Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/patrolled pages

No Patrolled link

There is no "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link. SEWilco (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. I thought it was just me who couldn't find/see it. Does someone know? – sgeureka ^t•c 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. I thought it might be a conflict with some script, but SEWilco doesn't appear to be using any, unless he's using something other than monobook. I'll try disabling some of mine to see if that helps. Someone's obviously able to see it, as pages keep getting marked as reviewed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the help page, the function is only available to administrators. I'll fix the page here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be available to all autoconfirmed users (accounts older than 4 days). I've been pestering Brion on IRC to change it. As it appears it might take a consensus to change it, I've begun a quick poll below. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin and can't see it either. Where is it supposed to be exactly? --W.marsh 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out. --W.marsh 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I've been a registered user since 2004 with several thousand edits. I don't see the link. What should I do? Fg2 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You must be a sysop to mark patrolled currently. The discussion below is trying to get it moved to autoconfirmed users, which is what you and Will are. I (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Since it's only for administrators, can you make the highlighting and the notification that's on the Watchlist only appear for administrators so that it doesn't confuse the 99% of registered users who aren't administrators? Fg2 (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, now it's been enabled. Even better! Thanks Fg2 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Will ^(talk) 01:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only on pages that are yellow in Special:Newpages. If it's white, that means it's been patrolled already, so no link. --W.marsh 01:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yellow? White? All I'm seeing is blue. --Carnildo (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is unpatrolled, the entry will be outlined in yellow. If it has been patrolled, it will look the same as it did before. I (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Still not seeing it. It might be that I'm using Classic rather than Monobook as my skin. --Carnildo (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin and I can only see the link on new pages, not previously existing ones. What's up with that? —Keenan Pepper 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Once anyone has flagged it once as patrolled, the link will not appear again. Also, it seems to only appear when you load a page coming directly from special:newpages. --W.marsh 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Question: Who should be given the ability to patrol new pages?

Admins only

1. While I understand the desire for autoconfirmed users to be able to mark patrolled, this can defeat the purpose of marking pages. While I assume most pages that are speediable are created by users who only register to do it immediately, if the user waits a few days and becomes autoconfirmed, then he can mark the page patrolled. The purpose of marking is so that others do not need to check it. With the potential for the above scenario, pages that are marked patrolled may not, in reality, be legitimately patrolled, which means the page either survives without inspection, or we have people checking already patrolled pages to make sure that this hasn't happened, which would make patrolling effecitvely useless. Even if the aforementioned scenario never happens, allowing any autoconfirmed user to mark pages patrolled places a lot of trust that the person who patrolled is not in error, and admins who do not neccesarily have that trust in all autoconfirmed users will have to check all new pages. The most secure way to be sure that a mark is correct is if the only person who can mark them is someone who is already trusted, i.e. admins. I actually don't like this update, but if it must happen, I'd rather admins be the one to mark patrolled. I (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   I should have mentioned that users cannot mark their own pages as patrolled. Many newpage patrollers now aren't admins, are they doing a bad job? Mr.Z-man 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well that voids the first scenario. But it doesn't change W.marsh's. Most new page patrollers are doing an excellent job. However, there are many people checking most of the pages. Thus, there are usually several people who see a page quickly. If the page were already patrolled, as in W.marsh's scenario, then they wouldn't check it. Or they would, and the patrol system is useless. I (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what's to prevent someone from marking a bunch of pages as patrolled just to be disruptive (it wouldn't be very obvious) or marking their own pages as patrolled when they're not really fit to make that decision. I think non-admins should be able to do this... but something between "autoconfirmed" and "admin" would be good. Maybe a checklist, similar to people who can use AWB. --W.marsh 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed (accounts older than 4 days)

1. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. I'd imagine plenty of patrollers aren't admins. (Bad faith patrolling should be easy enough to catch). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   How will/could bad faith patrolling be caught? Does it mark somewhere the name of the user who patrolled it? -- Quiddity (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, if you do traditional new page patrolling and look at an obviously inappropriate page that was marked as patrolled, you can go to the page history and click "view logs for this page" and see who flagged it as patrolled. Then, under that user's contributions list, you can view logs for the user and see what other pages he/she marked as patrolled and deal with it appropriately. Neil916 (Talk) 08:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

