Forum:Recent changes patrol

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Recent changes patrol
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 December 2012 by Liquidhelium.

Recent changes patrol is an extension, installed on request, that is used to mark edits as patrolled. This means the edit has been checked for vandalism. Some of you may notice this happens automatically for any edits an admin makes already, this is just an extension of that.

Use of this extension means that we can take a look at Special:RecentChanges and see what needs to be checked for vandalism - currently we have to start from scratch, especially if it's a time of relative inactivity on the wiki. It also allows us to work faster against vandalism when the wiki has a high level of activity, such as a new large update.

As for who can assign the right, seeing as our bureaucrats are far less active than our active admins, I would suggest requesting admins to be able to assign it. Staff seem relatively open to this. I would suggest something in the region of 500 non-userspace edits to be eligible to request this, as they would already have some experience with rollback, assuming they had it, and would be relatively trustworthy. As with rollback, they would need to have shown some interest in anti-vandalism beforehand.

On another unrelated note, I also asked if staff would be willing to let admins flag bots, something they also seem open to. It makes little sense to me for admins to be able to add users to the AWB checklist, add the [[MediaWiki:Wikia.css/hilite|relevant hilite]], but not assign the flag itself. Is this something we would want?

Proposed amendment - Add the autopatrol right to the autoconfirmed user group, per below discussion. cqm 00:17, 4 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Discussion

Support extension and letting admins flag bots - As nom cqm 09:50, 30 Nov 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Support - The patrolling extension can be of great help for anti-vandalism. However, I think the requirement should be raised to 1000 non-userspace edits, just to filter out new, inexperienced users. --Alchez 10:03, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the users with rollback that have edited in the last month, who have more than 500 edits, ignoring those who are inactive but happened to have made the odd edit recently. Pretty much very single one of those that I would consider active is more than trustworthy. cqm 10:16, 30 Nov 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
You have a point I guess, but I still don't think I'd be comfortable with just giving it to anyone who fits in that criteria. They could still be relatively new and not understand the patrolling process or what constitutes a good/bad edit. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:07, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
Well, since admins will be the one granting these rights, I'd say we could go as low as 500 too. 1000 is just something I'd be comfortable with in trusting a user as an anti-vandal, 'coz people generally start late when it comes to reverting vandalism. Just a suggestion. --Alchez 15:16, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
Requirements for rollback is 200 edits. 500 almost seems a little high. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:25, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
I'd imagine the administrator faced with the request could use some judgement as we do for rollback and custodian. I certainly didn't have 150 file edits, but it was deemed I would have a use for the custodian tools. I've also seen rollback requests be rejected due to insufficient activity in vandalism. There are no inflexible rules when it comes to userrights and I'd hope the same applies here. cqm 17:01, 30 Nov 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Support - Why ever not? 500 edits sounds good too. We can always use some common sense to decide whether or not the person is to be trusted with the right. Obviously if the person has 500 edits, but has never identified anything as vandalism they're probably not ready to get the right. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:09, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

