Forum:Patrolling pages

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Patrolling pages
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 April 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

I have actually always wondered why we still have autopatrol as one of the rights sysops have. Nobody ever uses it, and it makes sysop's page creates more easily patrollable by antivandals than vandals's page creates. Nothing really wrong about it, but I wondered why we don't change the system so every user has this right, and the text that appears in the logs wouldn't be "marked [link_to_revision_xxxxxx revision xxxxxxx] of [[pagename]] patrolled (automatic)" but something like '[link_to_revision_xxxxxx Created] page: "[[pagename]]".' so it is easier to see page creates, not needing two special pages to patrol both things. This would help fighting vandalism such as "Zezima is ossum" pages easier.

Also, as administrators now have ?hide_patrol_log=1 in the logs automatically, while regular users can't even hide the patrol log with that, adding this right to all usergroups will make patrols disappear by default, but log patrollers will still be able to show all page creates (put ?hide_patrol_log=0 behind the url).

If it is possible, we might even want to remove page creates by either rollback+ or custodian+ because they usually don't need to be checked, but I don't know if this is possible, because all of those users are also in the usergroups "users" and "autoconfirmed users".

So, I suggest we have every single page create being marked as patrolled, to make it easier to watch pagecreates, and to prevent spam more easily, requiring only one page. If possible, certain usergroups would have the autopatrol removed.

Discussion[edit source]

Support - I would like to change this unused feature to something which would make antivandalism and spam control easier. As nom. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:42, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not how patrol is supposed to work. If we want to use patrol, we should add the patrol right to the rollback group and allow users to mark pages that they have checked as patrolled, just as the feature is intended to be used (for those who don't have experience with patrol, read this). New pages are rarely a problem and abusive ones are always removed quickly. I would like to see patrol in use here, but not in this way. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:12, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be useful, especially with the relatively large amount of active antivandals being in the cvn channel, so not even seeing patrols. Also, the autopatrolled pages don't appear anything other than other edits in the RC for me. I don't see how this could be useful if it's not seen by anyone but log patrollers, and those log patrollers usually don't check the logs to see if the edit has been patrolled or not. Also, even though it is not supposed to work like this, that doesn't have to mean we can't use it like this. It would be an useful tool to prevent spam pages. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:37, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - That isn't the point of patrol at all, and this would hardly be useful..pages are only created so often, and I don't think we have to worry about any sysops creating spam pages, so I don't know why anyone would waste their time pouring over the logs and waiting for a sysop to create a page. Sorry, but I'm failing to see any logic behind this idea.... Andrew talk 01:34, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to give every user the "autopatrol" right so all page creations are listed in the logs. I don't see how that's hard to understand when I say "I wondered why we don't change the system so every user has this right" at the top. Please read more than only the first two scentences before commenting, thanks. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:37, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
You know, I really get sick of you giving me this nonsense every time I comment on one of your threads. Thank you for restating your proposal, but I never said I didn't understand; I said that I fail to see the logic behind your idea. I'll go ahead and dumb that one down for you..I don't see how your idea would serve any practical use. Please make sure you actually know what you're talking about before you try to tell me off, thanks. Andrew talk 01:41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think it shows you read the whole proposal when you say "waiting for a sysop to create a page" because it's not only sysops who appear in the log then. The logic behind the thread is that it is easier to see when people create pages which have the possibility of being spam pages. So the practical use would be that we have less spam pages and faster dealing with spam pages. But, I think I already explained that in the proposal... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:48, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
...you really have a knack for misreading what I say. I am saying that right now only sysops have this right. It only takes a 4th grade education to realize that there would be more than sysops in the log if your proposal were to pass. I am talking about right now. Ahora. In the present. Now that I've established that, let me say yet again that right now the only page creators that show up in the log are sysops, and sysop pages really don't need to be checked that often, because everyone and their dog knows that sysops don't create spam pages. This leaves all of the effort on Special:NewPages. So, your idea is essentially already in place, and your proposal is effectively redundant. Any questions? Andrew talk 01:58, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I know there is something like Special:NewPages. I even linked to it in my proposal. The thing is that "it is easier to see page creates, not needing two special pages to patrol both things" so, it would make antivandalism easier. I don't see why we shouldn't have that. So, indeed, my idea is in place, but it would make antivandalism easier and smoother when we would merge those two pages.
PS: Yes I do have a question: what made you decide to change this?(just curious) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:16, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Joey, I'm going to say this one last time (what is this, like the 3rd or 4th time?): pages that are created by sysops don't need to be checked often, if ever. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that sysops aren't going to create spam pages, therefore defeating the very purpose of your proposal. I know that you know that Special:NewPages exists; I'm saying that it already serves the full purpose of what you are proposing, because sysop page creations really don't need to be checked, and every other page creation is included in the Special:NewPages. Andrew talk 02:24, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

