Swept from the pub:

Could an administrator please give User:MGA73bot the bot flag? I'm trying to patrol the recent changes, but it's quite difficult when the bot's making hundreds of edits, clogging the entire list. JamesA ^>talk 14:42, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Done, although on the user page, MGA73 claims to be making normal edits under that account as well. LtPowers (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Another workaround is, in the "Recent changes options" box at the top of that page, select Namespace: File and check the "Invert selection" box. May be necessary as regular users start tagging images for the migration as well. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Swept in from the pub

In Wikipedia I can go "My preferences", "Gadgets", and can tick "Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design". How can I do that in WV? thanks. Nurg (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Gadgets extension is enabled here, but it doesn't work because there are no gadgets set up here at the moment. You could use your personal CSS file (Special:MyPage/common.css) to achieve a similar goal, by copying the (ugly old) design located at w:MediaWiki:Gadget-OldDiff.css. This, that and the other (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. Thank you very much. Nurg (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing the "mark as patrolled" link now for multiple edits, only if I view each one individually - am I missing something? – cacahuate ^talk 08:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope, and yes, it's slowing me down, but no, I will patrol every last &#$%ing edit... OK, I'll have to throw in the Eastern Standard Time towel soon enough. I filed a request on Bugzilla earlier today, but I don't have high hopes of getting that fulfilled quickly—it will require custom coding. --Peter ^Talk 08:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

What a lame day for it to not be functioning!! – cacahuate ^talk 08:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not just today—being able to mark grouped edits as patrolled was a custom feature we had pre-Wikivoyage. --Peter ^Talk 08:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Real-Time Recent Changes looks quite useful, and we could enable it quickly—which is good, since our patrolling work volume has so skyrocketed. If others like the idea, please state so here, and I'll file a feature request on Bugzilla. --Peter ^Talk 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wish it would provide a keyboard shortcut to "Mark as patrolled" and auto-load next diff after this one is done (not read thorougly on the latter; didn't find the former). --DenisYurkin (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

No need to request on bugzilla, I have added the gadget. –sumone10154^(talk) 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This tool is pretty great. If we could get more of our admins using it, we'd be able to handle all the new contributions. --Peter ^Talk 02:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Documentation is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Krinkle/RTRC-docs. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I seem to be missing something really basic. When I go to Recent Changes, I don't see any red exclamation marks ever. Is there something I need to turn on or install? Nurg (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Only admins can currently patrol recent changes. Hopefully, we'll be able to enable for non-admins soon (there's a discussion about how to do so at the Travellers' pub. –sumone10154^(talk) 06:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The project page starts "Recent Changes Patrol is a utility for Wikivoyage users who have been registered for over 30 days"??? Nurg (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page hasn't been changed since the move from Wikitravel->Wikivoyage. On the former site, all the information was true. However, the change in Mediawiki software (and default settings from WMF) means that this feature has been removed. The whole Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Patrolling Redux section discusses this. AHeneen (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

So admins are marking recent changes as having been "patrolled" but I can't even just SEE that they have been "patrolled"?? Why is there any restriction on a purely informational function? I can understand there being a restriction on who can mark something as patrolled. Nurg (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. This was a very useful feature. AHeneen (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, would people please, pretty please just edit Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Patroller_user_group to say "yes, let's do this." Until that happens, we won't be able to get the patrol flags back on you guys without admin nominations, which will take weeks. --Peter ^Talk 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm in the Autopatrollers group which I gather means that I am trusted enough that my edits are automatically marked as patrolled. But I can't even see that my edits or anyone else's are patrolled. This seems so weird that I still feel there is something I misunderstand. Nurg (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

afaik, the only people that have ever been able to see the red exclamations are the people who are in the user group that is allowed to mark them as patrolled. At WT, we started with that being only admins, and then soon changed it so that auto-confirmed users could also see the marks and patrol edits. When we relaunched as WV under the WMF, for now it is back to admins patrolling; though per Peter's comments, we are discussing creating a whole new "patrollers" user group, so people could be elected to that (similar to the way that admins are elected), would then get patrolling and possibly rollback tools. Clearer? – cacahuate ^talk 07:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll put in the bugzilla request tomorrow regardless (unless someone else beats me to it tonight), but the process will speed up if more people give an unequivocal yes in the pub. --Peter ^Talk 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept from the pub:

The recent changes patrol tells us that users who've been in action for over 30 days are automatically treated as patrolled. That doesn't seem to be happening. — Ravikiran (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2012 (CEST)

Yes you're right. --Saqib (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2012 (CEST)

It also would/will be good to add autopatrolled status to special:userrights options. --Peter ^Talk 06:17, 27 October 2012 (CEST)

You're the 'crat. Isn't that something you can do? Or will it take a developer? — Ravikiran (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2012 (CEST)

Bureaucrats can set the user rights, but determining which ones are available for bureaucrats to set appears to be a developer-side issue. LtPowers (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (CEST)

LocalSettings.php contains the list of which user groups can do what. It's a text file on the server, so likely only a sysadmin or the site's owner would have access. K7L (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (CET)

