Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Right now, the standards we have for adding the autoreviewer usergroup are "Trusted users who regularly create pages and have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (especially WP:BLP and WP:N). A suggested requirement is 75 valid articles, not including redirects." I was just wondering; is there any need for this hard limit? If a user creates a page just once a month, but it is definitely going to be a solid one, should we not just give them autoreviewer? Even if it is just once a month, after all, every bit counts when patrolling the backend. NW (Talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A suggested requirement is 75 valid articles seems about right to me. It is not a hard limit... see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer#User:SusanLesch. Johnfos (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Is anyone willing to create an image for this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the Wikipedia puzzle ball with a check mark over it or something similar. Malinaccier (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing autoreviewer[edit]

Have we any procedure for this, or is it at Admin's discretion when inappropriate pages are being created (with post on AN for review of action)? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to remove autoreviewer from a user when I saw your note. In this case, I felt uncomfortable with the user having this right just yet because of some copyright problems in their history. I discussed my concern with the admin who had granted autoreviewer and they agreed. I think that is all the procedure we need -- a discussion and agreement with the granting admin is sufficient to remove the right. In case of blatant problems with creating inappropriate pages, I think revoking autoreviewer rights is at the discretion of the individual admin in the same way as rollbacker rights. CactusWriter | needles 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate autoreviewers[edit]

MBisanz (talk · contribs) has given the autoreviewer right to many users who have created just a handful of articles, and to at least two users who have never created a single article.

I asked MBisanz about one of these, pointing out the correct criteria. The response was: "Well he has created some talk pages, I guess he just looked trustworthy."

I again mentioned the correct criteria, but subsequently, MBisanz granted the right to at least one other user who had never created an article. (The thank you note from the new autoreviewer makes it clear that this user does not even understand the right.)


Agolib (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of time it took my to comment on this but I have been somewhat busy in real life and doing what I do here.
I have not created an article and it is very unlikely that I will ever create an article. In addition to that disqualifying condition, the only edits that I make to articles are minor other than sort values.
As I understand the "documentation" for this, my being listed as an Autoreviewer means that when I add or fix a sort value on an article the article is marked in some way that it has been patrolled. That is not the case. I never make substantial edits to articles. I may make minor copy-edits, spaces after commas where none existed, but the last major change I made to an article was over a year ago when I rebuilt a sentence that had been partially rewritten.
I should not be an Autoreviewer and I apologize for the damage that may have been done by my erroneous designation as one. JimCubb (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive and conscientious attitude. First, please be aware that you have done absolutely nothing wrong. No "damage" has been done. Only pages created by users with the autoreviewer right will be automatically marked as patrolled. As you have not created any articles, this has never happened. It does no harm that you have the right (as long you don't go "rogue" and start creating inappropriate pages). My note was not in any way meant as a criticism of you or the other user whom I mentioned. I was merely pointing out that the administrator granted the right to people who did not qualify for it, did not need it, and, as it turns out, did not even realize what it meant. Agolib (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not take it as a criticism of me at all. However, since the "next" article I create will also be the first article I create and will be filled with errors, the permission should be removed. JimCubb (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed per your request. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot to find article creators[edit]

This was also discussed in March 2010 at Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports/Archive_3#Candidates_for_Autoreview_privileges - but that seems to have been a false start.

I've appointed a few autoreviewers recently after seeing their unpatrolled articles at Special:Newpages. I suspect there are a lot of article creators out there who have never been considered for autoreviewer and are unaware of the process. What do people think of the idea of getting a bot to produce a prospect list of authors who are:

  1. neither admins nor autoreviewers
  2. have created over 75 articles other than redirects
  3. have not been blocked in the last 12 months
  4. are currently sufficiently active to have created an article in the last month?

I suspect a high proportion of such editors would qualify for autoreviewer, but if they never submit more than one article in the same day they could be editing for years before anyone considers them for autoreviewer. - I'd happily review some of these prospects if we had such a list. ϢereSpielChequers 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a great idea (though I've no experience at all with autoreviewer granting). The only possible snag I can foresee is people stumbling across their name on its output and getting annoyed - "Your bot said I was good enough for autoreviewer; why didn't I get it?". I doubt it'd be a major problem though.
I'd also be very happy to write the bot if there's a consensus for it / no-one objects. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, its the coding/running of this that I need, I'd be happy to assess the resulting list and appoint a bunch of autoreviewers. However like you I'm not sure what the norms are with producing such lists of usernames. wp:EDITS gives users the option to opt out, and I know of two editors who choose not to be autoreviewers - so a stop list might be in order. But I'm a little uncertain about the privacy aspects of doing this in bulk, this might well be the focus of the bot approval process. ϢereSpielChequers 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually proposed something very similar a little while ago. The result was this list, which I refer to as the magical list of magic. That's where I've been pulling my names from. It's not entirely perfect, so I've been working with User:MZMcBride to try to make it work perfectly. The relevant discussion is here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting but the first one I looked at hadn't edited since June 2009. So at the least we need a fresh report or to add the proposed "created an article in the last month" criteria into the query. ϢereSpielChequers 16:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and started in on this task. Several of us have gone through the old list of 1000 and granted permissions here. We are now working on a new list of 2000 and will probably be finished in a week or so. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC).

