Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right

Recently, there were two large-scale RfCs that established the new page reviewer user right. There has since been disagreement over whether editors without the user right are allowed to continue patrolling articles (without marking them as patrolled), and this RfC attempts to settle that and clean up the loose ends those general RfCs left behind.

Definitions
To avoid an argument over definitions from overshadowing an attempt to build consensus one way or the other, the following definitions will be used in this RfC.

Patrolling: The act of reviewing new pages and taking appropriate actions to uphold the standards of the encyclopedia, such as nominating pages for CSD, XfD, or PROD, copy-editing pages, moving from mainspace to draft, placing clean-up tags, etc.

Marking as patrolled: The act of removing an article from the various new page feeds by marking it as patrolled.

As per the previous RfCs, only new page reviewers may mark a page as patrolled. This RfC is determining who can patrol (i.e. engage in the act of patrolling, as defined above). Prior to the recent RfCs, any autoconfirmed editor was able to patrol new pages and mark them as patrolled.

Previous discussions
On October 5, 2016, New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right was closed with consensus to make the technical change of creating the "new page reviewer" user right and restrict the act of marking as patrolled to those with the user right.

On October 25, 2016, New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications was closed with consensus on the criteria for granting the user right of "new page reviewer".

Further discussions were held at WT:PERM and a few other pages around the project, including Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, regarding the technical creation of the user right, providing it to grandfathered users (as determined by the previous RfCs), and rolling it out to the site. The Phabricator task/thread is linked to the right.

There was a large discussion at ANI over whether editors without this user right are permitted to self-identify as "new page patrollers" at Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive938.

Outcomes
If there is support for restricting editors without this user right from patrolling new pages, this will result in the following changes or clarifications.
 * 1) Editors without the user right who regularly make patrolling actions to new pages may be warned and potentially blocked by administrators, given the community consensus that they are not permitted to do so, regardless of the quality of their patrols. Any warnings should direct the editor to the appropriate permissions page and note that they are welcome to apply for the user right.
 * 2) Editors will not be permitted to self-identify as new page patrollers on their user page unless they've been granted the new page reviewer user right. For instance, userboxes identifying editors as new page patrollers without the right will be removed.
 * 3) Depending on technical capabilities, Twinkle may be modified to prevent editors without the user right from nominating new pages for deletion as per CSD, XfD, or PROD and placing cleanup tags on new pages. The ability to tag older pages will remain unchanged.
 * 4) Edit filters may be utilized to prevent editors without the user right from nominating new pages for deletion as per CSD, XfD, or PROD and placing cleanup tags on new pages, if technically possible.
 * 5) Note that this does not preclude future discussions identifying specific CSD criteria allowable for all editors, such as perhaps WP:G10 (attack pages) or WP:G12 (copyright infringement).

If there is not support for restricting editors without this user right from patrolling new pages, this will result in the following changes or clarifications.
 * 1) Editors without the user right will be permitted to patrol new pages. Absence of the user right does not prevent an editor from patrolling, but they will be technically unable to mark a page as patrolled.
 * 2) Editors who patrol disruptively are subject to warnings and blocks as per our existing behavioral guideline on disruptive editing.
 * 3) Editors will be permitted to self-identify as new page patrollers without the new page reviewer user right so long as they do not imply they have the user right. For instance, userboxes identifying editors as new page patrollers without the right should not be removed, but such userboxes should be altered to remove any confusing wikilinks, such as to WP:New page patrol (which has been repurposed) or WP:New page reviewer. (I still see these as complements, but I'll strike this bit due to discussion on the talk page. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC))
 * 4) Twinkle changes and edit filters will not be utilized to restrict new page patrolling as detailed above.

RfC
Should editors without the "new page reviewer" user right be prohibited from patrolling new pages (placing cleanup tags, nominating for the various deletion processes, etc) as defined and detailed above? ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Support

