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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who are given the rollback flag Steve miracle (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago (can you believe 2015 was SEVEN whole years ago!?), the topic was raised by IJBall to possibly lower the number of articles "required/suggested" to have been created by an editor prior to said editor being considered for the Autopatrolled permission. This editor suggested then that the number (75!!) was perhaps too high, and that even 50 was too high. The number that ultimately was implemented as 25.

Several things have changed over those seven years, one of them being the near abolition of the "stub" article from being approved in my estimation. Most "stubs" as we know them now, were created in an age long ago, when creating articles required less review and many were made even prior, with no review (as I understand it). Thus, for an editor to make 25 articles, it really was not the herculean task that it might be today. This is not a bad thing. In fact, this shows that the quality of articles has quite likely improved dramatically. I do not want to create a formal RfC here and now, as that can cause stress and anxiety that I do not intend to create on this random Friday. That said, I do think we need to re-think the number, and I personally would propose something in the range or 5–10. That might seem very low, but the quality of the articles is far more important now than the quantity, certainly more so than ever before. If we were to go with 10, I still think that might be on the higher end these days, but if they are 10 quality articles, and that were to be the number that the community agreed upon, then I would see this as a "win." Moreover, just as @IJBall: stated back in 2015 over 7 years ago, Though I'll add that I think "Autopatrolled" rights should still be granted at the granting Admins discretion, regardless of the actual number of articles authored, to preventing "gaming" of the system... I agree with that sentiment too.

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Especially those involved in the conversation those seven years ago, IJBall, WhatamIdoing (who presciently said back in 2015 actually, "I would be perfectly happy to see it changed to 25 or 30 — and if we notice next year that 25 is causing no harm, then I'd be willing to see it dropped to 20, or maybe even lower."), and others involved in the conversation previously listed here. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 01:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Registered editors who have made 10 edits (not articles, just edits) can still create articles directly in the mainspace, with no pre-creation review. Back then, registered editors did not need to make 10 edits first.

I don't know what proportion of (non-redirect/non-dab) articles are being created that way these days. Is it your feeling that they're mostly going through AFC/draftspace, and then additionally being reviewed by NPP after they reach the mainspace? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I certainly do. I only ever use the draftspace first. Thanks WhatamIdoing for your comment. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 11:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a little off-topic, @Th78blue, but why do you do that? When experienced editors (and you definitely count) do that, it usually just creates some needless work for the AFC folks, while getting no real benefit for the article. Draftspace is where articles go to die. Even the people who originally proposed it said that it doesn't work, because articles in the draftspace get fewer edits and fewer improvements from other editors than articles in the mainspace. Maybe what we need is to send a message around to anyone with, say, 5K edits and five successful article creations to tell them to leave AFC to the newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you very much for saying this. I really did not know any other way, I always just publish as a draft and go from there. That is why perhaps I have had some articles in there for a long while waiting to go public, but also I figured it was a method to ensure the highest possible quality before going to main space. I like the idea of going straight to main space, but frankly, I would need to see how I even do that. I thought that that was only possible if you have the auto-patrolled right. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: Just put the title of the article you want to create in to the address bar, search for it, or click on any red link, and start writing. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can make red links in User:Th78blue/sandbox, in case you need a new link to click on. A lot of people write a paragraph or two in their sandboxes first, and then copy and paste the relevant part of their sandbox to the new page. That resolves the problem of someone noticing an "incomplete" article a few seconds after it was created, and thinking that it was a problem instead of something you're actively working on. CSD says to give editors a chance to write the article, but sometimes we forget, and you can end up with a lot of edit conflicts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, I've had a go at re-writing WP:Autopatrolled#Function. It now specifies that editors without the right can create articles directly in the main namespace. I wonder if that makes it clearer? It still leaves us the problem of figuring out how to tell experienced editors that they can do this, before they get to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Th78blue, I don't think this is a common misunderstanding. – Joe (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched the requests page for years now, but back in the day, we received requests that indicated people thought that the right would make it easier to create articles, or that it would give them access to a tool for automating the patrolling process.