I have submitted a bug report requesting this feature be turned back on. Please do not sweep this discussion until it has been fulfilled (hopefully pre-launch). --Peter ^Talk 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done The patrol feature for recent changes has been enabled! (gerrit:43624). Krinkle (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we are going to have patrolled edits re-enabled shortly, but only for admins at first. We need to decide between the following options per Krinkle:

• Either:
  • Set wgAutoConfirmAge to 30 days, and:
  • Grant autoconfirmed the "patrol" and "autopatrolled" right
• Or:
  • Create a "patroller" user group, grant it "patrol" and "autopatrolled".
  • Add "patroller" to list of groups sysops can grant
  • Wikivoyage admins can now give non-sysops the ability to help in patrol.
• Or:
  • Create a "patroller" user group, grant it "patrol" and "autopatrolled".
  • Create a new AutoPromote instance (besides "autoconfirmed") that is, unlike autoconfirmed, set to 30 days.

If I understand these correctly, Option 1 is what we had before: 30-day-old accounts are autopatrolled and can patrol edits. I think the ideal architecture for our needs would be to either stick with that, or to use option two: autopatrolled and patroller status are given by admins who notice that a contributor is doing good work. The advantage of #2 is that we can hold off on giving this status to older accounts that are not terribly trustworthy (and this would support us in our ongoing attempt to limit the use of blocks on our wiki), but the disadvantage is that it requires more work from the admins. Thoughts? --Peter ^Talk 19:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The other advantage of #2 that I'm realizing now as I look at recentchanges is that we'd be able to mark all the various accounts that are as of right now considered new, but we know from previous work to be trustworthy. The whole recentchanges is flagged right now! --Peter ^Talk 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would also lean towards #2, but I'm not sure I understand #3. Would #3 automatically move any account that hasn't been specifically modified into the "autopatrolled" group after 30 days, but still give us the ability to remove the permission? That might be useful for reducing the amount of work required on account management while still giving us the ability to promote users early if they are doing good work, and rescind the autopatrolled flag for hotel marketers who have been around for more than 30 days. If that is indeed correct than #3 would be my preference. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even if that's not what #3 is, it sounds doable to me, and I agree that it would be ideal. --Peter ^Talk 20:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

My preferred option is Ryan's #3. The amount of extra work for #2 concerns me. I guess either way, unless we do option #1, we'll need to come up with some guidelines for why someone would/wouldn't be autopatrolled after 30 days. -Shaundd (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree autopatrolled automatically after whatever time is considered appropriate, but with option for admin to remove if edits are problematic. (see Shaundd above) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi again,

I just wanted to point out that option 1 would also affect something unrelated to patrolling. The other rights granted though "autoconfirmed" ^{(which ones)} will also be deferred to 30 days (as opposed to 4 days). Right now a user gets those rights after their 4th day. Changing autoconfirmed to 30 days means that, unrelated to this patrol workflow, they'll have to wait 30 days to be able to move pages, upload files, skip CAPTCHA etc. It may be undesirable to require 30 days to be "confirmed". It may be obvious, but I just wanted to point it out as a side-effect of going with option 1. Krinkle (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, can this be done? It doesn't seem that people older than 30 days are autopatrolled? --Inas (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I think the ideal scenario for us would be option #3, but also add "patroller" to the list of groups that sysops can grant & remove. That way hotel marketers who have been around for 30+ days can have the patroller autopromote revoked, and busy new users who clearly know the ropes can be given the status much earlier, to reduce the workload on patrolling. Is that possible? Do others agree that this would be ideal? --Peter ^Talk 07:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice to be able to patrol edits once again. Looking at the Recent changes, I review all the changes listed each time I refresh the page. It would be nice to know (not to mention more productive for those of us reviewing recent changes) which edits have been reviewed (patrolled) already by others. My choice is #3. If option 2 is chosen, please add me to the "patroller" user group. AHeneen (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wish I could do that right now—I've been marking your edits as patrolled, which seems ridiculous, since I know full well you know what you are doing! Let's see if we can't speed this process up. I'll try tomorrow. --Peter ^Talk 09:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't patrol multiple edits at once anymore, as was possible before. Anyone has a clue how to turn this feature on again? Patrolling takes a lot longer this way. Globe-trotter (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

It looks like we need to have anyone who has been on this site for a while take a look through special:newpages to check that all of these new pages follow the standard Wikivoyage format:

• Is the new page about a city, town or destination that meets what is an article?
• If so, does the place exist? Do we have an existing article which overlaps the new one?
• If not, is it adaptable as a travel topic / itinerary or should it be merged/redirected into its host city?
• Do the standard outline sections in {{smallcity}} (understand, get in, see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep, go next) all exist (even if they're blank for now)?
• Is the parent region identified with {{isPartOf}} and named in the article's introduction?
• Is the parent region listed as specifically as possible (for instance, isPartOf:northern Scotland is more precise than isPartOf:Europe, as Europe is huge)? Does that region's city list link back to the new page?
• Is the page a reasonable outline from which to build a new article, or merely a one-line stub like "This town is a dump, don't go here"?
• Are listings formatted correctly - name, address, telephone numbers, official website, descriptions?
• Are telephone numbers in international format - for instance, +1 areacode NXX-XXXX for North America?
• Is the WP article (or commons: category) for this place linked in the sidebar as [[wikipedia: City, Region]] (and not pasted into a page as an external link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City,_Region )?

