Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/patrolled pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leebo (talk | contribs) at 17:50, 21 November 2007 (→‎Purpose?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No Patrolled link

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nevermind, figured it out. --W.marsh 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aha, now it's been enabled. Even better! Thanks Fg2 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it either. Will (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yellow? White? All I'm seeing is blue. --Carnildo (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I'd love to see veteran users involved, but the autoconfirmed treshhold is so low that the amount of problem editors in the group is too hight and it's too easy for a vandal to wait it out and become autoconfirmed. The group of people this is available to should expand, but not that much. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Autoconfirmed (accounts older than 4 days)

  1. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  3. I was wondering about this... Seraphim Whipp 01:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Yes, please :) Spebi 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think you need to define what the current meaning of "this way" was. (SEWilco (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Set so autoconfirmed can patrol. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. Unless an improved alternative exists. Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  13. If we only trust admins to do NP patrol, where would we be? Neil916 (Talk) 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  15. As said above, a vast number of new page patrollers are not admins. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
  2. Support if it can be done. Autocomfirmed (status quo) if not. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support. Marking as patrolled is very quick and easy, and chances are that nobody will ever check the article again once it has been marked as patrolled. When patroling new pages, I quite often still make some changes to them, and it happens too that I notice that other editors edit pages I have patroled, and notice that their edits are actualy much better. Maybe something with a two color scheme? i.e. red for unpatroled, yellow for patroled once, white for patroled twice? Or make it something like patroled, and patrole checked? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Four eyes are better than two. Also, would it be possible to make it so that the creator of a given article cannot mark as unpatrolled his/her own creation? --Nehwyn (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for checking by TWO users (NOT the current ONE user) neither of whom created the page. Other editors, who have tested it, report that the page creator IS blocked from marking his or her own page(s). And "4 days" is a joke - no where near long enough! I know it won't happen but my 2 cents: require a minimum of 30 days + some minumum number of edits (100? - brand new editors tend to make lots of tiny edits, instead of consolidating their edits before posting, so this should be a good number), whichever occurs first. New but efficient editors would time out before reaching 100. Either way you would thus have some history to distinguish morons from true contributors. Badly Bradley (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support (moved from below) 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)[reply]
  • Support if it can be implemented, otherwise support for "Autoconfirmed (accounts older than 4 days)". --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All registered users

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)[reply]

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

This is a excellent idea but I would hope this would only function for articles actually tagged by a separate edit after creation, rather than articles containing a speedy tag. Many articles are recreated with the previous speedy tag or more commonly, with a hangon in place (which also adds articles to CAT:CSD). If a user recreates, removes the tag and the page is marked as patrolled upon creation, no one may look at it again. This is not the same as when a speedy tag is removed after being patrolled, because the NPP has a good chance of catching the speedy removal while they are active. By contrast, by the time of recreation, the original NPP may be offline or have moved on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Do most administrators do CSD work from the category, or do they check newpages? I (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can't speak for most admins, but I generally work from the category. Mr.Z-man 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also work exclusively from the CSD category. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also work (mostly) from the category, unless I happen on something tagged while doing other mopping up work. --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Concerned answered?

I think that the new Special:Log/Patrol page possibly answers my concerns. It is a check-tool so users can verify and oversee the process. We could have informal patrol reviewers constantly verify who patrolled the pages. If we see a user with no userpage, no talk page, and very few contribs, it may be a flag to check his/her patrol edit. I'm not saying that they should not patrol, but its a verification mechanism. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

I'm not sure about vandalism, but I'd think it would be disruption. --Bfigura (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Special:Log/patrol. I (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Status Change

