Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#rfc 162412D

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)

:{{Done}}. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg 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)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Autopatrolled&diff=prev&oldid=1253148155 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)

I declined autopatrolled for User:Yummifruitbat (YFB) the other day. Evidently, they weren't happy with my review. You can see {{diff2|1252313682#User:Yummifruitbat|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 {{tq|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 {{tq|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 {{u|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? Schwede66 07:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

: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)

: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)

: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)

: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol&diff=prev&oldid=1089547104 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)

Hey there, I am a new editor, who came to know about this group of editors. I read the whole page, and I would like to know that how long should I wait, creating more than atleast 25 articles so that I would be eligible to become an autopatrolled? Ramencolls (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:The criteria for granting the Autopatrolled right are given at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled#Obtaining the right, and are judged by any administrator reviewing the request. Please note that whether or not you have the Autopatrolled right will not have any effect on the rate at which you may create new articles. The point of the Autopatrolled rate is to reduce the workload of new page patrollers by exempting from review new pages created by prolific editors who have established a record of creating good articles that comply with relevant policies and guidelines. Please concentrate on improving the encyclopedia, including by adding content supported by reliable sources, and avoid editcountitis. Donald Albury 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Will do it. Ramencolls (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Notified: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all – I am thinking of proposing some sort of activity requirement for autopatrolled. I don't think we need to get fancy; I think the basic "no edits in a year" which works for most permissions (e.g. WP:NPRREVOKE, WP:PMREVOKE, WP:NPRREVOKE, and even for admins).

Per Wikipedia:Request a query#Inactive autopatrolled users, a good deal of autopatrollers have no edits in the past year (~1639 out of ~4870). As for the practical reasons why I think this would be a good change: I think that anyone who has taken a break from Wikipedia would benefit from having a second pair of eyes on their new articles. Notability standards evolve over time, and everyone's skills get "rusty" after time away. It's not like this will massively increase the NPP backlog; they are already completely inactive.

Thoughts? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think that notability standards evolve much from one year to the next, and some people's skills improve after time away (e.g., because of real-world educational or professional opportunities, some of which leave little or no time for Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::In a given 365 day period, no. But over time, absolutely. Off the top of my head WP:NSPORTS2022 radically changed what is acceptable in the sports world, WP:NSPECIES is a new SNG, and WP:LUGSTUBS/WP:LUGSTUBS2 found rough consensus to mass-draftify articles because they were subpar. If their article creations have improved after time away, they can be regranted the perm. But I doubt this is a majority of cases, because you frequently have to un-learn what you are taught in the professional world. WP:NOR (especially WP:SNYTH), WP:PEACOCK, and summary style are all not applicable in most educational/professional settings. It is good for people who haven't spent time writing for Wikipedia to have a second set of eyes look at their work. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::WhatamIdoing, I wholly support this proposal. Notability standards and criteria are constantly in flux. I have been closely involved in NPP since at least 2009 and before its talk page was transformed from a talk page of a {{tq|'little group does not own new page patrolling. This is nothing more than an unlabeled WikiProject: a group of editors who happen to like working on something and happen to want a place to talk about it'}} to an official, major process in 2016 and I'm still patrolling when I have time. Over the years I have taken a couple of short Wikibreaks and I can attest to the fact that every time I returned to duty, some significant changes had been made and even with my profound knowledge of the PAGs I had to do some catching up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes please. I've had to deal several times with low-activity autopatrolled editors creating seriously problematic articles, and even all of them would have easily exceeded this threshold...by the time you're below an edit a year, I think the normal review process would pretty clearly be a net positive. (If that's too controversial, a three- or five-year threshold would also do the trick.) If people are concerned about the NPP backlog, an easy solution would be to have a bot or database report flag recently returned editors so that the right can be restored if their new articles look good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hm. But if they'd all have exceeded the threshold, I'm not sure this suggestion is going to solve any actual problems. What might make more sense is something like never granting AP permanently, but for x years at a time? That would at least limit the chaos caused by longtime but out-of-touch AP editors. -- asilvering (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We talked about that when temporary grants first became possible and the general feeling seemed to be that it wasn't worth the hassle, though I still think it's a good idea (having suggested it). – Joe (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd probably oppose this since NPP is currently having a backlog crisis. I think strategically we need to find ways to increase the # of autopatrollers, not decrease them. Little things like revoking autopatrol from admins or imposing inactivity requirements increases the NPP backlog by 2% here and 2% there and it adds up. Of course, this doesn't mean that anyone is exempt from maintaining autopatrol's standards. It just means that we should only revoke autopatrol from problematic users, instead of an entire category of autopatrollers (most of whom will be completely innocent). –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Three disjoint responses to that: Revoking autopatrolled from these editors won't affect NPP either way until and unless they come back and starting making articles again, and if they do, they can get it back. Losing the group semi-automatically due to a specific, bright-line rule is always going to sting less than having someone manually look at your work and deciding "No, that isn't good enough." And NPP's had a backlog crisis more or less continuously since before I registered. —Cryptic 22:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|unless they come back and starting making articles again}}. Yeap, that's the idea of letting them keep their autopatrolled (or any perm) despite inactivity. A subset of this group will become active again, and will write high quality articles again that do not need patrolling. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|A subset of this group will become active again, and will write high quality articles again that do not need patrolling}} And a subset will come back and write articles which would have benefitted from patrolling. Do we have any way of evaluating how many there are of each group? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I suspect the two main groups are "currently inactive" and "returned from inactivity and cause no problems". This third group you're talking about, "returned from inactivity and caused problems", is probably extremely tiny, and would require digging through WP:ANI and Special:Log to find examples of. I don't see a single diff of a problematic autopatroller back from break in this conversation so far. So far everything is a hypothetical "I feel like this group could benefit from more patrolling". –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the concern is that they may come back and contribute based on outdated and now-wrong content policies. I have no idea how coming that is, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:This doesn't work as an alternative suggestion because it misses page creations from redirects, but the stats are maybe interesting. quarry:query/92582 shows autopatrolled users who haven't created a page in the last 365 days (2478 out of 4875; 1181 of those haven't had a page creation since the creation log started in June 2018). quarry:query/92583 limits that further to page creations directly in mainspace (2808/4875; 1401 with no mainspace creations since at least June 2018). —Cryptic 22:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Cryptic, I think what we need here is a query that starts with currently autopatrolled editors, figures out which ones have had a >365-day-long gap in editing (maybe during the last 10 years; this page is only ~15 years old), and who created articles after that gap. For example, starting at the top of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=autoreviewer Special:ListUsers] the first account, {{noping|'zin is short for Tamzin}}, had a 14-month gap in editing, but the next, {{noping|001Jrm}}, did not; they've just stopped editing. Someone who's just stopped editing without returning is not useful for determining whether the articles they created after a >12-month gap are worse than the ones before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Note that the first account is an alt of someone whose main account was not inactive for those 14 months; presumably these kinds of accounts should also be excluded. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, but that's difficult to do programmatically. Similarly, that account has only created redirects in the mainspace, so it wouldn't be useful for checking whether their post-gap article creations are as good as their pre-gap article creations. But if we can get a list, we can screen out those situations individually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::quarry:query/93116, sort of. —Cryptic 12:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I see "Query status: failed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's strange. That's an internal Quarry error, and it gave me proper results this morning. I've run it again, and have saved the results locally in case it mysteriously fails after-the-fact again. —Cryptic 22:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::...which it has. User:Cryptic/query/93116. —Cryptic 23:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I got the page loaded before it disappeared the second time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::So 1,580 gaps, but about half that many editors, and some of these gaps would have pre-dated the acquisition of the autopatrolled user right.

