→Inappropriate autoreviewers: new section |
WereSpielChequers (talk | contribs) Bot to create prospect list |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=MBisanz&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 MBisanz's user rights log] |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=MBisanz&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 MBisanz's user rights log] |
||
[[User:Agolib|Agolib]] ([[User talk:Agolib|talk]]) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:Agolib|Agolib]] ([[User talk:Agolib|talk]]) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Bot to find article creators== |
|||
I've appointed a few autoreviewers recently after seeing their unpatrolled articles at [[Special:Newpages]]. I suspect there are a lot of article creators out there who have never been considered for autoreviewer and are unaware of the process. |
|||
What do people think of the idea of getting a bot to produce a prospect list of authors who are: |
|||
#neither admins nor autoreviewers |
|||
#have created over 75 articles other than redirects |
|||
#have not been blocked in the last 12 months |
|||
#are currently sufficiently active to have created an article in the last month? |
|||
I suspect a high proportion of such editors would qualify for autoreviewer, but if they never submit more than one article in the same day they could be editing for years before anyone considers them for autoreviewer. - I'd happily review some of these prospects if we had such a list. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:03, 6 December 2009
Standards
Right now, the standards we have for adding the autoreviewer usergroup are "Trusted users who regularly create pages and have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (especially WP:BLP and WP:N). A suggested requirement is 75 valid articles, not including redirects." I was just wondering; is there any need for this hard limit? If a user creates a page just once a month, but it is definitely going to be a solid one, should we not just give them autoreviewer? Even if it is just once a month, after all, every bit counts when patrolling the backend. NW (Talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- A suggested requirement is 75 valid articles seems about right to me. It is not a hard limit... see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer#User:SusanLesch. Johnfos (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Image
Is anyone willing to create an image for this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the Wikipedia puzzle ball with a check mark over it or something similar. Malinaccier (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Removing autoreviewer
Have we any procedure for this, or is it at Admin's discretion when inappropriate pages are being created (with post on AN for review of action)? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was just about to remove autoreviewer from a user when I saw your note. In this case, I felt uncomfortable with the user having this right just yet because of some copyright problems in their history. I discussed my concern with the admin who had granted autoreviewer and they agreed. I think that is all the procedure we need -- a discussion and agreement with the granting admin is sufficient to remove the right. In case of blatant problems with creating inappropriate pages, I think revoking autoreviewer rights is at the discretion of the individual admin in the same way as rollbacker rights. — CactusWriter | needles 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate autoreviewers
MBisanz (talk · contribs) has given the autoreviewer right to many users who have created just a handful of articles, and to at least two users who have never created a single article.
I asked MBisanz about one of these, pointing out the correct criteria. The response was: "Well he has created some talk pages, I guess he just looked trustworthy."
I again mentioned the correct criteria, but subsequently, MBisanz granted the right to at least one other user who had never created an article. (The thank you note from the new autoreviewer makes it clear that this user does not even understand the right.)
Links:
- JimCubb (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) - articles created
- Islanders27 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) - articles created
- MBisanz's user rights log
Agolib (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Bot to find article creators
I've appointed a few autoreviewers recently after seeing their unpatrolled articles at Special:Newpages. I suspect there are a lot of article creators out there who have never been considered for autoreviewer and are unaware of the process. What do people think of the idea of getting a bot to produce a prospect list of authors who are:
- neither admins nor autoreviewers
- have created over 75 articles other than redirects
- have not been blocked in the last 12 months
- are currently sufficiently active to have created an article in the last month?
I suspect a high proportion of such editors would qualify for autoreviewer, but if they never submit more than one article in the same day they could be editing for years before anyone considers them for autoreviewer. - I'd happily review some of these prospects if we had such a list. ϢereSpielChequers 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)