And I support admins being able to flag bots. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 13:28, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Absolutely yes. This will be very helpful in avoiding double-check of edits from Special:RecentChanges and RS:RCP. Explore and enjoy the world! TIMMMO Work it with all my heart!++Discuss Sign 15:27, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support both - Useful tool, and it's about time we could add something so harmless. 222 talk 22:14, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see the patrol tool getting much use after the hype is over. It's not like losing one second by opening a new window for the diff. Not to mention, what one anti-vandal missed, another might spot... unless they see the edit is marked as okay. I don't see this benefiting us, at all. As for bots... meh MolMan 22:28, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support - See nothing wrong, I think 500 edits is also a good amount of edits. If a user really wants to help with counter-vandalism, they should be able to have something to show for it. Hair 05:48, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support - But, the people who get the right must know that they can only mark edits as patrolled when they've actually checked the whole edit. If they see an edit that has a lot of changes in it, and they think "meh this will probably be right" (for example an IP revamping an article), then do not patrol it. If you haven't checked the whole edit yourself, you should leave the edit as unpatrolled, so others might take some time checking it all.
Also, every user who has the right to patrol edits should have all their edits automatically patrolled too. By the way, I hope patrolling these edits will not show up in Special:Log, because I remember getting really annoyed by the "Cook Me Plox marked revision 9001 as patrolled" being spammed into there. If everyone starts patrolling edits from the RC, this will start spamming the log way more. Currently, admins can hide and show the patrol log, and I think every user should have access to that, so people won't be bothered by that. Finally, one more question, I've never used this patrol thing myself, where can I click to patrol an edit? :P JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:01, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about here, but on [[w:c:a|answers]], it's a little red exclamation point at the bottom of the page. MolMan 15:33, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
patrolling.png
But that's what appears for new page patrolling, which is something that we currently have. I don't know what would appear for recent changes patrolling.  a proofreader ▸  03:15, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121024123959/central/images/b/b7/Patrolled.png
- Help page Hair 03:22, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
GbIAm.png what I see (random IP edit). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:43, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
Well, it isn't enabled yet. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 13:28, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
It is for admins, right? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:09, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
Special:ListGroupRights says admins already have "Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)". This should already be enabled for admins at the moment. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:56, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
$wgUseRCPatrol is false right now, unless Wikia turns it to true, it isn't enabled. Hair 12:39, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
I believe it came as standard with MediaWiki 1.19, but Wikia thought it best to keep it enabled on request only (as it was prior to 1.19) and opened a bug report to change it back. It may be an artefact of that. cqm 14:14, 7 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Support - No harm intended. And per Joeycaek. — Jr Mime (talk) 15:39, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks good to me. Blaze_fire.png12.png 05:43, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Changing to oppose per Fergie. Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:24, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good, might want to add the "autopatrol" right to autoconfirmed users or something, or else it can get out of hand. ajr 13:34, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Unless this only applies to non-autoconfirmed edits. I can't see this working logistically otherwise. --LiquidTalk 18:43, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable amendment to make to the proposal, unless someone has some evidence of large scale autoconfirmed user vandalism. cqm 00:17, 4 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
There appears to be a way to raise or lower the permission level required to mark an edit as patrolled, but no way to raise or lower the permission level required to make edits that don't need to be patrolled. However, you can give particularly trusted users the autopatrol right, which would exist on top of autoconfirmed. For more information, see mw:Help:Patrolled edits.  a proofreader ▸  00:57, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
Never mind that comment; I didn't see you already added this to the end of the lead section.  a proofreader ▸  00:58, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I think this would be more detrimental to our counter-vandalism efforts than helpful. Someone mentioned above that what one user may deem an okay edit, another might consider vandalism or revising the edit. Also, a user who marks an edit as patrolled might have missed some vandalism or something. We should trust ourselves more than a little exclamation mark thingy, and watch each other's backs while checking edits on the RC. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 13:47, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

What if people would only mark 100% safe edits as patrolled? I think it would be quite useful then. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:49, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a good point to ask anyone who may have the ability to patrol edits only to do so if they are 100% sure. Alterations of stats that someone cannot verify should be left for someone else who can check. Images added from unknown sources should not be marked unless the source can be found - stills from BTS videos is a more recent example that comes to mind.
I would prefer this to be used to mark edits that we are 100% happy with - if they are not up to standard either revert, if vandalism or really bad rte error, or fix whatever is wrong, formatting, etc.
In a nutshell - if you would be comfortable submitting that edit yourself and have the sources to back it up, then mark it as patrolled. cqm 18:30, 5 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Ugh, that doesn't mean people will. We're just humans. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:50, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - We could add this as an optional tool for admins, but giving them the power to assign it to members who want it, provided they are deemed capable of using it. Kinda a win-win situation, if possible. --Alchez 14:27, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