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

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))[reply]
There's a banner at the top of this Talk page now. (SEWilco (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks. Three cheers for responsive devs! --Bfigura (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's a cheer in Dutch? (SEWilco (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It might be that the person marked it as patrolled first, and then was preparing to speedy / prod / fix. I had that happen to me a number of times last night -- I marked the page as patrolled, and then while I was typing up the prod reasoning, someone came behind me and speedied it. (I tend to lean a bit more towards prodding new pages, in order to not bite the newbies, especially if it's a case of not having asserted notability.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Still can't find it. Can you provide a screenshot? A picture speaks for a thousand words. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you checking articles that haven't already been patrolled? I (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(outdent) I've been playing with it a bit, and I find it useful, too. The only problem I've seen is pages that are marked as patrolled without being tagged (because they look OK at first glance), but which a Google search shows to be copy-and-paste copyvios. So I think it's a good idea not to neglect looking at pages just because the yellow highlighting is gone. Deor (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Unfortunately, while most existing articles are appropriate for Wikipedia, most new pages are not. I think page deletions are running at around 75% of the rate of new page creation. This difference between new and existing pages exists because the new page filtering system is pretty good. GRBerry (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I couldn't find that at all, and agree with Ravenna, we'd benefit from being able to find it in the history, not in a log which doesn't ever show for me. ThuranX (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. I sometimes watch contributions of new accounts new accounts and it sure would be handy if this showed up there as well. It'd be nice if this feature were extended to cover all edits by new acccounts (even if it is to something besides a new page) - I think that would also cut down on a lot of duplicate (and manual) work. —Mrand T-C 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked both AzaToth and Ioeth to include this in Twinkle and [[WP::-)|Friendly]]. Ioeth already said he'll add it in, and AzaToth probably will too. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see this has already been answered 2 sections back. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a special log for patrolled pages - Special:Log/Patrol. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Patrolled edits was originally designed for recentchanges patrolling, the split between recentchanges and newpages was a recent software change. Patrolling for recentchanges is turned off here and on other large wikis due to the huge amount of edits we get. You can post on the village pump to get more input and if there is consensus the developers might turn it back on. Mr.Z-man 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited = patrolled

A page that has been edited by any autoconfirmed user other than its creator or a bot should be automatically marked as patrolled. This would eliminate the two-step process of e.g. marking as speedy and marking as patrolled - and generally makes sense, because an edit implies a review, one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure. There are some users who don't function in the CSD tagging world. It's not uncommon to see a page tagged with {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}}, just with a category or stub tag, or its subject boldfaced, that is patently a CSD candidate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but - as I gather - "patrolled" means merely "has been quickly reviewed, and appropriate action (if any) has been taken". Of course not everyone will nail the "appropriate action" bit correctly. Still, once Wikipedia standard article tagging mechanisms take over - for better or for worse - the article may nevertheless be considered patrolled. GregorB (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I can imagine patrolling a page, editing some small things, but thinking the page still needs more patroling. I want to be able to keep it as unpatroled, even if I made edits (for example, bolded the title, but not tagged yet). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. An edit may imply a review, but may not necessarily imply a decision. GregorB (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to see though, is a checkbox at the save page along with the minor and watch, with an option to 'mark this page as patrolled'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - anything that would reduce it to a single step. Another concern are old articles that have never been marked as patrolled (because the feature is so recent); I suppose the not-patrolled list is thus virtually endless (while only the first 1000 can be seen). It would hardly make sense to mark 2 million articles, but there are some that would be worth inspecting (and these are, incidentally, more or less those that have been edited exclusively by their creators, anonymous users and bots). GregorB (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the only function of marking a page as patrolled is to produce the color coding exclusive toSpecial:Newpages. As such, "patrolled older articles" is something of a non sequitur. The only way you would get any use out of, say, a six month old article being marked as patrolled, would be if you had scrolled in newpages back 50,000 or so articles. I don't imagine anyone would be doing that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly - but when an article is "worth inspecting" (per definition given above), it doesn't really matter whether it's six months or six minutes old. That's why automatic marking (for "old" articles, at least) might be useful - to move them out of the way. GregorB (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding, which may just be me, but let me ask a question which might clarify it. Premises: the only use of marking a page as patrolled is for users presently looking at newpages (in the range of the last 1,000), because that's the only place the color markings appear. Older articles never appear at newpages because they are older (once created, a page never appears at newpages again). If you agree with these premises, how then will any older article ever be situated so that it could get in the way?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right: one sees 1000 newest articles in the list - or 1000 newest non-patrolled, when one clicks on "Hide patrolled edits". But how many are there non-patrolled articles in total? Two million, that's how many. The problem isn't that old articles don't appear in the list; the problem is they will never stop appearing (well, almost never). That's what I meant by "moving them out of the way"... GregorB (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I would say the addition of a CSD tag should automatically mark a page as patrolled, but unmark it if the tag is removed. --Blanchardb (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about this but I'm still not getting it. We seem to be agreeing but still missing each other. I'll let this be my last attempt:-) So, right, we agree that older articles will never stop appearing in the list at newpages. We also agree that in order to see those older articles as unpatrolled one would need to click "next 500" many times and the longer this is up, the more times we would need to click "next 500" to reach older articles. So my question is why would we ever need to go back very far? The list at newpages is seemingly only useful when relatively fresh and older articles never co-exist and impinge on what we see presently.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(backdent) OK, I'll either clear this up or confuse it more. The list, if one hides the patrolled edits, contains all non-patrolled articles in order by time of creation, from newest to oldest. The threshold is set by the user, up to 500. Once an article is patrolled, it is removed from this list, the articles older than the newly-patrolled article move up a spot, and an older unpatrolled article is bumped onto the list. Concievably, with a slow day for new articles and multiple diligent patrollers, the most recent articles might all become patrolled. Then, patrollers would begin to work on older articles. The concern is that every article on the site was considered unpatrolled when the ability to patrol was added. So, for every article that is patrolled and removed from the list, older articles will continue to be listed as unpatrolled. Eventually, we'll have articles that have been around for days or weeks on the list, because they are unpatrolled. As most patrollers focus on the newest of articles, this isn't a critical item - but, I agree, it seems to be the most massive backlog in Wikipedia history, sort of. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I was not aware of the ability to hide patrolled articles, and without that, this made no sense. I knew there had to be some reason why me and GregorB were talking past each other. Thanks for clarifying ZZ. and yes, what a backlog! I'm guessing that as patrolled articles are pushed back in time we will reach a point of diminishing returns. I doubt we ever get back more than a few hundred thousand:-p --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrollers noticeboard