And I hopefully have to repeat this for the last time, this is not about watching sysops's page creates. That already exists and it's called autopatrol. And indeed, their edits don't need to be checked because they are not going to add spam anyway. this is not my proposal. I am not proposing making it easier to check admins's page creates. I am proposing making other users's page creates easier to see without needing two pages. It's just that merging the newpages and the logs would make antivandalism more efficient. So no, it doesn't serve the full purpose. It doesn't serve the purpose of having the two pages merged for more efficiency.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeytje50 (talk).
Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, Joey. The obvious answer is right there under your nose. Again. Since we have now (and finally) established and agreed that sysop page creations don't need to be checked (thus eliminating the need to keep the Special:Log tab open), that leaves two tabs to check. How many tabs did you say everyone would have open if your proposal were to pass? Oh, I know! Two! Andrew talk 02:48, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Dear sir. There are more things than patrol logs to check in Special:Log. There are new users to welcome and personal/unneeded uploads to check, so there is still enough reason to keep the log tab open for antivandals. and I already agreed admins do indeed not have to be checked. I never even said that, so I wonder what made you think that I thought admins should be checked. Like I have already said a couple of times, merging those 3 things (newusers/upload/newpages) would make it more efficient. Now Wikimedia(or Wikia, whatever) has already been so nice to merge Special:NewFiles into Special:Log and now there's the possibility to merge Special:NewPages into Special:Log, meaning your last statement would indeed be true: if the proposal passes, the amount of tabs to be kept open would indeed be 2 instead of 3. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:57, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering why any anti-vandal with half a brain would be checking Special:Log when all this pops up on recent changes anyways. The rest of that last response doesn't need to be address, because you've completely misconstrued everything I've said, just like every other time I've said anything, both here and on every other discussion. Andrew talk 03:02, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
The fact you thought I kept the patrol log only open doesn't really show that you understand me either. And no, sometimes it doesn't pop up in the recent changes unless there are 2 log actions within the time of the 50 last edits.(sometimes) so it would be useful to keep the log open anyway. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 03:10, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
If I had a dime for every time you've made something up/misinterpreted/misconstrued/misunderstood/ignored/completely disregarded what I said or jumped to an irrational conclusion, I'd move to the freaking Bahamas. I'd love to know where I mentioned anything about you personally keeping the patrol log open. Andrew talk 03:14, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
"sysop page creations don't need to be checked (thus eliminating the need to keep the Special:Log tab open)" That shows you think I have the logs open just for the patrol logs, else you wouldn't say it would be eliminated. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:11, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The only wiki large enough to need a new page patrol is Wikipedia - in my personal experience, it is pointless anywhere else, and just adds extra work for antivandals. Plus, this isn't even how it's supposed to be used - see Special:NewPages. ajr 02:04, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I just read over your proposal again and am very confused. What are you even saying? The point of autopatrol isn't to be added to all users. Do you even know what you are talking about? ajr 02:07, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know what I'm talking about. I know the point of autopatrol is not to be added to all users. I am just trying to change the use of autopatrol on this wiki to make antivandalism easier. And like you said, autopatrol is pointless for other wikis than Wikipedia, so because we have that feature anyway, and we are not using it, we could as well turn it into a "new pages log" and other logs in one, for easier antivandalism. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:16, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
im sorry sir i thought that special:newpages was invented specifically for that reason im so confus ajr 02:17, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
It's okay sir. It's just that special:newpages was not merged with special:log which means RC patrollers have to keep three tabs open at a time, instead of two tabs. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Wait what? Why would we keep three open regularly? The only reason why you would have the patrol log open is if you didn't trust sysops to make good pages. I must say, sir, that it makes me sad knowing that you can't trust me ;-;
Beyond that, here is where we get into the area of me thinking that you have no idea what you are talking about. Special:NewPages shows all page creations - including those done by the almighty sysops. However, it only includes pages in the mainspace, because it was designed for quality control, not countervandalism. There was this great page made for countervandalism, I think it is Special:RecentChanges or something... So no, with the current system we only need to have one tab open. ajr 02:57, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I don't particularly leave the patrol log open(even though I can't trust you indeed Sniff), I leave all logs open, so that would then be including the patrol log. And indeed, RC is useful for antivandalism, but it could easily happen edits slip away(for example, when you are away for a hour or so, without other antivandals active), or anything like that. Then it's easy to have recent file uploads(which are not visible in the recent changes, unless you click the (Upload log) thing which sometimes only appears when there are 2 entries in the log for the last couple of minutes), the page moves(same) and page creates, all in one! (now, for $995!) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 03:06, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