 *  Support  Overwhelmingly there were two concerns expressed by !voters on the userright RfC; Both had to do with incompetent reviewers. First new users were being bitten and discouraged by improper deletion tagging - people sitting on new pages feed and tagging CSD tagging within mere minutes, and two that spam and non-policy compliment articles were being marked reviewed without actually being properly reviewed. Both of these issues are the direct result of inexperienced editors. The simple restriction on mark this page patrolled addresses incompetent editors from removing new articles from the queue but it does absolutely nothing about them biting newcomers. Mistagging for deletion both increases admin workload and can discourage new contributors. In fact, the way our processes work, admins are the second set of eyes when making deletion decisions and their knowledge protects content from improper deletion. A reviewer is the first set of eyes, if they regularly tag articles which are declined the content may be saved but the damage to the user base may have already been done. To avoid this both groups should have the same fluency in, and understanding of, Wikipedia's content policies. As to other cleanup tagging, I do not see any real problems with editors who have not been vetted ie without new page reviewer placing those tags. They are part of general Wikipedia editing and are unlikely to cause the harm improper deletion tagging does. J bh  Talk  14:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if the result was as you say, but I would be interested to see some data on editor retention for editors who create an article that is patrolled no problem, and editors who have a deletion tag added to their article that is subsequently removed/declined. That aside, I think there are better ways to address the problem of deletion tags scaring off new users; at the end of the day, editors who could theoretically be productive if given the right encouragement may still create articles that are a copyvio, A7, or some other innocent but still deleteable article, and they will still get one of these scary deletion tags. It might be better to think about what we could do to help those editors, and then apply that to the broader situation. Sam Walton (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they may get their article tagged for deletion but restricting the editors who can do that to having the very minimal experience of 500 edits/90 days and a, again minimal, review by an administrator that they have a clue will greatly increase the likelihood that a) the tagging will be proper and b) that when they ask the tagger they will get a polite and proper response about how to solve the problems if they can be solved or why the article will never be appropriate for Wikipedia. It is also far from burdensome to ask for the right - if an editor is capable properly reviewing an article the right will be granted. If they are not capable of reviewing an article they should not be doing it in the first place. Trying to keep a lid on incompetent patrollers requires an enormous amount of time first reviewing recent taggings, then fixing the problems they caused, then discussing the problem with them. If they do not improve or stop it is necessary to collect long term (all the while they are doing bad tagging) evidence to take to ANI and, after all of that, have a 50/50 chance of the result being "eh.. let them keep doing it.. AGF... anyone can edit..". Heck, I could spend all of my time simply "reviewing the reviewers" if I were so inclined. I believe and  already do spend a considerable time doing just that. Yeah, there might be a better way to stop the biting etc but it has not been identified and will, if this reform is any measure take years to implement and then be kneecapped in its infancy. The problems I described above exist, the community has already said that implementation of the new user right for to address those problems. Implementation is not simply adding the right and turning it on - it must actually function to address the issues that caused it to be created.  J bh  Talk  15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Expl. strike Twinkle changes were already !voted against in the first RfC and no one has proposed (other than in this RfC) a need for edit filters, "admin warnings regardless of quality" etc. The issue of editors who do not have the knowledge to properly tag pages is a problem as is having editors who can not handle dealing with new users without biting them or giving them bad information/advice. A better way is to come up with a way to address this in a non-technical way. See below as a suggestion on how that might be done.  J bh  Talk  01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose
More importantly, what problem is this solving? The new NPP right ensures that a qualified person will review every page regardless of who else has looked at it, and it hardly seems like a bad thing if someone else had helpfully tagged it up beforehand! I could see "soft patrolling" in this way becoming the preferred route to showing competence at WP:PERM/NPP, in fact. If someone is doing this in a problematic way, then we should already be warning them for the problematic behaviour, e.g. hasty tagging, biting the newbies, etc. (N.B. this isn't an endorsement of the four "clarifications" the framer of this RfC has placed in the mouths of those voting oppose!) Joe Roe (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 10:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I've posed this question because of the recent confusion about what the past RfCs actually did. Some editors have gone so far as to say that we've already received consensus that no-one may patrol new pages without the user right, but I strongly disagree based on the closing statements at the past RfCs (which specifically mention consensus for technical changes). This needs to be cleared up. As far as my opposition, I strongly believe that we shouldn't establish a de facto editorial board on Wikipedia. It's contrary to every ideal underlying the wiki movement. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. As I understand it the RfC and new user right limit who can say 'this article has been looked at, there's definitely no need for anyone else to check this over now' - not who can add tags, perform cleanup duties, or any other activity that would be classified as patrolling newly created pages. Users with the new user right will still look over articles that have been "patrolled" so that they can be marked as patrolled, and administrators will still look over CSD/AfD/PROD tags. This feels like limiting editors from performing the very actions they need to make to prove that they are responsible enough to perform those actions (i.e. to have the user right). Sam Walton (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I'm not sure why anyone would think it's a good idea to restrict article improvement. Would an attack page have to wait for a flagged person to come along in order to tag it G10, or else the tagger gets blocked? would we need specified persons to add references and improve an article beyond a stub? This doesn't even make sense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously on the oppose side and just trying to clear this up, but I do want to be fair to the editors who generally support this idea and give them a fair shake, so I'd like to point out that we shouldn't be concerned too much about such edge cases as G10. As I noted in the outcomes section, consensus here would still allow a future discussion to determine that edge cases such as the higher-priority CSD criteria are allowable for all editors. I think G10 is probably the clearest example of what an exception to the rule would look like, as those are as high priority as it gets. (And before editors tell me that I've asked a non-question, given these quick opposes, please see the ANI thread linked in the previous discussions. This was a serious idea people were putting forward, and some were acting as if there was already consensus for it. This genuinely does need a full RfC of clarification, as much as that pains me.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've understood the gist of the previous discussions. CSDs are by definition no-brainers, so I don't mind who nominates them as long as they don't do so repeatedly in an incorrect manner. The same applies for me to adding other tags. I've even seen new editors correctly apply AfDs, even if it is after a bit of formatting trouble. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * comment@—Though I'll weigh in here, I refuse to !vote, on principle. In my view, this rfc is a sophisticated WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rather than a good faith attempt to improve certain aspects of Wikipedia related to quality control and encourging new editor participation. It seems more an attempt to relitigate recent, overwhelmingly supported rfc said than any type of incremental, consensus process—in such a situation, a !vote is meaningless. — Neonorange (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose It's a bad idea. If there's a blatant copyvio or an article that needs to be deleted quickly, we shouldn't have to wait for someone who has the right. Patrollers should only be able to mark an article as patrolled, but besides that, restricting who can edit articles is a bad idea. Protection of articles is for cases of vandalism. Having people not be able to edit articles when there is no threat to the article is a bad idea, and goes against one of Wikipedia's principles: an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:5P3 "...any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited...". If someone is causing a disruption or biting newcomers we have processes to deal with that.  The patrolling system should now help to catch these issues.  —  xaosflux  Talk 13:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I had raised the question in the RfCs as well, and will develop in the threaded discussion below. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose - Remove all the jargon from this question and it basically states "Should editors without a special user right be allowed to edit newly created articles?". Absolutely, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It would be completely unreasonable to disallow normal editorial practices, especially without implementing a complicated new level of protection. Support outcomes 3-5 are basically rearguing that twinkle should be restricted which the community clearly didn't approve of in the first RfC. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am not particularly happy with the framing of this RfC. Since the restrictions on deletion tagging are not really Twinkle restrictions but rather policy restrictions and Twinkle seems to be a polarizing, hot button, topic. As it is it really screws with the neutral presentation of the policy questions.  J bh  Talk  16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, only allowing certain user groups to apply deletion templates would implicitly restrict twinkle. That being said, I think the outrage against changing twinkle implicitly applies to changing policy in the manner suggested. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it can be restricted simply by saying "don't do it" with no technical changes. That would simplify things quite a bit but discussion on that is being forestalled by Twinkle discussion. J bh  Talk  17:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I do not think this move will better Wikipedia. Why should we prevent new editors from improving the encyclopedia. &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Stopping editors from tagging new pages doesn't seem realistic or desirable. If you disable Twinkle, people can simply copy and paste the tags, or use the Visual Editor to add them with a handy form that is almost as convenient as Twinkle anyway. This leaves the administrators with the very difficult job of manually identifying "new page patrolling" and distinguishing it from superficially similar activities like say monitoring new articles within the scope of a WikiProject (or does this indeed count as "patrolling")?
 * 1) Oppose per the comments I've made at ANI: "New page" is a poorly defined subject, and this whole thing runs counter to WP:5P3.  Pinguinn     🐧   20:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I understand where this question comes from, but ultimately doing this will mean stopping people from making useful, productive, good faith and necessary edits. I also agree with everything Joe Roe said above.  Hut 8.5  20:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose mostly per Sam Walton above. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Joe, Stopping editors tagging etc isn't the way forward and would be more hassle than it's worth. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with thanks to Rob for taking the initiative to set this up so we can clarify what exactly people are comfortable with as far as "reform" of new page patrol goes. It seems to be the case that the would-be reformers have a fairly specific program of future reforms in mind that fairly closely matches what's presented in the present RfC, so the argument that this is somehow intended to undermine that program doesn't really hold water. (This thread on Kudpung's talk page for example: We'll have to give it time, perhaps another year or so, then extend the restriction so that no one without the user right can tag new pages at all. As I said in this post the other day, it would be very easy to individually support seemingly incremental, minor changes if each one is presented separately, without really appreciating their net collective effect, but organizing them into a single cohesive proposal for editors to consider in toto really does make it clear that the consequence of implementing these reforms as a package would be to institute a de facto editorial board. Reforms developed with the intention of benefiting new users (by preventing bitey interactions) could even be successful on that specific goal and yet still be a net negative for new editors by exacerbating internal community divisions, increasing the level of perceived internal hierarchy, and reinforcing the attitude that new editors' contributions are inherently suspicious and likely undesirable. IMO a much better way of reducing negative interactions with newbies (which would also obviate the need for all of this bureaucracy and hierarchy) is to just delete a good 80-90% of the maintenance tags. We have plenty of evidence that they're off-putting to newbies, and virtually none that they're effective in prompting improvement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "It would be very easy to individually support seemingly incremental, minor changes if each one is presented separately, without really appreciating their net collective effect", exactly right. Some of those behind the over overall vision of 'reviewing new pages' have a bigger agenda than is being presented in each individual RfC, which if presented as a whole would never pass, so the smaller changes must be reviewed carefully and considered collectively with the others that are known. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Samwalton9 and Godsy. This would be a hindrance to catching nonsense and copyvios, would be overly bureaucratic and cabalistic, and would cause an unnecessary increase in workload for those with the NPP right. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Oppose - The current system potentially offers itself as a great learning tool for editors interested in doing reviews. As long as those pages remain tagged as unpatrolled until a NP reviewer comes along and patrols it themselves, there should be no reason to prevent interested editors from doing a sort of review of their own. These could be put on article talk pages with suggestions for improvement, or of course editors could improve the article themselves, or if necessary, maintenance tags as well. Though if these are abused, feel free to warn. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Until further notice, my comment will be struck. I've decided on this course of action after reading the discussion below about the good faith nature of the RfC. This proposal will clearly be WP:SNOWed by the opposition. I won't call the GF of Rob into question here like others have, as that does nothing to quell the concerns that Rob has. I'm privy to the discussion that was held at AN/I and I think that some editors have expanded their definition of what NPR actually includes. For example, anybody can perform NPP, but, only NPRs can "mark" a page as patrolled. Hence, why remove my infobox which identifies myself as somebody who does NPP? well, because the definitions have become blurry. If anything we should be discussing what NPR actually gives us; Kudpung suggests it's a toothless right - the only true ability being able to mark pages as patrolled - while Rob believes it sets the precedent for becoming Toothless. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: If a newbie sees an attack page or an copyvio, any editor can do it. But, I still warn them from tagging new articles. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 12:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a) what you mean, and b) whether you've understood the proposal correctly. The oppose section is in part for those against warning editors for doing new page patrolling. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those only my opinions but I think it's okay to CSD tag or PROD or AFD them for newbies. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 13:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I prefer everybody can edit major aspects of new pages. Of this causes problems, maybe every new article sould be tagged twice, by two different editors as patrolled. Can be by two newbies or People having the user right. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; for obvious reasons. Limiting such edits is tantamount to censorship on Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Users can do whatever they want as long as its constructive; the patroller right was meant to do just that, mark new pages as patrolled, therefore removing them from the queue and allowing them to be indexed. There's no reason to disallow the vast majority of well-intentioned editors from tagging/cleaning up/etc new articles as they deem fit. This is an encyclopaedia, not a website that should be ruled by elites. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - My understanding is that the new right involves the ability to MARK AS PATROLLED. Application of maintenance tags or challenging for deletion or adding appropriate categories or assigning pieces to various WikiProjects with initial ratings is a right of any good faith user. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - as long as an edit which creates a new page continues to appear in the recent changes feed, any editor patrolling recent changes in good faith should continue being able to review these edits as well. Additionally I would oppose any measure to remove edits related to new pages that have not been marked as patrolled from the recent changes feed.--John Cline (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose. Goes against everything this project stands for, per many comments above. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. It doesn't really make much sense to me that editors can tag and nominate for deletion only older pages, but not newer ones. How does this improve the encyclopedia, unless it's a way to move towards restricting newer and less experienced users from editing. But my understanding of the original RfD was to simply prevent new pages from slipping through the cracks with issues without having been seen by an experienced editor. This is a far more significant change, and I see little utility in it, particularly considering an experienced editor must review the page at some point. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Snowball Oppose: Per the several excellent reasons stated above. I'm dismayed this was ever proposed in the first place.   Ravenswing   16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Extremely Strong Oppose In my opinion, this would be an absolute disaster. According to #1 above, users who patrol without the right can be warned and blocked, regardless of the quality of their patrols. This means that good-faith editors who are not only trying to help, but also actually are helping, could be blocked. IMO, any editor in this position would be acting completely in accordance with WP:IAR by ignoring this new policy completely, since the rule would be preventing them from improving the encyclopedia. This type of thing would undoubtedly deter many new editors from continuing to work here. Furthermore, if people aren't allowed to try it at all before they apply for the right, how would any admin ever know if they would perform the job competently? WP:NPP is pretty different from almost everything else on Wikipedia, and someone who is very competent in some areas might not understand all the policies involved in new page patrolling. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 16:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC).
 * 9) Strong oppose. Let's say I happened across an attack new page, but couldn't take any action not having the correct right? The mind boggles really. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose – Although the reviewers will have to keep an eye on the patrollers, I feel we should assume good faith and keep the process open.  (Though it'd be nice to avoid the TLAs.) Reidgreg (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Any action, including the giving of advice, that prevents, limits or deters good faith editors from identifying non-encyclopedic content so that those qualified can deal with it is simply unacceptable. The suggestion that some current limitation might be further extended in a year (read a reference to it somewhere up above) is plainly an agenda. The community is entitled to resist any such move and nip it in the bud - before it becomes a creeping fact. Leaky  Caldron  17:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Patrolling functions, such as tagging a page for speedy deletion, are basic functions of Wikipedia; we should assume good faith and let users use these functions without major interceptions. Ueutyi (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Strongly Oppose - All editors patrol pages, whether it is by tagging, resolving tags, or copyediting. The act of marking new pages as "patrolled" was the biggest issue; admins can determined whether deletion tags have been properly applied, and any veteran editor can determine whether other tags have been properly applied. At what point is an article no longer "new" so that all editors can review and edit? I have no problem with not allowing certain CSD tags (e.g. A1 and A3) to be applied until the page has existed for an amount of time, but any editor should be able to place G3, G10,and G12 tags on any page without having to have special permission. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose as a clear violation of WP:EDITING policy. At most, people without the new-page-patroller bit shouldn't be able to mark a page patrolled. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Anyone is welcome to edit most any page (including new pages) in any way (be it by tagging or marking for deletion). So long as a page is not physically marked "reviewed", it will remain in the New Pages queue, where a reviewer or admin will be able to look over the page (and any reviewer-esque actions) to ensure all is well. If patrollers without the user right are competent and doing things right, that's great; if they're not, someone will see that, and take appropriate action. The NPR right sprung out of a desire to eliminate poor reviewing and tagging of articles (particularly in cases where bad deletion tagging drove away newbies). The system we have in place now (user right and all) does its job; though clumsy reviewing and incorrect tagging are still possible, it improves the situation (by ensuring that someone who knows what they're doing gets involved) without violating the core value of "anyone can edit". This proposal, unfortunately, infringes upon that value to a disturbing extent; though it probably would eliminate almost all bad tagging and poor reviews, it would come at quite a cost. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 21:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Per above. Removing  from the other user groups is sufficient. Now any patrol is going to be re-patrolled by a new page reviewer, since the page itself isn't actually marked as patrolled. It's also unclear how one would work towards attaining the "new page reviewer" permission if they can't illustrate they're capable of doing so? Finally, as others have said, any changes to Twinkle are unlikely to happen. As a Twinkle author I will implement anything bound by consensus, but I vehemently oppose these specific changes &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  21:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Very emphatic oppose. Wikipedia was founded on the absurdly ridiculous idea that anyone could edit on the project. There was an assumption of good faith, and everyone was accepted until they proved they were out to do harm. Against an enormous amount of critics, this absurd idea succeeded because of the very thing this RfC would make impossible. If you pass this, you might as well close up shop and make Wikipedia read only. After you do that, then just the few elite people can fix what needs to be fixed, and the project is done. This proposal is in absolute stark contrast to the very concept of this project. No, no, no, a thousand times no. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Strongly Oppose per pretty much everything mentioned above. In addition to that, as someone who has had inappropriate pages created about them in the past, I do not want my ability to mark those types of pages for speedy deletion taken away simply because I don't have this user right.  Also oppose on the grounds that this is a somewhat poorly-written RfC that, in my opinion, is not WP:NPOV, even though I would've likely opposed these changes in a neutrally-worded RfC, too.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Really? Templating experienced editors regardless of the quality of their tagging, or creating edit filters to prevent them from tagging or nominating new articles? As I remember it, the problem being addressed was the lack of any controls preventing some inexperienced new editors from making incompetent new page patrols, not experienced editors. Meters (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose as all users should still be able to tag articles for issues or deletion. A new page reviewer can then come by to double check everything and then tag them as patrolled. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. You've got to be kidding. Nsk92 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Very Strong Oppose. This is ridiculous. This is a wiki, anyone can do anything with the exception of a very few specific things that 'have' to be restricted. This kind of vague restriction of an essential part of the wiki process must not be tolerated. Tamwin (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Absolute Strongest Oppose How are people meant to gain experience in curation of already created when they can't patrol new pages? AfC does not give people experience in most CSD criteria (ie A7) and other similar areas of policy. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 01:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Pile-on Oppose I had no advanced permissions of any kind for the first several years I was going this, and practically all I did was patrol new pages. My success in doing that is a large part of why the community supported my adminship. I'm quite certain there are a great many others who could say the same. If you aren't a big writer of content, checking new pages is one of the entry-level things that any competent user can do. How are hey ever supposed to prove they should have the user right if they are forbidden from enagaging in the activity it relates to? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose but with the caveat that perhaps I have missed something. This restrictions seems like such an obviously silly idea that I wonder whether the proponent has failed to explain some subtle reasoning in its favor.  In the absence of what has been missed, oppose./  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. There have been problems with reviewers applying criteria to new articles that do  not seem to be inline with WP guides. However, the encyclopedia anyone can edit means we cannot or should not begin to apply restictions/ sanctions simply  because we do not have the remit to restrict the anyones to some and  not others. We can identify editors as patrollers but we cannot restrict others in an encyclopedia anyone can edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC))
 * 27) Snowball-building Oppose. Nothing good would come out of this proposal. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 04:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose to any proposal which prevents anyone from adding a db-g10 or db-g12 (or their redirects), or a db-g7/db-u1 to any reasonably appropriate situation; the  first 2 need to be handled in real time, and thwe latter should be deleted for no reason other than the user's own request. Aditionally, adding certain maintenance tags can help the author know how to iprove the artiocle - adding a uncategorized,  for example, would probably be very useful if done while the author is still around. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sure that the outcome will not prevent people from making G7/U1s. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 11:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Somebody tagging an article without formally patrolling it still makes my job as an NPR easier. I can quickly check things over to see if the tag(s) is(are) correct, and then patrol it technically. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  06:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This would be a snowball falling onto Wikipedia and causing it to collapse and create chaos. And also the workload of NPR and sysop would gradually increase, because they are all real human, they can't work for 24 hours, at that time Wikipedia will be full of advertisement, copyright violating articles and pages attacking BLP. There's a thing called "good-faith", as every users here know. NgYShung  huh? 07:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This would introduce more rules without clear benefit, and it would hurt the 'anyone can edit' principle. --Pgallert (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - This will definitely increase the workload of the NPRs, given that anyone without the right can't already patrol. If this was implemented it means that an article, for ex. with numerous copyvios, could actually skip past patrollers and just be put on the backlog that not even all NPRs search for. Also contrasts the "anyone can edit" principle that Wikipedia was built on.Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk 08:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Someone close this Rfc already. The gray area being addressed has been clarified (pre-empted, if you may). Consensus is clearer than required. And the more this Rfc continues, the more I see an administrator I respect a lot become more vitriolic. Lourdes  11:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose - especially per SMcCandlish - couldn't have put it better myself. If an article is a blatant BLP violation or an attack page, why on earth should we wait for someone who has a special user right to tag it, when another editor who may approach the scene faster could do it themselves? Very bad idea. Patient Zerotalk 12:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per BU Rob 13.  Wiki Pancake  🥞 12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I don't think there is anything wrong with careful, considered tagging of articles by users without the patrol user right (though realistically if an editor falls into that category I'd imagine they wouldn't be far off being able to request the right). The issue is going to be with new editors speeding through new article creations plonking tags left right and center. Sitting here until I see some more discussion --  samtar talk or stalk 12:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So long as administrators are willing to act on such disruptive tagging, WP:DE already covers that, as does the widely-accepted spirit behind WP:CIR (even if CIR is "just" an essay). ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) This seems to be something of a straw man RfC, so I'm not disposed to enter a support or oppose. I supported the original Rfc, to create the "patroller" user right. That RfC said it was to ensure that users are suitably experienced for patrolling new pages but went into no details about what that user right was going to entail. So what did I think I was supporting? I'd have taken it to mean that only the user right holders would retain the permission to mark as patrolled (as has happened), and to use the dedicated mechanism provided for patrolling new pages: the New Pages Feed and the Curation tool. That much seemed reasonable. (Currently the Curation tool is now restricted, but the New Pages Feed is still open to all). If it were proposed to progressively block every other means of viewing, tagging and editing any unpatrolled new page, that would be going a good deal too far in my opinion; but let's wait for such things to be proposed - or if introduced without discussion, protest like mad Noyster  (talk),  10:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The proposal needs unbundling. There seems little point in the new user right if we're going to let anybody patrol new pages anyway (and potentially bite newcomers, which was one of the main reasons for the original RfC proposals); also it would be as wrong for someone without the NPP user right to claim they're a new pages patroller as it would be for a non-admin to claim to be an admin. BUT the Twinkle discussion has already been and gone with a consensus established, and outcome (1) is essentially a proposed change to the Blocking Policy with potentially far reaching effects. These things warrant their own separate discussions. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b  style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) This RfC was never going to work- you can't preempt your opponent creating an RfC and create one before they do just so you can present it the way you want, and oppose it. I have no doubt that Rob had the initial intention of creating a neutrally worded RfC, but it's clear from the discussion below his intentions have succumbed to an IDON'THEARTTHAT war of words- puffery about eating hats was very much not needed, and a notification would have been nice. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I oppose in general but there are some aspects that make this muddled for me with respect to deletion tagging and the bitey effects of that.  If a speedy deletion tag is placed, an admin will be dropping by the page soon to rule on that, including dealing with a mistaken or malicious placement. What I might want to restrict is PROD and xfD until after the page is marked as patrolled.  I think only those with the NPP right should be able to start these particular delete processes before they mark. Of course, after they mark it as patrolled, the page would become open for anyone to PROD/xfD.  I want to maintain an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and tag for cleanup, but not having anyone being able to tag for a non-speedy delete before the page is marked as patrolled. I want to discourage "biting too soon".  Anyone feel free to try to talk me out of this position. :)  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) pretty much summed up my opinion better than I did. However, there are WP:BITEy aspects to adding any sort of tag, to some extent, but only CSDable pages need to be dealt with immediately. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  05:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After having read this more throughly, I believe I may have changed my mind. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I must be missing some part of the big picture here, if someone slaps a cleanup tag on part of a new page, how is that significantly different from slapping it on a new section to an existing page? If these are the same issue - why is this limited to NPP, and not also RCP? — xaosflux  Talk 13:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

At the original RfCs, the general assessment was that some of the patrolling was done poorly and it would be better to have a big backlog that let poor-quality patrols be done. Like others had done in other terms, I raised the issue of false positives vs. false negatives in page patrol: I argued that false negatives are much worse than false positives. False negatives result in unacceptable Wikipedia articles being indexed by Google/Yahoo/Bing/DDG etc. by the action of a single NPP editor; those are often promotional pages, and since they are removed from the patrol queue and rarely if ever edited, they may go under the radar for a long time. False positives, on the other hand, should not result in the article being deleted, because there is an administrator that will check the applicability of whatever CSD was used or assess the AfD consensus. Consequently, my position was (and still is) that for a given backlog level, the page patrol sensitivity should be chosen relatively high. It is bad to have lots of newbies patrolling because of the false negatives, but even a relatively high rate of false positives was acceptable; removing the "mark as patrolled" ability from most editors while still allowing almost anyone to access Special:NewPagesFeed should severely cut the false negatives, even if it did not affect significantly the false positives (in volume or in rate).
 * A false positive is when a page is incorrectly tagged for deletion, via CSD/AfD/PROD, when it should be kept;
 * A false negative is when a page is incorrectly marked as reviewed, when it should (at least) have been sent to AfD.

