Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autopatrolled page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

2015 to 2022

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. Schwede 66 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]

PSA: Autopatrolled users will gain the ability to unreview their own pages

A example of how the unpatrol link will look like to users

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]

This is a great change I've been wanting for years! Perhaps we could say something like, "Autopatrolled users may mark their own pages as unreviewed. Use cases for this include where most of the page's content was written by someone else who is not autopatrolled, where the user has a conflict of interest, or where the user is unfamiliar with the topic area or otherwise thinks the page would benefit from outside review." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical backlogs

So, currently request for permissions/autopatrolled is backlogged, but only technically. There are two people that admins seem to be avoiding accepting or declining giving an answer to. If I were in their shoes, there'd be a certain point where I'd start to care more about receiving an answer and less about actually getting autopatrolled. This is particularly true if I were seeing other people getting a request later than I, but receiving an answer sooner.

So, the question is, which admin will volunteer to as tribute to be bugged about this sort of situation? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § Template:AUTOPATRightPlace

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § Template:AUTOPATRightPlace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. Looks like this was re-added to this page, despite closing as delete at TFD. I am against its inclusion here for the reasons stated at TFD (newbies probably rarely visit this page so I don't think we need to give them a complicated flowchart of what other pages to visit). –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "clean articles"

I declined autopatrolled for User:Yummifruitbat (YFB) the other day. Evidently, they weren't happy with my review. You can see the archived review and a lengthy post on my talk page. From the latter, I think there is a valid point raised by YFB that it's unclear what we mean by clean articles on the project page. Autopatrolled is there to lessen the workload of new page patrollers. At Wikipedia:New pages patrol, it says in the lead paragraph that pages that pass new pages patrol don't have to be perfect, just not entirely unsuitable for inclusion.

I've been reviewing for the autopatrolled flag for quite some time, and I believe that Joe Roe and I apply very similar thresholds for granting the right. I'm not sure whether every admin working in this area applies the same high standard as we do. Maybe that's partially because "clean articles" isn't defined anywhere. Maybe we should spell out what we mean by that.

If others agree with my "high standard", or whatever you want to call it, the related question is that there is a gap between "clean articles" and what the minimum standard is for NPPers to be able to sign off on. So apart from providing the (missing) definition, we could usefully point out that autopatrolled assumes a higher standard than what works for NPP.

I'd value your thoughts. Also, if you take the time and read both the decline and the message on my talk page in their entirety, would you please comment whether you think it's necessary to provide a further response to the talk page message? Schwede 66 07:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Schwede66 for responding on your talk page and following up here. For what it's worth, I'm not really looking for anything further on the talk page - you've obviously contemplated what I said there which is all I asked, albeit at length ;). I've tried to avoid the issues you pointed out on the stubs I've created since our discussion and I'd welcome your feedback on whether I've done OK.

Clarifying the expectations for autopatrolled would be welcome. Noting that NPP continues to be severely backlogged (over 10k items as of today, up 1k this week according to the on-page stats) I guess it bears asking whether it's actually helpful to have a significantly higher standard for autopatrolled than for NPP? Doesn't that just reduce the effectiveness of autopatrolled for its main purpose? YFB ¿ 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For TL;DR purposes - key differences between NPP and the tacit autopatrolled 'clean article' criteria seem to include adequate categorisation; not being orphaned (even temporarily); correct use of DEFAULTSORT and authority control; freedom from MOS issues (although I'm not very clear which MOS issues matter); and possibly non-stubbiness. YFB ¿ 14:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The de facto standard I've noticed is around 25 article creations in the last year, with article quality higher than that of NPP (i.e. no maintenance tags, perfect defaultsort, etc.) I'm not sure the standard should be quite that high, but that does appear to be the standard, so I'd be fine with documenting that in more detail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally interpret "clean" as meaning "going through NPP won't result in significant changes", which I try to approach empirically: if the creator's (recent) creations are being marked as reviewed without being deleted, draftified, tagged for significant issues (I exclude minor/cosmetic things here), or significantly improved by NPPers, then it seems to be that they are already in a sense being 'auto-patrolled' and we can safely make it truly automatic. Obviously there are complicating factors like not all NPPers reviewing differently and a cost/benefit question depending on the number of creations, but that's where admin judgement comes in.

Perhaps part of the issue here is that while things like orphaned articles, lack of categorisation, and gnomish tagging in general used to be something NPP concerned it with, a few years ago Novem marked them as optional (a regrettable but necessary step, IMO) and since then they've fallen by the wayside. So I've also started to pay less attention to that kind of thing with autopatrolled – if NPP aren't doing anything about e.g. lack of DEFAULTSORT anyway, it makes no difference whether the user is autopatrolled or not. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]