From time to time I receive emails from editors asking me to grant them a permission. I don't know why they do so via email rather than PERM (I guess they contact me because I'm active there), but I direct them to make a request on-wiki, for several reasons: our long-standing principle that, although there is no rule against off-wiki discussions, decisions affecting Wikipedia should be made on Wikipedia; to leave a documentation trail that all editors can follow; to give a chance for other editors to share relevant information on the request; and, because WP:PERM is frequently backlogged, to avoid the impression of someone pushing in the queue. I do make quite frequently make grants (especially of autopatrolled) without any request or following discussions elsewhere on-wiki, but I don't think that's quite the same.

I've noticed that not all admins agree with me on this point. Grants that don't go through PERM are relatively common, and sometimes an off-wiki request is explicitly mentioned in the log. For example, looking at one user today, I noticed that they managed to accrue autopatrolled, PCR, page mover, rollbacker, trial new page reviewer and permanent new page reviewer with only a single PERM request – the rest were all apparently solicited from different admins on one of the unofficial Wikipedia Discord servers.

This doesn't feel right to me, so I thought I'd ask for other opinions on the practice of requesting permissions privately. Is there a guideline on this somewhere? If not, should we have one? – Joe (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The occasionally mentioned "discussion on Discord" is at least sometimes just the admin asking the user if they would like the perm (rather than the other way around). At least one admin who has done that discourages perm requests from being made on Discord.

But some users might be shy about having a request declined at WP:PERM (like a much smaller version of WP:RFA).

Since perm grants are entirely at an admin's discretion and don't require consensus (which is what should be done on-wiki), I think it's fine to leave it up to them to decide whether to entertain requests by email or direct message. SilverLocust 💬 09:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions grants require consensus, just like everything else. – Joe (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a requirement for consensus, but each perm page generally says something like WP:PMCRITERIA's "An administrator may grant page mover rights to users they otherwise deem competent and may deny the requests if they do not see a need for the tools or have other concerns." SilverLocust 💬 09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure saying they require consensus is the correct phrasing. For instance, administrators are allowed to grant autopatrolled at their own discretion, that's part of the toolkit that we trust admins with. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if two (or more) admins disagree on whether to grant autopatrolled, what do we do? Seek consensus. It doesn't come up very often, but there certainly have been e.g. AN threads where a grant has been challenged and overturned on that basis. Even if there's no discussion, consensus is still there, implicitly.

I understand the "discretion" language in many (not all) of the PERM guidelines to mean that an editor is not automatically entitled to a right if they might the guideline criteria (and vice-versa) – not that it's literally only up to single admins to decide, with no community oversight. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a minimum time that a request for a permission must stay up, so an admin can immediately process a request and then it'll be cleaned out. If there's issues with that user then yeah, ANI. I don't think it's always entirely necessary to force a request at perm simply for the sake of bureaucracy. I do not like to handle perm requests at my talk page either, but in rare circumstances for exceptional users, I'll be more than happy to grant them tools that may help them to improve the encyclopedia. If there's a chance it may at all be controversial, or I don't know them enough to make that call without digging deeper, then I too send them to perm (which is most of the time).

I think, unless it states otherwise anywhere, the implication has always been that an administrator may grant permissions at their own discretion without a formal request in most situations. I don't personally see an issue with that until an administrator's judgement comes into question.