3. I was wondering about this... Seraphim ^Whipp 01:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
4. I was going to return to NP patrolling again after a long hiatus, but if the useful new feature is not available to me, I cannot offer the same degree of contribution as admins. Which is silly; it undermines the effort of those without the mop, and reduces its practical worth to some extent in comparison. Adrian M. H. 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
5. I'd imagine most patrollers arn't admins. else there would be nothing in the category page for speedy deletion requests. And I agree that bad faith stuff will get caught up fairly easily. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes, please :) Spebi 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
7. This seems like an extremely useful feature, but it's currently not available to most editors. Chaz ^Beckett 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
8. It should be the same length of time as for semi-protected pages or whatever. But in reality, the vandals, usually kids, don't tend to go on internal wiki bits like this do they? Also, I thought we wanted to encourage more people to patrol here as did when anyone could, not the opposite.Merkinsmum (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
9. I'll go with the stated behavior. I suspect the decision about which users can patrol was already made in some previous discussion, and that is why the instructions don't mention admins. Where was new page patrolled discussed? (SEWilco (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

   There was scattered discussion here, and from all previous previosu discussion with developers, it was understood that it was going to be set this way. Mr.Z-man 02:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   I think you need to define what the current meaning of "this way" was. (SEWilco (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

   Set so autoconfirmed can patrol. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

10. I still think we should look at a slightly better requirement than just autoconfirmed, but even with all eyes on this new toy, we're having trouble flagging everything with just admins doing it. So I think we should open it up to more than just admins for now and see if that's a problem. --W.marsh 02:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Unless an improved alternative exists. Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
12. I've been experimenting a little, and I like it. I think auto-comfirmed is the right level, it would be too much of a burden if we admins had to do all the work of newpages. DGG (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
13. If we only trust admins to do NP patrol, where would we be? Neil916 (Talk) 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
14. This seems like a task that any established user should be allowed to do. Its a minor task really; even confirmed pages are not exempt from CSD or any other edits in the future... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed (by two users)

I am concerned that autoconfirmed will be susceptible to puppetry (create page with one account; then confirm it with a different account - hard to spot), and people patrolling to allow through pages that suit their own POV. Requiring two users to patrol a page before it is remove from the stack will allow patrollers to police themselves, so to speak, removing the administrative overhead. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If this could be implemented (AFAIK it cannot be right now) it would be a much more ideal system. Mr.Z-man 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support if it can be done. Autocomfirmed (status quo) if not. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An alternate solution

Not sure if this is feasible to implement, but would there be a way to automatically mark any page tagged with a speedy as 'patrolled'?. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I like Bfigura's idea. As for who should be authorized, admins only is too much of a burden on admins, as most patrollers are non admins. All registered users is no good, as vandals will just patrol their own pages. Autoconfirm concerns me, because there are plenty of vandal accounts that are older than four days. Yes, they will get caught eventually, but that is still more work. Is there a permission class that can be set by admins that could allow patrollers to apply for permission, and be granted it liberally after a brief review? Just some sort of easy process that requires the person seeking the permission to ask for it, and for a human admin to approve it? Like Bfigura's idea, this may not be feasable to implement, but it would solve a lot of potential issues.- Crockspot (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree per my comments below. As noted, the best way to accomplish this (for now) would be to patrol first, then hit edit on the "You've patrolled this page" page, then add tags to CSD. It takes a few clicks out of the process, at any rate, and patrolling the page would lower the chance of someone tagging it while you're tagging it. If there's code that edits a page to flag it as patrolled, then it might be possible to add that code to the CSD templates, so that adding one of those templates to the article triggers the "patrolled" flag. Changing the CSD templates would be a can of worms, but might eliminate some confusion here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

the current way suggested (marking patrolled first, then csd) works, if people remember to use it. DGG (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I can track AzaToth down, I'll suggest making patrolling an automatic feature in Twinkle. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another alternative - the buddy system

We could do a double-patrol system, where it takes two patrols to actually remove something from the not-patrolled list. In color-coding terms, a new page is red if it has not been patrolled. The first patroller sees that it's OK, clicks that he's patrolled it, and it turns yellow. The second patroller also sees that it's OK, and clicks again - now it's green and cleared from the unpatrolled (or in need of patrol) list. It also accounts for the possibility that the first patroller missed a "cocksdickslol" in the middle of the article, or some other nonsense that would justify a speedy. An added bonus would be that it would be that much harder to game the system, presuming that one could not patrol the same article twice. If the concern is that non-admins may not be reliable, then pairing up on patrol would have the effect of moderating shenanigans out of the system. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A concern

Is four days really enough? If a user waits four days so he/she can create a hoax, attack, or spam page, why wouldn't they just create another (sockpuppet) account to mark as patrolled?