::::::Taking the first ten names as a sample, I find:

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2011; had a gap beginning in 2017; created one article in 2020, but it was a Cut and paste move of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_McIntyre&action=history article the user had created in 2006].

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2009; had a gap beginning in 2018; created no articles since then.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2010; had a gap beginning in 2012; created no articles since then. Blocked as sock.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2010; gap predates this.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2016; gap beginning in 2021 was actually 11.5 months (false positive); created no articles since then.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2010; had a gap beginning in 2014; created no articles since then.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2021; gap predates this.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2025; gap predates this.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2009; had two gaps, beginning in 2010 and 2014-09; created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=AMAPO&namespace=0&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=2010-01-01&end=2014-09-01&limit=250 many articles after the first gap] and two articles after the second gap: KXNU-LD and Teleritmo.

::::::* Granted autopatrolled in 2009; had a gap beginning in late 2010; created three articles since then: Lot Flannery, The Veiled Nun, and Pillar of Fire (sculpture).

::::::The query is only approximate, because we've got to be realistic about what Quarry can handle. But what we've got from this n=10 sample is:

::::::* Four folks to whom this wouldn't apply (because their gap predates getting autopatrolled and/or wasn't quite long enough).

::::::* Four folks who have created no new articles since their gap. They provide no evidence for or against allegedly declining skills, but having the bit makes no difference – unless removing it causes them to feel social rejection and thus stop editing entirely, which is something that we know happens.

::::::* Two editors who have created post-gap articles, which all appear to have the kind of ordinary quality one expects from an experienced editor (even if a fraction of the community would prefer to see a much higher standard for everyone, or if someone thinks that WP:ITSA television station is a bad reason to have an article, etc.).

::::::@HouseBlaster, I think this suggests that the metric you've suggested above isn't the right one. Maybe a non-retroactive model based on WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022, which has a standard of "at least 100 edits over a 5 year period" would be more pointful (and easier, because someone's already written that code). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is a good idea, though perhaps not exactly a high priority. I don't think people getting 'rusty' is a compelling reason, but the security risk posed by inactive autopatrolled account is – we have seen UPE outfits specifically try to buy/hack them in the past. For that reason, and to address NL's point about the NPP backlog, I'd suggest we make it so that anyone who loses the right for inactivity can request it back no-questions-asked. Also make sure to put something to that effect in the message we send to them and generate a report of 'returning users that used to be autopatrolled' for admins to monitor.