Also, Wikipedia:APATCRITERIA states Administrators may grant this user right to anyone at their discretion if they feel that the user's page creations are prolific; this reduces the workload of new page reviewers. In these cases, they are free to assign the user right to other editors (including themselves) without a formal request or discussion beforehand. – This makes the autopatrolled example not a good one, since, I believe, it's the only perm with this type of language specifically called out. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I outright decline direct requests and point editors to the respective pages instead. That said, I have also granted permissions to editors without them asking about it; this applies to editors whose work I'm familiar with. Schwede66 11:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I do as well; if I know the editor (and they need it) I'll usually grant, otherwise I'll send 'em to PERM. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I am firmly opposed to requiring that permission requests go through PERM. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that. My basic question here is whether granting permissions following a private request is something we should discourage, and if so whether we should write that down along the lines of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Dealing with off-wiki block requests. – Joe (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very admin-discretionary. In general, if someone asks me for a perm I'll ask them to drop a request at WP:PERM. It certainly shouldn't be a requirement as there are all sorts of use cases were it would be unnecessary paperwork. — xaosflux 19:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been approved yet when I try to log in to AWB it says "This user does not have enough privileges to make automatics edits on this wiki" Kowal2701 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser § AWB Permission error, there is a version update that fixes the issue. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated to 6.3.1.1 but it still comes back with an error when I try to log in Kowal2701 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post on that thread, then, about your issues, so that you can get feedback from that project. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I appeal a removal? I have repeatedly tried to reach out to the person who removed my ability to do so. But no response! Pentock (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it’s been months. Pentock (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for ExCon can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. Keep in mind you'll need to make a convincing argument as to why you should have it back after it was removed. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, just a courtesy note that I have reverted you granting autopatrolled to User:GnocchiFan over concerns raised by User:TechnoSquirrel69. What concerns me more, though, is that you granted autopatrolled to four users within five minutes. You cannot possibly have looked at those users' contributions in detail and assessed the quality of their work in such a short period of time. AP isn't a numerical exercise; we are assessing whether users consistently produce clean articles free of concerns. There is no substitute to looking at a sample of their recent articles. When I assess users, I generally look at their last ten articles created, including the edit history of those articles, to see whether other users had to fix issues. If you don't want to invest that effort, please don't patrol the request page. Schwede66 20:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should've discussed it first. The encyclopedia was not in so grave of a danger that you couldn't have paused and discussed.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I could and should have posted this item first. What I'm saying, though, is that you are clearly acting outside what other admins who are active here are doing. And that is a concern that needed to be raised. Schwede66 20:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins talk to each other before reverting admin actions.--v/r - TP 20:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis, I'm surprised to read this, since when I just dropped by your talk page I was greeted by a notice that said Are you an admin reverting a decision I made? You are welcome to leave a note, but please understand I completely trust your judgement and my pride should not be a stopping block for you. I would myself have taken that as an implicit request not to speak to you about it in advance. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I wrote that in 2011. My personality and views may have changed since then.--v/r - TP 21:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like it's on you for not updating it. There's no reason for others to assume that wasn't still the case. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm allowed to feel the way I feel.--v/r - TP 02:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said above: I could and should have posted this item first. The reason that I acted immediately is that I wanted to avoid User:GnocchiFan getting excited about you having granted AP and then learning that it's been reverted. When I went to their talk page (after I removed the flag), I see that you had not issued the relevant notification, though. Seeing all the bot notifications on the request page, it's clear that you've missed that step for all those users. Schwede66 20:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Back 13 years ago when I was working WP:PERM, we still believed that the encyclopedia was no big deal and we granted tools to users that wouldn't abuse them. I can understand not wanting the user to get excited, but I also don't think the issues raised are significant because they address other Wikipedia, and even Wikimedia, goals. You bring up as a point that you feel I was too hasty in granting the permission, but I feel you were too hasty in reverting. As you know, wheel warring will quickly end up at Arbcom. So when one admin reverts another - it's very much "final". It's not like editors reverting in editor space. Typically, we afford each other the courtesy of discussion because of this. It's fine though, I'm no longer interested in helping here.--v/r - TP 21:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP isn't a tool though and it doesn't really help anyone but NPP. Do you still believe, after receiving feedback, that granting AP to four users in a five minute stretch was appropriate? I'm not confident, given the speed of granting, that the concerns raised were properly considered.

I'm very disappointed that an admin receives feedback and decides to immediately quit in the area, that's not the temperament we hope for in admins. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll be a great loss to WP:PERM. I'll contribute in places I am more confident and comfortable contributing in.--v/r - TP 02:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) - not an admin so I won't opine on the matter at hand now, but I think this might be better placed in Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are capable of sorting this out here, Zippybonzo. In fact, I'd say it's already sorted (from my perspective it is, at least). Schwede66 20:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate you bringing this up @Schwede66, and I agree with you that discussions don't necessarily need to jump to the bigger venues. No admin is perfect, we all need feedback and to adjust our practices from time to time. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, which is somewhat relevant to this thread but a comment in general: the speed at which an admin acts on requests is not necessarily the speed at which they reviewed them. Take for example WT:AFCP or WP:PERM/AWB, wherein I will regularly spend a good amount of time reviewing all of the editors, then make a single edit to each of the relevant locations to enact all of the requests as necessary. If it were something like WP:PERM/PM, with the script it necessitates multiple edits but the time spent before actioning is still the same.

I'll split this into it's own subsection, as I have not looked into the original speed of review and therefore do not want to say that what I describe above is what happened in the main thread, but more that it's something to consider going forward. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think unless it's really extreme, looking at the time between edits/action is a poor way to judge how much attention has been given. How much time I spend on PERM requests varies a lot. Declines can be near-instant if you spot a deal-breaker. Sometimes I'm already familiar with the editor's work from some other context and don't have to spend much time checking again. Sometimes I'll look at a request and mull over it for a day or two before actioning it. Judge the results, not the timestamps. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:File mover § Is this page a policy?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]