That was pretty much the point of the patrollers group, just with a rough guide as to how many edits should be obtained before they are deemed trustworthy. Admins and Bureaucrats would get this right automatically. cqm 18:30, 5 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Question - Does patrolling a revision show up in Special:Log? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:49, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Btw, this and this message make me think this will spam the logs incredibly. I don't think it's good to spam everyone who can't hide the patrol log with all these patrols, so if we're gonna have this, I really think it has to be possible for everyone to hide the patrol log. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:56, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
[[w:c:wow:Special:RecentChanges|Wowwiki's Recent Changes]], [[w:c:wow:Special:Log||Wowwiki's Log]], [[w:c:wow:Special:Log/patrol|Wowwiki's patrol log]]. As far as I can tell whilst the patrolling shows up in Special:Log, it does not in Special:RecentChanges. I've left a message on wowwiki just to check whether this changes if you have the patrol right, but I imagine it remains the same. Does anyone with the auto-patrol right currently see patrol logs appearing in either Special:RecentChanges (user welcomes should be marked if I understand correctly) or Special:Log? cqm 18:30, 5 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose - This decision is being mostly arbitrated by people who, frankly, have a minimal impact on countervandalism, and whose use of the patrol tool would not make much of a dent in the unpatrolled edits. The major countervandals that I've talked to that have not given their opinions here (Ansela, Haidro, Ciph) as well as Mol, have expressed that they won't use the tool if this is implemented; they say it's burdensome and won't prevent them from checking all of the edits anyway. Those four make up nearly half of the total reverts and undos that happen on here, compared to the 15% that are done by people who support this thread and who at least say they will use the tool if it's offered. Keep in mind those numbers don't include the others who probably aren't aware that patrol would exist. Unless those major countervandals decide they'll use it anyway (seems unlikely), or the people who support this will patrol all the edits (even more unlikely), this project will be dead within a week. Whoever closes this thread needs to know that the voting here is a meritocracy -- it doesn't matter how many various people support this thread, unless they'll actually be on the front lines using it and picking up the slack. Everyone's getting bogged down in the details but not realizing that the people who this is built for, don't want it. ʞooɔ 02:16, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Ignore Cook. He's just the disproportionately vocal minority. He also thinks he's better than you because you don't do counter vandalism that often. Who does he think he is, believing that he should have more of a say than you? I think he's full of it. Let's hear it for the tyranny of the majority! Or as I like to call it, majoranny. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:12, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - I would use this tool all the time despite an admittedly hazy understanding of what it even is. What is it, some kind of auto vandalism detector? Yeah that sounds about right. Anyways, anything that makes things more complex is fine by me. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:12, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

All the extension does is add a little exclamation mark next to the edit in recentchanges to show that the edit has been checked. Nothing else. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 04:10, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
So it does revert vandals for you? --Iiii I I I 05:27, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
Exclamation marks everywhere makes the wiki more exciting. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:17, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the patrol marks (exclamation marks) appear in the rc only to admins, unless you add the right to all users. However, they are shown on unpatrolled edits, and the ! is removed for edits marked as patrolled, either automatically or manually. Overall, this feature is pretty worthless, with most projects removing it and it no longer being part of the mediawiki default. I'd still be OK with it here, but don't count my opinion because I'm inactive. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:23, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Of course we're not counting your opinion. We've got RS:SOW for that, saying "inactive users can't make good points, so their opinions should be disregarded." JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:44, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - After reading and re-reading this discussion, I find that the arguments for this extension center around the fact that it could be useful. However, I find the arguments against this to be much stronger: Cook brings up an excellent point in that the people who think that it could be useful will not be the ones who are using it, while the ones who would use it have stated that they will not. This means that it would effectively become a useless extension. Therefore, the extension will not be implemented. There was no discussion on the other part of the proposal concerning bot flags; that issue should be raised in a separate discussion if the proposer wishes to pursue it further. --LiquidTalk 20:26, December 30, 2012 (UTC)