There is no "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link. SEWilco ( talk) 23:11, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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))
It seems I can mark things as patrolled now. -- Bfigura ( talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
li.not-patrolled { background-color: red; }
to
User:Lid/monobook.css.
Spebi 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
I have only recently seen the "mark as patrolled" tag appear on a few of the articles I am editing. But once I edit the page it goes away. I am wondering if Watchlisting automaticly mark an article as patrolled? If it does, then edit does equal patrolled for registered users who have selected "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" in Special:Preferences Dbiel ( Talk) 13:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
No, just wondering why some idiot is telling me it is. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. → Aza Toth 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
All well and good, but what is "patrolling"? Is there a reference? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a contradiction in the definition: A user page can be patrolled (suitable for patrolling) if it is marked for speedy deletion of if it is appropriate for Wikipedia. If it is acceptable for Wikipedia, why is it patrolled? I apologize if my question sounds a bit dumb. 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel Raryel ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
There are some variations on this theme that interest me... for example, imagine if all "un-watchlisted" pages appeared in yellow in Recent Changes. (I know there is a contingent that believes revealing watchlist information "helps" vandals, a position with which I disagree. When good-faith users can easily access said data [other than admins, who apparently can already access it], the watchlisting improvements will outweigh the additional info provided to vandals—the same principle operates on Wikipedia writ large, after al!) // Any possibilities? It's not perfect, since a page that is watchlisted once by a user that hasn't edited in a long time is not indicative of anything. Ideally the parameters would then be tweaked—highlighting pages with a number of watchlists below a certain threshold... – Outriggr § 01:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted a score card at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages/score card. The page doesn't disclose how the scores are generated because I'm still tinkering with it, and I don't want to encourage people to game the system.
My primary motivation in creating it was to help catch users who may be using patrolling maliciously or otherwise incorrectly, but I thought the little ego ranking might be interesting to people as well. I expect this kind of scoring is probably more useful in places where there are substantial backlogs or uncovered times of day... but these don't really exist for New Page patrol on English Wikipedia. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we need more new-page patrollers. If you go back several days in the new page log, typically there are still quite a few pages highlighted in yellow. In my experience/opinion, almost all of these need tags e.g. some of {{wikify}} {{notability}} {{sources}} {{uncat}} etc., and a significant number of them are copyright violations. We need to work together to finish them off -- it's too much for one person. So, if you look at the new pages log and they all look white, go back a few pages/days and you'll find there's still work to do. There are clumps of yellow, e.g. Nov. 28 03:02 to 14:10. -- Coppertwig 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The backlog is over 11,000 and goes back to 3rd December. This link will save you scrolling through page after page! -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Now 12,000+ but all cleared up to 3rd Dec. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that there's a little glitch in the system. It appears that a single page can be marked patrolled multiple times (see here). I believe this is because it is only the addition of code in the URL of the site that adds the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link at the bottom. Would it be possible to remove this link on pages that have already been patrolled, even if the code is in the URL? Thanks. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you really like patrolling new pages, do the same for non-article space pages too! It helps me catch quite a few spam / nonsense (wikipedia, user, category, template-)talk pages. Pegasus «C¦ T» 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering. This can be compared with an airport security scan before people board an aircraft - only difference is here there's no guarantee that anyone's going to be there to be on the lookout to see that something extremely damaging doesn't slip through. Whether that's a gun used to hijack the plane or a BLP violation that causes the next biography scandal.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The majority of unpatrolled pages seem in fact to have been patrolled - as evidenced by tags placed on them - but the patrollers haven't been marking them as patrolled. I'm curious as to whether there is some reason for this and wondering if there is a good place/method to remind editors to mark pages as patrolled. Sbowers3 ( talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"Patrolled" means "fine" or "bad, but taken care of." Here's how it's done on other wikis, where it works like a charm:
This business of whining about pages that have been tagged for deletion (or whatever) but not patrolled is silly; just mark them as patrolled, then add templates/fix problems/whatever. Trust me, it works (if everyone is on the same page). The only problem enwiki has which other wikis may not is the speed at which pages are created. You folks end up with pages from several days ago which slipped through and are still unpatrolled, but that's a totally separate issue. – Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if patrolling is included in tools people use for newpage patrol like Twinkle and NPWatcher? If not, the maintainers should be contacted to add it. If it isn't, that could be part of the reason pages are being tagged but not patrolled. Mr. Z-man 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an "oldest first" option? JASpencer ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As many of us have noticed, there's a huge backlog. I propose that the "mark this page as patrolled" appear to any admin who views an unpatrolled page, even if they're not coming from special:newpages. I think this would really help improve the backlog, as many pages would be marked as patrolled when an admin incidently patrols them for whatever reason, as apparently intentional patrolling (via special:newpages) isn't getting the job done. Can this be done without a software change? -- W.marsh 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We are about 1,000 newpage patrollers. What if we split the backlog into days, and every patroller choses a day and works through the unpatrolled pages? The only remaining problem is, to find the day of interest. Anybody, who participates in this clearing effort, please add your name below.
What about placing this wonderful striking message not only to the New Pages Patrol talk page, but on the main project page too?
Wondering why Special:Newpages is yellow all of a sudden? See here for full details about this cool new feature. |
Tirkfl talk 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and am currently adding French communes at bot speed around 6 a minute and have requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but noone seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I've contributed tens times more than many administrators on wikipedia who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same on a permanent basis? I consistently add new content to wikipedia. It would help patollers a lot. Any idea if you can help me receive permanent clearance? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Soon enough the French stubs can be added to like I did with Ottrott but it is very important to set them up first as stubs. IN a few years time when they had developed it will be well worth it and valuable to the project. But I work on many fields on wikipedia so I still think it would make sense for my account to be flagged ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ $1,000,000? 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC).
Are we missing something here? I did set a User:BaldBot but the fussy people on here approved it and then started crying that it wasn't an actual bot and was against their principles see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot. I told them I haven't got time to hang around and continued with my own account as before. The french articles aren't bot generated they are done methodically manually with minimal effort to provide aplatform to build them on. If they aren't created by a bot what is the sense in creating a bot account? This is why it was taken out because it isn't actually an automatic bot ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ $1,000,000? 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you;ve made that blatantly obvious. Fine its not my problem if you don't want to do the decent thing here and save people a lot of effort. I was counting on you to save a few lives here, reach out and pray for some light. Just remember that some people need to help somebody and that I'll always be here. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ $1,000,000? 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a hotkey for this function in the way that alt+l loads the watchlist? I'd very much appreciate one, repetitive strain injury beckons! скоморохъ ѧ 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the default be set to display the last 500 new articles and not the last 50? Also, it would be better if people worked from the bottom of the page rather than the to, particularly if only 50 are shown! Mjroots ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#bot_to_auto-patrol_experienced_article_creators. Pichpich ( talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a trusted user status for non-admins who create lots of articles? Inviting people who've been on a long time, don't get into arguments (so not me!), create loads of articles and have a high number of other edits. Perhaps getting struck off for bad behaviour should be easy. It may be a useful pre-Admin step. JASpencer ( talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe a search facility within the results would be a good enhancement. It could be used either to search for maintenance tags (such as the afd or prod tags) and it could also be used to search for specific subjects so that editors can specialise if they so wish. JASpencer ( talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See discussion here about a bot marking new articles with tags such as "uncategorized" and even some speedy-delete tags. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
When patrolling pages, patrollers often come upon a page that is a candidate for speedy or regular deletion and mark the page with the appropriate template. When the page is saved with the template, the button to allow one to mark the page as patrolled disappears, making it necessary to return to the NewPages page and click through again in order to mark the page. Naturally a lot of people don't do this, and so I and others commonly end up clicking on an article marked in yellow only to see that it has already been marked for deletion. This is a trivial but avoidable duplication of effort; would it be possible either to 1) Have the 'mark as patrolled' button persist after adding a deletion template, or 2) automatically mark pages that have been tagged for deletion as 'patrolled'? I think that number 2 would be the more ideal solution. Leoniceno ( talk) 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A user who has marked several pages patrolled has been blocked, for page move vandalism, and as a sockpuppet of Grawp. [2] These pages still need to be checked as they have not been patrolled properly. -- Snigbrook (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am new to using the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" feature and I noticed that you only see the button if you click from yellow-highlighted entry on the New pages log. If this is the case it is rather confusing, is there a reason for it, and perhaps an instruction in the Other notes section would be useful?
Also, I do not understand the Other note "This might take a little getting used to, but it should make new page patrolling much more efficient once people get used to it." I think it could be left out.-- Commander Keane ( talk) 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody give me a rundown of the actions that can be done with Twinkle and Friendly that should mark a page as patrolled? I've already implemented the marking patrolled functionality in Twinkle when placing a CSD tag and in Friendly when adding tags to the article. Are there any other actions, such as PRODing, XFDing, etc. that should mark a page as patrolled when being done? Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a senior NP patroller in the Spanish Wikipedia, and bring some questions for you: are you happy about the fact that autoconfirmed users (in other words lots of unexperienced users) can mark articles as patrolled? Don't you think that this is actually making the feature useless? I have an additional question: talking about the pages to be marked as patrolled the page states: "Any page that is appropriate for Wikipedia", what means that? Don't you have a more precise description about "appropiate"? does it have to have a category, references, wiki format,...? To coordinate our patrolling we do use this page (we also have highlighted pages in the special page for new pages, but only sysops can mark the articles and they are not doing it systematically, best regards, -- Poco a poco... ¡adelante! 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I used to be able to log out and mark my own pages as patrolled :). Now I can't do it :( Daniel Christensen ( talk) 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link only appears in articles when accessed from Special:New pages? If this appeared at the bottom of unpatrolled articles, no matter how the article was accessed, more articles would be patrolled. Readers access new articles at a variety of places, so this would provide more patrolling opportunities. The link need only appear for users who meet the criteria for patrolling. Since it expires after 30 days, it won't be a long-term chronic feature of any given article. A good companion link would be to an explanation of patrolling. Fg2 ( talk) 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand this would only be a small amount, but would it be possible that new articles that get a "DYK" appearance to be marked as automatically patrolled? I have been going through a few and noticed some in that category. I mean is it somehow possible to have a bot "mark articles as patrolled when DYK is placed in their tag page?" Just a suggestion of reducing the backlog a little bit. If it is technically not possible to do (i.e. a bot is incapable of doing this task), then disregard the comment. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This idea seems to have gotten sidetracked and died in 2007, so I'll propose it again:
The user-experience goal for this feature is clear:
Melchoir ( talk) 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors working here may be interested in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Restrict creation of new accounts. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to filter the list with options like those on the "recent changes" list. I.e:
Thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Have these been fixed yet?
— RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I do most of my patrolling from an RSS feed so I never see the [Mark this page as patrolled] link. But if the link were offered to me I would click it. I suggest:
— RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link. SEWilco ( talk) 23:11, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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))
It seems I can mark things as patrolled now. -- Bfigura ( talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
li.not-patrolled { background-color: red; }
to
User:Lid/monobook.css.
Spebi 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
I have only recently seen the "mark as patrolled" tag appear on a few of the articles I am editing. But once I edit the page it goes away. I am wondering if Watchlisting automaticly mark an article as patrolled? If it does, then edit does equal patrolled for registered users who have selected "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" in Special:Preferences Dbiel ( Talk) 13:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
No, just wondering why some idiot is telling me it is. Gene Nygaard ( talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. → Aza Toth 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
All well and good, but what is "patrolling"? Is there a reference? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a contradiction in the definition: A user page can be patrolled (suitable for patrolling) if it is marked for speedy deletion of if it is appropriate for Wikipedia. If it is acceptable for Wikipedia, why is it patrolled? I apologize if my question sounds a bit dumb. 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel Raryel ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
There are some variations on this theme that interest me... for example, imagine if all "un-watchlisted" pages appeared in yellow in Recent Changes. (I know there is a contingent that believes revealing watchlist information "helps" vandals, a position with which I disagree. When good-faith users can easily access said data [other than admins, who apparently can already access it], the watchlisting improvements will outweigh the additional info provided to vandals—the same principle operates on Wikipedia writ large, after al!) // Any possibilities? It's not perfect, since a page that is watchlisted once by a user that hasn't edited in a long time is not indicative of anything. Ideally the parameters would then be tweaked—highlighting pages with a number of watchlists below a certain threshold... – Outriggr § 01:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted a score card at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages/score card. The page doesn't disclose how the scores are generated because I'm still tinkering with it, and I don't want to encourage people to game the system.