However, it was pointed to me that this argument, while true concerning articles, was missing the important aspect that people who were at the receiving end of a false positive, i.e. novice editors, would be turned off the project by incorrect deletion nominations of their articles. With better mentoring that a reddish CSD notice or an AfD soup of three-letter policies, those people could be mentored into future valuable contributors.

While that argument has merit, I still think the tradeoff between newbie-biting and the backlog is not as clear as that suggests, because most articles that I encountered at NPP and sent to deletion processes were variants of either (1) User:Joe at Spamacorp creating Spamacorp's new shiny product, (2) User:John Doe's pal creating John Doe in Minnesota, and neither editor is likely to develop beyond a WP:SPA. However, the point should at least be raised; an argument can be made that we should accept a larger backlog in order to reduce the newbie-biting, and that could be achieved by the restriction proposed by this RfC. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 13:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a really nice analysis of the false positives/negatives; it explains what I tried to say in my vote much better than I did! As for the concerns regarding novice editors and incorrect tagging, I think we could attack this problem in a more useful way, namely by improving the wording and visual style of tags/notices, and encouraging users to follow these up with proper explanations. What if (and this will be controversial - note that I've not really thought it through) we instead restricted users from posting acronyms and abbreviations; instead requiring them to use full words? I suspect that might go a longer way towards improving the experiences of new users. This isn't a serious proposal, more of a thought experiment! Sam Walton (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Potentially a useful idea but who is going to actually do it and what keeps it from suffering the same crib death as this reform seems to be? Ideas are great but sooner or later something must actually be implemented and people will always object. This started because someone objected to the result of the earlier RfC that called for removing NPP userboxes. Try to understand that - this reform is being staked because of freaking userboxes. I sure can not understand it. J bh  Talk  15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with this analysis is that it doesn't differentiate between types of articles erroneously kept or deleted. Failing to catch a BLP problem or a copyright violation quickly is a serious error, and failing to catch an article about a non-notable band is a fairly harmless error, yet they're both "false negatives" here. It's important to keep in mind that most individual Wikipedia articles are pretty low-traffic, and bad articles on non-notable subjects especially so; as much as it pains people to think of crap sitting around getting google-indexed, the good news is that hardly anybody is reading this stuff. We can afford to dial the level of perceived urgency waaaaaaaay back as long as the vandalism, attack pages and BLP violations, copyvios, and similar stuff is handled quickly. That's why I suggested this semi-automated prioritization system on the meta wishlist - if we can get people to sort the really bad stuff more effectively, then we don't need so much fuss over precisely how to handle the meh stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I am however skeptical of the solution offered (it would really impress me if the IT-savy people manage to make a bot that flags nonblatant copyvios and attack pages with reasonable accuracy).
 * I do not think anyone would disagree that some errors are worse than others, but I see no real way to solve the issue. If an article is speedy-deletable, it will usually get a speedy tag when reviewed, and sit in the queue until then, no matter whether the appropriate speedy is WP:G10 (attack page) or WP:G11 (spam). Automated sorting by priority would be great, but again, I would like to see the program up and running (with test stats etc.). Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In regard to "not support" or more aptly "oppose" outcome number 3, "Editors will be permitted to self-identify as new page patrollers without the new page reviewer user right so long as they do not imply they have the user right. For instance, userboxes identifying editors as new page patrollers without the right should not be removed, but such userboxes should be altered to remove any confusing wikilinks, such as to WP:New page patrol (which has been repurposed) or WP:New page reviewer.", why? The meaning of patrolling is being conflated. If a user can't patrol a page they shouldn't be allowed to claim they do so. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 14:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings about this. I see nothing wrong with people who don't have the user right putting clean-up, or even deletion tags on articles generally. However, I see how that sort of defeats the purpose of creating the right in the first place. I think people without the right should be discouraged from focusing on new articles, and they should not be able to call themselves new page reviewers or new page patrollers, but they should not be forbidden from placing appropriate tags. If there is consensus for not allowing non-reviewers to do anything at all with new pages, then new pages should somehow be hidden from everyone but 1. the creator 2. people with the new page review right 3. admins. They are already no-indexed to keep them from search engines; if people who don't have the right are not allowed to touch them then they should not even see them until they've been approved. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this RfC could easily have covered access to the New Page feeds. The main outcome of the original RfC was to restrict the  right, which at present has only the effect of enabling its holders to "mark as patrolled". However, the intention was plainly to restrict who can "patrol", in the meaning being used here, including who can see the feed; and this can be seen in statements like All we want is for a user right/group that prevents unqualified users from accessing the New Pages Feed and the Curation tool and Special:NewPages should officially be shut down. This aspect does need to be discussed and a consensus arrived at, as it was never quite clarified in the original RfC <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Explicit community consensus would be needed to shut down Special:NewPages, which I would be strongly against. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 17:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention hiding page creations from Special:RecentChanges and the systems that feed from it. — xaosflux  Talk 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I doubt the RfC would have passed if it had covered access to the new page feeds; see the point I make above, about the assymetry between different "modes of failure" of NPP. The current RfC, while arguably not quite the same as what you have in mind, does not seem to get as much support as the previous ones, let's say (it is still young though).
 * In any case, decoupling RfCs on access to NPF and ability to mark as patrolled was certainly a good thing for decision-making. If the RfC had run on both topics, some editors would have opposed part of it and supported part of it, and unless there was a majority for either option discounting those, the closer would have been embarrassed. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 18:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Instead of imposing all of these rules about who can tag pages and who can access specific functions of Twinkle, why don't we just restrict who can see Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages to administrators and new page reviewers (and other groups as needed)? Yes, there will be costs, but the costs of putting restrictions on tagging and nominating for deletion seem heavier. Mz7 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're on a wiki that exists by virtue of its openness, and you think the solution to your problem is to block access to a particular piece of information for everyone on the planet except for (currently) around 1500 people, you had better be damn well sure that there's no other way to do it. Currently we only restrict access to data like this under very specific circumstances defined by policy when the material itself is unsuitable for public consumption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand duly chastised. Although the fundamental goal of this proposal, as I am reading it, is to limit access to at the very least this important editorial process precisely to those 1500 people. I made the high jump too quickly. Mz7 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am in the oppose camp on policy reasons, but restricting Special:NewPagesFeed is both necessary and sufficient to technically bar non-authorized editors from patrolling. As long as it is accessible in some form, one can go through the list and send new pages to deletion or tag them, even if they don't have shiny buttons from the page curation tool or Twinkle to press, so it is necessary. And maybe someone will come with a clever way to generate the list by themselves from another data source, but probably not the average patroller, so I would say it is sufficient. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Counterargument to "We can't review the patrollers without this user right!" argument
I'm seeing a recurring claim that we don't have enough resources/time to handle the patrollers without the user right possibly making mistakes. This is false. Under the current system, a new page reviewer must ok a page before it's removed from the queue. New page reviewers, by virtue of being given the right, are expected to know what appropriate patrolling looks like. As such, we have eyes on every single non-new-page-reviewer patroller's actions from an editor who knows what disruptive patrolling looks like. If they see disruptive patrolling, just like any disruptive activity, they should report it to an administrator. This doesn't require seeking out extra information with extra time we don't have. It just requires existing new page reviewers to keep their already trained eyes out for disruptive patrolling by other editors on the new pages they're already reviewing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point. This could also lead to a good method for training would-be reviewers who don't yet have the right. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone into this concern because it's a whole other rabbit hole, but I also do wonder how exactly an account created right now could show the experience I'd like to see before allowing editors to mark pages as patrolled without patrolling pages themselves. Do we lower the overall competency of our new page reviewers by being forced into a situation where we're granting the right without seeing what their patrolling would look like? I'm not fully convinced this will be an actual problem, but I think it could become a problem. I hope someone has already thought up an answer to this. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternate 'guideline only' proposal
Instead of making technical changes to restrict people's ability to edit much of the same benefit of the above proposal can be had by making a simple guideline.

"Editors should not, regularly or as a matter of course, 'patrol' new articles unless they have the  user right. Simply put, it is OK to tag articles as part of your regular editing but you should not set out simply to look for new articles to 'patrol'.  If a good faith concern is raised about the quality of an editors 'patrolling' or interaction with new users they should stop until they have requested and been accorded the   right via WP:PERM.''"

In this case there would be no technical changes like modifications to Twinkle or implementation of edit filiters to implement this.

The intent of this proposal is to help address the problems of poor deletion tagging and newcomer biting by editors who are not experienced enough or temperamentally suited to interactions with new editors while not restricting editors who want to "patrol" from time to time or incidentally to their other editing.


 * Clairification Patrolling in this case means - nominating pages for deletion, issue tagging (particularly notability and moving from mainspace to draft. It specificly excludes going through clean-up categories and fixing things (ie stub sorting, adding refs, de-orphaning, categorization etc.) or doing copy editing. Added: 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Support (2)

 * 1) Support as proposer.  J bh  Talk  19:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - this is more like what I was getting at above in the threaded discussion section. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This is the best fix. It puts into words the community's expectations without making a technical overreach.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - This is a much better solution. As I said above, it would be pointless to have the NPP user right and then not discourage people without it from undertaking NPP activities. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b  style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support much better solution for good patrollers and the community.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