I strongly suggest to start New pages patrollers noticeboard so that new page patrollers can communicate with each others regarding articles. I see complete disorder in strategy to patrol new pages. I saw this and I fail to understand why it was not speeded or proded. sharara 12:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because "host for Extreme Makeover" is a claim of importance. I think the noticeboard you're wanting is really WP:AFD - a place to get consensus on what to do with articles. --W.marsh 18:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why this page is now yellow?

No, just wondering why some idiot is telling me it is. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see somebody fixed whatever other page was imposing itself on this page with that misinformation. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

If the article looks reasonable, but goes over my head, such as Super-logarithm, should i mark it patrolled? If an article doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion, but meets criteria for WP:AFD, should i mark it patrolled? Foobaz·o< 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't sure about an article, don't do anything with it and let someone else review it. If it isn't speedy deletable but should still be deleted, you should mark it as patrolled only if you plan to tag it for deletion. Due to the way this works, it is easier to mark it as patrolled and then tag it for deletion using whatever method. Mr.Z-man 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean i only check it as patrolled after fact-checking it? How detailed of a fact-check are we talking about? Foobaz·o< 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The great virtue of the patrolled marking, is that if you dont know what to do, or have any doubts, you can just leave it alone and someone will be sure to catch it. Without it, you never could tell and there was a feeling of "if I dont catch it, it might escape altogether"DGG (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the feature

I've been using the mark as patrolled feature, but I've encountered a small problem. After I mark some of the pages for speedy deletion the option to mark it as patrolled disappears. When I return to the new pages screen, and then click on the article, I'm able to mark it as patrolled. Is there a way to fix that? Am I the only one with this problem? Thanks. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, curiously enough. --Nehwyn (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the patrolled link only appears when there is an rcid specified in the URL (look at the URL of a non-patrolled page when linked from Special:Newpages) - and this is only added by the links on Special:Newpages. The easiest ways to avoid this are marking as patrolled before tagging or using multiple tabs in a browser like Firefox or IE7. Mr.Z-man 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing deletion log and AfD links on unpatrolled pages

I just found an article that was re-created after being deleted as a result of an WP:AFD. It has now been deleted again.

I noticed that the article had been patrolled and the person doing so had apparently not noticed that the page was a recreation of a deleted page. I don't blame them for this, because I don't think that they would have been aware of the article's history. It's only because I left it on my watchlist after deletion that it I picked it up.

This does, however, raise an issue (feature request?) in my view. If you go to create an article that has previously been deleted, you are informed of that, with a box containing links to the deletion criteria. If pages that have not been patrolled were to show deletion log entries and perhaps also links to XfDs if they exist, an article such as this could have been picked up and tagged {{Db-repost}}, rather than being marked patrolled. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my reply is sort of not on the topic of the software feature, but just to note that it is not wrong to re-create a previously deleted article. For instance, if someone created a short article about something, with no sources, and no assertion of notability, which was deleted via AfD, but then a different editor took some time, and found out the topic was notable, and appropriate, and re-created it in an entirely different form, neutrally written, with sources, etc., then there is no need to CSD it as "re-created". (This type of thing has happened in the past, with things like buildings, that were articles of no importance, but then became registered as a historical place with the National Register of Historical Places, and proper sources were available.) Now, granted, I don't check every article I patrol to see if it has ever been deleted (and I'm not sure anyone else really does either), but to have the software put a blanket "flag" on any title that was previously deleted, seems like it could cause some assumptions on the part of the reviewers. Just a thought, of course. :o) Ariel♥Gold 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Articles do get created with the same names sometimes. It would require some common sense in the application. If something went through XfD a couple of weeks ago and a new article shows up that looks like it's a fully wikified start- or B-class article, you'd have to wonder... Perhaps the better course of action, if the article otherwise looks valid, might be to ask someone who took part in the XfD (ideally the person who closed it) if this is a re-creation and let them apply the speedy tag. I'm not aware of there being a noticeboard or category for "possible re-created XfD articles" but perhaps there should be. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling of bad pages considered possibly harmful