This specific problem (people not knowing how to create a page outside of the Wikipedia:Article wizard) is probably a result of how we've re-written the documentation as a result of WP:ACTRIAL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I for one, and maybe I am alone, find the new article creation process to be intimidating and daunting, but I know that that is somewhat by design and part of how we ensure quality. I was of the thinking that we must make drafts (or that at least that was the prudent thing to do, if not required). Here is a draft for example that I feel is ready for the mainspace, it was reviewed and declined once as a draft, but then I made changes and now it has been waiting for a month or so for re-review... Any idea how I would just push this directly to mainspace then? I like to start in draft, and then if there is a way to self-push it to the main space, I'd gladly do that... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I see now. It is really rather simple. That said, I had no idea you could do that. I was under the impression you HAD to do a draft first, or at the very least, that it was an exceptionally good idea, and that it wasn't for newer editors to bother going looking for other ways to create articles... Thank you very much WhatamIdoing and Joe Roe. I do think you are wrong about thinking this is not a "...common misunderstanding", but then again that is only speaking from my own anecdotal experience, and like you, I am a data person. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once I have created a draft, can I instead forgo that process and take all the content that I worked on in the draft and just take that directly to the main space? I would only do that when I feel the articles are of sufficient quality, notability, and have sufficient RS'es etc, but I have made a few drafts that are simply stalled based on this process, that I'd like to push to the main space. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can move a draft to mainspace at any time. – Joe (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue, I suspect that your experience is pretty common among newer editors. Joe and I have been editing for more than 15 years. It was an incredibly different system back then, and even a different attitude towards new editors and new content. So we've picked things up as we went along, mostly through trial and error or hearing other editors talk about what they did. The newer systems are helpful when you're getting started, but we don't have a system for telling people that they're not stuck in training wheels forever.