Requirement question[edit]

Do the pages created have to be articles or can they be talk pages or files? Even if talk pages and files count I still don't think I'm qualified yet. I also don't know how to check how many pages total that I've created. Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sumsum. This is about articles, your total is, 18 of this date. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Might be a while=) Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio problems = no autoreview permission?[edit]

I recently nominated User:Cohee for the autoreview privilege. The following discussion ensued, with WereSpielChequers correctly pointing out that the discussion was better suited for this page. Here it is:

Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with WereSpielChequers. If the user can't be trusted with one policy why trust them with another? Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 03:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Autoreviewer to Autopatroller[edit]

I proposed this here. Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Article creation only?[edit]

WP:RFP/A criteria appears to be for new article creation only. That's not stated in this article anywhere, though suggested by "A suggested requirement is 75 valid articles." Reading through WP:NPP, it appears that the majority of the concern is on new article (mainspace) creation. I'll go ahead and revise this article accordingly if no one corrects me. --Ronz (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes[edit]

Whether it makes sense to require such a large number of previously created articles is being discussed at WP:VPP#Autopatrolled - reduce number of qualifying articles. You are invited to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the VPP discussion has agreed that 75 is far too high. Recommended levels of previously created articles ranged from 10 (yes, ten) to 25 articles. I have changed it to a suggested level of 50, and I expect it to decline further over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled traits[edit]

Following discussions on my talk page with another editor, it was suggested that I propose this here -- kind of a guide to the traits that should raise red flags when granting autopatrolled permission. I think the important point is to focus less on the number of articles and more on the quality of articles. For example, someone with 10 FAs but nothing else should get the permission, but anyone with 100 articles but problems listed below shouldn't. Ultimately what we're here to do is allow things through the gate that don't have any problems that NPPers are there to pick up. Thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What NPPers look for (in order of seriousness) Traits that should exclude an editor from the permission Where an admin can look to see if an editor has those traits
Copyright violations Any recent history of creating articles with copyright violations Spot checking recent article creations (this tool can help), talk page copyright notices, and block log.
Unreferenced or poorly sourced BLPs, or attack pages Any recent history of creating unreferenced or poorly sourced BLPs, or attack pages Spot checking recent article creations, talk page notices, and block log.
Unreferenced or poorly sourced articles Any recent history of creating unreferenced or poorly sourced articles Spot checking recent article creations. Talk page notices.
Articles that fail inclusion guidelines Any recent articles that have been deleted via the deletion process Spot checking deleted contributions and user talk page deletion notices
Articles that promote an entity or product or that overly rely on sources no independent of the product or entity Any recent history of creating such articles Spot checking recent article creations
Articles that are substantially below acceptable wikification standards Any recent history of creating such articles Spot checking recent article creations to see if they have been tagged by NPPers
I would like to see the above list expanded and added to a new "reviewing" section WP:AUTOREV. New Admins have experience in different areas and what seems like common knowledge to one Admin might not be so common to another. So freely sharing this information can only be helpful, IMO. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 13:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the Copyright Violation Detector tool at the toolserver. This could be added to the table above. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Checking the block log is also something one should be expected to do; anyone who has been blocked for BLP/copyright/etc. issue, even on an already existing article, can be reasonably expected to have similar issues when it comes to creating new articles. NW (Talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added both of those in, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Automating submissions for autopatrol right[edit]

I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. I'm leaving a note here for anybody that might be interested in commenting. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent change in number of articles created[edit]

Hi there everyone! Can anyone tell me why the minimum number of articles to get the permission granted has been recently increased from 40 to 50? Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have 3 reasons for it:
1ST; More experince is always better and it isnt a problem cuz if a editor can make 40 notable articles, then they can surely make 10 more to get.
2ND; And also 50 sounds better then 40 as its half of century.
3RD; As wikipedia has covered almost all major notable topics, it is important that a little more effort should be made to increase editorial standards.
I hope that it was little helpful answer! Yasht101 06:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Miss use[edit]