I'm glad to see the MediaWiki patrolling improvements that I implemented running on English Wikipedia, but I'm a little surprised to see it being used a bit differently than I expected. I had expected that only good pages would be patrolled, so that we could look for people with a history of bad patrolling decisions simply by checking Special:Log/patrol for users with unusually high numbers of redlinks. On EnWP the new page patrolling feature is being used in a way that I didn't expect: Users are instructed to patrol bad pages which they have marked for deletion. I can see the value in doing this, but I'm not sure how we can easily look for bad patrollers given this style of use.

I think the best approach going forward would be to split patrolling into two types: "Patrol as good" and "Patrol as bad". Patrol-patrol could then be accomplished by looking for users with high levels of non-deleted bad patrolled log entries or high levels of deleted good patrolled entries. Would this be acceptable? Does anyone have any better proposals, keeping in mind that I'm only interested in very simple changes? --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a great idea. Would you be willing to code it? Mr.Z-man 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really a fan of the words "good" and "bad" (perhaps something more like "acceptable" and "requires attention"). Does another Wikipedia do what you were expecting would be done here? The only problem I'm foreseeing is that pages are often edited greatly in the minutes after they are patrolled, and there is a lot of gray area between a speedy deletion candidate and one needing major work. Is your idea of "bad" only the ones that need to be deleted? Either way, I can see a lot of them being marked "bad" and then being improved, to the point where you wouldn't really be able to tell much from someone's patrol log. Leebo T/C 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think there is not much benefit from patrol as good versus patrol as bad anyway. And what does "good" mean in this context? Good enough to not need speedy deletion? Then many good patrolled pages will still be red soon via PROD or AFD. Good enough to not merit a deletion nomination of any type? The higher the bar is pushed, the fewer pages will merit getting that bar. And the less willing people will be to mark it that way, and the more risk they will take on in so doing. And if the only choices are good/bad, then we've got WP:BITE and WP:AGF problems in labeling a page as bad. Also, what would be the benefits of the split? Knowing which pages have/haven't been reviewed is highly valuable; knowing whether the first reviewer thought them good/bad doesn't seem any where close to being as significant. Also, as an admin patrolling CAT:CSD, I try to rescue articles where possible; many are poor articles but with just a little work can at least turn into a decent redirect or be improved to stub quality. Similarly, there are many subtle ways to make a bad article look good. GRBerry (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GRBerry. Unless Gmaxwell has an example of another Wikipedia where this works, I don't see the benefit of knowing what a patroller thought of the article at the time of the first patrol. Leebo T/C 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of paradoxical and superfluous sentence

I removed

Pages you have created, as this would be a conflict of interest. (Admins' and bots' pages are automatically marked as patrolled. Other users are not able to mark their own pages as patrolled; they must be seen by someone else.)

from the page. As it's paradoxical and superfluous as normal users cannot mark their own edits, and bits and admins MUST mark their edits as marked. →AzaToth 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be paradoxical, but pages created by bots and admins are automatically marked as patrolled (with on log entry, I think). It is assumed that approved bots (ie with the flat) and admins can be counted on to create good pages which don't need to be patrolled. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's referring to the part about not marking your own pages as patrolled, and then it says you can't mark your own pages as patrolled even if you tried to. Leebo T/C 13:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

This may be obvious to people who have been following this matter, but what is the PURPOSE of this new feature?