We do seem to have many new articles about real places which should be in the guide, which is great. I've looked through a few and fixed what I can, but there is a huge backlog of new pages.

Many of these are outlines at best. Some might not be suitable (for instance, an article on every highway or every river would only duplicate info already in Wikipedia) but most need merely to be expanded (so that stubs become outlines and outlines are ready to be fleshed out as articles) and put into the standard format for a city or destination guide page.

At this point, it is important to review new pages so that new users can be aware of common errors to fix before they repeat the same mistakes on multiple articles (and have to edit them all later to fix things). Please give our newest users some feedback. :) K7L (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've gone through all the new pages between 00:31, 17 January 2013 ‎Kentucky Bourbon Distilleries Tours 05:28, 17 January 2013 ‎Singaporeholidays and 16:31, 16 January 2013 ‎Branscombe. A handful (maybe 5) were OK. About 10 or so merge...so when the launch surge dies down, we'll need to go through all pages with the merge template. I didn't find any pages for a destination that already existed...most just needed ispartof, Wikipedia, & geo templates...no real issues with xl. I didn't bother with orphan pages..city lists for regions are limited to 9, so in many cases it couldn't be listed on region page & going to other pages to create links would consume a lot of time. Same with listings...as long as some content is there and no major problems (eg.spam)...ok...too time-consuming to turn a paragraph of prose into listings and add phone/link/address if missing.AHeneen (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi, everyone. I have set my preferences so that if there are several recent edits of an article, it shows up on "Recent changes" as having, say 4 edits. However, I don't seem to be able to mark several edits at once as having been patrolled. Is anyone else having the same problem, and if so, I hope something can be done about it. Patrolling edits individually when there may be, say, 12 recent edits of an article is really untenable, as traffic increases here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

No one can do that, and it's really frustrating to say the least. I think this feature request was filed at Bugzilla somewhere, but I can't find where. Patrolling would be a lot easier if we got that feature back. Globe-trotter (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikipedia has the patrol system that you describe, so it is possible. I'm a bit annoyed by it too - that's how Wikidata is set up as well for some reason (the third project I'm a part of). --Rschen7754 05:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

If English Wikipedia has that setup, what's the issue in getting it here? We used to have that on Wikitravel, and it's desperately needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a huge problem, and has crippled our ability to effectively patrol. Please see Bugzilla:43977, and vote for its importance, if you think this deserves more attention. --Peter ^Talk 09:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, enwiki only does this for entirely new pages, so it's not exactly like that (sorry for the false alarm! trying to keep all these projects straight :/) But yes this would be quite useful. --Rschen7754 09:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way to hide my email address on Bugzilla? I'm not at all comfortable with having my email address be public. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately not that I'm aware. I use a separate email for all my WMF accounts and mailing list subscriptions to guard against outing, and it's possible to change the email on your Bugzilla account. --Rschen7754 10:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can change the email address on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=account and the email address is only shown to users that are logged in. Related bug report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148 - --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

So the patroller group's been created, but there aren't any users in it.... is this something we still want to use? --Rschen7754 02:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think so. It could be used as an intermediate status group between "autopatrolled" and "admin", for example when protecting pages from editing such as Template talk:Listing#Protection -- Alice^✉ 03:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't possible; the only options when protecting a page are semi-protection (allow autoconfirmed edits) and full protection (allow admin edits). –sumone10154^(talk) 05:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I supported and still support the idea of a patroller group, but how would we recruit or nominate people to do this work? I have some names in mind. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought I asked the same question here: Wikivoyage_talk:Recent_changes_patrol#Patroller_user_group but can not trace receiving an answer.

Sumone10154: Thanks for the quick (if disappointing) response. -- Alice^✉ 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We requested this group to be formed when we had a strong need for it (during the launch), but didn't get it implemented until the launch was over. In the meantime, we coped in part by promoting a lot of new admins. So the outcome is that right now we have an extremely high ratio of (active!) admins to casual editors, and there isn't really a whole lot of need for the patroller group. Possibly at some point, when casual edits take up more space in recentchanges, we might want to consider using this (they are precious few now), but for now I don't see it as being particularly useful. --Peter ^Talk 09:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

So dumb question, but can autopatrolled editors do recent changes patrol, or is that functionality currently limited to admins and the patroller group? If only admins can patrol, I'd be in favor of doing the same thing as we're doing with "autopatroller" now and simply let admins, at their discretion, change group settings for non-admins who would benefit from the group change; the more patrollers we have the better. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Per Special:ListGroupRights, autopatrollers can't mark as patrolled (they're just autopatrolled), while patrollers have both mark as patrolled and rollback. --Peter ^Talk 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would support that, but we would need another bugzilla request to allow admins to add and remove patroller; only bureaucrats can do that right now. --Rschen7754 21:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That explains why I can't just patrol in the RC list anymore, since the move :-) I was meaning to ask about it. What's the reason why RC patrol has been limited? Frankly, I would say we should make patrolling as open as possible, in order to get as many people to help as we can. Especially if we want to grow. It seems very silly that admins (who belong to the most useful editors also!) have to do patrolling on their own, thus leaving less and less time for editing. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC) User:Justme on WTReply

