Wikipedia:Autopatrolled/RfC to change threshold

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

---

RfC to discuss possible changes to the threshold for Autopatrolled

Preliminary discussions at:

• Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#Autopatrolled – reduce the number of qualifying articles... again?...

and

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_122#Threshold_for_Autopatrolled_rights

demonstrate that the community may wish to consider changing the recommended number of perfect, non redirect/dab articles required for the Autopatrolled flag (Currently 50). Participants are reminded that this 'right' is not an award and has no consequences or benefits for the flag holder. The flag is accorded at Administrators' discretion after reviewing a candidate's editing history. The actual process for requesting this flag can be viewed at WP:PERM.

This RfC will be published at related venues and shall run for at least 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved editor.

Support

1. How many more times do we have to go through this process? There is no consensus for having such a high threshold. User:Kudpung, did you revert it because you actually disagree with it, or because you think there's some important value in being bureaucratic about this?
   Also, don't forget this discussion or this one. This has been discussed repeatedly, there has never been any significant objection, and I really do not see any value in having a fifth round of this. Also, see WP:PGBOLD: you need to articulate a substantive, non-bureaucratic reason for reverting this change. It is the community's actual WP:POLICY that "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal" RFC with a bureaucratic closing statement written by an independent editor. Reversions should be made only by editors who personally disagree with the substance of the change, not those who disagree with how many hoops have been jumped through. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2. If this is about reducing the threshold to 25 articles, then yes, I support. I also agree this is a rather unnecessary and/or excessive measure given we've had little if any apparent opposition until now. The last discussion yielded support from at least two regularly patrolling admins at WP:PERM, three if you were count myself with this discussion. If anything, please make it clear that a consensual change to 25 articles was reverted, and clearly state that is what we're !voting on, as this is not evident on this RfC page alone — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

   Also, if you don't mind, please sign this proposal — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

3. Obviously support. And, yes – I think going through this process again is redundant. But if it establishes an even wider consensus for the change, so be it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

   Wait – is "support" for keeping the current threshold for 25 valid articles for Autopatrolled? Or for going back to 50? I can't even tell from the way this RfC is worded... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

4. I'd support an RfC to remove these arbitrary thresholds altogether. The minimum for granting should be not-zero. Instead, come up with some rough guidelines to assess whether the requester has got a clue. Alakzi (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support and agree with the statement above ("to remove these arbitrary thresholds altogether"). We are not a beauracracy. I also agree this is an unnecessary step given the lack of opposition to the first two discussions as stated above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. As proposer. Other than being a regular admin who processes the requests at WP:PERM I have no vested interest whatsoever in the outcome. Rightly or wrongly I am interested that such discussions be based on correctly published, formal RfCs with a representative participation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• It is unclear what is being proposed here... There was strong consensus at WP:VPP, with no opposition, to reduce the threshold to 25. Supporters included at least two regular patrolling admins at PERM. You've reverted that consensual change, so is that what we're !voting on here? To re-establish 25 articles as the new standard? — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that you meant to write "re-re-re-establish" the consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note that Kudpung did not word this RfC like I specifically asked him to (i.e. to "reaffirm" the previous change of the threshold for Autopatrolled to 25 valid articles). In addition, I believe that I object to the current wording as being biased and not "neutral" wording. This RfC should either be reworded, or declared invalid IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate the conditions - the implementation you made was out of process for the reasons that were explained to you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They weren't "out of process" – this discussion was held in the two appropriate forums. There is no 'requirement" that a change like this necessitates going through an RfC. (And, if someone had requested an RfC during the previous discussions, I would surely have launched one myself...) This really seems like a pure WP:BURO request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want a better clarificatiuon over the way you handeled this, take it to Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that ArbCom is tolerably capable of reading and understanding WP:POLICY, especially the sections around WP:PGBOLD. Multiple discussions certainly exceeds the threshold specified in policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I also think that Kudpung's requirement for that only "perfect" articles be counted is nonsensical. Kudpung, there is no such requirement and never has been. You should remove (at least) that error from your description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• In practice, do accounts actually get turned down for autopatrolled just because they haven't created 50 articles? I always thought it was meant to be a very rough guide and not a bright line. I seem to recall being given autopatrolled back in 2011 when I'd only created something like 20 articles because they were thought to be of reasonable quality. I'd like the guideline to try and reflect quality of over quantity rather than just lowering the supposed numerical threshold. I'd much rather give autopatrolled to someone who has created a dozen C/B-class articles than someone who has created 100 single-line stubs. Jenks24 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, when I did an analysis, I found that roughly 10% of the editors who had created 20–50 articles already have Autopatrolled rights. The 25 or 50 article threshold is specifically meant for editors who request Autopatrolled for themselves at WP:PERM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • From the little I've seen, it depends on the responding admin. Some are quite stringent; others not so much. The edit notice warns: "Check that you have created at least around 25 new articles, excluding redirects (you may wish to use use this tool) - rights will generally only be accorded with less in exceptional circumstances". Alakzi (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • That line was actually added by Kudpung in 2011. Alakzi (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• I have no idea what Support or Oppose means in this RfC :P Kaldari (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you were to follow the links before commenting you might find out ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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