:And surely it would make more sense to link the threshold to when the last article was created, not the last edit? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• At a bare minimum, we could at least remove it from people who haven't edited in 3-5 years. Those who return typically do not write articles as well as they did at the time they were granted the permissions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :^ This – we can debate the exact threshold, but if you argue against any limit whatsoever, you eventually get the absurd argument that someone who hasn't edited in ten or fifteen years is still to be trusted with full knowledge of all notability and content guidelines. I also agree with Joe that we should consider the security risk – we just had 36,000 accounts compromised at once, this isn't some invented boogeyman. Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Can anyone provide any (single) example of {{xt|Those who return typically do not write articles as well as they did at the time they were granted the permissions}}? A simple link to an article or an AFD would be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::No one is likely to ruffle an Autopatroller's feathers by tagging or sending their article to AfD and inviting indignant response. The articles are not so poor as to create a fuss over but they are not the kind of quality one would expect from an Autopatroller. If you were to spend a moment patrolling from the 'Were created by:Autopatrolled users' you'll soon find plenty of examples. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Okay, I've looked. The five most recent were:
• ::::* Jing Cao by David Eppstein, who was granted autopatrolled in 2021 and who has not had a 12-month gap (and therefore could not return from any gap) since then;
• ::::* List of mayors of Pawtucket, Rhode Island by User:M2545, who was granted autopatrolled in 2009 and who has not had a 12-month gap (and therefore could not return from any gap) since then;
• ::::* After Bach II by EddieHugh, who was granted autopatrolled in 2015 and who has not had a 12-month gap (and therefore could not return from any gap) since then;
• ::::* Belehede massacre by Jebiguess, who was granted autopatrolled in 2024 and who has not had a 12-month gap (and therefore could not return from any gap) since then; and
• ::::* 1969 Boston Marathon by Dmoore5556, who was granted autopatrolled in 2019 and who has not had a 12-month gap (and therefore could not return from any gap) since then.
• ::::None of these are relevant to the proposal here.
• ::::Again: This proposal is making an evidence-free factual assertion that this very narrow set of circumstances:
• ::::# Get autopatrolled, and also later
• ::::# Have a ≥12-month gap in editing, and also later
• ::::# Return to article creation (not just ordinary editing) after that year-long gap, and also
• ::::# Currently hold autopatrolled.
• ::::results in problematic article creations.
• ::::So far, we have identified two (2) autopatrolled editors that match all four of these criteria. Since there are almost 5,000 people with autopatrolled, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that somewhere around 150 editors (3% of current rights holders) meet all four criteria.
• ::::Should we remove the user right from that 3%? I'm doubtful. We've only found two editors who fall into that 3%, and exactly zero (0) whose post-gap article creation is problematic.
• ::::In other words, so far as any actual evidence has been found, rather than evidence-free handwaving about "If you were to spend a moment patrolling", the proposal to revoke autopatrolled on the basis of those four criteria does not appear to have a sound factual basis.
• ::::Your response here is basically irrelevant. The set of circumstances for this proposal is not "anyone who has autopatrolled right now and whose articles do not impress Kudpung". The set of circumstances here is very specific and objective. If you know of a problematic article created by someone who matches the four criteria for this proposal, then please share that information. I'm not interested in spending hours in Special:NewPagesFeed on the off chance that someone who falls into that 3% group will have created an article today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::One of the ten people in your random sample above is {{noping|1BlueBerry}}, who became autopatrolled in 2010, went inactive for seven years, was compromised, and started spitted out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=116237487 spammy] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=116236315 articles]. That's exactly the sort of thing this proposal would address! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::A compromised account isn't evidence that people who take a break for more than a year lose touch with our notability standards.
• ::::::The possibility of dormant accounts getting compromised is a good reason to remove all advanced (or at least all scrutiny-reducing) permissions from all dormant accounts, but that's not specific to this, and that's not the motivation given above.
• ::::::A quick glance at the list of people with autopatrolled suggests that 1–2% of the accounts have been indeffed. Not keeping long-inactive blocked editors in the list also seems reasonable to me, since they can't use the privs, and keeping their names in the list produces a slightly less accurate understanding of who actually has the privs. But again, that's not the stated motivation above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I'm not sure why the motivation matters, and I note that we do revoke all other comparable permissions after a year, as mentioned above. But I'm happy to dig through the logs and find other examples: {{noping|Tonton Bernardo}} (autopatrolled in 2013, took a multi-year break, returned to create hundreds of unsourced or poorly sourced articles, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Tonton_Bernardo eventually blocked]); {{noping|Al Lemos}} (autopatrolled in 2012, inactive for six years, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al_Lemos&diff=prev&oldid=1226331603 created articles with BLP problems] that eventually [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al_Lemos&diff=prev&oldid=1226493756 required a temporary block]); {{noping|Ksherin}} (autopatrolled in 2011, inactive for multiple year-plus stretches, autopatrolled had to be revoked due to the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=132235140 creation of poorly sourced BLP violating article]", subsequent creation also deleted); {{noping|Bigmaninthebox}} (autopatrolled in 2010, inactive for six years, autopatrolled subsequently had to be revoked with a note about "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=130933441 extended inactivity followed by inappropriate page creations"]). These aren't current autopatrollers; I obviously don't have a list of current autopatrollers causing problems (since when I learn of them, I revoke the right). But I think these examples illustrate the point well enough. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Thank you! That looks like evidence that we should revoke the permission "from people who haven't edited in 3-5 years", as Josh suggested. This would not include people who are currently editing. People who are currently editing shouldn't feel like they're being attacked now for a past break.
• ::::::::(On a side note, I dislike the one-year limit, mostly because there are circumstances, such as a military deployment, in which a one-year absence is expected. I'd actually consider a 13-month limit to be a material improvement, but I'd prefer 24 months.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::It's always a trade-off: of the five people above, Tonton Bernardo was inactive less than three years and Ksherin less than two. But I'd certainly be on board with compromising at three years or so. (And yes, it definitely shouldn't apply to people who aren't currently inactive...I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise, though maybe I'm missing something.) I'm guessing people feel we need to RfC this? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I think we would need an RfC if we were going to change the policy about how long a person could hang on to autopatrolled. But I don't think there's anything preventing any single admin from revoking permissions from someone who is not using them? I'd certainly want to get some advance consensus for any kind of mass action, but I don't know if "some advance consensus" needs to be something as formal as a full RfC. Whatever we do, I think the revoke reason should say something like "feel free to re-request at WP:PERM if you return to activity" or some similar wording, rather than just "removing AP from inactive account" - imo we should try to avoid discouraging returning editors to the extent possible. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::I agree about encouraging returning editors, but I wouldn't want to make any promises. We can work on that message later, but maybe something like "if you return and are want to create a large number of new articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::With a sample size of 20 consecutive editors, a three-year limit means cutting about a quarter of the people out of the list. (A two-year limit would probably produce similar numbers; in that sample, I didn't see anyone who was ±3 months of the cutoff.) I think this is reasonable (reducing the risk of compromised accounts, clearer idea of who realistically has the right, etc.) and will be simple to implement (no need for retroactive calculations, judging individual article quality, etc.).