To get your existing pages out of draftspace, follow the directions at WP:MOVE. Remove all the unnecessary AFC stuff and add the content categories. It'll then go through NPP, which shouldn't be a problem for any article that has more than a handful of refs and no serious problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much WhatamIdoing. You're one of the most helpful editors I've ever come across. And thanks Joe too. The newer systems are helpful when you're getting started, but we don't have a system for telling people that they're not stuck in training wheels forever. Such true words those were by the way... I think more people could benefit from hearing that! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 90.167.87.146 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very strongly opposed to this. As one of the admins most active in reviewing requests at WP:PERM/A, I already find it difficult to be confident about whether a user should be autopatrolled based on a sample of just 25 articles – which, as evidenced by the steady stream of users we have requesting autopatrolled two or three months after registering, is not a "herculean" task at all. You could easily create 5-10 articles in a matter of weeks, and I don't see how we could possibly be expected to make an assessment of an editor's long-term trustworthiness and editing competence based on that alone. Quite frankly the previous reductions to the minimum number of articles—made in good faith I'm sure, but with only superficial discussion—has turned autopatrolled a gaping hole in our firewall against spam and low-quality articles. We need to be looking at tightening the criteria, not loosening them. – Joe (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this as well. I review many of the applications and I've certainly signed off on editors with fewer than 25 articles, but many (about half) don't make it even if they have many more than 25 under their belt. It actually requires quite a bit of experience to produce clean articles and this is what we are looking for here. I see absolutely no need to change the rules / requirements. Schwede66 07:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the articles I suppose. If they are lengthier and of higher quality, then fewer might suffice. If the opposite is true, then more. That was my thinking. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 11:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a boilerplate invitation message to notify editors that they should consider applying for autopatrol? Something along these lines?. Might be helpful to work from the top of this list to ease the NPP backlog. Schierbecker (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging User:Buidhe Schierbecker (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list going at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list. Unfortunately, a lot of candidates accepted by the automatic screening have other issues—lack of sourcing in article creations, for example—that are not encouraging for NPP. At first I tried prescreening, but that had a low uptake (1 or 2 out of 30 accepted) and was taking too much time to check everyone regardless of their interest in patrolling. So I used mass message sender privileges to automatically send it to the next 30ish people in line (ending with Yngvadottir) and trusting the admins at WP:PERM (mostly Rosguill for NPP) to do due diligence. That seemed to have better results, so maybe it's time to invite the next 30 people. (Sending to everyone at once is a bad idea since admins at PERM are pretty swamped as it is.) (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Schierbecker's idea is to systematically recruit people to be autopatrolled. I'd support that. Increasing the # of people with either autopatrolled or NPP perm would ease the NPP backlog. Each perm helps the backlog in its own way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^Yep. And it wouldn't necessarily be a mass message. I'd like to message people individually. Schierbecker (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real need to invite people to apply for autopatrolled because, unlike other PERMs, it's possible to directly request it for another editor. Preferable even, since the right is about managing the NPP workload rather than giving the actual recipient extra tools. And what Buidhe says about NPP is also true of autopatrolled: there are many people on the automatic list that don't have it for a reason. It would be unfair to invite them only to have to reject their request. So if you want to help, it's best to just look through the list and nominate people yourself. – Joe (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Joe. Schwede66 17:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, how normal is it to just nominate people without consulting them first though? I think I can recall some instances where editors did want an extra pair of eyes on their new page creations. Would it be better to beg their forgiveness than ask permission? Schierbecker (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say about a quarter of the requests at WP:PERM/A aren't self-requests and we have several people who regularly look for editors to nominate. The person you're nominating will get a ping when you make the request, but I think I've only seen someone decline it once. – Joe (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other day, I realized I'd never applied for this perm and probably qualified. I do, so I made the request, but it was declined ([1]) because I haven't made a large number of articles since last July. Fair enough - what's "frequently enough"? I don't get a sense for that from the criteria. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are a minimum suggested standard. Whether an editor who meets those criteria can be trusted with and has a need for autopatrolled is still up to individual administrators to decide. I think most admins active here would agree that there is no need for autopatrolled if you're not frequently creating articles now, regardless of past activity. There's no rule for what counts as frequently but, speaking just for myself, I usually look for 25 creations in the last year or two (so an average of 1–2 per month). @Asilvering: may have a different idea, though. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know they're a minimum suggested standard, that's why I asked for clarification and said "fair enough". Thanks for your answerr. I think you probably meant to tag someone else in that last sentence, though? -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in speccing the report for potential autopatrollers, and there we added the criteria of "has created an article in the last month" because we wanted people who are still creating articles. Previous versions of the report tended to bring up people who were no longer creating articles or even editing. I sometimes go through that report and appoint a few autopatrollers from it. I wouldn't set any minimum per year, afterall it is more useful over the next decade to appoint an Autopatroller who creates half a dozen articles a year through that decade than someone who is halfway through creating fifty articles and then is gone. I think the advantage of trawling through the report is that you can be very cautious about red flags such as copyvio, as the people who you look at and don't set as autopatroller will have no idea that you looked at their article creations and decided they weren't ready. ϢereSpielChequers 11:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for a non-autopatrolled user to put |image has rationale=yes parameter on file articles? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 05:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius. Probably. I'm not aware of any connection between the autopatrolled flag and file template editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae but per Template:Non-free poster and other similar templates, there's a note that says "To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template." So I assume that non-autopatrolled users don't have the rights even if they're the ones upload the file. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 10:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Patrollers" doesn't refer to autopatrolled. In that context it probably just means anyone checking the file namespace for copyright problems, rather than specific permissions-holders. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe alright thanks for clarifying it. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 16:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius, this user right has always had a confusing name. This is the "person who writes a lot of good articles and we don't want to have their new article flagged for the Wikipedia:New pages patrol to review" right. They are "automatically exempted from patrol" – thus "autopatrolled". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to give a quick heads up about a software change that should be deployed today. Starting today, autopatrolled users without the NPR userright will be able to mark their pages as unreviewed using a link on the sidebar. A motivation behind this change is to give auto-patrolled users the ability to mark specific pages where they might be unsure of the topic area. Further information regarding this change can be found at T351954.

Also, given this, would it be okay to add a line or two to the guidelines encouraging the use of this feature (as part of the description of the autopatrolled process) ? Sohom (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]