Agreed, I would support allowing admins to give the patroller right. It also might be a good idea to create a Requests for permissions page. –sumone10154^(talk) 06:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

How do I join the ranks of the "autopatrollers" as listed in the accompanying screenshot, please ? -- Alice^✉ 00:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

BUMP: Does nobody know the answer? -- Alice^✉ 18:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Special:Log/rights. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have added a note to Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers clarifying that the status gives you no extra tools, and has no effect on your editing. As such, requests for autopatroller status raise red flags in my view. --Peter ^Talk 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

The good news is that we've been getting a lot more edits to articles about Africa lately. The bad news is that the edits are by an IP user with a changing IP who doesn't pay attention to attempts to communicate via his/her user talk pages or edit summaries, and the edits typically look like this - starting sentences with lowercase letters, sometimes arbitrarily starting words elsewhere in sentences (like "Train") with capital letters, etc. These are very easily preventable errors, but this IP user is editing the way s/he wants to. I'm willing to do my part, I've long since become too frustrated to constantly clean up all of these kinds of errors, but we shouldn't leave articles like this. I think the content is helpful, so by no means do I consider this a Telstra vandal situation, and I don't want any impediments put in this user's way, but the rest of us need to collaborate in cleaning up his/her capitalization and grammar mistakes.

Do I have any volunteers to help follow edits to articles about places in Africa and clean up as needed after them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This may not be an opinion that is broadly shared, but particularly if you're becoming frustrated I'd suggest that it might be best to accept that not every edit will be patrolled, and that on a wiki it's OK to leave minor issues for the next person to clean up. It would be great if every edit could be patrolled and corrections applied immediately, but for my part I found that editing here is a much more pleasant experience if I'm willing to accept the fact that some edits may introduce minor issues that persist for a while, and that's OK. I still spot-check unpatrolled changes, and will dig deeper if I see a pattern of editing that I'm concerned about, but I wasn't having fun when the majority of my contributions were reviews of unpatrolled changes, and am enjoying contributing much more now that I've stopped doing so.

I'm not suggesting you stop patrolling recent changes - you are an incredible asset to the site for the work you do - but that it might be more fun for you to contribute if you reduced the workload somewhat to reduce your frustration.

On a related note, if we can identify certain patterns that require correction it might be possible to develop bots to fix things automatically, thus reducing the workload on patrollers, or if anyone is willing to investigate it might be possible to get bots from Wikipedia to run here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

A bot would be wonderful.

One of the things I enjoy doing and do aside from patrolling is to look at the Commons Picture of the day and new Valued images on Commons each day and input thumbnails that seem appropriate into Wikivoyage articles. Last night, I also started looking at the larger repository of Featured images. That's a vast, vast task, as there are so many, so I'll probably only do a few a day now and then, and not all of them need to be put into Wikivoyage articles, but it's nice when they belong, and sometimes, surprising images like one of a chapel below a starry sky including the Milky Way can be used to illustrate an area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I am an autopatroller but I have never seen the patrol option on any edits in Recent changes. Please advise. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've set the "patroller" flag on your account - see if that makes a difference. WV:Recent changes patrol may be out of date - I'm not sure what our guidelines are for assigning patroller rights. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wrh2: Thanks! I didn't realise they were different groups on this wiki. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard that there was a separate "patroller" status. Is there a way to enable any autopatroller to patrol recent changes if s/he so desires? I don't think all our other recent changes patrollers are admins, and I certainly hope not! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Autopatroller" is a misnomer; it should really be "autopatrolled"; edits by these users don't need to be marked as patrolled. "Patroller", on the other hand, is a trusted status that allows patrolling (AND rollback, it should be pointed out). At the time we created the Patroller role, we had an influx of edits from Wikipedians and needed a lot of patrollers. By the time we got it implemented, though, the rush had died down and admins were able to keep up with the workload. We never created a process for granting the Patroller role. Historically, any user we trusted enough to grant Patroller rights we usually just nominated for Administrator. Powers ^(talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, you've jogged my memory on this, but I didn't think this was ever implemented. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

If that is still not changed, it means that active and highly trusted users like User:Ypsilon or User:Hobbitschuster (who have not been nominated as administrators yet, by their choice) still do not have patroller rights. If that's indeed the case, I suggest we set the patroller flag for them and any other users like them, regardless of whether they ask for it or not. If they choose to never make any use of it, that's fine too, but they should be able to. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Based on the fact that many of us (myself included) were under the impression that longtime contributions already had appropriate permissions to patrol recent changes I've updated the two accounts mentioned - hopefully that isn't controversial. I don't know if non-bureaucrats can update this permission, but if not let me know if anyone else should have permissions updated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well thanks. I had had the privilege of seeing red exclamation marks on another wiki previously (before you ask, I currently don't edit there for political reasons that have no place on this wiki). I am not sure I will make use of being able to scan them, but I don't think it can do me or the wiki much harm... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

[unindent] Just to clarify: Is the only major difference between Patrollers and Admins that Patrollers cannot block any user? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

