Anonymous user
Forum:Autopatrolled user group: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>LostInRiverview |
imported>K6ka No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
A while ago we had [[Forum:Enabling recent changes patrol|consensus]] to enable the [[Help:Recent changes patrol|recent changes patrol]] extension. Since then, all edits to the wiki made by users who are not [[Project:Content moderator|content moderators]] or [[Project:Administrators|administrators]] have had to be manually marked as patrolled by content moderators and administrators.
Line 26:
Preferably, Option '''3''' seems to be the best of both worlds. This option would cut down on a lot of edits that content mods and administrators would have to patrol, as a large bulk of edits are done by a small group of users who edit the wiki regularly. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 01:48, July 22, 2018 (UTC)
:I agree with expanding access to the "autopatrolled" flag, and I also agree that option 3 seems like the best approach. As for how to handle giving out the flag to non-rollbackers... did you have any criteria in mind as far as how an editor would qualify for that flag; whether it'd be awarded by admins/bureaucrats upon request or if admins/'crats could decide whether to award it even if the person doesn't apply for it? And if it is something requested by the user, what would the minimum criteria be for getting the flag? What would the approval process be for the flag? I would say that the minimum requirements should be kept relatively low, and the approval process should be very straightforward; I don't think this is the kind of user rights flag that requires heavy community input when awarding it, so I think that the bureaucrats would be able to decide whether to award it upon request. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 22:35, July 22, 2018 (UTC)
::I also agree that '''option 3''' is the best choice. It makes sense to have the edits of rollback editors to be autopatrolled, as they had already been given the trust of the rollback tool. Also, creating a brand new group of users that only do autopatrolled edits is a nice idea. I find the biggest source of unpatrolled edits to be the ones that only add interwikis. We could then give those editors who seem to only do interwiki edits the autopatrolled user group, as I'm pretty sure all of us can deem those edits to be completely harmless. - [[User:SimDestroyer|SimDestroyer]] ([[User talk:SimDestroyer|talk]]) 13:18, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
:::I agree that Option '''3''' seems to be the best choice for the reasons the others above me have given. I also think that users with rollback rights should have the ability to auto-patrol edits, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to them not having it. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 10:30, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to propose specific standards for users requesting the autopatrolled flag. Feel free to suggest modifications to what I'm proposing.
Applicants for autopatrolled should have:
* At least 200 edits on the wiki, in any namespaces
* At least one month of editing history on the wiki as a registered contributor
* No recent history of vandalism or any other "bad faith" behavior, and no active [[TSW:ER|editing restrictions]]
I'd suggest that the request for this right simply be submitted to [[TSW:AN]], and dispensed with by whatever bureaucrat sees it first. If there is a serious need to contemplate whether or not an applicant should receive the flag, then the user probably already has some editing history to clearly indicate that they shouldn't.
Thoughts? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 18:39, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
:Your proposed standards are reasonable. After all, the recent changes patrol system is mostly there to prevent vandalism and very poor quality edits from slipping through. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 22:50, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
:I'd also like to add on that, if an administrator feels that a user is suitable for the right, they should be able to grant it right away without a community discussion or a formal/informal thread at the administrators' noticeboard. Since I'm guessing that most of the people we want to have autopatrolled probably won't know about (or won't feel like requesting) the user right, this will make it much easier to get people autopatrolled and save recent changes patrollers hours of time, rather than having no one get the user right and essentially defeating the purpose of having it. Since autopatrolled should have a fairly low barrier of entry, and since this right doesn't grant any other permission (edits they make can still be manually reviewed) I think an administrator's judgement is sufficient here. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 12:56, October 11, 2018 (UTC)
==Giving rollbackers the ability to patrol edits==
I'm going to branch this off into a separate section since it seems to deviate from what K6ka is proposing in the main thread. Specifically, this is based off C.Syde65's comment; "I also think that users with rollback rights should have the ability to auto-patrol edits." If I'm reading what he's written correctly, C.Syde is suggesting that, not only should rollbacker's edits be automatically marked as patrolled, but ''rollbackers should be able to mark other people's edits as patrolled as well.'' I feel this is an intriguing idea that we should dive into further.
