UESPWiki talk:Autopatrolled Users

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: Apr 2012

Clarity, am I allowed to apply?[edit]

I recently quit my patroller-ship, and the wiki for that matter, but i'm wondering what the rules are on applying for this group after quitting a similar position since they're not stated. Just want a bit of input before I apply, thanks! --kiz talkemail 17:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlike full Patrollership, we don't have anything in the rules for Autopatrolled Users about recent resignations. Even if we did, you're applying for a different position with less rights, not to have your old rights back, so personally, I don't see a problem here. Robin Hoodtalk 17:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, what RH said. No objections from me. eshetalk 17:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Technically, the rules state that only patrollers or administrators may make nominations, so you wouldn't be able to actually 'apply' by nominating yourself. However, I (or any other patroller or administrator, I'm sure) would be happy to nominate you if you give the word. :) ABCface 18:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I had noticed this or i'd of just applied ;) I'll just wait a day to see if anyone oppose, then i'll speak to one you guys very nicely :D --kiz talkemail 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No opposition here. Vely►Talk►Email 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a question for you, Kiz. Why are you asking about being promoted to an Autopatrolled user when you just quit the wiki and asked for your rights to be revoked while stating you planned on not returning? For the record, I am not at all opposed to Kiz having the rights, but I am confused as to why he wanted to leave and have his patroller rights revoked, only to turn around and ask about being nominated as an Autopatrolled editor. Snowmane(talkemail) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for why he left and then decided to tentatively return (other than that it's very hard to quit this wiki for good), but I think any Patroller (or user for that matter) has the right to ask for fewer rights, whatever the reason may be. Kiz isn't the only Patroller who isn't a Patroller anymore. • JATalk 22:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

() The purpose of this group is not for a title but to lessen the amount of edits that are being patrolled. I don't see how being inactive warrants such a change. elliot (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, unlike Patroller, this group does not really grant any rights at all to the people in it - they in fact won't see any difference whatsoever. Not much point in nominating yourself, as it doesn't do you any good at all - it only affects how other editors who are patrollers see your posts. --TheRealLurlock Talk 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
To snowmane, I returned. And whilst I intent to do *something* I don't intend to sit and mark edits as patrolled endlessly or sit about all day watching the RC. I thought it would just be a good idea to do this now rather than wait till I find some tedious bot task to do and then think about it, well that made sense in my head at least. --kiz talkemail 16:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This would probably be better if we reevaluated it down the road. While I don't believe anyone has a problem with marking your edits patrolled automatically, there needs to be a need for it. Right now, I don't see it. elliot (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. ThuumofReason 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy on Closing Nominations[edit]

I was recently contacted via e-mail and told that I shouldn't have closed the vote for the most recent nomination for two reasons.

  1. I'm not an administrator.
  2. I made the nomination in the first place.

The guideline for nominations for Recent Changes Patrollers states: An Administrator will decide on the consensus and add the Patroller role to a successful nominee (if the consensus is to make the nominee a patroller), or drop the nomination (if the consensus is to not make the nominee a patroller).

Since this rule is only in place on the page for nominating Recent Changes Patrollers, it doesn't technically apply here at this point in time (unless there is an existing policy or guideline elsewhere on the wiki which I'm not aware of).

However, I am bringing this up in case anyone feels that we should change the existing policy on this page to make these points clear. So, what does everyone think? Should only administrators be able to decide consensus for this group? And, should only someone other than the nominator be able to decide consensus? If the community feels we should have these guidelines for this group's nomination process, it should be added to the page once that decision's been made. ABCface 20:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. I feel it would be easier for an admin to get it if the consensus is support because then they can go ahead and implement the new rights. However, with Patrollers, there is no clear rule on how many votes make a consensus. Here, the rule is that "A minimum of three voters must agree, and no more than two oppose", so after the voting period, consensus is clear. Other than deciding consensus (which is defined for this group but not for patrollers) and adding user rights, I'm unsure why an administrator would need to be the one to close it.
I see little reason with the nominator closing the vote either if a week has passed. Vely►Talk►Email 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Patroller nominations have been finished by the nominee, so no problem on that count.
There is nothing in the page saying who can finish it, so you can't be critisized for that.
Seeing as the other groups need an admin to finish it, I couldn't object if this was changed/added but consensus is defined here so it may not be needed. The Silencer has spokenTalk 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Velyanthe covered my position on non-Admin closures perfectly. It's a little unusual, but it saves the Admin a little work in that all he or she has to do at that point is grant the rights rather than calling consensus and archiving. I've done things like that before myself for Userpatrollers...indicating that a user is qualified so the Admin just has to grant the rights.
As far as the nominator closing a nomination, the only time I see that being a conflict of interest is when there's some question as to whether or not there's consensus. Given that we have very clean-cut rules on who qualifies and who doesn't for Autopatrollers, I don't see an issue (all the more so in a case like this were the support by Patrollers and above was unanimous). Robin Hoodtalk 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It’s not a big deal. A bit unusual, perhaps, and I did check the ‘rules’ before promoting Kiz, but I can see absolutely nothing wrong with speeding things up a bit. --Krusty 21:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy on Closing Nominations (2)[edit]

This has cropped up again here. It seems that the majority opinion is to only allow Admins to close nominations. In light of this I am proposing to add a similar line to the page along the lines of the quoted one from the Patroller page. It would mean only an Admin can close the nomination, but it would not exclude a Patroller, or anyone else, tidying up afterwards (archiving, etc.). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:55, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

Leave autopatrolled status?[edit]

I was nominated and accepted as an autopatrolled user due to my focus on only minor edits like unsigned markings and similar, and neglectibly few longer texts. As I slowly try to advance in complexity I am not sure if the other editors will feel I have the same standard there, so I believe there might be reason for the other users to discuss if I should retain the status. What is the correct procedure to forward this? —MortenOSlash (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2014 (GMT)

Going back and reading through your nomination, I believe there is no reason for you to change your autopatrolled status. Your lack of content edits was addressed, and the consensus seemed to be that we weren't placing trust in your knowledge, but rather your judgment. As you move forward and test the limits of your wiki knowledge, if you are unsure about how to do something, just ask on a talk page or leave an edit summary expressing your doubts about your edit. It's not the end of the world if every edit is not 100% accurate. --Xyzzy Talk 15:42, 26 November 2014 (GMT)
As long as you make an effort to learn, it's okay to make mistakes every now and then. Nobody's perfect. The important thing is to learn from mistakes when you do end up making them. Merely by starting this discussion, you're demonstrating a desire to learn, so I wouldn't worry about whether or not you're suitable for autopatrolled status going forward. I have complete faith in you. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 19:17, 26 November 2014 (GMT)
I understand I can carry on, despite a few occasional mistakes and grammatical errors. Thank you for the encouragement! —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2014 (GMT)

Taking Stock[edit]

I hope and intend this to be provocative in the very best sense of that word.

I am assuming that the user category, "Autopatrolled Users", is an idea designed to ease the task of those users who are "Patrollers".

There are 9 listed Autopatrolled Users on this page. Only 7 of those appear on the Category page. A search reveals 11 such users:

  • Arthmoor (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 20 February 2009 at 01:07)
  • Enodoc (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user, blocker, cartographer) (Created on 13 March 2011 at 07:53)
  • Jimeee (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user, esocartographer) (Created on 17 November 2011 at 11:12)
  • Kertaw48 (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 10 May 2009 at 09:02)
  • Moinante (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 22 November 2011 at 15:54)
  • MortenOSlash (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 10 September 2011 at 15:40)
  • Psylocke (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 1 July 2012 at 01:47)
  • Pylawn (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user, patreon-viewer) (Created on 1 April 2019 at 11:09)?
  • Quill-Tail (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 24 April 2013 at 05:10)
  • Ray75288 (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user) (Created on 4 August 2017 at 21:56)
  • Vordur Steel-Hammer (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatrolled user, esocartographer) (Created on 5 September 2014 at 08:33)

In the last 6 years 8 months, Vordur Steel-Hammer is the only user who has been added to the list who remains as an Autopatrolled User according to the Category page. That addition was in September of 2018, some two and half years ago.

So it seems reasonable to ask, does this category still fulfill its function (or some other functions)?

So what might be going on?

1. Are there just not enough users producing a large enough quantity of edits that would warrant their nomination thereby resulting in time saved for Patrollers?

2. Are there users whose edits are known to be of such quality that most experienced Patrollers just by-pass them as a time saver on busy days (granting a kind of informal "Autopatrolled" status)?