No. Special:ListGroupRights shows the permissions each group has. Patrollers have the 'patrol' and 'rollback' rights (they should probably also have 'autopatrol', though in practice it's unlikely we'd grant the Patroller role to anyone who hadn't already been granted Autopatroller). Admins have many more: in addition to the various blocking-related rights, admins can also change page protection, adjust the edit filters, create user accounts, delete and hide page revisions (and view deleted/hidden revisions), delete pages (and view deleted pages), edit the user interface, merge page histories, override blacklists, assign the Autopatroller role, and many more rather obscure privileges. Powers ^(talk) 03:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I had forgotten about a lot of these. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The rollback thing seems to be for undoing edits by registered users and not IPs. Wouldn't it be more logical the other way around (as IPs are more likely to be vandals)? It's also just one click away so you can accidentally hit it if you're looking at Recent changes while editing on a tablet. Is there a way to hide the function? ϒpsilon (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rollback is for IPs, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is, unless there's something weird about how rollbacks are set up for Patrollers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

At least earlier today the IP edits didn't have the rollback option while edits by you and me for example were rollable. Now here's me as an IP, let's see how it looks like in the recent changes after logging in. 83.245.230.27 13:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now it's there. Possibly the option disappears if someone who's registered has been editing the page/even looked at it afterwards. Dunno. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

[unindent]Should we have a thread at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations or somewhere else to nominate some of our favorite contributors for Patroller status? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think a formal nomination is required, but since it does not appear that non-bureaucrats can assign patroller rights then a list of users who should be given that permission would be useful to let LtPowers and I know when to update user rights. We might want to request that admins be given the right to assign patroller permissions so that we can handle it like we do with autopatroller and just give it to anyone who seems trustworthy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

That would be good. I would suggest for everyone to apply a higher level of trust for Patroller than Autopatroller status, essentially giving it to anyone who you would nominate for Admin but who prefers not to be one or was not approved for Admin simply because of a lack of much participation in policy discussions and the like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

My only concern would be that adding the patrolling links and flags might be found to be distracting by some users with no interest in patrolling. Powers ^(talk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

In which case, it would be good to ask each person whether they'd like that status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I've had several conversations with new or relatively new users who were more or less freaked out by "stalking" — that is, reading their changes in Special:RecentChanges and making small edits to their work and/or preexisting text in the article(s) they've just been editing. Some have reacted very negatively to this, and we may even have lost some editors permanently over this. I'm not talking about spambots, touters or vandals but good-faith editors who may be a bit sensitive and perhaps quickly frustrated, especially if some of the edits after them are in some way wrong (as is bound to happen at times, given that all editors are human).

So here's the problem: Given that "out of sight is out of mind" and that many small and not-so-small faults in articles have escaped the notice of editors for years, it's very tempting to fix them when "Recent changes" brings them to our attention. The risk if we wait some set period of time before attending to them is that we will get distracted and never go back to those articles. So what to do? Should we risk leaving minor to moderate faults alone, with the possible attendant erosion of the site's quality considered to be a reasonable risk, given the improvements to content from new editors? Or is there even a single, one-size-fits-all answer to this question? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is not an easy topic. Is part of the nature of a Wiki collaborative site. Also with Wikivoyage consisting of a small active group of regular contributor, it can be a bit intimidating for a new user that maybe more use to blog type web pages than wiki style authoring. I think it is fine to make minor corrections to entries of new users but as for content topics it is always worth talking over entries first with the new user. For more established users I do not think we need to be so cautious (I notice that at least half of edits I make to a long ignored page are followed quickly by other edits), we are more used to this, sometimes harsh, collaborative environment.

On recent cases I know I swooped on a couple of new pages, but in my defence I have worked for some time to get every UK and Germany city page with at least one See and one Sleep on them. If I see a new page in these regions without such listing I feel a need to add an entry. As for other edits I am not totally in agreement with I try and start a conversation first and make edits once the page edits have settled down.

For those long term contributors maybe instead of concentrating on recent edits how about working on the to-dos of a Geographic Expedition or one of the Maintenance categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)

The short answer to your question is that in any wiki, the content is always more important than preserving the contributors' feelings. Wikipedia is especially explicit about where they stand on the matter - w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you, w:Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable, and so on - and, while I've always felt their bluntness to be unnecessarily harsh, in the end that's how it has to be for Wikivoyage too.

However, there are ways to do it more tactfully. For instance, when I find myself "stalking" a new editor on Recent Changes patrol, I usually drop him or her a welcome message on their talk page - not just the standard boilerplate text in Template:Welcome, but something more personalized, such as "Thank you for your contributions on (insert article here). I had to tweak it a little bit because of (insert reason here), but overall you're doing good work, keep it up!" 99% of the time, the message is received positively, and I can mark the whole thing down as a success at both 1) introducing a new user to the collaborative, give-and-take nature of editing Wikivoyage and 2) making him or her feel like a valued contributor to the site. And for that small minority of users who are so thin-skinned that even a friendly explanation like that can't make up for the indignity of being cleaned up after, then as far as I'm concerned we can absolutely throw up our hands and say maybe editing wikis isn't their thing.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thoughts, guys. We shouldn't lose sight of the issue that Wikipedia has lots of editors and that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include original research, but we rely on a relatively small number of content-providers who personally know things. So maybe we need to be more careful to try to avoid repelling them and effectively chasing them from the site.

