Commons talk:Patrol

Gret job!

Great job. I knew that there was something, but not what. So far I never really worked in Special:NewPages and I have always been wondering why this entries are yellow. I don't think those features are referred to in the administration task and a link to this page in Special:NewPages might be useful (along with a minimal one paragraph text).

Some comments on the features.

In my IE6, some of the fields become only yellow when hoovering above it
I verify and change things all the time starting from my change log, move requests, uncategorized pages, ... and it would save a lot of time if I could mark them as patrolled at that moment too. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all admin edits were marked as patrolled anyway? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are. Tiptoety ^talk 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrrect, I meant the hundreds of diffs I verify daily in my watchlist: if I had a simple way of indicating them patrolled (as you have on most wikipedia's) it would save work for the others. --Foroa (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a script (on en.wp?) that allows you to patrol pages without even leaving the log.. I can't find it right now though. Rocket000 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en:User:Mr.Z-man/patrollinks.js. Rocket000 (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

autopatrolled

The explanations say "you cannot mark your own page creations as patrolled". but they say also that every patroller is also autopatroller, which means that his creations are already patrolled. This seems contradictory.

I understand that there is a difference in that "autopatrolled" status is different from "patrolled". But this raises the questions, is auto-patrolled an inferior status, and can/must the pages be full-patrolled in addition?

--Ikar.us (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A patroller is a user who can mark edits and page creations as patrolled. His/her own edits are not patrolled. Autopatrollers can not mark edits as patrolled. Their own edits are patrolled automaticly. In Commons:Patrol#Autopatrolled it says this status is for trusted users that do not participate in checking stuff, but just create a lot of pages. That saves us (Patrollers) from having to mark all those. -- Krinkle^talk 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say a patroller's own edits aren't patrolled, the page says every patroller is autopatroller. What's true? --Ikar.us (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, every patroller also has the autopatrol right, the page it correct. See also Special:ListGroupRights for a direct represention of the site configuration. -- --Krinkle^talk 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

If not created by an autopatroller, talk page edits get the ! like everything else. Is there a good reason for patrollers to check them or should we just ignore them on the grounds that they are auxiliary to the main purpose of Commons? If the latter, can we arrange it so that they are all autopatrolled? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is no need for Patrollers to systematicly check edits by registered users. However, since both registered users and anonymous users are capable of making bad edits, the patrolling is still possible when needed. So I oppose autopatrolling autoconfirmed users. Since I'm someone who has a rather big amount of pages on the watchlist, knowing an edit is patrolled is sometimes reason not to check it anymore (depends per page). –Krinkle^talk 10:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN#Automatically assign autopatrolled user right

There is a discussion on the automatic assignment of the autopatrolled user right ongoing on COM:AN#Automatically assign autopatrolled user right. --Leyo 12:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was archived here; result was no automatic assignment (but increased efforts to assign the right manually to those recognised as dependable). Rd232 (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about generating a list of non-autopatrolled users with – let's say – more than 1000 edits? Admins could go through such a list and assign the autopatrolled user right where appropriate. --Leyo 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible. Not sure of the best way to do it though. Perhaps a database report? Rd232 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still a need of such a list? I don't know, just throwing out the question. Currently the number of autopatrolled user has increased from 300 (1.5 year ago) to almost 1,200. Myself was "spontaneously" assigned the autopatrolled right when someone obviously saw my edits and decided that "hey, that guy seems to make good edits and does not need to be patrolled manually.". --MagnusA (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I discovered two non-autopatrolled users with more than 3000 edits. The spontaneous assignments are good, but not sufficient IMO. --Leyo 14:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone (besides spontaneuos assignments) creates such a list, starts judging the users and possible make assignments, I would not object to that. :-) On the other hand, I am new here and used to en:Wikipedia:Be bold which normally do not apply here. --MagnusA (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not able to create such a list. What about asking at COM:BWR? --Leyo 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created lists som weeks ago, Commons:Requests for rights/possible autopatrolled candidates. --MagnusA (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit patrol

The section says:

"From the Recent changes click the (diff)-link of any unpatrolled edit. Then in the diff-view review the edit by clicking the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" on the righthand side. After marking the edit as patrolled you can close the page, or (in the event of vandalism or otherwise contributions not in coherence with Commons guidelines) perform an undo or rollback."

