User:Esquivalience/Patroller
 | The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal. |
 | This page in a nutshell: The patroller user right allows editors to mark a page as "patrolled". It is given to competent editors who wish to patrol new pages for issues. |
The patroller user right allows trusted editors to mark a page as "patrolled", effectively conveying that the page has been reviewed for any issues after its creation. This right is given by administrators (who also have the right to patrol) to editors they deem competent enough to handle the responsibility of patrolling; autopatrolled editors are also presumed competent enough to patrol and can do so without the user right.
This right is only of use to new pages patrollers, editors who patrol new pages for notability and other issues. Although the MediaWiki software Wikipedia runs on allows all registered users to patrol by default, new pages patrol is often performed incorrectly by new users, much to the detriment of the quality of Wikipedia. This right was established to ensure that editors possess a minimum level of competency before patrolling new pages. In addition, a series of edit filters prevent any editor without the patroller right from tagging articles for speedy deletion.
By patrolling a page, it is taken out of the new pages unpatrolled log, so that other patrollers will not have to check it for issues, and possibly left for years until it is seen by another experienced editor. Thus, it is absolutely critical that patrollers minimize their number of problematic patrols.[1] Any pattern of incorrect patrolling that compromises Wikipedia's new page review system will lead to a suspension of patroller rights by an administrator.
The patroller right[edit]
You may request the patroller at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller. However, before making your request, keep in mind that administrators need to see that a) you are serious about patrolling articles and b) you demonstrate a reasonable level of experience with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Since the patroller right was established only in c. 2016?, there will be many competent patrollers before then. If you have patrolled 100 pages before [DATE OF RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION], you have automatically received the patroller right by a bot (and should have received a notice on your talk page about the right), and thus do not need to request the right before patrolling.[2] In addition, all autopatrolled editors[3] and administrators[4] can patrol articles without the right.
All other editors must request the right. While there is no hard requirement, editors with fewer than 500 non-automated[5] mainspace edits and 90 days tenure are very unlikely to be granted this right.[6] More importantly, administrators must see that you have basic competency with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and even if you have more than 500 non-automated mainspace edits and 90 days tenure, you may be declined this right if you cannot demonstrate such competency.
Since new pages patrol can significantly effect the quality of our articles positively or negatively, administrators are advised not to give the right leniently. Any obvious signs that an applicant may patrol problematically should lead to a declination of the right.
Revocation[edit]
Administrators may revoke the right from a patroller upon:
- a request for removal.
- a pattern of repeated problematic patrolling compromising the quality of our new pages review system. A few occasional errors are not grounds for revoking the right.
- repeated incivility against article creators, new or experienced, while patrolling, even if the instances where the patroller was incivil were a response to improper article creation.
- a block for sockpuppetry.[7]
How patrolling works[edit]
Unless the article creator is autopatrolled, new articles are, by default, unpatrolled and delegated for review by patrollers. Editors with the patroller right without the page curation tool see a button on the bottom-right corner of every unpatrolled page saying "Mark this article as patrolled". This must only be clicked when the article has been adequately checked for issues, per the page on new pages patrolling.
Patrolling is not a race; slower but accurate patrolling is a few magnitudes more appreciable than fast but careless patrolling. Administrators who decline a speedy deletion request should look at the article themselves for any other issues the first patroller missed.
Twinkle and Page Curation[edit]
Twinkle and Page Curation are the two main tools used for more efficient patrolling. They both contain tools to automate some parts of the patrolling process, including tagging, requests for deletion, and logging; note that Page Curation replaces the "Mark this article as patrolled" button with a button to patrol and revert patrolled status (to users of the tool) from articles.
Although these tools are convenient, it is not an excuse for patrolling problematically, and patrollers, not the tool developers, assume all responsibility for patrolling with these tools.
See also[edit]
Notes[edit]
- ^ Especially patrols of biographies of living people.
- ^ However, it can still be revoked by an administrator.
- ^ This is because all autopatrolled editors are expected to be familiar with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines and what constitutes a proper article. Nonetheless, any pattern of problematic patrolling by an autopatrolled editor also shows that they do not have such competence even in the area they were given the right for (creation of proper articles), and thus will have their autopatrolled right revoked.
- ^ Administrators who patrol problematically may be banned from patrolling articles or in rare cases, desysopped.
- ^ This excludes mechanical edits, such as reverts and edits made using automatic scripts (such as HotCat).
- ^ If you do not meet this requirement, you are most likely the norm, not the exception. You must be a strong applicant if you were to apply under this bar; an example of a strong applicant is an editor who has significantly contributed to one good article.
- ^ See also Orangemoody et al., where spam articles were patrolled by sockpuppet accounts (before the implementation of this right).