Is there somewhere to report if you are concerned about articles someone is creating who has this right.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Use wp:ani.--Deathlaser :  Chat  17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Number of articles[edit]

Hi, everyone. I noticed that in order to be given this right, it is recommended that you have created 50 sourced articles. This does not seem like a good standard, because if you have let's say 25 GAs/FAs, you are obviously better qualified/trusted to receive the user right, than someone with 50 one-source stubs. I'm just posting to see if anyone else feels that way. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

also the question of mass non-article creations has been raised at the last entry there where the user feels the need to reduce the burden on the patrollers but is not creating articles. I personally would see no harm in given the right in that instance. The question is would it benefit? Agathoclea (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Somebody who has created 50 one sourced stubs on clearly notable subjects may have grasped our notability criteria better than someone who has created 25 GAs on barely notable subjects and had 15 articles deleted as non-notable. FA and GA are about the quality of an article. Autopatroller is for people who give a valid start to lots of articles, the two may not overlap well. I suspect that fifty is a ridiculously high bar and that most article creators would be ready for the flag long before. However every time I've looked we have had a huge backlog of experienced article creators who we could appoint as Autopatrollers, so the 50 threshold at least controls the number of editors who self nominate for the flag. ϢereSpielChequers 10:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I Agree with TRLIJC19.. I personally think criteria should not be just 50 articles but the live article edits also should also be considered. Say if 4000 to 5000 edits are put to criteria, editors would also tend to develop articles they created rather than just creating and leaving it. I think genreral tendency to create and leave can be avoided upto certain extent. KAS(talk) 12:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason to change the current recommendation. As one the most regular admins at WP:PERM for the past couple of years, where a certain amount of admin discretion is allowed, I would certainly accord Autopatrolled to an editor who has created, say, 25 medium sized articles, perfectly formatted and sourced, and who has no issues raised on their talk page, while I would often decline some applicants who have even created over 100 articles if they are mainly stubs, redirects, and dab pages, and/or some are still tagged for attention. Note that I take the time to review every single creation, or at least until I come to the firm conclusion that I will decline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I know admin's would review correctly, But I was also talking about the things that could be avoided like create and leave tendency upto a certain extent, if the edit counts are also put into consideration.. KAS(talk) 08:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer bar[edit]

No longer see the reviewer bar to mark new pages as reviewed. Tried on three different computers using Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. Any ideas? Mkdwtalk 08:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Including AFC acceptance[edit]


No consensus to implement this change. (non-admin closure){{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello I would like to open a discussion on the limits to being granted the Autopratolled user right. I would like to see if there would be enough support to change the requirements to not only include new articles created by the user in question, but also AFC submissions which have accepted by the user as the same. I understand the purpose of the article limit is to ensure the applicant has a stable understanding of inclusion policies, which many AFC reviewers will also have. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean counting accepted AfC submissions as articles created or requiring both accepted AfC submissions and articles created? Pathore (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I mean to lower the bar a little, by counting Accepting AFC submission and moving them to the Main article space as equivalent to creating an article yourself for the purpose of this user right. As both must demonstrate understanding of Wikipedia policies. With the bar lower, this could possibly allow for this user right to be used for other purposes such as allowing autopatrollers to override salted articles. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why? Moving AfC doesn't increase the backlog; there's no reason to count that for autopatrolled. See also WP:HATSHOP. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what your reference to WP:HATSHOP has to do with anything here, unless you are accusing me of this. Even if this came to be, would I not want nor qualify for the user right. I am not a new user, and have simply asked this question here to try and help improve Wikipedia and instead of providing helpful feedback on the question at hand you talk about the AFC backlog which I didn't even refer to and make passive accusations on my motives.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait—what?! Just clicking "Accept" on someone else's AfC submission counting the same as actually writing an article yourself? And then allowing anyone who has accepted enough AfCs (even though providing this kind of perverse incentive will reduce the quality of accepted AfCs) to create pages with names that have been salted? That's a very bad idea. Pathore (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a RFC going on to require AFC reviewers to be accepted by Admins prior to being able to use the AFC script. Obviously there would have to be some checks and balances just like any other user right, an admin has to approve it. The guidelines for any user right are just that a guideline and user rights can be revoked without warning if the user using them is being abusive or irresponsible with them. The salted article was one idea I thought this user right could also be helpful towards, amongst some other potential good uses as the user with this right should have a very good understanding of how Wikipedia articles should be. I do understand your concerns and thank you for your input.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.