• ::::::::::Yes, we should probably have an RFC, even if it feels like a bit of a formality. Do you know who runs the desysopping, etc. scripts? It would be nice to have them on board.
• ::::::::::I think the RFC can be a pretty simple vote: "Autopatrolled is a user right for editors who frequently create articles. There are currently about 4,800 accounts with the autopatrolled right. We estimate that ~1,000 of these accounts have been completely inactive for years, including some compromised accounts and indef'd editors. Shall we remove this user right from all accounts that have been inactive for 3+ years?"
• ::::::::::We could have the RFC either in a new section on this talk page or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::{{tq|Do you know who runs the desysopping, etc. scripts?}} I don't believe there's a bot that takes away perms for inactivity. I think various admins check various reports every once in awhile and do it manually. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Desysopping in particular is a crat action, and there are no crat bots. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::I assume @WhatamIdoing intended to ask about the reports. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::I would expect it to be at Wikipedia:Database reports#Users but I don't see it. @Hey man im josh, I know you enforce WP:NPPREVOKE #6 sometimes. May I ask how you get your list of people to remove? Is it from an onwiki report or something else? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::When I answered this, I assumed that {{tq|Do you know who runs the desysopping, etc. scripts?}} meant desysopping scripts for lower level user groups such as NPP, page mover, edit filter manager, etc. and not administrators. Looks like other people that answered this read it as "administrators" though. I'm not sure why an administrator desysop procedure would be affected by what we're discussing here at WP:AUTOPAT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::{{outdent|0}} I've never heard the term "desysop" used to refer to anything other than revoking admin permissions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::Hey @Novem Linguae, it's a quarry run, which can be found [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/81726 here]. You can see the last edit date and time and then go from there. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::Thanks Josh. {{tq|'zbureaucrat', 'zipblock-exempt', 'zfilemover'}}. By the way your quarry query has picked up a german accent. Lol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::Xaosflux and Graham87 are the ones who make the monthly post to BN about inactive administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::We have activity requirements on several of the middle permissions, basically they are cleaned up ad-hoc when an admin feels like doing it, they don't really need a complicated reporting system. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::{{ec}} The notifications are done by User:JJMC89 bot, operated (unsurprisingly) by User:JJMC89. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::{{replyto|Novem Linguae}} The reports for this system are at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Graham87 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::I don't think this would need some sort of advanced user warning system either, it's not like you have to go through RFA to get it back, you just hop over to WP:PERM and say, hey I'm back - can I have this again - and some admin will process it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{outdent}} A database report would be trivial to write; just compile me a list of permissions and inactivity lengths.{{pb}}Also, Mediawiki's kept track of permissions that have ever been removed since mid-2011 (so that users who've had autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed revoked don't automatically get it back), so if it'd be helpful to datamine former autopatrollers, that's not any harder than with current ones. List. —Cryptic 00:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::At the moment, the criteria look like:
• :::* Currently has autopatrolled
• :::* Has made no edits (or however else you think complete inactivity is best/usually defined) for the last three years.
• :::WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Well, yes, I can see that from this discussion - I'm not quite that lazy. What I meant was all the other permissions that have simple "no activity in X amount of time" requirements, which had been expected to be at Wikipedia:Database reports#Users. —Cryptic 02:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::There are several queries out there for this (:quarry:query/18989 is one). I'm not sure why no one's ever made it a database report. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I also believe that's the minimum to aim for. As I mentioned higher up, since I became heavily involved in NPP 15 years ago I have taken a couple of short Wikibreaks and I can attest to the fact that every time I returned to duty, some significant changes had been made and even with my knowledge of PAGs I had some catching up to do. I have come across plenty of Autopatrollers who appear to abuse the system, not necessarily with nefarious intent but possibly from complacency in order to boost their creation count, or probably not even that as the created articles are mainly harmless but not of the standard expected from Autoptrollers, i.e. they need tagging for attention. In the more distant past however, I have exposed some UPE. I still occasionally check out the Were created by:Autopatrolled users filter option, not specifically looking for abusers but to monitor how effective Autopatrolled is on any given day. I find plenty of substandard articles but I do not gather the data or do anything about it - from another reviewer's point of view: {{tq|'...damned if you do; damned if you don't.'}} Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Honestly, if we just went with either 3 or 5 years, I don't think it would add much burden to the NPP system, and I think it would stop more subpar articles from going unnoticed. It's not like it wouldn't be easy to regrant autopatrolled to those who return and continue to write well. There could even be a report page that lists those who began editing/creating articles and had autopatrolled removed for inactivity. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I prefer three years. Five years is a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm returning to this discussion after noticing (while working CAT:G12) a formerly inactive 2011 autopatroller who was creating copyright violations (of the "blatant copy-and-paste" variety). It's actually an example of how a one-year rule would be preferable, but from our discussion above it sounds like people are more comfortable with three years, so I'll plan on RfCing that tomorrow unless you all have other thoughts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Let's start with three. It'll be a fairly large purge. We can always shorten the time period later. I'd rather be successful now with a three-year proposal than just miss a shorter deadline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I think a one-year cutoff is far too short in general - the 2011 autopatroller thing is more a problem of how we hand out AP indefinitely than a problem of inactivity. I'm sure they didn't know that copyvio was bad, leave for a year, and in that time forget that copyvio is bad. I still think, as apparently does @Joe Roe, that the better solution here to the overall issue is simply not to grant AP on an indefinite basis. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::To be clear, this isn't an objection to you opening the RfC on a one-time revoke of every AP editor who's been inactive for three years, @Extraordinary Writ. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Just to be clear, my plan was to propose it as a consistent standard (as in the original proposal) rather than a one-time ad hoc thing. Is that an issue? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::That's what I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749358868}}