 * Opppose This is too broad - for one every new article is also part of "recent changes" - and why do we need to stop discourage people from updating just these recent changes?  If they can add a good wiki link, a category, fix a layout issue or even correct spelling and punctuation - why stop an editor from improving the encyclopedia? —  xaosflux  Talk 20:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see for a moment where anything anywhere 'stops' an editor from improving an article (apart from being blocked or banned) - ironically, improving articles with potential is 50% of what New Page Patrollers/Reviewers are supposed to be doing. I sense a disconnect here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, updated from 'stop' to 'discourage'. My point is that I will continue assuming good faith that editors that want to make updates to new pages should be able to.  This contrasts my support that these pages should still be 'patrolled' by the more experienced new page reviewers. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not even intended to discourage them. The proposal specificly says
 * . (emp. added)
 * That was, in fact specificly intended for people doing RCP. If there is concise wording which you feel would make that more clear please suggest it. J bh  Talk  21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? If someone wants to focus on nothing but say, patrolling new articles to add categories to them - why should they be discouraged?  If you want to discourage some editors from issuing warning to other editors for example - that needs to be more clear.  My objection here is that this is "too broad". —  xaosflux  Talk 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * does the clairification I made narrow things down better?  J bh  Talk  21:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * that is enough to pull be out of the oppose camp - thank you for the ping. — xaosflux  Talk 22:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Now Kudpung has characterised the opposition to this RfC as users who would easily get the right if they asked for it or who are admins or who have been grandfathered into the right. I don't know whether that is meant to imply we misguidedly think our interests are threatened, but let me give you an example of a user not describable in that way whose legitimate interests would be threatened and who would oppose this RfC, or at any rate who would have done if it had been proposed in their time: me when I first registered. Between my registration on 17 February 2014 and becoming 90 days wiki-old I made 180 CSD nominations, all of which were actioned by administrators (the blue links you see are due to recreation). My first actual talk page message was to thank me for catching a promotional article. (Granted, the second was about a tag, but to be fair the page did read borderline promotional, and the issue was amicably resolved.) Now what would have happened had these rules been in place? I could have been scared away by the guideline and not tagged these 180 pages, leaving it for others. I could have been reprimanded for a slightly misjudged tag, to the same effect. Perhaps I could have applied for the NPR right, but without 90 days tenure and with little experience if any moving pages, I don't think I'd have got it according to the criteria. This would all be very ironic because the reason that pushed me over the edge of registering, instead of continuing to edit as an IP longer than the two months I already had been, was to nominate an article for deletion. That's the fundamental problem with judging new users by tenure instead of competence. You don't know if a "new" user is a complete newbie or a recently-registered IP editor. While there are some situations in which this is necessary, such as page protection for vandalism–and even this is circumventable in a few days—I'm not convinced that this is one such, given that flagged NPRs will at some point turn up and review the article. Sanction bad patrollers, yes,BethNaught (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per the philosophy statement I've made above. I mean, heck, we'll have to update a good half dozen OTRS templates to remove statements saying Wikipedia has no editorial board if we start barring editors from patrolling beyond incidental patrolling. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More and more, your comments seem to reinforce the impression I get that you simply 'don't like it'. It is of course nevertyeless yur preogative to sway the community to your conviction, but I do not believe it is appropriate to detract from the real reasons why measures to improve new page patrollig/reviewing need to be introduced.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll accept my apologies if I don't argue your points for you. I've done what wasn't done at the original RfC; I wrote a neutral RfC and let the supporters and opposers detail their arguments in the below discussion rather than laying out one side of the debate when formulating the RfC. There is no need to present the arguments for and against an action in the sections detailing what's under debate, and neutrality would indicate one shouldn't do that. You should not expect me to advance your arguments just as I would not expect you to advocate that this issue can entirely be dealt with given existing guidelines, such as WP:DE, and edit filters, bots, or Twinkle changes preventing any editor from placing certain speedy deletion tags on new pages less than 10 minutes after creation. We've jumped right to an editorial board before investigating lots of other options that address the problem equally as well (and which I would support wholeheartedly!). In the meantime, I most certainly do not like the idea of Wikipedia further segregating users into tiered groups and widening the divide between the editing elite and the common editor. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, I would note that you stated you were "genuinely more than happy to let someone else use their initiative". I have done so in an attempt to evaluate whether there is actually consensus for the sorts of changes "reformers" have been advocating over the recent weeks. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly were you saying you would support when in the original RfC (emp. mine)? That RfC had several points, including the removal of the userboxes you are so upset about. You were only concerned about the Twinkle portion of the proposal back then. What changed?  J bh  Talk  21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I, like almost every other editor who commented there, came from the variety of notifications stating the RfC was about a technical change to establish a user right that allowed the ability to mark as patrolled. I was stating I would support that. It's an obviously good idea to keep pages in the queue until an experienced editor has "OK'd" them as being appropriately patrolled. I would not support the establishment of an editorial board by which only a select group of editors may clean up new articles, as I believe I've made very clear. Given the direction "reform" has taken, I dare say I'll wind up opposing just about every attempt at "reform" beyond the positive bit that's already been achieved. I would still support sensible measures to prevent disruptive patrolling, such as technically restricting all editors from placing WP:A1 and WP:A3 tags on pages that are less than 10 minutes old. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you did not read the RfC before !voting and did so just on the notifications?! That RfC went into great detail about the problems it was intended to address and the only thing you objected to was Twinkle changes. Heck, the thing that sparked this whole thing seems to have been the removal of the  userbox. You will forgive me if I see concern about a utility and self labeling as a reason to spike much needed changes dealing with top tier Wikipedia issues like spam and new user retention as... problematic. Particularly when massively loaded terms like "editorial board" start being bandied about. There is no "editorial board" nor has anything like it been proposed or intended - it is a neat framing device but it is still a BS claim which seems to me to be more intended to stoke fear than come up with genuine solutions to the problems.  J bh  Talk  21:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem of poor articles making their way into the mainspace has been dealt with. Problems with newbies patrolling disruptively can be dealt with using existing guidelines or alternative technical measures like those proposed by myself in the threaded discussion elsewhere on this page (technically preventing A1/A3 tags on pages created less than 10 minutes ago, etc). I did read the proposal. Among the bigger concerns and the obvious fact that every editor was debating the main points rather than the minutiae, I focused on the main details being hashed out in an attempt to avoid dragging down a perfectly good proposal for a user right with the tiny details that always get hammered out later on. I didn't anticipate editors insisting on consensus on all those little details by omission, mostly because I've never see an editor acting in good-faith make such a silly claim before. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem of poor articles making their way into the mainspace has not been dealt with. Only in so far that by my recent initiative the years-long broken no-indexing of new pages has been addressed. We also now have a new non-hierarchical user group who can approve articles for indexing by Google,and lookig around, I can't see anything on the horizon that  fits any possible interpetation of an editing board (whatever that is supposed to mean).
 * Problems with newbies patrolling disruptively can't be dealt with because we have no mechanism or ;ersonnel to catch them at it. The times we do catch them is by coincidence more than design and we think we're only touching the tip of the iceberg. As far as wrongful CSD/PROD/AfD tagging, ridiculous tag-bombing, tagging for anything else, corrupt abuse of patrolling systems by paid spammers, and hoax and attack pages being let trough, we're still where we were when we proposed and got a massive consensus for WP:ACTRIAL four years ago - which might still become our only recourse if need be. In the meantime, the far less critical project at AfC enjoys a 90/500 permission to use its tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently, every new page is reviewed by a new page reviewer before being removed from the new pages feed. Are you saying this is inadequate at preventing bad articles from making it into the mainspace? If so, what is the utility of new page reviewer at all. See the section above that counters the second bit of what you said. We have a reviewer reviewing the work of every non-reviewer patrolling editor by design of the user right. Those are the existing eyes. They just have to use them to identify problems. If they see bad tags, nominations, etc., they should speak up. That solves the problem. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per BU Rob13 and my other oppose. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's rather stupid to restrict editing of articles for fear that someone will edit badly. Everyone has probably made a bad edit, we shouldn't restrict editing further than what is needed to combat vandalism. This is also too broad, as the parts about nominating for deletion shouldn't be there, and restrictions on moving articles to draftspace are also a bad idea. There's no real harm in an AfD that ends in a consensus to keep the article, and I think most people are competent enough to recognize a truly terrible article and move it to draftspace. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Write an essay to that effect if you like, but I disagree with discouraging editorial norms that are productive as a guideline, especially with such unclear language. It is unnecessary as pages will remain un-patrolled in the new system until someone accorded the new right or an administrator has a look at it anyhow. If someone is doing something inappropriate with pages, we can deal with it adequately with the processes we already have in place. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 00:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose First, this is too broad. We want new editors to tag articles for problems, or, even better, to fix them. We certainly want them to do copyediting and technical work, such as adding categories and normalizing references. All of these are good things for beginners. What we do not want, however, is for them to pass judgment on the articles. Just as long as it is not marked patrolled, the more experienced editors will know to check them.  At the same time, it will also be ineffective, because the real problem new editors are likely to be the ones who ignore the advice.   DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Godsy, who said what I was thinking wonderfully. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Sorry, but this makes no sense. You'd want to discourage people from making edits that are, in isolation, productive net benefits to the encyclopedia, because of the particular path they took in order to find articles to work on? Step back from this specific set of arguments about NPP for a bit and I think it will quickly become obvious that that's crazy talk. I think what's happening here is that the more we try to pin down what exactly it is we're trying to prevent, the more the cracks in the conceptual edifice of "new page patrol" become exposed. There's no reason that the short-term, immediate decision to be made with new pages ("Should we delete this? How?") must logically be made by the same people doing the maintenance and development functions ("What kinds of editing does this need? Can I do it myself, teach the author how, or should I ask someone else for help? Who would be interested?") Most of the latter is relatively low-urgency and all else being equal, is best done sorted by subject, not by time of arrival. Stop thinking of deletion and maintenance as one integrated activity and it becomes clear that a great deal of this problem is self-inflicted by the way we expect the jobs to be done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is it is better to have a broken system that continues to discourage newcomers due to bad management of their articles by people who do not understand Wikipedia's processes and guidelines rather than to insure that the people who regularly deal with such matters have a minimum level of clue? This, to me, makes no sense because we have a problem which has been identified and discussed for years and a minimally invasive solution but will not implement it beacuase there may be a better solution that no one has come up with yet. All those questions you pose above about what a putative "patroller" should ask are questions that the editors targeted by this proposal do not know to ask and do not know the answer to and they cause lots of extra work and discourage new editors because of that ignorance. For instance I have seen two inexperienced NPPers create their own tags which have nothing to do with our policies but rather only their own idiosyncratic view of them and then start tagging with those. Just a few weeks ago one marked about a thousand pages patrolled without review (at least that is stoped) and the tags they placed were mostly wrong. Going through that list is still undone but if/when it is there are a lot of new editors who will have a 'Great job thanks' followed immediately with a 'sorry your article is being deleted' - not very conducive to keeping them as editors I think. I believe and will always believe one should be required to understand the policies and guidelines oneself before judging others by them or explaining them to others. Do you believe it is viable for those who do not understand Wikipedia's policies to be representing those policies to new users? If so there is simply no basis for conversation. If not, what would you propose as a solution? I am all for a minimally invasive/restrictive solution. J bh  Talk  13:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I did propose a solution, linked in one of my other posts on this page: Quality scoring for new articles using the machine learning infrastructure underlying ORES.
 * More broadly, I'm not convinced the problem has been diagnosed correctly in your comment; how many of these allegedly incompetent new editors doing patrol work does it take to stack up to the damage done by highly experienced patrollers who develop poor work habits, refuse to slow down, and repeatedly get dragged to ANI about the problem? The best, albeit dated, data we have suggests that the perception of self-selected new-page patrollers as inexperienced and immature is not accurate; likely it's an artifact of noticing these editors more.
 * I also believe that the emphasis on "tagging" being "correct" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. As I said above, I think we've painted ourselves into a corner by acting as if nominating articles for deletion and blotching them up with "maintenance" tags are logically related activities just because they both involve putting a template at the top of the page. Most of the maintenance tags should just be deprecated - if you're willing to slap uncategorized on an article, but not willing to put it in a category yourself, then you've selected the wrong task for your interest and motivation level. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , this is not data. I designed and ran that  survey as part  of a community  initiative which  was only  part  of the overall  project  to  identify  what is wrong  with  NPP. Ironically, the survey  actually  produced exactly  the opposite  from  that summary  which  was unilaterally produced by  a junior contractor who  witheld the results from  us for months until  he could put his personal  spin  on it and publish  it  before releasing  to  us the reults  of our  survey.. It  was withheld on many pretexts, not  least  that  the  legal  department  was sick, on  leave, had too  much  other work -  you  name it, and that  it  had to  be 'cleansed' although there was absolutely  no  user identifying  data in it. I now have the full  set of data on  my  hard disc, but  due to  having  signed a WMF muzzling  clause, I'm  not  going  to  release it  to  you to  prove my point. The result  of that  survey addressed to  all  known patrollers at  the time showed that  the  vast  majority  of them were vandals, trolls, children, and user who  had never patrolled but  were using  the Userboxes to  grace their user pages for a better impact. Of the 1,400 (IIRC) responses to this professionally  produced poll, only  around 300  were usable. This was nowhere near a large enough  sample to  draw any  other conclusions. For a slightly more accurate general summary of the effects of patrolling, you  need to  look  at  the data calculated by  the $128,000 Summer of Research 2011 programme. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly, without the evidence to back up your claims, your account of the matter sounds impressively like a conspiracy theory. Remember, serious accusations require serious evidence. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 09:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence is available, there are several talk pages about it on Meta too, and my email is bursting with with it. Stuff hat you will not be privy to. Serious PA needs a serious cause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I came across as implying that the evidence does not exist; I don't think you would stoop so low as to completely fabricate your account. My point is more that if you merely allude to the evidence, without actually presenting it to us so that we might judge for ourselves, then at best it sounds like a conspiracy theory and at worst like a personal attack on those who worked on the survey. If it has previously been discussed somewhere, links are your friend. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose the main part of this proposition as well, per the same reasons as in the threaded discussion, plus the fact that a "gentle reminder" is not enough for incorrect patrollers - all of this is well-summarized in DGG's oppose. However, If a good faith concern is raised about the quality of an editors "patrolling" or interaction with new users they should stop until they have requested and been accorded the new page reviewer right via WP:PERM is somewhat acceptable, and I would probably support that part if there was more detail about the "good faith concern" (we clearly do not want that a SPA whining about their promotional article being deleted, which is usually done in good faith, to bar a good patroller from performing anymore until they get through PERM). Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Too much breaucracy. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 12:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, substantially for the reasons I stated in my "oppose" above and other comments here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not as bad as the one above, but there is still the problem of how an admin would know if you would patrol competently if you had never done it before. Also per DGG. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC).
 * 5) Oppose this is essentially a watered down version of the above, but with the same consequences, i.e. a fear of breaking policy if taking any action against new pages without the correct rights. To me it makes it unacceptable. It solves nothing, as new page patrolling in no way hinders new page reviewing; but it would essentially have a chilling effect with a vague "don't do the right thing unless we've checked you over". --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Any action, including the giving of advice, that prevents, limits or deters good faith editors from identifying non-encyclopedic content so that those qualified can deal with it is simply unacceptable. The suggestion that some current limitation might be further extended in a year (read a reference to it somewhere up above) is plainly an agenda. The community is entitled to resist any such move and nip it in the bud - before it becomes a creeping fact. Leaky  Caldron  17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - As this is a more legitimate proposal, I must say that I oppose it. If this were a case of preventing disruptive or problematic patrollers only, then perhaps I could be swayed to implement this; If a good faith concern is raised about the quality of an editors "patrolling" or interaction with new users they should stop.... However, I must strongly oppose any proposal which limits the ability of good faith editors to do what this encyclopaedia exists to do; build, improve and maintain articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Adding refimprove is no different than adding citation needed. These are improvements, and can simply be removed if they are no applicable, and we can deal with troublesome users on a case by case basis. What happens if the user sees a clearly non-notable subject? They can't tag it as such, or mark for speedy deletion? They have to ask a "new page reviewer" to do it? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How precisely can we "deal with troublesome users on a case by case basis"? The processes we have do not work else this would not have come up and I am more interested in solving the problem than I am to any particular method. As to "What happens if the user sees a clearly non-notable subject" - of course they can do whatever is appropriate. What this is trying to discourage is people, who are not at least minimally qualified, from sitting on the NewPagesFeed and tagging articles. By definition these editors contributions are net negative because they do not have a grasp of our policies. This proposal specificly says if you happen across a problem and know what to do do it. The only 'teeth' it has is that editors who are doing poorly can be asked to stop and they must stop. In that case a.l they need to do is convince a single admin at PERM that they have gained a clue. Without this they will end up at ANI, lots of time and drama will ensue and they may end up with a community imposed ban. That is a much bigger deal and more difficult for the editor to overturn. This should be easy; if you do not know Wikipedia content policies - don't patrol articles, if you do and you screw up you will be asked to stop until you demonstrate proper clue; if you do not stop then it is a clear violation of a guideline which can be dealt with at ANI.  J bh  Talk  22:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for the same reasons I stated in the above oppose section. The demonization of editors without special privileges MUST end. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose I don't think this should even be a guideline. If an editor needs to stop tagging pages, they can be told that on an individual basis.  This proposed guideline and the RfC above it basically says that all editors without the NPR right are bad at tagging pages, which simply isn't true.  I realize that this guideline proposal and the RfC were made in good faith, but, in my opinion, they both still violate WP:AGF.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, as vague, ill-defined and ultimately un-enforceable. All editors in good standing should be allowed to perform maintenance tasks, such as tagging the articles for improvement and/or deletion, whether or not they do so regularly, semi-regularly or once in a blue moon. The "new page reviewer" user right was sold to the community on one specific premise: that only users with this right will be able to mark a page as "patrolled" (or "reviewed" in the curation tool). This is a clear and well-defined function reserved for editors with this user right. It should be left at that. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose If anything, this discourages newcomers from helping contribute to the encyclopedia. This is a moral restriction, not a necessary technical one. Anyone can contribute, period. There will be no central editorial authority. Tamwin (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly Oppose per reason stated above -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 01:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I admit I've not closely followed the prolonged saga of the efforts to get this new user group implemented, and now I am wishing I had, because if the goal is to stop good-faith users from improving new articles and detecting the crap ones, I can't possibly support it. I appreciate all the effort that has gone into this and I am well aware of the damage incompetent work in this area can do, but I don't wan to see any blanket restrictions on something so basic. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , there are not, and never were any intentions of preventing stop good-faith users from improving new articles and detecting the crap ones. That  is a diingenuous rumour used as the background for this RfC.Per :   --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear any rumors, my comment are based on this specific proposal, which luckily appears to be failing by a rather wide margin. I don't oppose the very existence of the user group, but I do oppose it being used in the manner detailed in both of these proposals. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , this RfC is bases on a false premise. Like any other informal discussion, various solutions were discussed before the two major RfC were launched to t he community for debate. The salient points were carried by consensus, and like in many RfC, some points of the proposals were either not accepted where others were. There has never been any formal suggestions that any of the side effects or consequences used as the basis fir this RfA will happen, but those snippets of conversations elsewhere have been sted by the propser of this RfC as fait accompli.. Indeed, if this new user right as approved by the community succeeds in its threefold mission: 1)Reduce incorrect deletion tags (sadly already going wrong), 2) reduce the proven loss of new users from irresponsible tagging and deletion (Summer of Research 2011), 3) reduce the work load on admins who have found  they need to dedicate time to patrolling the patrollers, then there will be no need to further discuss ant other measures except perhaps embedding ORES into he review tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - As noted above, I still wonder what I have missed, because this still seems like a bad idea, and I wonder whether I have missed something subtle. Oppose in the absence of knowing the actual underlying logic.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Absolutely as outrageous as the first proposal above. Your welcome &#124; <b style="color:blue">Democratics</b> <b style="color:red">Talk</b> 09:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Please close this Rfc too. This has gone far enough. Lourdes  11:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the multiple debates about this previously, I think it's preferable to allow this to run at least for a week or so. The consensus outcome is emerging as clear, but there shouldn't be any reason left behind to question it as an actual global community consensus. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should wait this one out. Maybe not the whole time, but long enough that there can be no argument over consensus. Tamwin (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, this will be harmful by discouraging ordinary editors from checking really obvious issues, e. g. stub, lack of sources, attack pages. Also add tons of works to patrollers like the previous one due to less people helping them. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 13:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose I think everyone (including those who have never edited here before) can clearly see if an article has no references or is pure vandalism. I don't know why we'd limit users from tagging articles. &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It would be easy to unknowingly breach this guideline. Recall that when looking at an article those of us without the NP reviewer right cannot now even see whether it has been officially patrolled/reviewed or not! There are currently about 14,000 articles in the patrol queue and a high proportion of them will come to editors' attention as needing something doing, from copyediting through tagging to calling for deletion. If someone happens to do any of these things to two or three of the 14,000 within a few days, an admin could descend on them saying "you're doing this too regularly" or "you must have been looking for them!" Editing actions should be assessed on their merits: and edits to these unpatrolled pages, unlike others, will before long come up for such assessment by an NP reviewer <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. J bh  Talk  13:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I disagree with all of this proposal. The last sentence is nearly acceptable to me, but if someone is doing actions not needing the NPR right badly, if they can start doing it well, why should they have to apply for the NPR right? Also, if they refuse to stop, I believe they can already be sanctioned by the community or by individual adminstrators under WP:DISRUPT—an insistence on continuing bad patrolling seems in the spirit of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 3 and 5, and possibly 6 if they are biting newbies—and also just WP:CIR. Considering the rest of the proposal: it specifies a "punishment" for bad unflagged patrollers, but discourages all such, whether good or bad. If an unflagged newbie is making productive maintenance edits on new pages, why do you want to forbid productive edits simply because of the method by which the editor selected articles to edit?
 * 1) Oppose per 's arguments at the end of the closed section. In the two most similar PERMs, rollback and PC review, you show experience by doing a limited form of what you would with the right: just not as fast or by doing the same work in other environments. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per everyone above - In short a stupid proposal that benefits absolutely nobody!, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - There's clue there!. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I oppose the language suggested. If the New Page Patrol page wants to suggest that users should familiarize themselves with CSD, tagging, etc, - then sure. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral (2)