One issue is that some of the changes I like to make are not huge and policy-driven in a major way but have to do with things like capitalization, punctuation, syntax and usage, and some users who are in the process of making edits get annoyed by those. But there's no clear way for me to know when they are pausing or finished with editing a particular article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a new contributor myself (and somebody who has felt stalked) a few initial thoughts (sorry for the length of my response):

• My impression is that there are a fair number of destination pages that "require work" and that if contributors have time to do work, maybe focus on the bigger issues rather than spending time moving a colon or changing a double space to a single space. It is the out-of-date listings, major omissions, etc. (the "biggies") the "erode the quality" more than the minor niceties. By analogy, when you want a beautiful garden but only have 1 hour a day to work on it, do you spend every hour going over the flower beds somebody else has just weeded or do you spend your limited resource addressing the totally overgrown areas ...

• When considering leaping on a "Recent Changes" maybe there should be a distinction between adding new or additional content and tweaking phraseology. Distinguish between proof correcting a "work in progress" and a (mostly) complete addition or update (I guess I am not alone in "publishing" a page before I have finished changes.

• When focusing on "Recent Changes" to make corrections it would seem to erode the quality when the original author (who has local knowledge or done research) has their true and accurate contribution modified to be untrue or have errors all because a subsequent editor wanted it phrased differently.

• I am unaware of technical implementation details and appreciate that changes can require significant effort (and maybe such a process already exists) but one thought might be a modification to the page status (e.g. outline city tag thingy) where a page can be scheduled for review. Maybe a new page (in the template) defaults to "reviewin:2 weeks" and maybe longer established pages default to "reviewin:1 year". I would guess aspects to WikiVoyage subject coverage are more prone to change or that change happens outside the authors control than would be the case in Wikipedia. For example, restaurants/hotels/etc. open and close, transport services change, etc. affecting WikiVoyage whereas maybe other Wikis the initiator of the change is also a contributor (or has interest in having the Wiki updated). So longer term editors would then focus more on the "Scheduled for Review" lists rather than "Recent Changes". (Any page provided to a user might then also include a warning box "This page is overdue for review", similar to the "outlinecity" info box)

• Maybe WikiVoyage needs a different type of contributor from other Wikis. Many years ago I used to contribute to the South American Handbook and such resources need a large number of non-specialists updating and maintaining information rather than specialists in specific fields. As people travel they find useful information and maybe errors of changes in e.g. WikiVoyage and provide additions or updates.

• Of course with any new contributor it needs to be remembered that they only see "where things are" rather than the reasons as to why things got there. But, as I'm new and unknown, I should add that I firmly believe that any idea (however good or bad) can be improved through discussion and input from others. PsamatheM (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Very much agreed on the value of discussion. Thanks for giving us some things to think about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion: It is tempting to quickly edit a recent change as "out of sight is out of mind" tends to happen after a few days. We did look at an articles needing attention {{Needsimprovement}} tag a while ago but I think this is a too loud a solution in the cases we are currently discussing. I suggest that people create a folder in the Bookmark function of their web browser, something like "Wikivoyage - articles to revisit". Bookmark the recent change you think needs some attention but leave it a week before going back to it, making any changes and removing from your bookmark list. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

When I first started as an IP editor way back when, I found that my edits would "bring back" long forgotten articles to the attention of more established users. I must say I was actually delighted by that and didn't feel stalked (though I guess I had at least a hunch what recent change patrol might entail). It's also a thing that edits by "not established" editors are marked with a small red exclamation point that "more established" editors can remove if they find the edit free of spam or egregious abuse of the English language (sadly quite common here) - it is of course tempting to not only get rid of the exclamation point but fix whichever minor faults one stumbles across. But yeah, I feel we overwhelmed - for example - the person who created Villingen-Schwenningen Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

In Wikipedia, this problem is handled by putting new articles in the "draft" namespace. Before an article is moved to the main namespace, it must be reviewed by several editors. --FriedhelmW (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't thatscare away even more newbies even quicker? I always find that WP is way to quick with the "revert on sight" - it's rather hard to get any thing - even a true or plausible thing - to "stick" in WP. This is and should be different here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would take any suggestion to encourage new users very seriously, and it is probably accurate to say that you need a thick skin if a seasoned editor starts aggressively jumping on an article you are working on. That said, surely that is how a Wiki works? If anyone doesn't want someone to edit at the same time then they can always create their content in a sandbox int heir namespace and no-one will touch... Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but most new users wouldn't know about the sandbox! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I didn't. The mention above made me try but I'm still not sure I have not created some duff page somewhere maybe related to my username. I did search the help and experimented. I probably got it wrong because I have noticed on another user they have a "sandbox" link top of user page (between username and logout) but I've not got one so I probably messed-up - and I consider myself quite technically oriented (having been a software developer for over 30 years). Good idea though (but maybe needs a bit more in help pages and for new users to be pointed towards it? That said, I think it would help but not solve the issue in that it would allow a new user not to have the initial "work in progress" main space page "descended on" - less of a negative if "Change Patrol" changes were made as one or two blocks rather than many different tweaks. Maybe it's the "History" that can make a few changes look worse (each done individually) or lots of changes look better (done as a single "publish"). PsamatheM (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