There aren't enough admins for new page patrolling, and my experience is that most patrollers are actually non-admins. So I believe this feature should be available to all established users, regardless of their access. But, is 4 days enough to call a user established to patrol and monitor Wikipedia's incoming content? I'd like suggest modifying the patroller criteria, perhaps to 10, 15 days? or 250 edits? Note that this would be different from the current autoconfirm function, which allows editors with more than four days to move and create new pages (and I'm not suggesting we change that). Another alternative is to have admins certify patrollers, but I would tend to oppose that idea. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like W.marsh's idea of a list of approved users. However, I believe, after reading Help:Patrolled edit, that this is a user right issue, and we would have to create a new permission level to do this. Although I could be wrong. I (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I share your concern, Mtmelendez, but then I think back to the past discussions about related proposals regarding permissions. Adrian M. H. 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see the cause for concern, but I don't think most users that create attack/spam/vandal pages are familiar with newpages. (As much as I'm loathe to rely on security by obscurity, I think the autoconfirmed would work). Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed then. Unless a viable and consensus approved alternative exists, I think the autoconfirm function is the safest way to go, for now. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea of allowing users who have only had an account for four days to use this feature seems nutty to me. I think the feature should be confined to users who have held an account at least three months, in fact I think it should probably only be usable by administrators, who by definition are users who have been recognized by the community as reliable and trustworthy. Gatoclass (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't nearly as big a deal as deleting/protecting/blocking, its not like marking a page as patrolled will prevent speedy deletion. Many (most?) newpage-patrollers are not admins. Prohibiting them from being able to use this defeats the purpose (making the patrolling more efficient). Mr.Z-man 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do most administrators do CSD work from the category, or do they check newpages? I (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If an admin wants to work on CSDs, they just work from C:CSD. of course many admins do newpage patrol, and may delete directly from there, or delete already-tagged articles. One prolific admin who does NP patrol seems to delete the obvious ones and tag the less-obvious ones for a 2nd opinion... that seems to be a good way of going about it. --W.marsh 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for most admins, but I generally work from the category. Mr.Z-man 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "autoconfirmed" feature would be better if it were based on an edit count rather than based on account creation date. --Iamunknown 04:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's possible right now without new software features. I think if we raised the edit count threshold here, it would also apply to the number of edits someone would have to have to edit a semi-protected page. --W.marsh 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the key is for new pages patrollers not to use the patrolled flag as a substitution for what they have been doing all this time, but as an added tool. At a glance, you can see what pages haven't been flagged as nominally appropriate for Wikipedia, then you can go back through the new page log from the bottom and see what needs to be flagged/reflagged for speedy, tagged, etc, just like before. The risk is that NP patrollers will assume that "it's not yellow, therefore it must be just fine". Neil916 (Talk) 08:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on Patrol

Should patrolling of pages which obviously don't meet standards be considered vandalism? Can Patrol edits be linked to for vandalism reports? (SEWilco (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure about vandalism, but I'd think it would be disruption. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Further, is there any way to tell who marked a page as patrolled? I'm not seeing it show up in my contributions. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Special:Log/patrol. I (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that one way to deal with vandals using accounts to Patrol vandalism is to simply issue vandalism warnings for bad Patrols. They won't be able to avoid being blocked with Patrol-only accounts. (SEWilco (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I think if the page is junk, it should marked as patrolled, but tagged as CSD/whatever. This is because the patrolled status just means people won't (necessarily) look at it from the new page feed. Since you've already taken care of the problem, that's all the patrolled status means (ie. not that the page is good, just that it's been seen, and if there's a problem, then it's been taken care of.) Sound about right?– Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless the person who marked it as patrolled did in error, whether due to malice or negligence. In which case, the patrol is misleading, and it then goes on without another pair of eyes from newpage patrol. I (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Some bad patrols will get spotted, particularly due to update delays causing multiple patrollers. Are vandalism warnings one way to deal with bad patrollers? I don't warn all vandals, but repeated ones are more likely to get my attention. A vandal patrol-only account could be dealt with that way, or do should we figure out a new way of handling them? (SEWilco (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I am not liking this new feature, it's caused pages that should've been deleted but been marked "patrolled" to be ignored. It lends itself to abuse and if vandals start to understand it all it will mean is that we will need to always check both the patrolled ad unpatrolled pages putting us in the same position we were in before. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there are so many patrollers that it's likely that many not-patrolled pages will get several patrollers looking at them. Some bad patrollers will get spotted, and some of their past contributions will be examined. The unpatrolled marking is a help, not a full solution. (SEWilco (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I see it as on the whole it may have a slight benefit but I see in the future, and probably forever, that even patrolled pages will eed to be checked to see if they were correctly patrolled making the whole system redundant. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have the advantage of at least making sure the items have been seen once, by someone. I suppose that's a small step forward.DGG (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Status Change