Sincerely,

GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It allows new page patrollers to skip new pages that have already been patrolled, so that every single one of them doesn't have to look at every new page. Leebo T/C 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do new page patrol for long, you may get tired of loading pages that have been tagged for deletion already. This lets a patroller choose to instead look at pages that have completely escaped review. When I use it, I'll look only at unpatrolled pages and go back 1,000 pages or so to look at pages that slipped through the cracks of new page patrol. Right now, that is pages created about 3 days ago. GRBerry (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to do similarly, and am glad to have my practice confirmed by someone of such wide experience. And with the new method, I think fewer and fewer will escape. But I fear that the review will be so superficial as to miss many of the problems. DGG (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that the bottom of the new pages list was always a better place to patrol from, because there's not much use in jumping on a page seconds after its creation. Leebo T/C 03:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To DGG: That may be true, but at least we can confirm they are getting reviewed at all. This could also be good practice for a future use of flagged revisions. To Leebo: It does help to identify obvious attack pages and copyvios as well as other pages that have no chance whatsoever of becoming an article. Mr.Z-man 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The are exceptions, as you indicated, but the majority of pages requiring speedy deletion don't require that they be tagged within minutes. Especially for things like lack of context or content; lots of new editors don't realize their pages are being jumped on and assume they have a little time to add the content. Leebo T/C 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark deletion candidates as patrolled?

What is the consensus about marking pages that you tag for deletion as patrolled? I noticed this version says to mark speedy candidates as patrolled "so that people will not waste time" looking at the page again, but here admin Ral315 seems to disagree. As another admin who's trying to get used to this patrolling thing I've no opinion one way or other, but Ral's edit seems to make the page self-contradictory. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert my edit then; as far as I'm concerned, it was a bold move that can easily be reverted. I didn't see the above conversation about that. I don't think we should be patrolling CSDs, though -- this allows people to recognize bad patrollers from good patrollers. Hell, I nearly warned someone for patrolling bad articles, thinking bad faith was to blame, until I realized how we were using it. Ral315 » 09:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

I've just been trying this feature, and I like it. One thought - when I'm uncertain about a page, I don't mark it as patrolled, but leave it for someone else to deal with. I could watchlist it to see what happens, but is it possible to mark it as "needs second opinon" or even to be notified when someone else has patrolled it? Am I right to say that patrolling doesn't show up on a watchlist? You have to return to the article and check whether it has been patrolled? Also, it would be nice if admin-created pages showed up a different colour. I'm not convinced that admin-created pages don't need patrolling. Finally, as this is the first time I've patrolled new pages, could someone check my log and make sure the patrolling was OK. I'm sure people do things very differently and have different standards, and it will be interesting to see this from people's patrol logs. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the admin auto-patrol. Isn't the point of patrolling to have a trusted user look at the page? If that user is creating the page in the first place (and adminship is a position of trust verified at RfA) then it seems like it would be a waste of time to have more users look at it. Leebo T/C 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more being able to distinguish between patrolled pages and admin-created pages. When I look down the list, I also look at some of the patrolled pages, to double-check ones that catch my eye. I'd like to be able to distinguish between pages marked patrolled, and pages created by admins. I'd probably check some of the admin-created pages as well, but would be more likely to ignore them as "probably OK". Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would make sense to have a slightly different identifier for "auto-patrolled" pages. Leebo T/C 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this feature as I am a semi-regular new page patroller, but generally look back a day or two to see what may have slipped by. One comment: AWESOME!. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the patrolled link

I noticed that it only shows the mark this page as patrolled link when you follow the link from the watchlist. It would be much easier if it showed up on all unpatrolled pages, not only those visited from the newpages list. 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But then you would get anyone clicking the link. We really only want people familiar with Wikipedia policies to be patrolling new pages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of partrolled?

I don't know if this has been brought up already but maybe there could also be an option for marking a page as the opposite of patrolled. We already have speedy deletion, etc, but it might be nice to be able to mark a page as "I would like a second opinion on this page" or something like that and have it show up as red or some other attention getter on Newpages. -AndrewBuck (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying self-patrolling

It might be a good idea to make the log page for Special:Newpages highlight in red any pages which were marked as patrolled by the user who created them, another user on the same IP address, or other obvious attempts to sneak something under the radar. If this is too extreme maybe list the original editors name on the log page as well so people can do the check themselves without the highlighting, although I think the highlighting would make more sense. -AndrewBuck (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the simple case, you can't patrol pages you create (unless you're an admin, in which case they're auto-patrolled). As far as IP matching, I think that would hit privacy issues (given that checkuser isn't used lightly). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

API

Hey,

I am using api.php fo power a JS extension which uses AJAX to periodically update a box in the sidebar which lists the most recent changes. I am wondering if a change can be made to api.php so I can determine if a new page is 'yellow' or not. I am currently using the url:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=recentchanges&format=xml&rcnamespace=0&rcshow=!minor&rclimit=10

and I guess that another parameter could be added to the <rc> elements, perhaps patrolled = "1" | "0", with 1 meaning yes (dont show yellow), and 0 meaning no (do show yellow).

Thanks, --TheJosh (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/patrolled_pages&oldid=172943203"