{{rfc|prop|rfcid=162412D}}

Autopatrolled is a user right for editors who frequently create articles. Shall we remove this user right from accounts that have made no edits in the last three years? This proposal would initially affect about 1250 of the approximately 4900 autopatrollers; editors who reach the three-year inactivity mark in the future would have the right removed at that time. 04:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC), clarified 05:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This proposal would have two major benefits. Removing unused permissions reduces the risk of account compromise, which is a real concern for a permission that undisclosed paid editors find very desirable. As an example, see {{noping|1BlueBerry}} (compromised by a spammer after seven years of inactivity). And while I'm sure many returning editors haven't forgotten a thing, this proposal would also make it harder for articles that don't meet current standards to slip through unnoticed—again not a hypothetical concern, as illustrated by several examples (involving BLP violations, issues with sourcing, copyright problems, etc.) in the discussion above. This sort of inactivity requirement is the norm for comparable permissions, and it would have only a very limited impact on the NPP backlog: most of these accounts will unfortunately never become active again, and those that do can have the permission easily restored. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a good idea in terms of security/compromised accounts, and it should have no negative effects on any process. There's no good reason to leave a user right like this on an apparently abandoned account. Besides, if someone actually needs it in the future, they could just ask for it back. The first batch will be large, but the future ones should be much smaller. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The NPP backlog is high and is still trending slightly up. Initiatives like this one and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Passed%3A 7D Remove autopatrolled from default toolkit may not seem like a big deal, but chipping away at 1% of autopatrollers here and 2% of autopatrollers there adds up and increases the NPP backlog at a time when we should be trying to reduce it. These inactive autopatrollers could come back, get active, and contribute high-quality articles that do not need review. Yes, they could just re-request autopatroller at WP:PERM, but I think adding steps and friction to the process will mean that some don't re-request right away, and some don't re-request at all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who comes back after lengthy inactivity whose creations are still of sufficient quality can just be regranted the right. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. If they haven't edited in 3 years chances are they have permanently left the project and are not likely to suddenly return and create masses clean new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Sensible housekeeping. Every inactive accounts with advanced permissions left lying around is a small but unnecessary risk (we know UPE outfits, for example, specifically seek out autopatrolled accounts to compromise/buy). Since these accounts are long-term inactive, it it isn't going to affect the NPP backlog. – Joe (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense for a variety of reasons, as mentioned above. Rights expiring after inactivity makes sense on its own, it's a prompt for a returning editor to refresh on the guidelines. Security benefits as mentioned above. It would be nice if the number of rights holders also reflected active editors too, gives a better idea of its current impact. CMD (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support as a sensible housekeeping measures. Concerns about returning editors adding to the new article patrol burden can simply be addressed by nominating those editors at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled; this can be done by the patrollers when they notice that they are dealing with an experienced editor who has returned after a lengthy absence. Schwede66 01:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support This would be an obviously sensible security measure to limit the fallout of account compromise. —Joe vom Titan (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't make the NPP queue worse until (if) they return and start creating articles again, and can be regranted at that time. It's not an account attribute that we want in the hands of UPE. Schazjmd (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Yes, the NPP queue is large, but it is there for a reason. Namely, we don't trust every user to write articles that won't need a second pair of eyes. The question is, do we trust someone who was autopatrolled, but hasn't contributed at all in three years, to write articles at the same level of quality as before? Maybe, but not necessarily. I also agree with Schwede66 that we should nominate trusted editors for the right more often, as this right helps new pages patrollers rather than article writers themselves. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Joe Roe. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support While the NPP queue is indeed quite large, removing the autopatrolled permission from editors who haven't made a single edit for three years will not negatively impact that queue. If an editor does eventually return, they can request the permission again after demonstrating that they can still create articles to the necessary standard. It is not a hypothetical concern that stale accounts with advanced permissions are potential security concerns. Frankly, I believe three years is too long, but that is not the question at hand. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, on the general principle that inactive accounts should not retain advanced permissions. Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly reasonable means to mitigate risk of misuse. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support seems a very reasonable way to mitigate both the risk of abuse and on the principle that the permission would generally be returned on request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per HouseBlaster. Giraffer (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support: While the NPP backlog is high, I don't see this as adding much burden to the queue. If someone does return and begins to create articles it's trivial to regrant them the permission if they previously had it. We simply just need them to demonstrate that they're not being careless and that they remember our expectations. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - reasonable measure to mitigate spamming. If they return properly, it is very easy to grant it again. MER-C 17:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons others have listed above, primarily concern for account security. Our notability standards, which autopatrolled editors should be familiar with, have changed dramatically in recent years (NSPECIES, NSPORTS). Toadspike [Talk] 19:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason we desysop for inactivity. Standards change, and if you've been gone for a while, you might not understand the new standards. Also, compromised autopatrolled accounts could do a lot of damage. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per arguments above. The security issue of a stolen Autopatrol account is very real (skipping the NPP log). Standards also do change slowly so it makes sense to add a hurdle to make sure returning editors have caught up with the happenings in their area of edits. Would support even as low as one year with no edits. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support this excellent idea.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• As the person directly responsible for the creation of the Autopatrolled right, I regretfully support this proposal. DS (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. General good security principle to remove unused rights. I would also support a shorter period as short as six months. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Consider editing the rfc to clarify whether you want this to be one time or recurring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Done; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see this proposal fleshed out into a process. Firstly, courtesy suggests there would be a User Talk message informing the former-autopatroller? Some will have email notification set, so this will prod them into action, creating a consequent workload. Secondly, what will be sufficient cause to restore the permission: purely on request, or on request based on evidence of having returned to editing / page creation? AllyD (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :We already remove other user rights for inactivity without notice. I had TPE and NPR revoked during a long wikibreak because of this. I think the general philosophy has been that if someone needs to be told they are inactive, they are inactive enough that the right out to be removed. I'm not necessarily opposed to switching to a system of giving notice, but I think that would make more sense as a global proposal for all rights, than a special-casing just for AP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I doubt that we will get enough requests to make a formal process necessary. I would expect the person to meet all the usual criteria if they make a formal request, but this can also be granted by any admin at any time, so formal requests aren't always made. Formal requests are generally declined if someone says "I wrote a lot of articles in the past, and I might do that in the future". OTOH, even if it is re-granted in such a case, the granting admin might also be making a note to go check out the page creations, and un-grant it if they're inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• There is no evidence to suggest that that by removing the right from these editors will have any impact on NPP backlogs. IMO Issues affecting NPP, its backlogs, or reviewer apathy should seek other solutions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{+1}} Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{+1}} I can't see any reason to believe that this will have any noticeable impact on the NPP backlog. The proportion of newly created autopatrolled articles by users who have come back from 3 years of complete inactivity since getting the AP right is not high (if it is anything close to the 1% mentioned above I would be astonished), and if people do return to activity and their article creation is still unproblematic requesting that the AP right be reinstated is not a major burden. If the NPP backlog really is too high, either persuading more people to sign up for NPP, or to granting AP more liberally to currently active editors, would have a much greater impact. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• For folks returning back to activity and reapplying, do we consider previous activity or only current activity as a metric for suitability for WP:AP ? Sohom (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If it were me doing the granting, I'd simply want to see one new article made to AP standards. Basically, just something so I could verify that the editor in question is indeed in line with current expectations. I don't think it would be reasonable to ask for, say, 20 new articles before regranting the right, since it was only removed for inactivity. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Oops, hit send too soon. Meant also to add: But I don't think it should be fully automatic (ie, just ask for it back on your first edit on returning), given the concern that someone might not have kept up with typical expectations. -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree. Their previous articles already demonstrated suitability, they just need to show that their old activity is still representative of their new activity, and that shouldn't take more than a few articles at most. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• This ended up snowing. Can probably take it off CENT and/or close it soon. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I didn't realize it was on CENT, which is probably overkill. We usually recommend that RFCs stay open for at least a week, though there are, of course, no firm rules about this. As the lone opponent so far, if you are satisfied that the decision will not change, then I wouldn't object to ending this unusually early. Or perhaps we should just take it off CENT, and wait a few more days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It went on CENT yesterday. When I saw it I hesitated at taking it off only because I feared someone would ironically claim that to do so would also require a community consensus. Concurring with NL, this RfC could be safely closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I added it to CENT yesterday, feel free to remove it if it's overkill. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I've taken it off CENT (apologies for the revert "warning", assuming you have that enabled). ~24 hours on CENT is probably enough for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::imo anything about revoking perms from a bunch of people ought to be on CENT, so. -- asilvering (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I agree with asilvering. It's not as if CENT is overflowing at the moment, and there's no harm in continuing to advertise it while it's still open. Cremastra _talk 19:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::So long as "wasting editors' time" is not "harm", then I agree with you. But that is harmful, so I think it shouldn't be listed. It's IMO not worth edit-warring over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Affected accounts. —Cryptic 09:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks, {{u|Cryptic}}. I've just downloaded the list and looked at it. Sorting it by edit count, there is a surprisingly large number of accounts in there with under 100 edits. I've nuked the permissions from those accounts; all but one had last edited in 2015 or earlier. The one with a later edit (2020) had a total edit count of one (hence, I couldn't see the harm in removing user rights). Schwede66 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::How many of those were alternative accounts? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I have no idea how to find out without some detective work. I you know how to do it, here's the list:
• :::Bovlb2
• :::JBW moved test
• :::Flyguy649 - away
• :::CKatz
• :::Shell Kinney (mobile)
• :::Ruslik0 (sock)
• :::A wandering Fluffernutter
• :::Ron Ritzsock
• :::150Gaol
• :::ElofoSho
• :::Moni3ontheroad
• :::Rambo
• :::Arbitrarily00
• :::Eagles247 sock
• :::JamesAWatson
• :::Travel Doc James
• :::UserB
• :::Rschen7754 public
• :::Hall of Jade
• :::Sleuthwood
• :::Proto
• :::RWHbot
• :::Nikkimariana Schwede66 23:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::A handful of those are really clearly labelled as away accounts or socks. I'm not sure why we'd grant AP to those accounts in the first place, though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I agree. There is no apparent reason for an inactive WP:LEGITSOCK to have this user right. And if it is needed at some point, then the active owner can request it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::All but {{noping|Sleuthwood}} are alternative accounts of (current or former) admins, which explains why they were granted autopatrolled (it was self-granted). jlwoodwa (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I personally don't see why we exempt alternate accounts from the activity requirements of any permission, but that's clearly been the practice. —Cryptic 04:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The proposal here does not exempt alt accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::None of the revocation criteria exempt alternate accounts, and I'd wager that if I had time to investigate their underlying discussions, I'd find that none of them made mention of exempting alternate accounts either. User:☈, for example, has been showing up in inactivity reports since 2017 for three permissions with 12-month inactivity requirements - new page reviewer, page mover, template editor - and, despite never having made a single edit, the only permission they've ever had revoked is one for which there aren't any removal criteria. If the intention is that autopatroller is to be the only group that's treated differently, then that needs to be made explicit. —Cryptic 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Please do earnestly consider signing RFCs when you propose them, instead of just date-stamping?—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Looks like you missed the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 21#RFC on signing RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I saw it but I didn't !vote because I was unable to convince myself that all RFCs must be signed in all circumstances. Nevertheless, I think that it's mildly disruptive to avoid doing so and I did spend time trying to work out who obfuscated this, and why. I would expect a sysop to sign their talk page posts.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tpq|I think that it's mildly disruptive to avoid doing so}} I completely disagree. Levivich's comment in that discussion is particularly relevant: {{tpq|I know that seeing my name at the end of an RFC question will influence the response.}} That is the exact thing we don't want to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Without doubt. But had you considered that not signing an RFC also influences the response?—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::People considering the question on its merits rather than based on their opinion of the initiator is an influence, but it's a positive influence. The only negative I can see is complaints like yours, to which WAID's pointer to the consensus should have been more than sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::And do you believe that an unsigned RFC focuses attention on the merits? Because I do not.