....so if you think you might've missed something, check that log. No reason to leave it open all the time, and combining a bunch of stuff wouldn't speed that up if it's already fallen off of recent changes. Andrew talk 03:09, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

................btw the rc shows every file upload. When there are more than one of them, you can click the little arrow thing to the left of it to expand it to show all of them. Or you can go into your prefs and disable js enhanced rc. Beyond that, I see no reason to modify the entire wiki so that you can do your thing, considering that nobody else does. I think that me and soldier have given you a few tips on what to do instead right here. ajr 03:10, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying to change the wiki to make it work for me. I am trying to add more efficiency to antivandalism, but apparently americans don't want to make things go smoother here during other times, just because americans have a team of antivandals twice the size of aussies and europeans combined, which makes it look like antivandalism is perfectly fine. It is not perfectly fine during other times, and apparently you don't like it when I try to improve it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 03:19, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Are you listening to me? Did you read what I just said? You are the only person who is keeping these three windows open. The rest of us use the good old recent changes, which combines all three in a lovely way. If you want to have three tabs open when you could have one, fine. Go ahead. I really don't care. But I see absolutely no reason to enact a feature which is not only a misuse of what the elements were designed for, but a complete waste of time because nobody would use it. ajr
I'm LOLing IRL right now..oh, curse those Americans and their anti-vandal ways (Ajra's Canadian btw lolol)! How the hell did you pick that out of any of this, Joey? This is yet another example of you jumping to irrational conclusions and putting words in everyone's mouths. I've also noticed that you've resorted to one of your other tactics that you tend to rely on when you're backed into a corner: declaring that since no one else agrees with you, they clearly don't want something to work smoothly or some utter rubbish like that. I've seen this before. Andrew talk 04:25, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this is not a "tactic" or anything. And let's consider "american" everyone who is in the american timezones to keep it simple. I would not like to mention all other countries in those timezones. And I'd like to ask you one thing. What makes you think this is a tactic? "How the hell did you pick that out of any of this, Andrew?" I was even requesting closure on that example you gave, which means I am not going to continue discussing it. How could I do that if it was a tactic? Then I would not have requested closure but instead would have tried to keep it open for as long as possible. Anyway, that message I left above was more like a "okay, fine, you don't want it, I'll stop discussing this with you then" but apparently you like bending my words so it is "a tactic". JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:11, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oh Joey...one day, maybe, just maybe, you'll figure it out. Until then, I'll leave you to fend for your proposal. Adieu. Andrew talk 21:38, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Dude-WAKE UP - Have you seen the CVU recently??!!? Have you seen how quickly speedy d gets emptied out??!?!? We don't need any additional tools. We already knock the crap out of vandalism and spam. No sense making our jobs harder. HaloTalk 02:09, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