 * 1) Neutral - I agree that inexperienced editors should not be patrolling or reviewing new articles as their main editing activities, but I don't see why an experienced editor should be discouraged by a guideline from learning the new page patrol/review process. I'm not opposed to the overall idea, but I'm not sure I can support putting it in writing as a guideline. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed that the exact wording is overbroad for reasons discussed above, but something along these lines – a behavioral guideline suggestion – is probably viable, in particular the warning that poor patrolling performance will no go unexamined.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An addition to some guideline or policy page noting that poor patrolling will be treated as disruptive editing is something I believe everyone could get behind, if it doesn't already exist. I would most certainly support that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So long as editors who are identified doing bad 'patrolling' can be asked to stop and pointed to a guideline that says that request should be followed. If they do not comply then that same guideline should be the basis for a block or ban at ANI without having to re-argue the question of whether their actions are disruptive enough every single time I will be happy. The proposed only requires that people who do a poor job get reviewed at PERM which is a much lower bar than overturning a community ban though. But either way my concern is that people who do not know Wikipedia's content guidelines should not be representing those guidelines to new users. It is a massive disservice to new editors.  J bh  Talk  21:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's set aside all the nonsense above (from both sides, admittedly) and see if we can't get something hammered out here. My major concern is that we're throwing out the baby with the bath water. If we default to not patrolling new pages without the user right, it becomes harder to assess those applying for the user right and widens the divide within our community, in my opinion. On the other hand, I completely get your concerns about disruptive patrolling. I don't think we need to debate at ANI every time someone is patrolling incorrectly; warnings from an administrator about specific bad instances of patrolling should be enough of a lead-up to a block. Can you kind of see where I'm coming from here and can you see why I get concerned when people start floating the idea of restricting all such cleanup tags, etc. to a specific user group (at least on new pages)? I understand that it's easier if you can default to "don't do it" rather than "do it, but do it right". Administratively, that takes way less time to enforce. But, it would also be a lot easier to fight vandalism if we defaulted to disallowing IP editors, for instance, and there are strong reasons we don't do that. Would a strong statement in a relevant guideline that incorrect patrolling (regardless of intent) is considered disruptive editing be sufficient? If so, I would certainly support that. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I do tend to be over bunt sometimes. I do see where your concers are coming from and I definitly think that if we work together we can come up with a an acceptable solution. Let me try to set out what I think needs to be accomplished and see what you think is reasonable My primary concern is that editors who do not have a grasp of our policies and procedures should not be the ones making decisions about whether an article meets our content policies or not. Giving wrong advice or making a bad deletion tag (or other "patrol" action but to a lesser extent) can leave a very sour taste in a new editors mouth and increases the work of reviewers who must 1) correct the error 2) explain things to the new editor 3) rinse and repeat for the other patrols of that "patroler" 4) collect evidence and argue a case at ANI which may or may not stop the bad patrolling. Anything that can reduce the impact/time sink of those things would be a win in my book. The way I tried to address those issued in this proposal was to 1) define the scope - in this case "patrolling" 2)identify the problem - inexperienced/incompetent patrolling 3) come up with a way to discourage #2 while not restricting compatent editors who want to do "Patrolling" without the right 4) make it easy and as drama free as possible to stop incompetent patrol (ask them to stop) and easy for them to get the restriction (get the  . Thereby bypassing the time sink and drama of ANI. I see that my wording and the scope is off. What of those issues do you think can be addressed and what do you think would be a reasonable way to address them? I do not object at all to the "do it but do it right" tack and would agree that a strong policy statement to that effect would address a lot of my concerns. How do you think it should be worded?  J bh  Talk  23:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just had another idea, which might set you more at ease with this as well, but I'll address that below. How about a statement to this effect in some guideline (not sure where - certainly open to input on that): "Before patrolling new pages, an editor should have a firm grasp on the notability guidelines, our various deletion processes, and content policies and guidelines. New editors should not attempt to patrol new pages before understanding those policies and guidelines. Because of the importance of not confusing or biting article creators, the regular application of incorrect cleanup tags, warnings regarding new pages, or deletion nominations may be treated as disruptive editing, even when done in good faith. Experienced editors, new page reviewers, or administrators should warn editors who are incorrectly patrolling new pages. If the incorrect patrolling continues after sufficient attempts to warn the editor, an administrator may take action as detailed in our guideline on disruptive editing." Would such a statement be adequate? I suspect it would be wholly uncontroversial, even. As for my other idea, what do you think about bumping up New pages patrol/Noticeboard to an actual administrative noticeboard? That would almost certainly avoid redebating things at ANI for each discussion. If we push all those discussions on disruptive patrolling to a single noticeboard where only admins and editors knowledgeable about new page patrolling are likely to go, I'm guessing we'd be tackling your #4 above in a big way. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your proposal, both the above wording for a guideline and the idea of pushing the issue to its own noticeboard (assuming sufficient admins to patrol it - maybe add it to the admin dashboard), is something I would enthusiastically support or co-propose if you want.  The only thing I thing which should be added is a clairification of "sufficient warning" by refering to the Template:Stop NPP warning series. As to which guideline to add it to, I do not see anything in Category:Wikipedia guidelines which seems germaine. Do you? If not it may be best to propose it as an independent guideline maybe something like WP:Guideline for reviewing new pages - I am open for suggestions on the title, I can not think of a good, on point title right now.  J bh  Talk  00:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading WP:DE it may be better to say that if 'after sufficient warning' an administrator may ban them from patrolling, enforceable by blocks. I think that is pretty much what treating it as DE would do but stating it explicitly would cut down on confusion. What do you think? J bh  Talk  01:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not a fan of unilateral bans outside of ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, and I think it might be harder to get consensus for actual bans. Of course, if the person is incompetent, an administrator could certainly say "If you make additional mistakes along these lines, you will be blocked", which is a de facto ban until they gain some clue. I'm happy with a specific reference to Stop NPP, certainly. Along the lines of which guideline to add this to, perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone. The "natural" place to put this is WP:NPP. How about elevating that to guideline status? I'm sure that would please both you and other reformers, as it turns what "good patrolling" is into an actual guideline. If we were to go that route, given the apparent consensus here and the different approach to policing the patrollers, we would need to back off the language that currently exists there that's very specific to new page reviewers. That would require some discussion, but I'm convinced we could work it out, and I have a feeling it would be worth it to get the majority of that page into guideline form. Thoughts on that strategy? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about imposing something actually termed a WP:BAN. A result of "stop or you will get blocked" is sufficient, it effectivly bans the user from continuing and it does not matter what it is called. As to raising WP:NPP to guideline status I think that is premature. There are a lot of things that need to shake out over time plus I generally do not like to bundle things, it makes consensus very hard to pick apart as we have just seen. I think it would be better to propose the text independently either as a stand alone guideline or stick it in an existing one (although I can not think of what that might be) . Also, in the spirit of unbundling, it would be, in my opinion, best to propose the matter in two independent parts 1) the text of the guideline and then a if the text passes section 2) which asks whether the forum to address the issue should be ANI or NPP/Noticeboard. I can see people who would support the guideline being skittish about setting up "parallel offices" because it may be percieved as elitist and cliquish. In fact, on consideration, ANI may be a more correct venue based on Wikipedia's ethos even if it is less than optimal from a process point of view. If I, who support NPR and patrolling reform, can think that then others will too and it is not worth risking the guideline for the venue. PS does  preserve list numbering or does the template break it?  J bh  Talk  03:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea if list numbering is preserved. We can always move this to another section if need be. Perhaps we could just throw this all in WP:NPR? Possibly by expanding the "How does this affect former New Page Patrollers?" section? I'm not heartbroken over not promoting WP:NPP to guideline status. I was mostly suggesting it because I thought you'd like the idea of a guideline defining how one should patrol, and I'm trying to bring some substantial compromise to the table. Your outline of a two-step consensus-building process sounds reasonable. Even if it doesn't work out, I think it's worthwhile to push for a separate noticeboard to review patrollers. As you've pointed out, it hasn't been handled all that well at ANI in the past. Having one centralized location for those discussions is probably the best way to make things go efficiently and to address the concerns of many in the community (myself included) about poor patrolling without having to take any particularly extreme measures. As an entirely separate (and probably to-be-handled-later) question, we may want to discuss at some point whether "new page reviewer" should be treated like "autopatrolled" in the sense that any administrator can grant it to an editor without them having to request it. We did some granting without previous request in the grandfathering phase, but it's not clear that we can still do that. I know I've seen some editors without the right that I think should have it, and I'm sure you have as well, but it's unclear whether the community has authorized me to just grant it to them. In terms of how the rights work/how they affect editing, it's similar to autopatrolled. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we have formulated a reasonable way forward. Yes, ultimatly, I would like to see a NPR guideline but things are in flux right now and it will take quite a bit of time to figure out what is working and what is not so I think it is premature. I suggest we work together and with whomever else is interested to present an RfC on the two points discussed above. I think the guideline language will be pretty easy to hammer out, mainly putting the warning and sanction methods into plain language to another guideline does not have to be interprated; right now the 'if they do not stop after warnings admins can handle it as DE' can be wikilawyered. The way I would read it and they way I think you intend it to proceed as described in WP:DE#5.1Blocking and sanctions whereas it could be argued that the whole, extended process in WP:DE#5.Dealing with disruptive editors which would, of course, be the thing we are trying to avoid. The justification for the new noticeboard may take a bit of time to write. The arguments for it are pretty straight forward but I think people would want to see some examples of where ANI was burdensome or ineffective when dealing with "patrolling" disruption. J bh  Talk  15:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Kudpung
The opposition appears (at least on first sight) to come possibly from users who would easily get the right if they asked for it or who are admins or who have been grandfathered into the right, who are still not fully aware of the full extent that uncontrolled patrolling is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia on the one hand, and discouraging good-faith new editors on the other. WP:AfC which, as those who have taken trouble to read the previous RfC preamble, demands at least 90/500 plus demonstrable experience and the performance of the reviewers is heavily monitored by their peers. I fail to see why NPP should require any less competence and/or would not need to be controlled. One oppose vote (like several others) on the major RfC strikes a chord in that it actually clearly supports the identified issues with NPP.
 * 1) . In my opinion this current RfC as originally proposed is flawed. Firstly, all those who supported and opposed the the previous two RfC have been denied the right to be properly informed of this new RfC. They must be informed, neutrally and individually of this RfC and there should be a watchlist notice. This should not be allowed to be a back-door overturn  by a minor quorum of a major new policy that reached consensus on not one, but two consecutive RfC.
 * 2) . It is not clear whether the community is being asked to vote on the numbered 'outcomes' or on the unique RfC statement. The semantics of this RfC are therefore leading, misleading, and ambivalent – anyone reading it properly will find that they are in the dilemma of not being able to properly identify what support or oppose because the issues in the pro and contra points do not follow a logical separation. Hence some of the participation already, in whichever section, is not clear on what it is opposing or supporting.
 * 3) . As regards the issue at ANI concerning the editors sporting patroller userboxes on their user pages, the issue appears to have been unnecessarily escalated as a very weak pretext for re-debating this new user right in spite of the comments made by the proposer here.