I was wondering if there is an easier way to patrol a revision besides clicking on the diff link. Epic Genius (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling the RTRC gadget --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did. However, is there another script that allows me to do this with history pages? Epic Genius (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit which should be patrolled

Unpatrolled reverted edits should be added to the "What to mark as patrolled" section, as there is no reason for reverted edits to be checked further. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to be interested nor responding to this section. Can I add my suggested edit to the "What to mark as patrolled" section? Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soon possible to patrol files

It will soon be possible to patrol files, see gerrit:251795 which should be deployed on Commons within a few days. You may test this at Testwiki: already. New files and new file versions will be patrollable, and you'll be able to search for unpatrolled new files at special:newfiles. Cenarium (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to work right now:

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

    Function: IndexPager::buildQueryInfo (NewFilesPager)
    Error: 2013 Lost connection to MySQL server during query (10.64.48.19)

-- Rillke^(q?) 18:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy / guide

I stumbled across some personal user images. Although they might be out of scope I am reluctant nominating them for deletion as they might be used later by the user and adds unnecessary stress to the uploading individual. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unpatrolled, can't mark as patrolled

How to mark Eporubin's edits as patrolled in this list? // Gikü said done Tuesday, 23 May 2017 09:48 (UTC)

Autopatrol vs captcha

Does the autopatrol eliminate the need to fill in captcha every time you edit anything? ВоенТех (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Autoconfirmed/confirmed does. See Special:ListGroupRights. --jdx ^Re: 16:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How should one apply for that grade? ВоенТех (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed rank is granted automatically after four days. See Commons:Autoconfirmed users. --jdx ^Re: 17:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ВоенТех (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing "patrolled" mark on files

How a user without patroller rights can see if the file is patrolled or not? The files from Commons are used across all the wikimedia projects. There are patrolling mechanisms in most of the projects and they have patrolling users. But those patrollers haven't got patroller flag on Commons. But to make the patrolling effective they should know if the new images added to pages are checked (patrolled) on Commons.--V0d01ey (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: who gets autopatrol is at the sole discretion of the administrators

Addition to Commons:Patrol#Autopatrol: "Who is granted autopatrol is at the sole discretion of the administrators. Users can't demand or refuse the autopatrol user right, they can only request it."

Never want drama like this, this, this, this and this again. And clearly refusing autopatrol isn't really an option for a wiki. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+for a wiki like Commons that has huuugeeeee patrol backlog. Masum Reza^📞 12:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz and Masumrezarock100: Don't worry, I won't go on because the statement I posted on my user page: "I stop all work from today". Besides, I'd just sent an email to administrator.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask who is that lucky administrator who received an email from you? Masum Reza^📞 12:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to stop all work. I can run a bot to patrol your edits automatically. Masum Reza^📞 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not stress me out.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: Rileybot was supposed to do that.. clearly didn't work. And a bot would have to check for new edits every 2 seconds in order to keep the patrol log somewhat clean. Kai should just be made autopatrolled and carry on with his work. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, but you still don't believe me(not a problem I caused). You repeatedly accused me of not accepting autopatrol. I have sent an email to administrator -- why can't you wait that long? What's the rush?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what you asked the administrator about. But now it is clear. Thank you.

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: Do you not believe that I sent an email to administrator?--Kai3952 (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you. That's why I asked the name of the admin. :)

@Alex: It's not hard to run a web shell to patrol edits using Pywikibot. Just issue some commands to a terminal and do other things, and it should patrol automatically. I created a documentation, see User:Masumrezarock100/How_to_patrol_Commons_using_patrol.py. If something is unclear, I can clarify more. Masum Reza^📞 14:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to patrol all old edits of now autopatrolled users

I think we should have a bot patrolling all edits of users granted autopatroll rights. That does not reduce the real patrol backlog but it makes the survey much easier. Maybe this bot could also patrol edits when they are undone, that would be a real benefit. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: errr GMTA? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol reform

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to implement any proposal. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion.
The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it.

We currently have 731490 unpatrolled edits in the backlog. If we don't act now, it will probably get to a million edits in two months or three. I think a major cause for this huge backlog is that we don't have enough patrollers. I propose two mutually exclusive options to increase our patroller count: either we merge the autopatrol and patroller groups (that would immediately give us 6595+ new patrollers), or let patrollers grant the patroller group to autopatrolled users (but they can't remove it).

