-focused peer review. He is welcome to pursue that approach and to encourage others to do so, but if we are going to offer general patrolling tips here, in this talk page template shared by all PERM admins, they should be tips that everyone can agree on and that reflect the established guidelines at WP:NPP. However, I don't think this is really the place for that. NPP is complex, there's no way around it; you can't boil it down to a few bullet points. And if you tried, you'd have one person saying that copyvio and notability are the most important, but another saying CSD and BLP are most important, and a third saying hey don't forget about COI/UPE... better to just point people in the right direction and trust them to figure it out. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:New_page_reviewer_granted&oldid=1259524305"