Personally, I'd actually support such a proposal. Marking an edit as patrolled is a minor act, and I don't think we need to limit that ability only to editors who are Content Mods or higher. Rollbackers, by virtue of having received Rollback in the first place, have demonstrated anti-vandalism prowess and are already long-standing and trusted members of the wiki. Giving them the ability to monitor edits and mark them as good edits, or else revert/modify those edits and/or notify a Content Mod or Admin to assist, just seems like a natural extension of the tool and the tasks that they're already given. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 18:39, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
:Since the recent changes patrol extension is mostly there to catch blatantly inappropriate edits (such as vandalism), and since rollbackers are ''expected'' to know how to distinguish between a good edit, a borderline edit that requires revision, or an inappropriate edit that requires reversion, then they should be qualified to be able to mark edits as patrolled (note that the use of rollback automatically marks the reverted edits as patrolled; currently, the rollbacker's rollback is not marked as patrolled and must still be patrolled by an admin or content mod, but the edits they revert are marked as patrolled). I don't think we've had too many cases of rollback being abused, and I'm sure such issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but since 99% of rollbacks ''are'' used correctly, I think our current vetting process has done a reasonably good job of filtering out the bad walnuts. I think patrolling could even be held to a ''lower'' standard than rollback, since it doesn't produce a very visible effect to readers and editors alike, and only really affects content moderators and administrators (although I would probably caution against relying too much on this system). Edits still exist in the database even after being patrolled and can still be reverted if needed. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 22:50, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
::I'm not sure whether users with rollback rights would need to be able to mark other user's edits as patrolled, but it is something that I wouldn't be opposed to. As for being able to have their own edits automatically marked as patrolled, I would definitely be supportive of that. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 05:03, August 13, 2018 (UTC)
==Contacting Staff==
Following consensus for this change I've sent in a support ticket to Staff asking them to make this change. This thread remains open for further discussion if anyone has input on determining the minimum requirements for the application process, and perhaps the application process itself. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 22:18, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so Staff has responded. They've gone ahead with the changes to the rollback user group. This means that [[Project:Rollback|rollbacks]] now have their edits automatically marked as patrolled, and can mark other people's edits as patrolled. However, they've also mentioned that they would prefer not creating new user groups in order to avoid complexity with support and development processes. They've asked us if the updated rollback user group can cover our needs.
Presently I would say no, since the purpose of the "autopatrolled" user group was to have a low barrier of entry whose primary purpose is to take the burden off recent changes patrollers. The only requirement is that the user not be an obvious vandal and have made enough edits to the wiki to make us feel comfortable in not having to patrol their edits. This isn't an infallible system, but the primary reason we requested the [[Help:Recent changes patrol|recent changes patrol]] extension to be enabled was to address issues with vandalism slipping past patrollers on a busy day and lingering on our pages for months. The point of "autopatrolled" is to save patrollers time by allowing them to not have to worry about edits that are not vandalism and allowing them to focus on more malicious or lower-quality edits.
Rollback, on the other hand, has a higher point of entry, as users are being given access to a tool that can undo multiple edits in one click. Misuse of rollback is a concern as it can certainly bite newcomers or leave a bad impression on others. [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for rollback]] writes: <span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #008560;">Users applying for or being nominated for rollback rights should be active or semi-active members of the wiki. Rollback candidates should have a strong history of positive contributions to the wiki, with an emphasis on the ''quality'' of those edits over the ''quantity'' of edits made.</span> In other words, rollback isn't given simply for making appropriate contributions to the wiki; it is given to users who have demonstrated a level of maturity and experience and make good quality edits.
TL;DR: Autopatrolled can be given to nearly any positively contributing editor; it's not used as a means of avoiding scrutiny for creating bad pages in good faith, but rather takes the load off recent changes patrollers so they don't have to go through a massive backlog of non-vandalism fanon edits in order to find the one edit that's vandalism. Rollback, on the other hand, is ''not'' given to everyone for good reasons. Also, if rollbacks are to now be able to mark other people's edits as patrolled, that should make it slightly ''harder'' to get rollback, since they now have an extra tool that can be used inappropriately. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 19:03, October 8, 2018 (UTC)
==Conclusion==
The new user group has been in place since October 12, and I've written a Project page for it [[The Sims Wiki:Autopatrolled|here]]. As everything seems to have been agreed upon by consensus, I am closing this thread. Any new proposals or suggestions should go in a new thread. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 16:33, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
| |||