 * Facts


 * Anyone can still tag pages – and there has never once been any attempt whatsoever through those RfC to remove a right from users to editing new pages. Such a claim is purely political and anyone who has made such a suggestion or supported it should strike their comment.
 * Only New Page Reviewers can mark a page as 'patrolled/reviewed', and that is the unique and only limitation imposed by this new user right. Anyone else is as free as they were before to edit a new page and/or properly or improperly tag them for maintenance or deletion.
 * Only pages that are 'patrolled/reviewed' as acceptable for inclusion will be indexed for search engines (but this is what was supposed to be happening for years but wasn't noticed to be broken until recently).
 * Maintenance tagged pages will remain un-reviewed in the New Page Feed and will be released for search engine indexing after a fully accredited reviewer has reviewed them again and provided basic advice to the creator if necessary and not been done by the petroller.
 * In the case of a wrongly reviewed page, un-reviewing it will provide an opportunity to educate an inexperienced user in the art of correctly patrolling pages or warning those who persistent make disruptive patrols.
 * Pages that are not 'patrolled/reviewed' within 90 days will automatically be indexed for search engines- so more reviewers are still needed.

What we have now have therefore, in spite of claims by those attempting to dismiss the previous RfCs, is a new user group that is still actually powerless apart from the psychological impact that might rightly make very inexperienced users think twice about wanting to tag new pages, and that the NOINDEX (which should have been happening for years anyway) might somewhat deter the paid SEO spammers.

What we 'do' have now however, which we never had before, is an overview of who is doing the actual reviewing (passing the articles for inclusion), if not over everyone who can still tag a page. We'll have to give it time, perhaps another year or so, then it may well be necessary to extend the restriction so that no one without the user right can tag new pages at all. However, at this moment in time, no official statement has been made of any such intention, much less about the creation of an 'editorial board' which is yet another coined premise, and to assume there has is disingenuous and is again taking comment from other places out of context in order to satisfy a political motive. If sufficient users believe that such a further limitation should be introduced, someone will take the initiative to propose an RfC and a consensus will either be reached or not reached. That's the way Wikipedia works.

The issues that were uncontroversially proposed and reached consensus at the two RfCs are now ostensibly being re-debated by users who may appear to have no other motive than 'I don't like it' -   were the participants who supported those RfCs  voting for a new user right that effectively has no powers at all to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia content? It seems odd to me that those who complain about irresponsible deletion tagging and biting newcomers now present opposition to the very issues they see as needing to be addressed. Why then would AfC, a non essential project, restrict access to its process ? It seems to me that there is therefore a lot of detraction by people who are more concerned about how the necessary rules affect them personally rather than the good of Wikipedia as a whole - some of whom might not have bothered to have their say during the two major RfC. Already the system is showing its toothlessness as users who have been accorded the new right are already continuing to refuse to read or understand the instructions and are wrongly tagging pages and possibly biting new users, just like they did before.

If poor patrolling persists, edit filters could need to be introduced and possibly a bot could highlightpages that are in danger of reaching  the 90 day auto index. We still need to think of a way round that. But at least we have made a first step in convincing the community that some controls are needed - that cannot be denied - and that something needs to be done about the sudden and exponential growth in the backlog since June this year.

's alternative proposal is not perfect but it's on the right lines, and he appears to be at least one editor who has made an impressionble effort to introduduce some objectivity, and who throughout the entire discussions on this topic of NPP, whatever their venue, has not lost sight of te bigger picture.

If all else fails, you will all be volunteering your time to a project that allows others to to make financial gain out of your efforts with impunity, and you will be losing the contributions of the potential good faith editors whom this community does not wish to better inform of what they can and cannot publish in mainspace. A self-fulfilling prophesy.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're really claiming that an RfC listed at WP:CENT is a malicious "back-door overturn by a minor quorum", then I believe you've lost the plot. You're welcome to create a watchlist notice if you see fit, although we really shouldn't be using those for every single discussion that occurs, and I will insist on it being genuinely neutral. If you desire to notify all editors who participated in the previous discussion, you certainly may, but I will again insist on neutrality. None of the technical changes of the user right are being debated again, so that claim is clearly false. Further, the outcomes sections literally says "If you support, this happens. If you don't support, this happens." It cannot be more clear. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As for my claim that this user right is rapidly forming the basis of an editorial board, look no farther than the comments at the ANI thread, which concerned me enough to actually pose this RfC to the community. A variety of "reformers" proposed Twinkle changes, edit filters, and preventing experienced editors from patrolling unless they requested this user right. Hammersoft was told point-blank that if he persisted in his desire not to have advanced user rights and the "reformers" had their way, he would not be able to patrol new pages. You may not agree that doing something like that makes up an editorial board whose membership is controlled directly by administrators, but many editors believe it is, myself among them. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trust me,, I will notify everyone, and strictly within the terms of WP:CANVASS as I always do, even if it takes me a couple of hours (which it usually does). Please also look again at your five bulleted outcomes If there is support, and see how they are based purely on premise and conjecture. They 'might' happen, for sure, but there is no will about it, and if they do, it won't be without the approval of the community. Support outcomes 3-5 are basically you rearguing that Twinkle will be restricted which the community clearly didn't approve of in the first RfC, which is clearly explained in the closure of that RfC;  to insinuate that the community can and will go against that closure is a  is a political device, a statement of bad faith, and one which clearly indicates that this RfC proposal is not neutral. And Hammersoft was not told anything of the sort, I know because I made the comment you are referring to. He was informed that users without the new right would not be able to 'mark pages as patrolled' and that it is his prerogative not to apply for rights, and if new rights are made and if he doesn't want them, that's his prerogative too, so please don't take things out of context. New Page Reviewer is no more an editorial board than you are with the tools to physically delete pages or to muzzle people from editing or to protect articles from certain editors. The community has vested the confidence in you to do that properly, just as the community by consensus has approved a user group and its individuals with the responsibility of appropriately marking new articles as patrolled. So just to avoid me being misquoted again, just as not everyone can be admins, rollbackers, PC Reviewers, File movers,  Template editors, per the recent RfCs, not everyone can mark a new page as 'patroled'. There is no editorial board, everyone can continue to make as big a mess of NPP as they always could, and there aren't enough admins to check and find out and stop them doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The community rejected the idea of Twinkle being restricted wholesale. Several of the comments did not reject the idea of Twinkle being restricted only on new pages. In fact, many of the Twinkle opposes stated that they were opposing because of the possibility of a restriction preventing editors from nominating/tagging older pages. That's why I phrased things the way I did. This Twinkle proposal has not been explicitly rejected by the community. You're absolutely correct that the new page reviewer is not an editorial board now. It would be if a proposal like this passed. If you genuinely disagree with an editorial board, then I'll be glad to see you oppose both the proposal and alternative proposal here and we can move on to discussing more sensible proposals than those recently advanced by reformers. Based on your recent comments, that's not your position though. You've accused me of taking things out of context, so here's your entire comment: "As you are perfectly well aware, NPP has been a total catastrophe for years; not requiring a single modicum of clue maturity, or experience, practicaly any user has been allowed to tag pages for maintenance and deletion and pass articles for acceptance, and ironically, not having a hat to wear makes NPP an uninteresting task for most experienced users and hence its monumental backlog (for comparison, see how many users literally clamber to be able to make AfC reviews as soon as the reach the magical 500 edits). According to Special:PermaLink/715075775, you don't want any user rights at all, and that's your business, but if the new 'Reviewer' right doesn't result in a significant improvement of the quality of tagging, the next step will be to propose a limit to who can tag pages at all. If it reaches consensus, that will exclude you too, how ever excellent you claim your patrolling to be." (bold mine) If you can argue in a convincing manner how the bolded doesn't suggest further limits on who can tag pages, not just who can mark them as patrolled, I will quite literally post a video of myself eating my hat. Otherwise, I'll expect an apology for falsely accusing me of taking your words out of context. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy shit! Did you really just say but... but... You are the one who started this RfC! You started an RfC you do not want to pass? When you could have designed one to positively address your concerns, you made one that would actually result in what you, and almost every Wikipedian fears. That is a bare faced statement of WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faith. Damn. I probably should have called you on it more directly when I saw that you had framed it as a positive proposal and !voted "Oppose". I mean it lets you frame the issue in whatever light you want and get it shot down and forestalling any proposal based on good faith collaboration. Pretty chickenshit move, in my opinion.   J bh  Talk  23:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Striking. Based on further conversations with  I see the good faith reasoning behind the construction of the RfC. I disagree with it but I no longer think it was done in bad faith.  J bh  Talk  15:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See Kudpung's statements that I've cited elsewhere. This sort of proposal – the sort of proposal you placed as an alternate – has been floated repeatedly, and many editors have acted like there's already consensus for it. I posed it to the community to clarify this. It's obvious, as has been commented by multiple editors other than myself on this page, that different editors have interpreted the past RfCs in different ways. I've put together a proposal to clarify it one way or the other because, so far, the "reformers" have been content to operate as if they have a consensus for things they do not. I've placed the proposal in a neutral light. I know you're not a fan that I didn't spend paragraph upon paragraph of "background" highlighting how great this type of proposal is, as happened in the original RfC, and as I'm sure would have happened if you created a similar proposal. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I will take "framed it as a positive proposal" as the highest possible compliment. I did my best to present this neutrally to the community. My thoughts are strongly in opposition to this, so if this came across as actually positive as written, then I've done my duty to put up a neutral RfC well. So thanks, for what it's worth. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It most certianly was not a complement. By positive proposal I mean you came up with a bunch of affirmative actions ie things that will happen. Those things that will happen then result in, in your words, an "editorial board". A neutral RfC would not have bundled things and then used something that consensus was explicitly against in the initial RfC as a major framing device for the "Support" outcome. The only outstanding question of implementation of the prior RfC was how to deal with the categories and userboxes. That question, though I personally feel it was settled, would be ripe for RfC. However, all the other stuff, the restrict Twinkle... nope, no one was trying to do that. Yes, people were thinking about what may need to happen if the new user right and rebranding did not work. But, as clearly said those questions are far, far down the road. I mean 1) admins warning users regardless of the quality of their edits  2) changes in Twinkle (Already resolved at RfC) 3) implementation of restrictive edit filters (Who is activly calling for that and saying it does not need a further RfC if it is to happen or that it is even needed at this time?) and 4) userboxes when the only thing currently at issue were the userboxes. Really?!?  J bh  Talk  23:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 23:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not what's been discussed at multiple discussions around the site, and I believe you know that. There's been numerous discussions about implementing technical restrictions on patrolling with "reformers" indicating that's where they intend to go. Kudpung ranted on my user talk page (I believe) early on stating that he didn't push this user right only to allow new editors to continue patrolling. You and Kudpung both, in addition to at least one other editor, brought up the possibility of technical restrictions at the ANI thread. They were discussed at the original RfC (although the opposition there focused mainly on the collateral damage of not being able to tag old pages, something that is different about this proposal). Reformers have removed those userboxes while arguing that there's consensus not to allow those editors to patrol new pages or self-identify as new page patrollers. That's all connected, and so I've formulated it as one RfC. It doesn't make sense to deny editors the ability to call themselves patrollers while allowing them to patrol or vice versa. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I recall I have suggested technical restrictions as possibilities or as things I, personally, think may be worth doing (but note when I hear people objecting I try to figure out a way without technical restrictions) not as something there is already consensus for. I did say, and do believe, that the first RfC settled the userbox question - it was part of the RfC as part and parcel to "implementing the new user right". Other actions in that same category are: renaming New Page Patrol to New Page Review which was done see WP:NPP; removing the NPP userboxes and category; creating new NPR userboxes and categories; restricting access to the NPPTOOL and Special:NewPagesFeed (part of NPPTOOL) to new page reviewers. The only one you have complained about, or address here, is the removal of the userboxes.  J bh  Talk  00:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like there's some misunderstanding here of what the consensus of the last RfC actually was. If you look through the votes, I challenge you to argue that there was a consensus in favour of stopping editors from looking through and tagging new articles. There is undoubtedly a consensus for limiting the technical act of marking an article as patrolled, but I really don't think there is one for the less specific patrolling actions (tagging, nominating for AfD, etc.). Thus, this RfC clarifies that aspect. If you really feel like that was the consensus, and this is somehow a subversive attempt to undermine that RfC, why isn't it being unanimously supported? Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , of course there was not . Who is saying there was? Why would I wish to rise to a challenge? I sense a lack of good faith lurking here. I stated in another discussion days ago that the new right is actually toothless and doesn't actually do anything much at all beyond the meta aspect of a RfC being able to gain a consensus. FWIW, both those RfC, apart from establishing one again that NPP is a mess, might just as well have been as useful as getting a consensus that the sky is blue but it often rains. Doesn't any one follow the links they are given in discussion posts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's toothless? It stops poor quality articles from making it to the mainspace, full stop. How is that toothless? It's exactly what the community wanted it to do. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so Rob, any newly created article instantly enters mainspace. Until "marked as patrolled" it won't be findable in Google, but anyone can find it by direct search within Wikipedia, by following internal links from other articles, or by being told about it off-Wiki <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but short of ACTTRIAL, no amount of new page reviewer restrictions will stop that, . I'm comparing the current scenario to the best case scenario given possible restrictions involving this user right. The widely cited problem at the last RfC (which I agreed with wholeheartedly) is that it was too easy to slip an article into mainspace where it would stay indefinitely due to one bad patroller. That problem has been fixed (unless our new page reviewers are also bad). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Rob, I keep telling you that those problems are very far from being fixed. I think that is probably the most inaccurate comment I've heard from an admin or a bureaucrat in this entire debacle, whether they support the need for NPP control or oppose it. Even with whom I don't always see eye to eye is now telling you that you couldn't be more wrong, and I seriously doubt that you have understood what WP:ACTRIAL was all about, and how, because of it, we have landed here. You are being divisive and sowing discontent and confusion, as demonstrated by the evidence of the raft of opposes based on what you have completely falsely given this community to understand in your a priori deductions  and attempting to pre-empt a future consensus by getting people to vote to ban the possibility of a future RfC for something that may well become necessary - but which you might not like.

If you would allow a better quality of NPP, you'd find it stops the unwanted content from reaching mainspace, and gives a boost to articles with true potential. I will advise you again once more against selectively taking my comments and using them of context: Note that the key word in that sentence is PROPOSE, which means 'offer for debate', which is evidently what you are really concerned about in case it does get consensus, but although I have a reasonably healthy success rate of RfC I have proposed all these years, it's no skin off my nose to lose one and I respect the outcome when I do and I don't throw around with PA at the people who opposed. If you want to be taken seriously please keep your inapproriate comments for your schoolyard or your bar stool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments/questions by Newyorkbrad
The discussion above is getting a little bit too heated and a little bit too opaque. Let me make sure I understand the current situation and we all agree at least on what the issues are. If I have misunderstood anything in my summary below, or if any of it is controversial, please let me know.

I gather that a couple of months ago, in response to a perception that "new page patrolling" could be improved, the right to mark a page as "patrolled" was restricted to (1) administrators, and (2) editors who are given the patroller userright (subject to the qualifications and procedures described above). It is probably too soon to say whether this decision has improved the quality of new-page patrolling.

The question presented on this page is not whether non-patrollers may mark a page as "patrolled", but whether they may take other patroller-ish actions on a new page, such as tagging or deleting. Significantly, if a non-patroller takes one of these actions, it does not mark the page as patrolled for purposes of clearance to full mainspace.

My initial reaction was to ask why, if the new page still needs to be marked as patrolled by a patroller, how would having an additional pair of eyes (the non-patroller's as well as the patroller's) run over a new page, hurt the new-page-patrol process? Reading through the above discussion, and theorizing a bit, I can imagine two principal ways:
 * 1) If non-patroller review of the new papers is somehow interfering with or deterring the designated patrollers from patrolling them, either by creating a false sense of security that pages have been reviewed, or in some other fashion; or
 * 2) On the other hand, if non-patroller reviewers are engaging in a significant rate of BITE-y behavior (e.g., premature speedy-tagging or deletion-nomming) that the designated patrollers would know to avoid.

Is there any evidence that either of these things is actually happening, to a degree that might justify the restrictions proposed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is with very new editors who simply do not have sufficient understanding of Wikipedia content and editorial policies and guidelines to make an informed decision what needs tagging or how to do it who, nonetheless spend a lot of time and edits doing so. WP:NPP stresses communication with page creators and when a tag is placed by a reviewer, at a minimum, the user is notified of the tagging and is invited to come back and address the problem. With deletion tagging it is necessary to know the content guidelines well to even know what should be deleted. The tagger should be able to answer inquiries about tagging and know what to say when a new editor inevitably asks "why did my page get deleted" or "why can't I use my blog as a source" or any one of the questions that come up when you are letting new users know what is going on with their article. How can someone who can not even get over the hump of PERM do that? The people who have the knowledge and experience to do this properly, and want to do it, ask for and get the new right or will not be screwing up and having people ask them to stop. (Although for purposes of statistics gatering it would be best if they all had the user right and used NPTOOL but I know that is a pipe dream) People who do not have the knowledge and experience and want to do it can, as I proposed, give it a go but if they are messing up can be asked to stop without drama (this also helps retain them because saying 'hey please stop until you get a better handle on this' is much better than waiting until they have done enough damage to get dragged to ANI) because you should not regularly be doing something that you are not competent to do. Also, I did not think that this was ripe for RfC, as I described above along with the new right being barely implemented yet, but since it was started thought it worthwhile to be able to gauge community responce for the idea of limiting tagging of new pages without added baggage of Twinkle modification - the response to which is easily predictable from the response at the prior RfC or other things like "admin warnings regardless of quality of edits" or restrictive edit filters which also draw a predictably negative response regardless of what particulars are being discussed. J bh  Talk  01:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 01:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's what happens when I or Kudpung or whoever is reviewing their work finds a badly patrolled article,  First, we need to do what's right for the article, but that's the easy part, and the previous work doesn't interfere with that. Second, we need to explain to the editor who submitted the article what is happening and why--that though A thought it was fine, with a more careful check it isn't, or that the problems are altogether different from the ones indicated. A good deal of the time, this leads to quite unpleasant discussions,sometimes on-wiki, sometimes at OTRS.    (If B listed it for deletion, and with more experience one can tell that the problems can be fixed, the submitter doesn't usually question that). Third, we need to check the work of  the beginning reviewer, and fix the other problems that hadn't been noticed, and then explain to them  what is wrong with the review, and if there are many problems, persuade them to stop reviewing. This is whee the effort is. It can be so much work that I have to admit that I sometimes skip this step unless the error is really bad, and take the chance that more bad reviewing will be done.
 * If a badly patrolled article reaches AfD, it also takes the work of several experienced people there to deal with it, and slows up for all of the people there the process of discussing the nominations that really need discussing.  DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You have summarised correctly (#2). The consensus that was reached was voice enough that something has to be done. There is plenty of empirical evidence that has been establish over the past five years by all the users who designed and sculpted WP:ACTRIAL five years ago due to the very issues that are still experienced with NPP today. Unfortunately, due to the fact that anyone can patrol new pages, there have been no mechanisms to monitor the system in a way that stats can be provided. We have to rely on the bad patrols that admins come across or that DGG and I do fairly regularly, or that a few (really just a few) of the more experienced patrollers iform us of, or that are reported to us by bitten users. We are unable to monitor the patrolling by patrollers of up to 1,000 pages a day. What we do uncover is high, and inadmissible, so we know that what we have been seeing all these years is the tip of the iceberg. On average we have to ask two to three users every week to refrain from patroling. Again, we just don't have the capacity to do this systematically.

In 2012 the WMF was sufficiently concerned that they created the Page Curation system as part of a project to address these problems but they left the other part of the project unfinished. These issues are more acute nowadays due to subtle spamming such as Orangemoody that inexperience patrolers do not know how to detect, coupled with the ever dwindling interest in NPP ironically because it does not have a hat to wear.We now have the largest backlog since the ACTRIAL days. It's my guess that a lot of the opposition to these new measures comes from newer users and new admins who are themselves not aware how acute the problem is, and who only (wrongly) see their editing privileges being eroded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that we "wrongly" believe that our editing privileges are being eroded? If I understand your position on this correctly, you would support preventing people from tagging and/or nominating for deletion new pages if and only if the recent change fails to address the problem of incompetent patrolling. How would this change be implemented without depriving users of their editing privileges? Also, I don't understand what your problem really is with people tagging new articles without the right. Ultimately, if someone tags incorrectly, wouldn't the experienced user who has been granted the right actually tag it correctly once they see it, since one of them must see it before it exits Page Curation, negating whatever trouble the inexperienced user had caused. The changes from the previous RfC do adequately address the problem, because the problem was that inexperienced patrollers would mark pages as adequate, and they would never be seen by anyone again. Under the new system, an experienced patroller will still see it, regardless of whether it has been tagged by someone else or not. If the concern is what pages are seen by the public, then the new system will work fine. However, what I view your concerns to be are more about the internal disruption that occurs, as opposed to what the public actually sees. So it comes down to which option has the greatest net benefit. I think that prohibiting competent users from editing simply because they don't want to go through a process at WP:PERM is a ridiculous idea, as those users would save the patrollers who did get the right considerable time, as making sure that the tags that have been applied are reasonable is easier than determining what tags to apply from the start. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 23:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC).
 * WADR are you actually reading what's going on here? I note that you supported the previous RfC with . Are you now really suggesting that there should be no accuracy in the way new pages are patrolled? I don't think you are and that's why I would not be so bold as to suggest you are. But:, You obviously appear to have completely misunderstood. In fact understood the opposite. I don't have a   What we have is precisely one of the aims of the project just as you stated: . And  is a complete invention, or  tell me where it was, please. What we have is what we have, as proposed in the previous two RfC and which reached a significant consensus.
 * There have been no proposals to make any other changes, and this current RfC is simply a disingenuous attempt to pre-empt and muzzle any future changes that might be proposed. There are no rules on Wikipedia forbidding proposals, obviously because it's the community who decides the outcome, not the proposer. What I may or may not have suggested in other places are perfectly normal issues that may need to be taken into consideration at some time in the future, and to cast negative inference on them is a clear expression of bad faith.
 * Perhaps you would like to take into account how Rolbacker has denied other users the right to revert vandalism, or how RC Patroller has denied other the the right to edit articles, or how Autopatrolled denies other users from creating articles. This is how this current RfC has mislead people with its I don't like it attempt by the proposer through this RfC to confuse people - like it has confused you - into voting to overthrow two community consensus. Please guard your comments when considering the agressive and combative use if ridiculous and be sure you know what you are talking about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First, to address my statement made in the second RfC, that was about the actual topic of that RfC, which was about granting the technical right to mark pages as patrolled, not about the act of patrolling, since marking a page as patrolled is what sends it out of Page Curation where it may never receive attention again. What I meant was that we need an experienced patroller to review the page before it goes out of Page Curation, not that no one should be allowed to tag it before that point. You are correct that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be accuracy in patrolling, poor patrolling is disruptive and must be dealt with. What I am saying is that banning all editors except those who went to WP:PERM from tagging new pages is a bad idea. As to the statement I made which you called an invention, what is this if not a measure that would prohibit competent users from patrolling: (Edit filters won't be able to tell if the user is competent or not.) Before you come back and say that you are talking about what may be proposed in a year or two if poor patrolling continues, allow me to point out that that was exactly what I said in my original statement:  Furthermore, your claim that this is an attempt to preempt any future consensus makes no sense at all, because as you said, it is the community that determines consensus, not the proposer, so if this change does become necessary, another proposal could be made, and wouldn't be hindered by this RfC. Also, if this is a "I don't like it" proposal that is attempting to overthrow the previous consensus that was established, then why is there unanimous opposition to it? In addition, you have claimed that addressing statements that you made about what "may" need to be done in the future is an assumption of bad faith, which leads to this question: If you don't agree with those statements and don't want to defend them, why did you make them in the first place? Finally, you are definitely not innocent from attempting to confuse people. The first sentence of your third paragraph either makes no sense, or is intended as some sort of sarcastic analogy with the RfC at hand. To conclude, you have said that me expressing my opinion about the subject at hand using the word "ridiculous" is "combative and aggressive." I will respond to this by saying that my use of the word was directed at the issue, not at you, and I apologize if you took it to be a personal attack.  Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 17:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC).

Comments/questions by editor 28082972
Firstly I'd like to thank for the tireless work he has done to bring about positive changes in our manner of reviewing newly created Wikipedia pages. Nothing in this RFC diminishes the communities resolve which apportioned consensus for the creation of the New Page Reviewer.

I feel that calling this RFC a "disingenuous attempt to pre-empt and muzzle any future changes that 'might' be proposed.", assumes bad faith that is not plainly evident. It strikes me as a sincere attempt to clarify ambiguities that seem to clearly exist. The RFC does not "muzzle any future changes that 'might' be proposed", but instead, it preempts a single facet that some already seem to believe is in place and others have contemplated favorably.

The putative nature of the preemption lies in the community's overwhelming rejection, not, in my opinion, in the RFC's framing. Like, I thank for his initiative to bring this question to the community for resolution. Since it has been resolved, and restricting good faith patrols appears to be a non starter, the best outcome, in my opinion, would be to choose how best to embrace the collective will that has nearly emerged as a mandate; one very unlikely to change.

Here are some ideas that have occurred to me as possible, and perhaps worthy of consideration.

1) Make un-reviewed new pages ineligible for AFD. Preserve that process for articles, (meaning indexed reviewed pages), and move un-reviewed new pages to some other queue for NPR/ADMIN handling. This would not preclude any form of CSD tagging nor would speedy deletion ensue before an ADMIN's discretion is brought to bear; that being fully qualified as an NPR as well.

2) Institute a categorization scheme that segregates un-reviewed articles that have been edited by users without the NPR right, other than the page's creator, ostensibly indicating a sooner need for NPR intervention in case improprieties that could affect new editor retention might exist.

3) Create a tag for all un-reviewed pages with boiler language that tells new editors how to not become disenchanted by certain eventualities that may come about, outlining the factual requirement that a qualified NPR must review, and concur with any instructions given, before they could ever come about. Also provide a one click link where a new page creator can request NPR intervention, and expect a reasonably prompt response as well.

I think these kinds of doable things will help achieve what we all, of good faith, want – without undermining our core values which, by their station, ought be unwavering.

Feel free to disregard if, as is often the case, I am making no sense at all. Sincerely.--Editor with User ID 28082972 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No comment on the first part.
 * 1) strikes me as an excellent way to make people tag incorrect CSDs (and probably admins shifting to trigger-happy side for disputable WP:A7 nominations). The only issue this could solve is a backlog at AfD (and while AfD is not exactly empty, there seems to be enough people to take care of it right now); for WP:BITE problems, a CSD tag is arguably worse than an AfD tag (even more so if it is incorrect). This could work if it was restricted to the urgent CSDs (BLP and copyvios). (I would oppose such a change, for the record, but it is an interesting idea.)
 * 2) Not sure I understand this one. If I understand correctly, the rationale is that a page that has been edited by multiple editors is likely more than a spammy article and should be fast-tracked for review. That premise is dubious (some people just add categories, others just copyedit, and they will not stop and check for notability except in obvious cases) but maybe not entirely false.
 * 3) Giving a watered-down lecture about how Wikipedia works to new editors has been tried by multiple means (bot invites to the TeaHouse etc.). I am not sure this is a better idea than the previous ones. In any case, I strongly oppose the "click here if you think your article is important" link. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your sentiments. Clearly, I did not express mine nearly as well. The understanding you have described is not what I would have wanted my words to imply. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your entire reply. Regards.--John Cline (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The observations and suggestions by /User ID 28082972 and are not without significant merit, and would probably receive more resonance in the venue specifically dedicated to investigating all possible solutions to the problems of both the creation of totally inappropriate new 'articles' (such as e.g. spam, attack pages, hoaxes, vandalism pages) and the patrolling/processing of them without biting creators who in good faith created articles that there were not aware of as being unencyclopedic by Wikipedia standards, or as needing further improvement. New Page Patrolling, in any interpretation, has proven time and time again over many years to be extremely problematic, not only because of its poor performance by people who can't be officially obliged to read the tutorial, but also by people at NPP (and AfC) exposed as being swindlers for the purpose of patrolling their own paid-for creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I stumbled across this "work group" yesterday while trying to track down the origins of a recent, unannounced change to the use of NOINDEX on new articles by non-autopatrolled users. (As of T147544, articles are no longer indexed until they are patrolled or 90 days old, apparently on the basis of a 2012 RfC closed with consensus to "give it a try", and a request by this "work group", where it is even claimed as an achievement.) The work group talk page banner reads If you are not a registered work group member, you are welcome to comment but are nevertheless expected to broadly support the tasks at hand... A safe space for brainstorming is a great idea and people posting thoughts here should definitely participate, but do be very cautious about interpreting broad support for an idea among that narrow self-selected group as implying consensus among the broader community. If there's one thing I've learned this year, it's how easy it can be for a small group to convince itself that something is a good idea when it turns out not to survive contact with the community at large... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't pronounce on your special work group  which for the most part  operates almost entirely in camera.  Work  groups exist to collaborate on research of something  they  have clearly  identified as an area that  can use their common  interest towards making  Wikipedia a better project, and drafting proposals to make to the community. It's the community  at  large that later decides to accept or reject them. If a proposal  is rejected, one can live with  that, one learns from  it, and comes up  with  another proposal  that  the community  might  accept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

However I disagree with your description that only people doing a bad job get restricted under the proposal. It states: Editors should not, regularly or as a matter of course, "patrol" new articles unless they have the new page reviewer user right. ... you should not set out simply to look for new articles to "patrol". That is a restriction, presuming that an editor follows the policy. BethNaught (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more to that Lourdes  05:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1) -- absolutely not. There are currently 14,190 pages in the NPP article feed, the great majority of them articles (a few are redirects and disambiguation pages). Many articles spend days, weeks, months and even years without being marked as "reviewed". There is no valid reason to deny editors in good standing, who simply do not happen to have the new page reviewer user right, the ability to list these pages for AfD in the meantime. The last thing we need is a new, artificially created area of backlog, where there is a huge new queue of articles ineligible for AfD and waiting to be formally reviewed. Would we now need a new noticeboard where "requests for review" of new articles could be listed, just so that the article can be marked as reviewed, and then listed for AfD? That's how far into la-la land this proposal would take us. There are thousands of experienced editors in good standing who want to be able to list articles for AfD but do not want to do NPP. We should not force NPP down their throat, and should not force them to apply for the "new page reviewer" right if they do not intend to do NPP but only want the ability to list articles for AfD even if those articles are not formally marked as "reviewed". There are also many situations where an article needs to be listed for an AfD quickly after its creation, and there is absolutely no point in waiting for somebody with the "new page reviewer" right to look at it. This applies, for instance, to articles about academics. They are essentially never eligible for CSD A7, and if an ordinary PROD is declined by the creator of the article (which is often the case), then AfD is the only remaining venue for deletion. With academics evaluating notability is reasonably straightforward for an experienced editor familiar with WP:PROF. If it becomes clear, after performing the relevant searches, that the subject is not notable, there is usually just one thing to do, which is to list the article for an AfD. It should not matter if the article has been marked as "reviewed", and the editor wishing to list the article for an AfD should not have to jump through a bunch of hoops, first trying to find somebody to review the article. Deletion is a core Wikipedia function, and you will never get anything even close to a consensus for something like Proposal 1), which takes away, on fairly arbitrary grounds, the ability to perform a key task related to the deletion process, from a large section of the community in good standing. Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link  to a RfC where this was proposed to  the community? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am referring here to the suggestions made by editor 28082972 above. Suggestion 1) reads: "Make un-reviewed new pages ineligible for AFD." Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This one, in the case where the user is wiki-young and the nominations are done on a regular basis. BethNaught (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The part many people to be missing is the only time where anyone is actually restricted is when they start doing a poor job. As I have said at least a half-dozen times here the purpose is to create some, relatable drama free, way to stop editors who have demonstrated a lack of clue regarding our content policies from working in processes which expose a population that has been identified as critical to Wikipedia's long term success, new article creators, to their cluelessness until they pass a very minimal set of requirements. The overwhelming sense of !votes at the new right's RfC was that NPP was suffering from two problems; letting inappropriate articles through and poor deletion tagging which "bit" newcomers and discouraged them from contributing. The technical restriction addressed the first of these concerns but did nothing for the second. From the responses above this is obviously not how the community wants to deal with the second issue. Frankly I question now if they really care in other than some general fluffy way about how new article creators are treated. Maybe I am dumb or have tunnel vision but how does the community think we can address the problem of new/inexperienced/clueless editors from biting newbies without requiring some basic standard of knowledge/experience/clue and having some way of reining in those who lack it short of a traumatic ANI and editing restriction which will likely loose us a good faith, motivated editor - there is, in my mind, a huge difference between "hey stop and go learn our content policies, read WP:NPP and ask an admin at PERM to make sure you understand it" and "hey stop -- no, I don't have to -- really stop -- no -- OK I' taking it to ANI" ... Several days of drama ensue and editors likely ends up with a several month topic ban and even if not gets at least a mild mobbing because that is just how ANI is. I really would like to figure out some way to avoid the later while addressing the newbie biting. One way that and I discussed is up in the "Neutral" section. What do you think of it? J bh  Talk  14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my oppose vote, I believe bad patrolling is a kind of disruptive editing, and the suggestion expressed by BU Rob13 here, or something similar, is one I would happily endorse. It shouldn't have to go to ANI: first ask nicely for them to stop, then warn them, then block them if necessary (perhaps with a conditional unblock). If they don't stop after a warning, they'll likely need a sanction anyway, and it's probably kinder to do it directly rather than via ANI. I agree we want to keep good-faith motivated editors, but we also need competent, collegial editors, and one would hope this type would stop when asked nicely to follow your preferred option: "hey stop and go learn our content policies, read WP:NPP and ask an admin". But if they only wish to do a limited area (e.g. CSD) and they can now do that, I don't think they should have to jump all the hoops for NPR.
 * Unless of course you were referring to the present situation, in which case you are correct. BethNaught (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I can see how that can be seen as a restriction. My thinking was more along the lines of - since this is an area of work the community seemed to have identified as requiring extra care people should make sure they are capable of meeting some minimum level of community defined competence before doing it regularly. What I did not consider, that someone pointed out above and I agree with, is that there may be people who feel confident about tagging but not about making the final "reviewed" decision and they should not be required to get the new page reviewer right. The guideline proposal you linked is probably the best way to handle things but I am a bit afraid of stressing the community by introducing it now although I do think it would address most of the issues we have encountered previously. J bh  Talk  15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to wait for this to be closed, and then propose this specific wording on the talk page of whatever guideline we decide to insert this into. We can handle the noticeboard bit afterwards, like you suggested. Note that a clarification that disruptive new page patrolling can lead to warnings and blocks is not actually anything new. It's just saying it explicitly in a guideline for the first time. There's already consensus on how we handle disruptive edits at WP:DE. Because of this, I don't think that type of statement needs the sort of centralized discussion that past RfCs on the topic of new page patrolling required. It's basically just spelling out the current status quo, and there's a big difference between that and imposing a new restriction/making a new user right/etc. We can handle it at a guideline talk page with a regular RfC, in my opinion, and I don't see the need to send out mass notifications for that sort of slight addition of wording. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you then going to continue to launch more RfCs based on premise, assumption and conjecture of consequences that you personally wish to pre-empt 'in case' someone suggests those statements that you have taken out of context to mean they will happen, then it stands to reason that everyone will be notified in order to have a fair representation by the people who previously turned out to support or oppose the previous RfCs. It is not appropriate to overturn previous consensus through a series of poorly publicised mini discussions, just as it not necessary to have a RfC to prove it very time someone states 'the Earth is not flat'.   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you still believe I'm attempting to overturn consensus in the face of diametrically opposed outcomes with largely the same participants, I can only say that you're ignoring the evidence that your apparent intention behind the new page reviewer user right was never shared by the community. Would you rather have been surprised 3–6 months from now when the community rejected this sort of proposal? If you still genuinely don't see the value in clarifying the community's position on this particular path so we can move on to other productive reforms, I have little more I can say to you on the matter. The repeated casting of aspersions, pings on unrelated talk pages, and threats to yank me before ArbCom are rapidly turning into a pattern. I'm really trying to work with you and other editors on reform. I'm not some stick in the mud trying to block all change. I want change, but I want change that doesn't wipe away the "anyone can edit" philosophy that has built this encyclopedia from the ground up. You disagree with me on many things, and I respect that. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to reform, and it doesn't mean we can't work together to get things done where we agree or compromise where we don't agree. and I have made significant progress above, I believe. I don't fully agree with everything in our forming proposal, but I think it's a step in the right direction. A proposal with both Jbh and myself attached to it carries some weight, given how different our views on reform are. Your involvement would help it along even more, and I'm sure we'd both be glad to have you. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The irony is,, that my unvoted opinion on this current RfC is of course 'oppose'; like everyone here, it has to be, but your RfC pramble, as I have repeated many times, is a statement of what will happen - which is false. What might or may happen is another story, and to launch a RfC on a premise in order to stifle possible propsals for new measures, goes completely against the grain of Wikipedia's self-governing philosophy.

All I can really say now is that your persistent claims that I am trying to 'wipe away the "anyone can edit" philosophy', are totally unfounded. Ask yourself this question: Do the solutions address the scale of the issue of NPP? And the answer is clearly no, of course they don't, not by a long chalk. So instead of demonising intelligent, informal discussions elsewhere about possible ways to go - which anyone is free to oppose if they are proposed at a formal RfC - perhaps you can move forward and work on and come up with some realistic proposals rather than simply attacking and tearing apart the efforts to discuss every possible, thinkable solution. Perhaps you too should look back at past investigations )into NPP such as the $128,000 Summer of Research 2011  programme on which I (and others) will stake my reputation and my tools on my claim that the situation has not improved. In fact in more recent years there has been a sinister shift in the profile of the average daily intake of around 1,000 new pages, making the situation far worse and demanding new skill and new ideas. You are possibly not aware of these things because you are not 'hands on' in these areas and probably don't see the picture from the trenches.

Where in fact the Foundation itself has already stepped in with technical measures in 2006 to partly retract the 'anyone can edit' mantra, thus proving that the project is indeed organic and must move with the times, an approach on idealistic grounds is not going to find a pragmatic result. I would be happy to bury the hatchet with you, but you will have to agree to refrain from using untrue assumptions of my intents in order to frame your proposals, and assumption that it is my  goal to withdraw general  editing privileges from registered users.

I hate politics in Wikipedia, its little revolutions and counter revolutions in the name of progress and power struggles at any cost to quality. In spite of the other mantra, 'editor retention', your efforts have all but driven me away from Wikpedia to join he ranks of others who have handed in their tools in disillusionment and retired quietly into the background to find another hobby to fill heir twilight years. These are my last words on this topic, so you can breathe out and take the relay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions/comments
I am sorry to start my own section, but the above discussion is a poster child for TL;DR on steroids, although I did attempt it. I am completely confused about what is proposed and what has consensus -- that would be a question I guess. A nice summary on the page somewhere would probably improve the quality of discourse here. But mostly I want to say... a couple of things.

First, the process currently in place DOES bite article creators, and I speak from experience within the last couple of days. I am not a new editor but I can completely understand why one might not come back after an article was deleted. I considered it myself after a perfectly sourced article was AfD'd (2 solid resources such as Salon and the Washington Post per sentence then called SNOW within hours after 6-7 editors who had never touched the article, or read it most likely, showed up like a greek chorus. That was politics during the election, sure, but it was wrong and profoundly disappointing considering how carefully verified it was.)

More usually though, I do cleanup-after-translation because I can, and somebody needs to, and this niche has led me to understand that inclusionist as I may be, we are definitely better off without certain articles, but also it makes more evident the unevenness of the evaluation process. I sometimes translate articles into en.wikipedia because the topic is repeatedly red-linked on articles about broader topics. Typically the article on the other wikipedia will be lightly sourced, which is a problem to be dealt with, sure, but in order not to lose my mind I translate then edit, which is I believe, a fairly typical workflow for other editors who wikignome in this area as well. Typically these translations are tagged within thirty seconds of their creation as non-notable and needing references. First of all, get out of here, wikipedia has pages about individual addresses on individual streets that also have their own article and some ranging Anglophone doesn't think a Mexican rock band is important when they've put out a dozen records and created an entire genre, not to mention their early participation in important social movements... bah humbug. I can't talk about that one and be polite, sorry.

Not all new articles are a threat to the integrity/quality of wikipedia, and considering the number of top-level pages that are straight cut-and-paste from the CIA handbook I submit that that current process impedes article ecosystem improvement and also runs off people who were interested in improving a perceived deficiency. I could apply for auto-patrolled status I suppose, and that would solve the problem for *me* but anyone else who creates *needed* articles about, let's say, the electoral process in the Gambia, is going to run into this over and over and will likely not be as articulate as I am, nor as likely to protest. Also, articles by non-English speakers may need work but this does not make them necessarily not worth doing the work. So NPPs appear to me to be very trigger-happy, still, whatever process may have recently been put in place. A subset of the wikipedia bros, if you ask me, and that is not a good thing. Just saying.

Oh and someone above proposed a software fix to prevent pages from being AfD'd in the first hour; that would seem like a step in the right direction Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the AfD thing, well, lack of sources is not the only thing that can condemn an article; in any case, the deletion review is this way.
 * Since you are already around, I would suggest you use a sandbox or a WP:DRAFT for the step "translated but not referenced". However, it does not address the issue for novice editors. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I just add in the references I was already looking up anyway as the tagging occurred and remove the probably automated tagging once I have done so. I consider myself well-qualified to remove a tag if applicable and have not been impressed by the level of discourse at AfD. The tagging is annoying, is all, to me, but I have no doubt that it does discourage new editors. My point is that Wikipedia might be a better place if there was more working on articles and less automated tagging. As another example, I have recently spent an extensive amount of time on deciphering France in the 1920s, which requires lots of specialized skills that I could bill at, well, more than the nothing Wikipedia is paying me for this particular volunteer task, which I have not finished, btw. My thanks has been a snarky and probably automated note to the effect that I forgot to sign a post I made on the talk page for my own reference (since nobody else appeared to be paying any attention). I do seem to be almost the only editor working on the bad-translation-from-French queue, but what does Wikipedia do? Discourage new translators by sitting on the translation tools and tagging their work. I have, yes, been trying to remember to go to draft space since I realized that there *were* bad translations coming through and I would run into script kiddies if I did not. I am aware of the AfD discussion queue. Last time I was there I rescued three articles which were all definitely imperfect and about notable topics. I'd like for this discussion to get past snarky remarks, please. If you are in danger of losing long-time valuable editors i.e. me then the encyclopedia is in serious trouble. I am trying to suggest that it might not be a bad thing if the people tagging things as non-notable were aware of the criteria for notability. For instance, the rock group mentioned above only needed two major-label releases to be notable, which they had, cunningly hidden in a section titled discography. They met WP:MUSBIO in a number of other ways, but I make allowances for the fact that this might not be apparent to a teenager in northern england. However, surely they should have noted that one? Whether or not a particular editor has heard of something is not a good criterion, and rather ethnocentric when we are writing articles about individual characters in American cable dramas. IMHO this erroneous finger-wagging wastes organizational energy that would be better spent trying to advance the quality of core articles;  is completely correct about that. And speaking as someone who as put serious time in fighting gibberish on Wikipedia, I think that you should put more effort into recruitment, because we wikignomes are swamped. Instantaneously stamping people's efforts as inadequate is not the way to do that. And if you think I am arrogant for getting on my soapbox and calling myself valuable, well, I disagree. I should not have to tell you to look me up, but apparently you have not, and some of what I do is mitigation, but just for example look at Castellane then compare it to what was there before I started working on it. Just saying. It's an obscure town in France, ok, but the article is still vastly improved, and this is not all that I have done. For that matter look at France in the 1920s before I started on it. It's an incomplete badly-written article still, but it's no longer hallucinatory gibberish thankyouverymuch. I know whereof I speak and don't like being bro'ed Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)