CVU right now is a bit better than it was about a month ago, but it's still pretty bad much of the time. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:13, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
99% of that is edit vandalism though, not create... ajr 02:14, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; I was just pointing out that our cv isn't as good as people always claim. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:17, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yes I have seen how long it takes sometimes. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:16, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
And yes, I have seen how long it takes before edits are reverted if the only active antivandal is away. This is about new pages though, and it would just be a tool for users so spam is detected earlier. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:19, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
One or two examples? Unless we're robots, I'm just expecting sysops to be good and not perfect. 3 hours isn't that bad. So if it's just about new pages...most of those are caught and deleted and even explained to the creator why it was deleted within about 5 minutes after creation. That's pretty damn good if you ask me. HaloTalk 02:22, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it is good, but you were making it sound like everything is reverted and deleted where needed within a minute, with all those exclamation/question marks. And again, it's just to make it easier. Even though we handle spam pages quite fast, that doesn't mean we do it easily. I don't want to watch the RC, the logs and the new pages, just to be aware of spam. We could easily change an unused tool to something that would reduce this amount to 2/3rd of what it's now. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I woke up. And when I woke up, I saw what you probably meant. "Have you seen how quickly speedy d gets emptied out??!?!?" Yes, I saw our incredible speed again today. With the newpages combined into the logs this would have been dealt with much earlier. But I see your point. more than 2½h during the time where most admins are active is fast enough for the most active Wikia wiki there is. Oh and if you want, I could give a couple more than "One or two examples". JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:58, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be a critic, but I'd surmise that doing this would not reduce the time at all. The issue is lack of admins doing countervandalism, and that isn't going to magically go away with these proposed changes. Also, seriously, if you haven't noticed it is you vs. everyone (again). Just give it up. ajr 02:02, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
First I want to know what the answers of the opposers are to my questions below. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:04, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I am completely aware autopatrol was not made for this purpose(please think out of the box), and there is already Special:NewPages, it's just that because we don't ever use autopatrol for something useful, and that NewPages is on a seperate page from Special:Log, so I don't see why we don't merge the two. So far I've only seen admins oppose because there is already something else for the same purpose and because autopatrol wasn't made for this. It is more efficient to change a completely useless feature in something which makes antivandalism more efficient. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - This won't help us in any way as the wiki is no where near big enough to need patrol. Also giving all users autopatrol would half defeat the purpose of the tool, even if we don't use it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:01, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask these things:

  • What do we currently do with autopatrol?
    If we don't do anything with it...
    • why do we still have it?
    • why don't we change it to something more users may find useful than what it currently does?
  • Why would it matter autopatrol is not made for this, if we don't use it for the normal use of autopatrol anyway?
  • What harm would it do?

JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:11, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

If you really wanted to do something with autopatrol, add it to the custodian and rollback groups, and add patrol to autoconfirmed or emailconfirmed. Or remove the new page patrol altogether, which is also a possibility. ajr 15:05, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I first also wanted to suggest removing the autopatrol, but then I thought of changing it to what I proposed above. You didn't answer my questions, though, so could you and others please do that? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:25, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Instead of using this tool, could we not just use abusefilter more? That should stop the "Zezima is ossum" thing. Although I'm not that good with administerial tools, could this not be abused by a sockpuppet and their IP address? (It sounds easy if you have two browsers open at once). Smuff [kthnxbai] 19:47, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not going to answer the above questions due to the fact I only have a half-grip on this, but the half I understand makes me think that adding it to all users wouldn't do too much to help. Log and RC are already good "tools" as stated above by others. It's just a bit too much of overkill, and I don't see the usefulness even after reading all the info thrice. If anything, give it to Rollback, they'll eat it up. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 03:44, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

request for closure - As nobody seems to be going to answer my questions, there isn't really any reason left to keep this open. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:32, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator withdrawal. ʞooɔ 19:36, April 3, 2011 (UTC)