When I do recent change patrol, I sometimes find it cluttered with red exclamation points for edits by users whom I know to be trustworthy (or at the very least as trustworthy as the "regulars") whose edits may sometimes contain typos or the likes, but who certainly do not warrant as much attention as other red exclamation point edits. Can we please move some of those from one category to the other? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Admins have the power to do that. Would you like to be nominated to serve as an admin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Hobbitschuster is a member of the Patrollers group, which should give him the ability to patrol edits. Powers ^(talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that's not what he's complaining about above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, right, sorry. That's what I get for being in a hurry. I suppose non-Admins are welcome to nominate users for auto-patrolled status. Powers ^(talk) 19:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, certainly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Do you think that Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol should be mentioned in the welcome messages ({{subst:welcome}}, {{subst:welcomeanon}} and {{subst:wikipedian}})? I think a lot of new users think that when anyone comments on their edits on their user talk pages, there's some spooky or otherwise objectionable spying going on. See another example here. If we somehow included in all our welcome messages the fact that one of the useful things users can do is to patrol recent changes for accuracy and style, might we proactively address some of the confusion and bad feelings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Mention about how new user edits are "patrolled" and the "Recent Changes" list can draw the attention of others to the page. And maybe how this can also help a new contributor to be come familiar with layout standards, etc. but how content is more important than the niceties of layout so contributors much appreciated even if others do come along and tweak them it's not a negative or critical thing. PsamatheM (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well... I don't disagree with that, but the long-term contributors to this site tend to be experienced Wikipedians, so they probably already know how to find such tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This isn't about long-term contributors to this site. I'm proposing that a brief mention and explanation of Recent changes patrol be included in welcome messages for new users. If people agree that this is a good idea, we should discuss phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is about accounts that are new to Wikivoyage ...most of whom are "old" to wikis. "New here" is not the same as "new". It looks like your first edit was at the English Wikipedia. My first edit was at the English Wikipedia. Nurg's first edit was at the English Wikipedia (albeit just a week before his first edit 'here'). AlasdiarW's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. Ground Zero's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. K7L's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. WOSLinker's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. Many of the "regulars" here started editing at some other wiki, and ended up here later. (This list of examples was taken from a quick look at the recent editors on this page.) So if the goal of the welcome template is to attract "regulars", why would we waste their time telling them one of the things that works exactly like it does at the wikis they're already familiar with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are quite incorrect that most new users here are familiar with recent changes patrol. Even if they posted a few edits to Wikipedia, it does not follow that they automatically know what recent changes patrol is or how it works. I've had enough experience with new users taking offense at their contributions being edited or even commented upon to know that your perception is inaccurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The only welcome message in which recent changes patrol could be soft-pedaled is {{subst:wikipedian}}, and even there, a short statement that "Like Wikipedia, Wikivoyage has a Recent changes patrol for checking new edits; you may want to participate as a patroller, and as on Wikipedia, you may also find that your edits and other content in articles you edit are subjected to quick followup edits." Such a statement could only help, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm specifically thinking about focusing the welcome message on the subset of new users that are likely to become regulars (as opposed to touts, drive-by promoters, and other new users). It seems to me that if you want to increase the core group of regulars, then you need to write for experienced editors.

If your focus is on new-to-everything, then I think that it's more pointful to say "We work together, which means that other people will try to improve your contributions, and you should improve theirs". 02:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that our best users are all necessarily Wikipedia veterans. I don't know if I'm a good example, but if so: I have made occasional edits on Wikipedia for years, but mostly because when I read an article and see a typo or grammatical or spelling mistake, I correct it. So you could call me a longtime occasional, casual Wikipedia editor but no kind of veteran patroller or content provider, though I have provided some content for a few Wikipedia articles. Given the relatively small number of editors on this site, I wouldn't want to take any potentially constructive user for granted. All that said, I'm happy to discuss the best phrasing for addressing recent changes patrol, including something as simple as what you posted above, if there's any kind of consensus to add something about patrolling in welcome messages. I think it would help, because not a few users are put off by it, at least at first, and some of those folks probably stopped posting because of it, while others stayed and have indeed become valuable contributors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

As I can't find the discussion where it was decided to give some users including myself patroller (wasn't the rollback thing called patroller?) status, so I post this in the pub.

I never use the rollback button for reverting edits, and the only times I've "used" it, is when accidentally touching it when studying Recent changes, which has happened quite a few times, the last time 20 minutes ago or so. Apparently it's not possible to disable the button in the User preferences. Also, I can't remember when I "marked anything as patrolled". Therefore, would some admin or bureaucrat kindly remove my patroller status? ϒpsilon (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rollback is very useful to remove obvious span/vandalism quickly. Are you sure you want to remove patroller status? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

At least I am able to revert multiple edits by opening the page history and it doesn't take many seconds (can't speak for the other editors with patroller status, though). Rollback edits are marked as minor edits, and I've hidden minor edits in Recent changes, so it's possible that I haven't even noticed accidental rollbacks every time.