It seems I can mark things as patrolled now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the link too now. But what are you going to believe, your eyes or the documentation? (SEWilco (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

There's a banner at the top of this Talk page now. (SEWilco (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. Three cheers for responsive devs! --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a cheer in Dutch? (SEWilco (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Possible to turn it off or at least invert it so that the patrolled edits are in yellow?

I know it says it may take some getting used to but this is really messing with my vision, probably due to that I am colour blind. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ways to fiddle with your css file to change the colours, although my attempts to invert the colours have been unsuccessful. I have, however, been able to change the yellow to green, if that somewhat solves your problem :) Add the code li.not-patrolled { background-color: red; } to User:Lid/monobook.css. Spebi 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure this concept is as effective as it is meant to be. I have come across some "patrolled" pages that were in fact speedy deletion pages. The "patrolling capability looks like it may have the effect of people ignoring patrolled pages on the assumption that they are fine rather than checking the pages that need checking. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD tagging a page AND patrolling it in one edit?

Great work on the function, team. However, I've found several unpatrolled edits that were already tagged for speedy deletion. I marked them as patrolled, but is there a way to automatically mark them patrolled if you add the CSD tag? Perhaps something that checks if the edit includes a db tag, or some such. I only ask because, if the intent is to remove a page from the unpatrolled list once it's csd'd, then adding this sort of auto-tag might be of value. It might also be something to add to the CSD template itself, though obviously that would merit some discussion. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make the patrol link appear when in edit mode, as well? Spebi 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After you mark the page as patrolled, it takes you a "you marked it as patrolled!" page; that page still has an edit tab, which takes you directly to the edit page (ie bypasses the article page). That reduced the required clicks at least. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on the main page seem to suggest slapping the patrolled marker on the article first, to reduce duplication of effort by others, and then you can more leisurely add whatever tagging you need. (SEWilco (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

consensus?

Does anyone have a idea how this got approved? last I knew, it was still being discussed as experimental.DGG (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the experiment, DGG. Trial by fire, as it were. So long as it can be turned off (can it?), I don't have a major problem with adding this function to the software. I agree, though, it seems to have been dropped in our collective laps. Perhaps I don't pay attention where I should, though. I will say that, if anonymous page creation is indeed enabled as is (I believe) still under discussion, then a function like this could become absolutely vital. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

well, if this is the experiment, I've been experimenting, and I think I like it. It at least makes sure everything will be seen at least once by somebody. And people seem to be skipping the hard ones initially, so they can be looked at a little more slowly--which is I think the right way to use it. DGG (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was tested a bit in Gmaxwell's test wiki (he wrote the patch for this) and the code was reviewed by Brion Vibber. I think it might have been tested on the German Wikipedia before being turned on here as well. Mr.Z-man 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I too, have been experimenting with this, and I find it really helpful! What a great way to have a very simple, non-disruptive change, that allows experienced editors to go through New Pages, and communicate with others via one simple click. I do, however, realize there will be those that are marked without being properly reviewed, but I think the benefits outweigh that. Honestly I think this is a fantastic thing, at least so far, after having played with it for an hour or so, and I hope it stays, in at least some form. Ariel♥Gold 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ArielGold in that the bar is a helpful visual indicator of pages that have been checked. No more wasting time going to pages that already have been tagged. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Accountability

An unexpected consequence, I thought of this, might be accountability. Say someone marks a page as patrolled... then that page gets a legal complaint, or some bad press... or even ends up being another Seigenthaler. Wouldn't the finger quickly get pointed to the guy who marked it as patrolled? I'm not saying the patroller is really guilty here, but it's something that might come up. --W.marsh 04:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No more so than someone marking a new article as a stub without understanding the topic. Patrolling seems intended to mean that someone glanced at the article and it resembled what a Wikipedia article should look like. NP/RC patrol often looks for reasonable edits on random topics which one might not understand, it's not GA review nor peer review. (SEWilco (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

The "mark as patrolled" isn't an endorsement that the page is appropriate, from the way I understand it. It is just a first preliminary step, to quickly "mark off" pages that either are already tagged for CSD, or do establish notability. For the rest, I don't see how this changes anything, the same policies apply with regards to WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. The only thing this does, is add a visual signal to other NP patrollers that some of the pages have already been looked at. I don't see this becoming any kind of issue, if pages "slip through". Theoretically, the chances of those kinds of issues arising were higher previously, as nobody had any idea if someone had looked at the pages or not. That's just my own opinion, of course. Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is it?

Can somebody show on a screenshot where the 'Mark this page as patrolled' link is? I can't find it anywhere.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the bottom right-hand corner above the gray box the categories are in. Leebo ^T/C 05:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up

A big thumbs up for me, I think this is a great feature that if it was expanded to all recent changes could really take a huge amount of work out of RC and NP patrol. If you see an obviously inappropriate page that has been flagged as patrolled by a new user without any action taken, you can check that user's logs to see other pages with similar actions to undo any potential damage. My only concern is that it should be emphasized that people should still take a look at "patrolled" pages in case an article that someone thinks looks fine really isn't. Also, can the person who created the page flag it as "patrolled"? Neil916 (Talk) 05:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can, but that's described as a conflict of interest. The exceptions are pages created by bots and admins, which are auto-flagged as patrolled. Leebo ^T/C 05:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... If I was going to be a troll and create some garbage page, if that were the case, I'd just reload the page and flag it as patrolled, thus removing 95% of the usefulness of this modification. It seems that the person who created the page shouldn't be able to flag it as patrolled. I don't know what that would involve on the coding side, though. Neil916 (Talk) 05:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I created a test page in my userspace and tried to flag it as patrolled, and it told me I couldn't flag my own edits as patrolled. Kudos. Neil916 (Talk) 05:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Neato. Leebo ^T/C 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(Hopefully not stuffing beans up my nose) I also like the fact that the "mark as patrolled" doesn't show up unless you access the page via special:newpages. Neil916 (Talk) 05:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The only obvious disadvantage of this feature is the potential for bad-faith patrolling, which would be rare. We'll just have to see how it goes with patrolling and if bad-faith patrolling occurs. How about 100 edits minimum before patrolling can be done? It's against the wiki-spirit, but still... we'll just have to wait and see.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"appropriate"

I can't help wondering whether "Any page that is appropriate for Wikipedia" should read "Any page that is inappropriate for Wikipedia". Surely most articles in Wikipedia are appropriate for it. Lima (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When you're patrolling and you read a page that is perfectly appropriate and needs no action... you flag is as patrolled. That makes sense, no? And remember that this only applies to new pages. Leebo ^T/C 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Add patrolled status change to page history?

It seems like it would be much better to be able to see the 'patrolled' date/time/etc. in the article's regular page history, instead of only being able to find it via the Patrol log. Ravenna1961 (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When I go to the article history and click "view logs for this article", I can see who flagged the article. Neil916 (Talk) 05:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Other mechanisms

Not everyone does NPP through Special:Newpages, yet the "mark as patrolled" link is only available through such special page. I find this somewhat annoying as I use an RC feed (as I can revert vandalism at the same time). I'm sure AzaToth might be able to conjure some javascript magic here, but suggest this should be implemented server-side. MER-C 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Query

Is there any way to see which user has marked a page as patrolled? Or to see which pages a particular user has patrolled? I don't see anything in contributions or the article history. If this isn't there, it would be extremely difficult to catch vandals marking pages as patrolled. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this has already been answered 2 sections back. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We now have a special log for patrolled pages - Special:Log/Patrol. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The log says "USER (Talk | contribs | block) marked revision 171966890 of ARTICLE patrolled". Does that mean that this feature can be easily extended to recent changes too, as it seems to be marking revisions of articles and not articles themselves as patrolled? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)