Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New page reviewer

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
Please read the guidelines for granting this right before making a request.

User:PharyngealImplosive7

I was granted new page reviewer rights temporarily and I think that I'm ready to get them permanently since I've tagged and patroled over 50 pages now. I've also tagged many pages for deletion that were unfit for the wiki. Finally, I would like to participate in the May backlog drive. I thank the reviewing admin for their time and hope that I will be granted this perm. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Ingenuity (expires 00:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 16:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Ingenuity, who granted the trial perm. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dclemens1971

I have extensive experience with new page creation and expanding stubs into appropriately sourced articles, and I also engage regularly (and constructively!) in AfD debates and PRODs with a good understanding of applicable policies. I'd like to apply this experience by helping out in May with the NPP backlog. Thanks for considering! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dclemens1971, I appreciate your desire to help out with the backlog as we always need fresh eyes and eager participants. :) I see that you've had some participation with AfDs, which is good because a lot of NPP is related to the nuances surrounding notability. I took a look at the articles you've created. I noticed that some of your articles rely heavily on primary sources? Some examples are Church of Bangladesh Diocese of Kushtia, Church of Bangladesh Diocese of Barisal, Nathan Ingen, and Brian Williams (bishop)? I admit that this has prompted some serious hesitation on my part. I'd rather not reject a request before hearing what you have to say on the matter, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @Clovermoss. I agree that the pages rely on primary sources for non-controversial facts. Dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) have historically been viewed as per se notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007. (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax). Under the principle articulated by these "keep" results, I operated on the view that the Church of Bangladesh dioceses can be presumed notable. For Nathan Ingen and Brian Williams, WP:BISHOPS states that "[t]he bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status." (In both of these cases, the bishops are also acting primates (heads) of their churches in the Anglican Communion.) To sum up: I understand that generally N:ORGCRIT or N:BIO apply, but WP practice appears to treat major church traditions' dioceses and bishops as inherently notable and that's what I operated under for those articles. Happy to continue the conversation or answer other questions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Thanks for linking those AfD discussions... they are interesting. My discomfort is in relation to the fact that they we don't actually have an SNG about dioceses. However, your response definitely demonstrates that you understand nuance. If I gave you the perm, do you think you would be able to only review articles that you think meet GNG, NCORP or an SNG? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trlovejoy

Request to participate in the May backlog drive. I have been an editor since 2005. I have knowledge of policies and guidelines. I am a rollbacker and huggle patroller. I have a good record of constructive interaction and moving pages in accordance with guidelines. TRL (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis or @Spicy or @Clovermoss Hi - I'd like to ask for consideration of this request from last week. Thanks much! TRL (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as a 1-month trial, since you've only become active recently. All the best,Miniapolis 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Automated comment This user does not appear to have the permission new page reviewer. — MusikBot talk 16:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is because the permission was subsequently revoked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis, would you mind striking the above text? I think it confuses the bot now that it has been revoked. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, and thanks for the poke. All the best, Miniapolis 13:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanderwaalforces

Put on a two-month trial by Hey man im josh, trial will end in the coming week and I will love to continue contributing at NPP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under the impression that Hey man im josh wanted to leave this to another admin (since they told me this), otherwise I would've left this to their discretion. My approach for regranting trial perms is to look at patrols, whether any pages were draftified or deleted, and if there is feedback from other editors that was taken into consideration. In regards to the last factor, I noticed that some concerns have been expressed before by Joe Roe. So, this is what I've noticed at this point in time:
  • You have made a lot of patrols during this limited timeframe. I assume that some of the motivation behind this may be because of the backlog and ongoing drive. It's important to make sure you're always focusing on quality and that sacrifices are never made for quantity alone. It took me quite some time to look through your patrol log, but I didn't notice any glaring issues as a whole. I did add stub templates to articles when nessecary but you were otherwise good at noting issues through the page curation process (such as when an article relied on a single source). The bulk of your patrols were clear SNG passes (NPOL, GEOLAND, or NSPECIES). I would advise you to be more careful when coming across articles outside of these clear passes as this is where you've made a few mistakes. I'd be more careful with sports-related articles like Dare Olatunji as most of the coverage there is either statistics or passing mentions (see WP:SPORTCRIT). A few of the articles you patrolled were later deleted (one example is Delta Air Lines Flight 520), while others like Chioma Rowland, Fayse Goh and Vida Loka II are currently at AfD. Some articles you patrolled were speedily deleted: Malhan Family as a G11, Setlhare sa Losika ke Eng? as an A10, and Out of Dark as an A7. You don't typically review redirects but many of the ones you have have been deleted through RfD.
  • You have participated in deletion discussions, many of which you have started yourself. I'm not seeing any clear issues with the majority of your nominations, but I did want to point out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratikur Rahaman. I understand your NPOL argument as they are not an elected politician (I don't know enough about the sourcing to say the same about GNG) but I did find your comment about the article being promotionally written to be a bit confusing. In your place, I would have likely responded back to the article creator about what language I found promotional, especially since they asked. In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqra Hasan, your argument about notability not being inherited falls a bit short because the sourcing focuses on her, not her family. I think someone could reasonably come to the conclusion that she meets GNG, but I'm not familiar enough with Indian sources to make that call myself. Overall, you have a very good track record at AfD.
  • I still need to take a detailed look at your drafitications and communication with other editors regarding your patrols. Double checking the patrols themselves took several hours of my time. I don't want to accidently lose all of what I've written above because my internet is starting to be a bit finicky now, but there will be a part 2 once I've taken a break. Please don't take my above feedback too harshly, I just want to help point out what I can to make you a better page patroller. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – I took a look at your recent drafitications and they seemed reasonable enough to me. I read your talk page archives for April and May and you don't ignore editors who come to your talk page about your patrols. I'd suggest maybe explaining why you would be inclined to send something to AfD instead of just saying so when someone comes to you with a review request... it comes across as less bitey. Ideally, we want to go beyond not just biting. I personally try to go that extra mile and explain why an article wouldn't meet GNG or give examples of what a reliable source they should be citing is (like a newspaper instead of a blog). Given everything I've said as a whole, I'd be most comfortable granting you this permission on a trial basis for four more months. As I said before, please don't take my feedback too harshly. I genuinely do wish you the best in your efforts here and I realize that the nuances of everything can be a bit rough to take in. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss Thank you for the feedbacks and taking your time to go through my logs (sorry for that many hours, lol). Yeah, in fact, you will find a lot of my reviews that were speedy deleted or at AfD, if you check the logs against each other (time it was nominated at AfD and time it was marked as reviewed) you will see that I only marked them as reviewed because they are already at AfD. I don’t review them before AfD but rather after they were nominated, so that it can leave the queue. Same thing applies to the speedied articles. Just to take them out of them queue. I hope you now understand why you’d find deleted articles on my patrol logs. I believe this is natural because it’s part of the NPP guide (currently mobile, can’t link to it right off the bat). And, what’s the essence of AfD, after all it’s a discussion and I can say that I have, in rare occasions, nominated articles that are borderline notable just to affirm their notability and not really to get them deleted. For the bite, I don’t think I should call it a bite though, because this user isn’t new and as a matter fact older than me here on Wikipedia, I tend to believe old users should understand things better, but I realized long ago that that is actually not always the case. I didn’t mean for that message to be read as a WP:BITE.
Overall, thank you for being a great admin, thanks for paying attention to details and thank you for providing such helpful and genuine feedback, it is very much appreciated. I definitely didn’t take them harshly as they’re obviously not presented harshly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that WP:NPP states that articles marked for deletion can be reviewed. I didn't consider that angle and that does make your logged actions here seem more reasonable in retrospect. As for newbies... I can understand why you wouldn't consider them to be one, but they didn't really start becoming active until mid-2023 and sometimes people can make newbie mistakes while trying to learn the ropes their first year or so of editing. I generally strive to do my best explaining things to people regardless (unless they make a habit of not bothering to listen). Thank you for the compliment, I do try to pay attention to details even if I don't always catch everything. Alas, none of us are perfect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss Thank you so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Florificapis

I got busy in real life for most of March and April, so my request was put on hold per [1]. Here is my original reason for requesting NPR permissions again.

I have over 120 new articles under my belt, mostly relating to medieval history, monasteries, saints, and geographical features. I am familiar with the kinds of content that would fall under CSD criteria, since I have experience wikifying new pages and tagging obviously problematic new pages for speedy deletion. I know the guidelines on notability, proper sourcing, draftifying new articles, rating talk pages using scripts, AfC, AfD, and other essential patrolling tasks. Would be quite happy to reduce the backlog while being cautious and careful. Also currently a Pending Changes Reviewer. Florificapis (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 00:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheTechie

I am requesting this permission to help out with the backlog, as the notice came on my watchlist.

  1. I am extended confirmed and have been here for 3+ years, so I meet the account age/edit count requirements.
  2. I have never had any blocks.
  3. I agree to reviewing on a volunteer basis.

I would like to be able to use this permission, even if temporary, to help with the drive, as said above. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly asking, but any update on my application? I'd really like to help out with the drive. If you'd like to decline me, that's fine, just please let me know early. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for a trial period of one month. Ping me when it expires for feedback if you're still interested in reviewing at that point. Thank you for offering to help with the backlog. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Clovermoss! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:InDimensional

I would like to participate in the NPP backlog drive.

  • I have experience creating new pages as well as participating in AfD discussions.
  • Never had any blocks.
  • Agree to review on a trial basis. InDimensional (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dudhhr

I'd like to volunteer for the NPP drive this month. I was previously granted the right for a trial period in August (expired a month later, extension request declined), and for another trial in December (for the January drive; unfortunately I was inactive as I was busy IRL). I have a bit of content writing experience (Trams in Olsztyn ) and formerly worked in AfC reviewing. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:B3251

I would like to help out with the backlog. I’m very familiar with the content policies, having created 71 active articles (most being non-stubs) as of making this request. I’ve additionally had some experience in participating in discussions, handling deletion templates, and moving new articles with significant issues to the draft space. B3251 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TarnishedPath

I participated in the December backlog drive, being granted a trial. At the end of the trial I requested permanent NPP, which was denied with the denying admin expressing concern that I hadn't created any articles. I've since created an article about Neeraj Gupta (refer to User_talk:TarnishedPath/Archive_2#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Neeraj_Gupta_(sculptor)_has_been_accepted) and been responsible for the bulk of the material in the newly created article Bruce Lehrmann‎. I had been working on Draft:Bruce Lehrmann‎ but someone else started work on Bruce Lehrmann‎ just as I submitted Draft:Bruce Lehrmann‎ to AfC so I ended up merging my work over to the mainspace article and issuing a CSD for deletion of the draft. I've continued to be semi-regularly involved with AfD. I'm applying because I got a notification a while ago that there was a backlog drive for May and I'm willing to help out a bit with that. TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Rosguill, as they granted the trial perm. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remsense

I would like to review more pages, having been granted the role temporarily before. Remsense诉 07:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingsmasher678

Saw the backlog drive and thought that I would throw my hat in the ring as willing to help out. Though I have relatively few edits, most of them are in the new changes patrol, which has a lot of overlap with this project. I also spend time searching for and sending to AfD non-notable articles, or CSDing promotional and/or nonsense ones. I always strive to explain to good faith editors why I revert or nominate their pages, as this helps to retain new editors, rather than biting them and scaring them off. Overall, I think that I would be a good match for this project, on a one-month trial basis. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 268 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that my edits arn't in the right area,consider this  Request withdrawn
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trainsskyscrapers

Hello. I was initially given a month long trial as a new page reviewer after receiving an invitation on my user page, and I've been enjoying everything so far: reviewing pages, providing feedback, sending WikiLove to new and returning users who have made exceptional first attempts, tagging issues, and resolving issues myself (that could otherwise be tagged) when I have time in an attempt to reduce the backlog. I have already been renewed once, and my second trial expires in a little over two weeks (May 26th). I'm requesting either an indefinite or longer-term ability to review new pages before my time lapses. Haven't had any behavioral issues, and I try to treat all users with respect. I will continue to help clear the backlog in the meantime. Thanks again. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=1222800536"