Merging the autopatrolled group into the patroller group is straightforward. I think separating the two is unnecessary. There may be some people who may say that the new patrollers from the merge won't use the patrol privilege at all. I doubt that. Even if it's just one patrol a day, that's still good. If the new total of 7000+ patrollers mark a revision as patrolled once a day, that's a lot. Merging also reduces needless bureaucracy. If autopatrolled users are consider "trusted users", then they should be trusted to be able to patrol as well. The risk of abusing patrol is very low. IMO, there's no risk. I haven't heard of any abuse if there's any at all. We can always check for abuse at the patrol log. If someone did abuse patrol (like marking tons of edits that are obvious vandalism as patrolled and not reverting it), then they shouldn't get autopatrol either.

If the first option won't pass, then we could give patrollers the ability to grant the patroller group to other users, just like what license reviewers do. Of course there should be a criteria for this, because the patroller group includes the autopatrol right, and I don't think the community would like to let non-admins choose who gets autopatrol. So obviously only those who have autopatrol can be given the patrolling privilege by patrollers. There should also be a proof of interest from the users who will be granted the patroller right. This second criteria would require them to have at least three reverts of vandalism (as defined by our vandalism guideline), or mark atleast three files/pages for deletion (could be speedy like copyvio, PROD like "no source", or DR), both in the last 30 days. A patroller may grant patrol for autopatrolled users any time even without asking the target user, as long as they satisfy the second criteria.

Again, these two options are mutually exclusive to each other, so the option which has the clearer consensus gets implemented. pandakekok9 10:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Merge the autopatrolled group into the patroller group

Oppose · Obviously a bad idea. -- CptViraj () 12:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. This is not a vote. We are trying to establish consensus here. pandakekok9 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The fact that edits are out of the patrol queue after one month pretty much explains that patrol is not such a big deal. Merging usergroups will, in my opinion, do little help, because many autopatrollers are not very active and some active autopatrollers aren't really likely to patrol edits (not even once a day; see the patrol-related stats for the last month). About the second idea... I think we should first see if admins can effectively handle requests or not. If they can, I think adding this right to patrollers won't help much; we usually grant patroller right on request, so if there are no requests, patrollers that are able to assign the right won't help either. Ahmad^talk 20:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The contributions of users in the autopatrolled group can be trusted. However, they may not understand how to use the tool or it's impact on the project. Simply giving more users rights will not necessarily mean more frequent use of the tool. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per CptViraj and Morgankevinj. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^{Overleg • CA} 12:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: Let patrollers grant the patroller group to autopatrolled users

Option 3: Keep status quo

General discussion

How about letting license reviewers grant autopatrol? -- CptViraj () 12:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't see how granting autopatrol is related to license reviewing.~~ If the community wants to let license reviewers grant autopatrol however, I won't object. pandakekok9 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think this is a good idea. LRs are trusted and elected by consensus (via COM:LRR) anyway. It could help if an LR sees a non-autopatrolled user who consistently uploads a lot of images with an external source while following our policies. pandakekok9 12:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly dont understand the purpose of patrol. Trying to have volunteers review every single page? Can I ask what is the false positive rate? I mean how often pages are patrolled but still contain problematic wikitext or the files are copyvios?--Roy17 (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons autopatrol is not always easy-to-get is that it also patrols upload automatically. I'm thinking, if there was a way to separate the patrol backlog for uploads and edits, perhaps we could grant the autopatrol/patrol flag for edits easier, while keeping current standards for upload patrolling. Ahmad^talk 20:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about sending a message (if that is possible) to all autopatrolled users asking them if they are prepared to become patrollers? I'm in autopatrolled but I have no idea what a patroller is actually checking (is it about media being properly licensed/rights or just searching out vandalism or syntax errors or categorisation, etc.?). I appreciate it becomes a lot more admin to manually add those agreeing but it would mean that those added would be more likely to actually contribute to the patrolling efforts.PsamatheM (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What is the requirements for the patrol

Got hit by abusefilter, seeing that patrol rights are required to circumvent it. Is there a requirement, and am I eligible for the rights? ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]