But well, if editors who've been around for a few years lose the right to continue as normal editors I guess I just need to be more careful when scrolling up and down Recent changes when logged in. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's not just the rollback button, your edits will also be marked by small red exclamation points like the edits of newbies are... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nope, patroller and autopatrolled are different things, users removed from the latter group have their edits marked by exclamation marks. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

All of us occasionally rollback something accidentally. If you're sure you want your patroller status ended, though, it's just a click for an admin to do it. So you're really sure about that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. In fact, I roll things back accidentally far more often than I do so intentionally, and no one has taken issue with it yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just remove it. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thank you! ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I should point out here that the main purpose of the "patroller" right is to allow the marking of unpatrolled edits as patrolled. We all should be doing that as we edit -- if you see an unpatrolled edit you should either mark it patrolled or revert it. Powers ^(talk) 20:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes I see a red exclamation point edit and my reaction is "Well, I don't know" (the last two edits to Nazca are such a case) what should I do if that happens? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just looked at the exact same edits and had the same reaction, so would also appreciate some input. If a case is borderline where I don't really know if something is valuable or not because I don't know the destination, I tend to leave it to an editor who is familiar with the area. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm in Bolivia at the moment and I've talked to a couple of travellers who are using Peru Hop/Bolivia Hop. It seems to be reasonably popular, and I think it probably makes sense for us to cover it on Wikivoyage. I'm not a patroller, though, so I can't approve the edits myself. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

To me, marking a change as patrolled means it isn't spam, vandalism, and it's a vaguely coherent contribution to a travel guide. It doesn't mean that I've visited the destination and I can verify that the information is correct. 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Inas (talk)

Well but that user seems to have added that company to more than one article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Shouldn't there be a page about patroller abilities, similar to that of WV:Administrators and WV:Autopatrollers. I also mentioned this in WV:RA. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol should explain both the "patroller" and "autopatrolled" status bits, instead of creating a page for Wikivoyage:Patrollers and Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers. K7L (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

True, it could be a page for both, since Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers is not very long. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this has happened yet. I agree with K7L that it's best to explain this on an existing page, instead of creating a new page for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

The patrollers group has the ability to mark edits as patrolled, and to use rollback. However, there are only 4 users with that right, per Special:ListUsers/patroller (and one of them, ARR8, is an administrator so they already have those abilities). Is there a desire to use this group more? If so, maybe admins should be allowed to grant and remove this permission (as opposed to only bureaucrats, as things currently stand)? Wikivoyage talk:Recent changes patrol contains a few times where that was proposed but nothing came of it. --Rschen7754 01:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will note that admins can add/remove the template editor group, which is probably more consequential. --Rschen7754 01:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd support admins having the privilege, but I'm an admin and not a bureaucrat, so I am biased. Also, consider that if someone has the trust to patrol, they generally have trust to be administrators too — therefore, users usually go straight to admin. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd support giving admins this power. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I question the need for this group at all. In addition to the point SelfieCity made about trust, the act of patrolling edits as such is not something the community here generally bothers with. In other words, edit volume on Wikivoyage is low enough that most problematic contributions eventually get seen and followed up on by admins anyway, without any need for the intermediate step of patrollers toggling the red exclamation point on and off. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting I'm wasting my time by marking anything as patrolled? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Strongly disagree with that sentiment, and support the initiative to expand the number of patrollers. I only look at unpatrolled mainspace edits, and mark them as patrolled when I have checked them. I know I am not the only one doing this. I find it immensely helpful. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan Kekek and anyone who believes that we should mark edits as patrolled. It does no harm and helps us, whether marked by an admin or patroller. We've been doing it for years, and I don't think we should consider it a waste of time now. As for patrollers, I'm not so sure I think we should have them, but I think that point is worth discussing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying that patrolling edits is a waste of time. What I am saying is that the volume of edits here by relation to the size and activity level of our admin community is such that we don't need a separate class of users who aren't admins, yet who have the power to mark edits as patrolled. In other words, SelfieCity was correct that if you're already keeping up with Recent Changes, reverting vandalism and touting, and counseling new users on mos issues, you're probably ready to be nominated for admin anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's at least partially what I think. I think your statement "the act of patrolling edits as such is not something the community here generally bothers with" was seen my those who commented below as meaning, "I don't support it." I think there are valid arguments on both sides. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

On this wiki, the patrollers group also has the rollback tool, so the group could be useful in that regard. --Rschen7754 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's true; however, currently on WV only admins and existing patrollers regularly do anti-vandal work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is there consensus on this matter? I'm no longer very active here so I don't want to make that call. --Rschen7754 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rschen, I don't see anyone strongly objecting to the idea of letting admins grant and remove this right, which seems to be considered relatively unimportant. I don't know whether any admin will bother with it (and I suspect that the standard message will be "Here's the right, and now let's get you over to the admin page..."), but nobody seems to think that it needs to be restricted to buros. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Submitted at phab:T222008. --Rschen7754 05:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

And this was done. --Rschen7754 01:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply