Forum:Patroller

Forums - Patroller

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Comment: no change Just want to make it clear that no admins should just give out patroller rights. The right should only be given to users experienced in countervandalism and who monitor all editing activities (recent changes, new pages, logs, forums). If you don't want to patrol a user's edits, then let another admin do it or request an autopatrolled group be established. Giving users patroller rights who honestly aren't experienced in the above skills should not have the rights. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC) More usergroups? Exactly what we don't need! If a user can be trusted to make good edits then they can be a patroller IMO. They'll figure the rest out, since they can obviously be trusted to. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I don't think I need, or want Patroller rights. As Meiko said I don't have the experience, but I do look at SpecialRecentChanges a lot. LK901 19:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I made an autopatrolled group because it's harmless and simple. It's hardly even a "right", but can be useful for some instances. It's not like it's making permissions any more confusing. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC) To get experience in CVN, said user will need to wait until we get some vandals. :P CJC95 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Go hire some. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Okay. CJC95 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC) There has never been any sort of rule as to what patroller should be given out for "Giving users patroller rights who honestly aren't experienced in the above skills should not have the rights - why not?" Lets take a look at what patroller rights can do: Bypass global blocks (globalblock-exempt) - so basically, they're trusted to not be a spambot Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol) - basically, no annoying red ! next to everything they do Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol) - ability to make an annoying red ! go away Move files (movefile) - doesn't even mean anything on en, because there are no files on en Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit) - they can make a decent number of edits in one go Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect) - must know what they're doing when they hit the move button Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page (rollback) - can revert vandalism in one click instead of two trusted (trusted) - can edit certain protected pages, a level of protection that noone even uses So what harm is there in giving patroller rights to trusted users exactly? (and yes, user was under 250 edit count, so should never have been given the rights- yet) NovaHawk 00:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) What harm is there? Well, rollback. Rollback gives users a fast way to revert vandalism, yet most users here don't understand vandalism and how to assume good faith in an edit. I'm not going to name names, but you yourself complained to me about a user who requested adminship, when you said that they reverted too many good edits at Brickia. That user was a rollback, which is evident they did not know how to use the rollback feature properly. This is why we shouldn't go handing out user rights without a user demonstrating their understanding of vandalism and good faith editing. Not wanting to patrol someone's edits is not a reason to give them a user right. That's just laziness— something that there is way too much of in this community. Just because there's never been a rule against it doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. If you don't want to patrol people's edits, just give them autopatrolled or have the sysadmins make 'autopatrol' a default right. I highly oppose that idea. Additionally, rollback rights (part of patroller) are dangerous in the wrong hands— not just people who don't know the difference between vandalism and good faith. Rollback rights allow users to use Huggle, an antivandalism tool developed by Wikimedians that can easily be ported for use off of Wikimedia. If someone used that here, they could either maliciously or unintentionally do a lot of damage to the site very quickly. This is not something we'd ever want to risk. It's a hell of a lot simpler to just not give out rights because of laziness. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Uh, rollback really isn't a big deal. People can revert without it. Huggle isn't used here. Perhaps adding the autopatrol right to the autoconfirmed group would be a good idea, but honestly, the current system of including it in patroller and assigning that right very liberally works pretty well I think. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Just want to make it clear that no admins should just give out patroller rights." Where was the forum where we decided this? UltrasonicNXT (talk) Where was the forum where we decided to just hand them out? Where was the forum where we decided not to just hand out checkuser rights? I don't see those just being handed out to people. The only reason people just hand out patroller rights here is because they're just lazy. There's way too much god damn laziness in this community and I'm tired of it. I've never seen a wiki where people give out user rights because they're lazy. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Patroller --> checkuser isn't a fair comparison to make. And, that was explicitly decided by Wikia, and then again here during the first attempt at a move. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC) We just handed out the rights when we thought people should have them, that's how it was done. (Ie. Jag saw that I had made lots of good edits recently, and would be capable of using the rights well, so he gave them to me.) That doesn't change until we have a forum on it. UltrasonicNXT (talk) Idea Since everyone thinks rights should just be given out without being requested like they should be, why don't we just change how all these rights are done? Get rid of the patroller group altogether. It's stupid. Give autoconfirmed users the 'patrol' right. That's what Wikipedia does. Keep the autopatrolled group. That can be given out to people who you don't need to spend time patrolling their edits. That's also what Wikipedia does. Make a rollback group like we used to have at Brickia for people who want to do countervandalism here and have them request the right if they want it. Good? --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Sure (But again, I'm going to point that out that that page says that it could be used to request rights, not that it must. BP:UR actually states "This right [patroller] is assigned by Administrators to those who need it, and can also be requested at Brickipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.") Berrybrick (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC) No. Still not seeing what is broken with the current system. And as the person who initially proposed the patroller group, there was no intention that users must nominate themselves for it. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) It's a retarded right. Patrolling isn't much of anything at all. We merged rollback into it for some reason but I think it'd have made more sense to merge patroller into rollback. Rollback actually does something. Anyone can look at an edit and determine if it's constructive or not. Not everyone can look at an edit and tell if it's vandalism or just an unconstructive but good faith edit. I don't see why we even need a special group of users who can patrol things. Anyone should be able to do that. My problem with the current system is we merged rollback into patroller, but rollback used to have to be requested, yet patroller didn't and still doesn't. This means we're giving people a right for free that they would have otherwise had to request. Since we can just let anyone patrol an edit, why have a patroller group? It's stupid, and you're the one who always says we have too many groups. You're also the one who likes to do things how Wikimedia does things, and my idea above is essentially exactly how Wikimedia does it. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC) As someone who knows quite a few mentally challenged people, I would really appreciate if you (an admin) would not use the word "retard" in that context. Thanks. Berrybrick (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Patroller is a toolset which we can easily give to users who can be trusted to use it, simple as that. I quite like the human control of checking the box and pressing save, and wouldn't want those rights assigned by default. And rollback didn't need to be requested, any admin could just toss it out. A few years ago rollback was decided by a vote, but that is long gone. Also, the English Wikipedia automatically assigns the patrol right... that doesn't mean Wikimedia in general does and it only applies to one right in this group, Ajraddatz (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC) I remember seeing users have to request the right and having it denied to them for the reason of having no experience in countervandalism. This is within my time/involvement in the community (so the last 8 months), and before I got adminship (so before September 2013)... --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC) People requesting it and not getting it is does not imply that rollback must be requested. (Not sure how the rollback system was working, but the two statements are not mutually exclusive) CJC95 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC) I feel like the key time to have discussed this would have been before merging the rights. As rollback was merged into patroller, seemingly without changing the conditions for patroller, you can't blame people for giving out patroller as they did before the merge of rights. I didn't even realise the rights had been merged for example... CJC95 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC) I wasn't engaged in the community hardly at all (except in chat) until after we went back to Wikia temporarily. So if I had been more familiar with it all at the time and paid attention to the forums, I probably would have pointed this out. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Per Ajr- I don't see a problem with the current system. As for being requested like they should be- it's basically just an admin going "he should have patroller rights, I'll give them to him", as opposed to a user going "hey admin, can I have patroller rights?" and an admin going "he should have patroller rights, I'll give them to him". So basically no difference. (but really, don't we have more important things to be worrying about than this?) NovaHawk 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC) (posting what we were talking about in PM) - the thing is, it's a whole lot better for a user to post a request and have an administrator give their thoughts on the request than to have one admin give a user the rights and have another admin then remove them because they didn't have a say, and there was a potential problem that the admin that granted the rights didn't know of/think of. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC) But that could still happen- someone leaves a request, an admin says yes and gives patroller, then another admin disagrees, there's no real way to contest that (except in the case that they're not eligible for the rights). I still think an admin-only vote, requiring a +3 score to pass would be a better idea. That, or the user requests, an admin says ok, then wait a day so any admin can contest, then a vote can take place if any admin does oppose, if not, the rights are given after that day. NovaHawk 00:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Per NovaFlare. -LFY1547 00:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I don't see any problem with the current system, either. I see patroller as a toolkit that we give to trusted users. As NovaFlare (do you have a new nickname?) and Ajr said above, none of the rights are really something that's that powerful. I used to hand out patroller to users that I thought could handle it (albeit without the rollback) and nobody worried. Some of those are now pretty responsible admins (such as UltrasonicNXT). That being said, though, I do agree with what I see as Meiko's main point – patroller is a toolkit, and it can be used wrongly, so we should give it out to trusted users – not just anyone. I don't think we need to change the rules, though, just change the way we think about it. --Jag 04:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Per all, don't see what's wrong with how it used to be/is now. How many times did we have problems where one admin gave someone patroller and another admin thought that user was not responsible enough? I don't remember a single one. (If there were any, they were incredibly few and far between.) Please let's not change things for the sake of changing them. UltrasonicNXT (talk) I'm going to close this off, as it seems to be a pretty strong consensus to keep things how they are NovaHawk 02:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Kinda would have liked to been able to respond to this before it was archived during my weekend vacation. Here's a question for everyone-- how many of our patrollers actually patrol things? Basically none, unless they're an admin. Special:Log/patrol shows me as one of the only people. Aside from automatic patrols, I see none of our non-admin patrollers patrolling anything. Another question-- do our patrollers actually know what patrolling is and how to do it? I don't think they do, since most of them never requested it-- they were just given the patroller right whether they knew how to use it or not, but just because an admin thought their edits didn't need to be patrolled. This is why an autopatrolled group makes more sense than giving people patroller rights. I even see several inactive users holding patroller rights, or even users who are active but never edit mainspace. Why should we have users holding rights where they never use the part of the site where those rights pertain? It seems so backwards. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I think the reply everyone else is thinking is that it's not broke, so why waste time fixing it? UltrasonicNXT (talk)