Autopatrol Eligibility Rules
Autopatrol has been a right with very simple requirements, a bit too simple, for too long. So, here I’ve created a few minimum yet obvious requirements to become an autopatrol user.
- Number and Quality of Edits:
- To get autopatrol rights, a user must make a certain number of edits, which can vary based on how big the edits are. The quality of the edits should be high, meaning they should not have major factual or grammatical mistakes and should be constructive.
- Disputed Edits:
- If many of a user’s edits are challenged or disputed, they will not qualify for autopatrol rights. However, if the disputed edits are left unchanged or no revert/rollback has taken place, these edits will no longer be considered disputed.
- Approval and Requests:
- Admins and bureaucrats decide who gets autopatrol rights. However, if any user believes that their edits or someone else’s edits meet the required standards, they can notify the admins through the Community portal or Admin noticeboard.
They make sure that users who consistently make good edits are exempted from manual review, while those whose edits need checking are properly reviewed. This will lead to better and more efficient management in the long run.
- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support - per what I've presented above. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Continuing to harass me? Arina (she/her) 05:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please do not go forward in taking this as an harassment. This might look like it is targeted towards you but it is not. I got this idea just yesterday. Your edits made in the 1.21.5 page in no longer disputed so you still have the autopatrol rights. This is not targeted towards you and is for the entire wiki. I hope you understand. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is not targeted toward anyone. It is for all editors. 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose - You have had multiple clashes with specific editor(s) and I strongly suspect you are trying to use this as a means to "get back" at them. Your proposed requirements are not able to be applied objectively, which will lead to no actual change in anything. You also do not compare your proposal to the existing requirements. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 05:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Firstly, no I'm not targeting anyone with this even if it looks like it considering what happend yesterday. Secondly, these rules makes it easier to differentiate between an editor which should get autopatrol and which one shouldn't. Currently, there is no system of notifying or requesting for autopatrol rights and it is completely up to the admins if they notice an editor or not. If they miss an actually deserving editor and instead went forward for another one, that is not good for the wiki, in the long run. The disputed edits rule is a new one where if majority of someone's edits are disputed, they will not be eligible. But, I've clearly mentioned the exemption to it above. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- you could make this topic on any other day yknow. Currently, there is no system of notifying or requesting for autopatrol rights and it is completely up to the admins if they notice an editor or not. - so? no need for unneeded bureaucracy. Arina (she/her) 05:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- This will ensure that if the admins miss a user that is fit for autopatrol rights, he can notify them. I have not mentioned any consensus upon the right and have clearly put emphasis on "notify". It's up to any editor if they want to notify the admins about themselves or any editor. The beneficiaries would be patroller and admins themselves. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose – Like all other user groups on this wiki, autopatrol is not a prestige and is not a status symbol – this should be made absolutely clear. Autopatrol is a mere convenience for admins and patrollers and has no effect on the autopatrolled user themself. Patrolling is not even a big deal on this wiki. This is why admins get discretionary power in terms of granting and revoking autopatrol. You have not demonstrated the need for these rules, and believe they are proposed in bad faith, in an attempt to target a specific editor and filibustering changes you don't agree with. But again, I will happily change my stance if anyone who can actually see patrol marks supports this and raises reasonable arguments. --GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is the reason I have put emphasis on "notify" in the third rule instead of request. Also, I agree it is not a status symbol. I've clearly mentioned below that these will be good for management and who patrols the edits? Admins and Patrollers. Also, I've I got this idea from Wilf's comment yesterday in wiki discord and it may feel like I'm targeting a user, but I'm really not. Just to clarify, Arina is already exempted from demotion as her edits are no longer disputed. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose per Dianliang233's reasoning QuickWhitt7 (Talk) 05:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