My primary motivation in creating it was to help catch users who may be using patrolling maliciously or otherwise incorrectly, but I thought the little ego ranking might be interesting to people as well. I expect this kind of scoring is probably more useful in places where there are substantial backlogs or uncovered times of day... but these don't really exist for New Page patrol on English Wikipedia. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we need more new-page patrollers. If you go back several days in the new page log, typically there are still quite a few pages highlighted in yellow. In my experience/opinion, almost all of these need tags e.g. some of {{wikify}} {{notability}} {{sources}} {{uncat}} etc., and a significant number of them are copyright violations. We need to work together to finish them off -- it's too much for one person. So, if you look at the new pages log and they all look white, go back a few pages/days and you'll find there's still work to do. There are clumps of yellow, e.g. Nov. 28 03:02 to 14:10. -- Coppertwig 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The backlog is over 11,000 and goes back to 3rd December. This link will save you scrolling through page after page! -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Now 12,000+ but all cleared up to 3rd Dec. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that there's a little glitch in the system. It appears that a single page can be marked patrolled multiple times (see here). I believe this is because it is only the addition of code in the URL of the site that adds the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link at the bottom. Would it be possible to remove this link on pages that have already been patrolled, even if the code is in the URL? Thanks. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you really like patrolling new pages, do the same for non-article space pages too! It helps me catch quite a few spam / nonsense (wikipedia, user, category, template-)talk pages. Pegasus «C¦ T» 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering. This can be compared with an airport security scan before people board an aircraft - only difference is here there's no guarantee that anyone's going to be there to be on the lookout to see that something extremely damaging doesn't slip through. Whether that's a gun used to hijack the plane or a BLP violation that causes the next biography scandal.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The majority of unpatrolled pages seem in fact to have been patrolled - as evidenced by tags placed on them - but the patrollers haven't been marking them as patrolled. I'm curious as to whether there is some reason for this and wondering if there is a good place/method to remind editors to mark pages as patrolled. Sbowers3 ( talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"Patrolled" means "fine" or "bad, but taken care of." Here's how it's done on other wikis, where it works like a charm:
This business of whining about pages that have been tagged for deletion (or whatever) but not patrolled is silly; just mark them as patrolled, then add templates/fix problems/whatever. Trust me, it works (if everyone is on the same page). The only problem enwiki has which other wikis may not is the speed at which pages are created. You folks end up with pages from several days ago which slipped through and are still unpatrolled, but that's a totally separate issue. – Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if patrolling is included in tools people use for newpage patrol like Twinkle and NPWatcher? If not, the maintainers should be contacted to add it. If it isn't, that could be part of the reason pages are being tagged but not patrolled. Mr. Z-man 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an "oldest first" option? JASpencer ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As many of us have noticed, there's a huge backlog. I propose that the "mark this page as patrolled" appear to any admin who views an unpatrolled page, even if they're not coming from special:newpages. I think this would really help improve the backlog, as many pages would be marked as patrolled when an admin incidently patrols them for whatever reason, as apparently intentional patrolling (via special:newpages) isn't getting the job done. Can this be done without a software change? -- W.marsh 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We are about 1,000 newpage patrollers. What if we split the backlog into days, and every patroller choses a day and works through the unpatrolled pages? The only remaining problem is, to find the day of interest. Anybody, who participates in this clearing effort, please add your name below.
What about placing this wonderful striking message not only to the New Pages Patrol talk page, but on the main project page too?
Wondering why Special:Newpages is yellow all of a sudden? See here for full details about this cool new feature. |
Tirkfl talk 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and am currently adding French communes at bot speed around 6 a minute and have requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but noone seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I've contributed tens times more than many administrators on wikipedia who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same on a permanent basis? I consistently add new content to wikipedia. It would help patollers a lot. Any idea if you can help me receive permanent clearance? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Soon enough the French stubs can be added to like I did with Ottrott but it is very important to set them up first as stubs. IN a few years time when they had developed it will be well worth it and valuable to the project. But I work on many fields on wikipedia so I still think it would make sense for my account to be flagged ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ $1,000,000? 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC).
Are we missing something here? I did set a User:BaldBot but the fussy people on here approved it and then started crying that it wasn't an actual bot and was against their principles see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot. I told them I haven't got time to hang around and continued with my own account as before. The french articles aren't bot generated they are done methodically manually with minimal effort to provide aplatform to build them on. If they aren't created by a bot what is the sense in creating a bot account? This is why it was taken out because it isn't actually an automatic bot ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ $1,000,000? 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you;ve made that blatantly obvious. Fine its not my problem if you don't want to do the decent thing here and save people a lot of effort. I was counting on you to save a few lives here, reach out and pray for some light. Just remember that some people need to help somebody and that I'll always be here. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ $1,000,000? 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a hotkey for this function in the way that alt+l loads the watchlist? I'd very much appreciate one, repetitive strain injury beckons! скоморохъ ѧ 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the default be set to display the last 500 new articles and not the last 50? Also, it would be better if people worked from the bottom of the page rather than the to, particularly if only 50 are shown! Mjroots ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#bot_to_auto-patrol_experienced_article_creators. Pichpich ( talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a trusted user status for non-admins who create lots of articles? Inviting people who've been on a long time, don't get into arguments (so not me!), create loads of articles and have a high number of other edits. Perhaps getting struck off for bad behaviour should be easy. It may be a useful pre-Admin step. JASpencer ( talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe a search facility within the results would be a good enhancement. It could be used either to search for maintenance tags (such as the afd or prod tags) and it could also be used to search for specific subjects so that editors can specialise if they so wish. JASpencer ( talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See discussion here about a bot marking new articles with tags such as "uncategorized" and even some speedy-delete tags. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
When patrolling pages, patrollers often come upon a page that is a candidate for speedy or regular deletion and mark the page with the appropriate template. When the page is saved with the template, the button to allow one to mark the page as patrolled disappears, making it necessary to return to the NewPages page and click through again in order to mark the page. Naturally a lot of people don't do this, and so I and others commonly end up clicking on an article marked in yellow only to see that it has already been marked for deletion. This is a trivial but avoidable duplication of effort; would it be possible either to 1) Have the 'mark as patrolled' button persist after adding a deletion template, or 2) automatically mark pages that have been tagged for deletion as 'patrolled'? I think that number 2 would be the more ideal solution. Leoniceno ( talk) 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A user who has marked several pages patrolled has been blocked, for page move vandalism, and as a sockpuppet of Grawp. [2] These pages still need to be checked as they have not been patrolled properly. -- Snigbrook (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am new to using the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" feature and I noticed that you only see the button if you click from yellow-highlighted entry on the New pages log. If this is the case it is rather confusing, is there a reason for it, and perhaps an instruction in the Other notes section would be useful?
Also, I do not understand the Other note "This might take a little getting used to, but it should make new page patrolling much more efficient once people get used to it." I think it could be left out.-- Commander Keane ( talk) 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody give me a rundown of the actions that can be done with Twinkle and Friendly that should mark a page as patrolled? I've already implemented the marking patrolled functionality in Twinkle when placing a CSD tag and in Friendly when adding tags to the article. Are there any other actions, such as PRODing, XFDing, etc. that should mark a page as patrolled when being done? Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a senior NP patroller in the Spanish Wikipedia, and bring some questions for you: are you happy about the fact that autoconfirmed users (in other words lots of unexperienced users) can mark articles as patrolled? Don't you think that this is actually making the feature useless? I have an additional question: talking about the pages to be marked as patrolled the page states: "Any page that is appropriate for Wikipedia", what means that? Don't you have a more precise description about "appropiate"? does it have to have a category, references, wiki format,...? To coordinate our patrolling we do use this page (we also have highlighted pages in the special page for new pages, but only sysops can mark the articles and they are not doing it systematically, best regards, -- Poco a poco... ¡adelante! 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I used to be able to log out and mark my own pages as patrolled :). Now I can't do it :( Daniel Christensen ( talk) 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link only appears in articles when accessed from Special:New pages? If this appeared at the bottom of unpatrolled articles, no matter how the article was accessed, more articles would be patrolled. Readers access new articles at a variety of places, so this would provide more patrolling opportunities. The link need only appear for users who meet the criteria for patrolling. Since it expires after 30 days, it won't be a long-term chronic feature of any given article. A good companion link would be to an explanation of patrolling. Fg2 ( talk) 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand this would only be a small amount, but would it be possible that new articles that get a "DYK" appearance to be marked as automatically patrolled? I have been going through a few and noticed some in that category. I mean is it somehow possible to have a bot "mark articles as patrolled when DYK is placed in their tag page?" Just a suggestion of reducing the backlog a little bit. If it is technically not possible to do (i.e. a bot is incapable of doing this task), then disregard the comment. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This idea seems to have gotten sidetracked and died in 2007, so I'll propose it again:
The user-experience goal for this feature is clear:
Melchoir ( talk) 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors working here may be interested in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Restrict creation of new accounts. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to filter the list with options like those on the "recent changes" list. I.e:
Thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Have these been fixed yet?
— RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I do most of my patrolling from an RSS feed so I never see the [Mark this page as patrolled] link. But if the link were offered to me I would click it. I suggest:
— RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)