::::::::I close a lot of RFCs in contentious topic areas, and likely for that reason, I'm always interested in any attempt to obfuscate who is saying what. When someone asks an abstract question divorced of context, a default behaviour of mine is to look at their recent edits and try to work out what argument they're really trying to win.

::::::::As I've said, I accept that there may be times when you do need to ask an unsigned question at RFC. I'm just asking people to consider quite carefully whether that's absolutely necessary.

::::::::I would hate for unsigned RFCs to become the norm, particularly if the pretext for doing so is this misconception that it focuses people's minds on the question rather than the asker.—S Marshall T/C 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Why would you start out by assuming bad faith? Why would you then continue to treat the RFC as if it were asked in bad faith until you've failed to find anything to support that presumption? I can't think of a single time when signing a neutral RFC statement would improve things (and more than one scenario when it would make things worse). If the statement is not neutral then it's not neutral regardless of whether it is signed. If there is insufficient background to understand the context then there is insufficient background to understand the context regardless of whether it is signed or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't assume bad faith. I'm a Wikipedian, and I have the level of skepticism appropriate to a Wikipedian. When there's contention, I want to know who is saying what, and I want to understand why they're saying it.

::::::::::I'm actually quite relaxed about whether the RfC question is neutral. I'm the bloke that wrote the paragraph on WT:RFC that says {{tq|Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RFC.}} Questions are phrased by people who're involved in the dispute so getting them scrupulously neutral is often a challenge.