3. Is the whole nomination process, since only Patrollers and Administrators can make and vote on nominations, more trouble than its worth?

4. Is this being offered to Patreon-viewers as an incentive?

5. Should the category be abandoned or somehow re-invigorated by changing the requirements to closer align with the intended purpose of the Category, perhaps by each "Patroller" submitting a list of those whose posts rarely or never warrant a second look regardless of whether the user is nominated or indeed even informed. The resulting lists could be combined and shared among the "Patrollers", to be used to save time or not, as the "Patroller" sees fit. Just a thought.

Kalevala (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The category reflects those who choose to use {{User Autopatrolled}} on their user page. This follows the style of {{User Patroller}} and similar templates, which are designed to allow you to opt in or out of being listed in the category. Personally, I don't see much point to that for any role; the auto-generated lists serve mostly the same purpose and are guaranteed to be up-to-date. So, I would argue with doing away with the categories for all of them. The list of active people certainly serves a purpose, but that can be maintained on the role's page, as we always have.
As for offering autopatrolled to Patreon users, I don't see that being useful. The point of the role is that the users who have it are trusted to make accurate and desirable edits most of the time. A random Patreon user doesn't come with any such guarantee. Robin Hood(talk) 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, if I am reading you correctly, the nomination process is redundant. For example, if I wanted to be considered an "Autopatrolled User" all I would need to do would be to go to my user page and add
{{User Autopatrolled}}
to it? Is that a fair analysis of what you are saying?
Kalevala (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
While that would work, that's one of the rare cases where other users are allowed to revert your edits to your own user page, since claiming rights you don't actually have isn't allowed. So, you could do it, but it wouldn't last long. Robin Hood(talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
LOL, as always, a pleasure! Kalevala (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with removing the categories and linking to the auto lists instead. Agreed that the role should be used more often (e.g. AKB, patroller candidates), but disagree that it is not needed due to underuse or that no nomination is necessary. The nomination should naturally only allow votes from the users it affects (patrollers+).
Patreon has nothing to do with this. Like RH said, their willingness to support the site has no correlation to their editing ability. —Dillonn241 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

() I've tentatively updated the userbox. If we like this, I'll extend it to patrollers and admins as well. (Anything else people can think of?) As it is now, it links to both the descriptive page as well as a separate link to the member list, which makes the category redundant. Not sure if the "(list)" looks better before or after the period, but possibly I'm just obsessing over nothing. ;) Any thoughts on how it is now? Robin Hood(talk) 16:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As the OP for this hornet's nest, my understandings of the responses to the five original questions are:
1. YES. There are users who produce a sufficient quantity of edits that they and their edits should be considered for the Autopatrolled User status so as to assist Patrollers, case in point AKB.
2. OPEN. Whether there is a de-facto (wink-wink) autopatrolled status is in limbo.
3. YES. The nomination process is still seen as a worthwhile (even if a somewhat neglected) exercise.
4. NO. Patreon sponsorship has not corrupted the spirit nor the practice of this wiki.
5. YES. Re-invigoration and list clean up are the order of the day!
Forgive me if, at times, I appear not sufficiently serious since this is way "out of my lane." ;)
Kalevala (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Taking the questions one by one:
  1. Historically, the role has been granted to people who make high levels of accurate edits or, in cases like Arthmoor, people who make topic-specific edits accurately and are trusted not to make any questionable edits outside of that.
  2. This sort of thing happens to some degree, but by and large, when someone gets to the point where patrollers are all but auto-approving their edits, we typically start discussing if this role or a staff role would be appropriate. Sometimes, we think someone should be a patroller, but they don't want the duties, so we'll consider them for this role instead.
  3. The nomination process is relatively brief and then once it's done, everyone saves time by no longer having to patrol the person's edits, so by the time someone has enough edits to qualify, I think it's always going to be worth it to go through the process.
  4. As stated previously, Patreon isn't relevant to this role.
  5. The category should definitely be abandoned. I don't think anything else needs to change about the process because patrollers typically wait before nominating someone, to be sure that the nominee is a good choice for the role, and by that time, they'll have been noticed by other patrollers and there will have been off-hand comments about the nominee having made some really good changes.
Does that cover it? Robin Hood(talk) 16:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, perfect! Kalevala (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)