JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Autopatrolled revocations

Simply south

Fair enough. Like I left the message ages ago, I lost the password to my old account. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 07:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Revoke

Why revoke "autopatrolled" from someone who died? User talk:Yoninah -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably because of the RfC that recently happened, where there was consensus for the creation of a activity requirement. Nobody (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand the reason, but why apply it to people who are dead? Yoninah wasn't the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Gerda. I did not decide who it should apply to. I just did the technical/administrative processing of the list I was provided. Please direct any feedback to Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled for the community to consider. — JJMC89 06:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I just brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Related? revocation of autopatrolled I have absolutely no issue with the revocation, it just seems silly to do it piecemeal when they have no need for the retained rights. Happy for that discussion to be moved elsewhere if better. For those who were just inactive, thanks for the watchlist clean Star Mississippi 11:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Why revoke me?

Hi. I just received an email, subject: "Your user rights have changed on Wikipedia". The message reads: Your user rights were changed. You are no longer a member of: ‪autopatrolled‬. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled#Guidelines for revocation: 3 years of inactivity. I don't understand what do you mean by "3 years of inactivity" as I'm an admin, a very active new article creator, an article reviewer (WP:NPP), and all round editor. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It was for your alternate account. Nobody (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, 1AmNobody24. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

1AmNobody24, if it was for my alternate account, then why did I just get the revoke message on my main account's talkpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably because the talk page of your alternate account redirects there. You can also see in this list that it's only your alternate account that's affected. Nobody (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

1AmNobody24 is correct. There should be a link in the email to the relevant log entry for your alternate account (Rosiestep2). You received the talk page notice because User talk:Rosiestep2 redirects there. — JJMC89 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hallucination?

Hi, JJMC89. You have sent me a message via MediaWiki message delivery, telling me that because my account has not edited in the last three years, the autopatrolled permission has been removed, which is funny, because I thought I'd been editing frequently right up to today. I must have been hallucinating. 🥴

More seriously, you may like to check that you haven't been doing the same to other editors. JBW (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It's for your JamesAWatson account. Nobody (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me. I think I've deduced that it was for my user:A wandering Fluffernutter account, but the notice was extremely confusing since it didn't say that and I at first thought it was talking about the account to whose talk page it was posted. If this task is run again in the future, is there a way to specify which account was actually the one affected? Fluffernutter (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The message probably should have said one of your accounts instead of your account. Given that a few admins have alternate accounts with AP. Nobody (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I had the same issue - my main account got the message despite it being an inactive alt account that was de-autopatrolled, and this really wasn’t clear. The mass message should also have said who to contact / where to go if any questions as it may not be obvious to newer editors; the only destination visible on the message was a closed RFC. Fish+Karate 18:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The notification text was drafted at Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#Notification to affected accounts by others. I'm sure they would appreciate any feedback. Unfortunately, there is no way to insert the (intended) recipient's username into a MassMessage. Future removals shouldn't need to be done in mass though, so admins could write a more targeted message for an alternate account. — JJMC89 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Removing autopatrolled?

Hi, what's up with this issue? I've made more than 500 edits in the last three months, including a number of page creations. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The notice pertained to your alt account Nyttend backup, not your main account. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I rather think that the templated message should be amended. Perhaps something like this:

Hello [username]. Following a request for comment in May 2025, the community has decided to implement an activity requirement for the autopatrolled permission. Because your account the account [inactive account] has not edited in the last three years, the autopatrolled permission has been removed from your that account. This action is purely procedural and does not affect your that account's ability to create articles; ...

It's only a rough approximation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it would also make sense that MediaWiki message delivery tells you, when you get the message because of a redirected (talk) page. Nobody (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to request that on Phabricator ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm already looking at the Workboard to see if it's already requested, otherwise I'll do it. Edit: Created T394413. Nobody (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no way to insert the (intended) recipient's username into a MassMessage. Future removals shouldn't need to be done in mass though, so admins could write a more targeted message for an alternate account. — JJMC89 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

JJMC89, this is now at WP:AN#Possible error with mass message regarding revoked autopatrol. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Central America-4 passport

Can I ask which image is triggering the bot? The three added images all have a non-free use template in description. Northern Moonlight 14:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All three of them are. They lack a non-free use rationale for that specific page (instead only containing non-free use rationales for other pages). And generally using non-free images in galleries isn't allowed per WP:NFG. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	HouseBlaster beat me to it but hey thanks for taking care of all those inactive accounts with autopatrol! Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

...but "bot", You removed Image...but another "bot" told me I could add it back

I received this message a day ago;

Orphaned non-free my image File:Zula (Conan the Barbarian-comics, 1978) 4892 20060409165735 char.webp....

Thanks for uploading File:Zula (Conan the Barbarian-comics, 1978) 4892 20060409165735 char.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

So I uploaded the image to the article;....and then you (or your "bot") immediately removed it...I'm confused...and frustrated...what am I missing?... not really expecting any answer, just documenting the conflicting contradiction...(----) AnarchoRepublican (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)