::::::::::But I'm apt to verify who it is who wrote each thing on a talk page, and I commend this practice to anyone who's active in contentious topic areas.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You're not assuming bad faith in the sense of assuming that the person is deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, but you do seem to be assuming that people who start RFCs are sneaky and deceptive, and that you should assume that they are probably lying by omission or otherwise trying to game the system to get an unfair advantage, until you've satisfied yourself that they're not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't assume that people are sneaky and deceptive, but I do choose to verify that RFC starters aren't gaming the system. Most aren't, of course.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ::All talk page posts should be signed. RfC proposals especially. This is one of few things where I disagree with WAID. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It was misleading, the soft end of disruption, for User:Extraordinary Writ to post an anonymous rationale and then to support it with a different rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::What? The RfC question is neutrally worded, as required. EW's support, which obviously is not neutrally worded because it's a statement in support, is separate from the question. That's how this is supposed to work. -- asilvering (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I agree with aslivering and WAID. A neutrally worded, unsigned statement optionally followed by a partisan !vote in support or opposition is what RFC initiators are supposed to do - and for good reason. The discussion WAID links to found a clear consensus in favour of anonymous statements and I would have added my name to that consensus if I'd known the discussion was happening. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Also, it's similar to my suggested wording. So if he doesn't sign it, someone will complain that he didn't sign it; if he does sign it, someone will complain that he's "plagiarizing" or "taking credit" for the wording. He can't win.
• :::::WP:RFCOPEN #6 says editors are allowed to start an RFC without putting their name on it. Please don't "correct" the RFC when it's already following the written (and recently affirmed) rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::S Marshall is obviously out of line. You cannot possibly have a beef with something that is an agreed process, confirmed through an RFC. Just ignore the editor and move on. Schwede66 00:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The question is not neutrally word. It is subtle and persuasively directing the reader to the affirmative. “Autopatrolled is a user right for editors who frequently create articles” was chosen to persuade in the affirmative. It could have been written “Autopatrolled is a user right for editors who demonstrated reliability in creating articles that meet required standards”.
• ::::Neutrality is not achieved by anonymity. A better way to achieve neutrality is to require the neutral text to be written by someone disinterested. If the wording is a consensus, which is much better than attempting to claim “neutral” as the standard, then link to its development. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::How do you know it was {{tq|chosen to persuade in the affirmative}}? jlwoodwa (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I infer, not know.
• ::::::Because a proponent of their idea will naturally wordsmith in support of the idea. They will write in keeping with their perspective, and their perspective, the proposal is right and good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::RFC statements should be neutral. If you dispute the neutrality of the statement then state that (explaining why) rather than infer it has been wordsmithed because they have followed the instructions and not signed the statement. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::* RFC text: “Autopatrolled is a user right for editors who frequently create articles”
• ::::::::* The page itself: "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles"
• ::::::::* SmokeyJoe's suggestion: “Autopatrolled is a user right for editors who demonstrated reliability in creating articles that meet required standards”.
• ::::::::SmokeyJoe, I know you didn't intend anything nefarious here, but I think yours is the most POV-pushing option here. The RFC text uses a simpler word ("frequently") instead of a less common word ("prolific"). Yours uses the past tense ("demonstrated"), and could be understood as saying that it's an award that recognizes past service. {{tl|The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} is an award for editors who demonstrated reliability in creating articles – in the past. Autopatrolled is not about recognizing past services. It's about focusing the NPP work today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Actually, I'm not sure what this accomplishes that a link to Wikipedia:Autopatrolled doesn't. The question could reasonably be shortened to {{tq|Shall we remove the Autopatrolled user right from accounts that have made no edits in the last three years? This proposal would initially affect about 1250 of the approximately 4900 autopatrollers; editors who reach the three-year inactivity mark in the future would have the right removed at that time.}} Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::It reminds editors that this "auto" is not the same as the other "auto". I don't know if you ever noticed it, but more than half of this page is dedicated to explaining what autopatrolled is and isn't, because we have historically had a huge amount of confusion about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} If you're still looking for proof of abuse of Autopatrolled, take a look at this relatively recent article which I came upon by pure coincidence while examining the quality of the translation. My first reaction was to see who the New Page Reviewer was who let it through. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::I'm not exactly surprised to see that it was translated from the German-language Wikipedia, where inline citations are less common. It does have four sources and is a notable subject; it's just using WP:GENREFs where we prefer WP:ICs.
• ::::::::::::The editor hasn't had a year-long break since being granted autopatrolled, so it doesn't meet the criteria we discussed above. Still, it is an interesting example. Thanks for posting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with you. Transparency is important on Wikipedia. Looks like the RFC outcome was different though. Pro tip: the first person to respond to an RFC is usually the creator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think in launching an RfC one should either sign the opening question or make your support !vote the first comment and start it with a bold support as proposer or something of the like. Cremastra _talk 19:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I appreciate the comments; I don't agree with all of them, but I will certainly be thinking about them the next time I start an RfC (although that may not be any time soon given that this is my first in my nearly five years here). The concern about the first sentence (which I didn't write but am ultimately still responsible for) is a fair one, and in hindsight I should have used something similar to Chaotic Enby's suggestion, although it's water under the bridge at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• What is the rollout strategy on this going to look like? Are we going to flip the bit on all the 1250 affected accounts at once, or is there going to be some notification to those accounts beforehand? I can see both sides of that argument: unlike other user rights, autopatrolled doesn't really affect your editing—it's more for new page reviewers—so maybe we can just flip the bit immediately. But some editors might appreciate a heads up before we modify their user rights. For admins, we send Template:Inactive admin a month before the removal. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Since it's just a regular user right and it's just as easy to regain (unlike adminship) I don't think there's any reason to send out a heads up. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think it would be best to send a message (either shortly before or at the time) explaining that it's a procedural removal due to this change in policy and not because they've done something improper. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, this I do agree with for sure. With an encouragement that they can ask for the right back upon their return. -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It is not my impression that we typically send a user talk message for revoking things like NPP and page mover. For example, User talk:TartarTorte, User talk:CT55555, and User talk:Sideswipe9th had recent perm removals and did not receive user talk messages. Intadmin and admin appear to receive messages, but those are higher level perms. Also, I believe user group changes of any kind receive an email and a notification tray message automatically. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Hmm, that's unfortunate. If it's not something we do typically already, it's something we should do. It's a modification we are making to their account and their editing experience (although for autopatrolled, that argument is admittedly a little weaker), and when we are doing that, we should leave a user talk page message explaining why we are doing it, even if it's just a procedural thing like inactivity. I don't think the log message and notification are enough—editors can customize their notifications, and sometimes they can get missed. Mz7 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Since these accounts have been inactive for so long, I don't think it matters. Send a message or don't; send it before or after – it doesn't really matter. (They will get an automated message in Echo/Notifications no matter what we do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tpq|They will get an automated message in Echo/Notifications no matter what we do.}} which is why I think it's important that they get a message explaining why they got that notification. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)