UESPWiki:Archive/CP Userspace Patrollers

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

I'd like to start a proper discussion/proposal about creating Userspace Patrollers (UPs) -- at long last ;). For those who haven't seen the various rumors about the idea (and perhaps even for those who have), the basic idea is to create a new group of users called Userspace Patrollers who only have the ability to patrol edits made in the User and User talk namespaces (collectively, userspace) -- unlike standard Patrollers who can patrol edits anywhere on the site. The technical stuff to make this happen is already in place, so it's really just a matter of the community deciding what we want.

The central motivation is that the criteria that need to be checked before determining whether userspace edits can be patrolled are relatively straightforward -- i.e., make sure the edit isn't vandalism, and make sure that user pages aren't modified by people who aren't supposed to modify them. Spelling, grammar, accuracy, wiki formatting, etc. aren't things that need to be checked. Therefore, nearly every active editor on the site is essentially qualified to check userspace edits, and giving more editors the ability to do so will reduce the workload on regular patrollers.

I'm also hoping that this change will ultimately make editing in the userspace easier for everyone. Users should feel free to experiment on their user pages (or have discussions on each other's user talk pages) without fear of antagonizing the site's patrollers. It also ties into moving subjective content into the userspace. If the site's regular patrollers are no longer responsible for patrolling roleplaying ideas and similar content, then hosting that content on the site becomes less of burden for the general community. Ideally, people who contribute to the roleplaying content could then become responsible for all of the maintenance associated with the content.

For any of this to work, creation of Userspace Patrollers needs to be significantly easier than regular Patrollers. I'd like to propose modelling the process on the Mentor program. In other words:

• We establish some basic, objective requirements that editors must meet -- number of edits, length of time on the site, no warnings/blocks, etc.
• Anyone who is interested in becoming a Userspace Patroller adds their name to the list on the page.
• As soon as an admin notices the request, the admin confirms that the requirements have been been met and gives the user Userspace Patroller permissions. (We could even make it so that regular patrollers have the authority to grant/remove userspace patroller permissions).

In other words, no need for a formal nomination, discussion, week-long review, etc. We don't ask editors to first prove themselves, but instead give anyone the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.

Based upon the Mentorship program, I think it might also make sense to automatically remove Userspace Patrollership if a user has been inactive too long -- if it only takes a few hours to get the rights restored, removing rights doesn't really introduce any problems or obstacles. Beyond that, I also think that any admin should have the authority to remove patrollership privileges immediately in the case of any type of questionable actions made a Userspace Patroller; a full discussion could then be initiated if requested by the demoted editor. I think it has to be both "easy come" and "easy go" -- otherwise, I think there'll be more of an inclination to hesitate before giving rights to a relatively unknown editor. I also don't think there should automatically be any stigma attached with losing UP rights -- just as I don't think there should really be any endorsement attached with being given the rights in the first place.

If that outline is generally acceptable, then we mainly need to reach agreement on the details:

• What should the requirements be? As a starting point:
  • Active on the wiki for at least two weeks.
  • At least 100 edits (which I think should be edits anywhere on the site -- 100 edits on user pages or talk pages alone should be acceptable)
  • No recent warnings or recent blocks.
• Should userspace patrollers also be given the ability to patrol talk page edits anywhere on the site? The criteria for patrolling talk page edits are comparable to userspace edits, and expanding the capabilities would make it even easier for full patrollers to focus on content edits. Although at that point, should a name other than "Userspace Patrollers" be used?
• Should userspace patrollers be given skipcatcha privileges? This is how the privileges are currently configured, but I thought I'd explicitly mention it in case it needs to be discussed
• Should regular patrollers be able to grant and/or revoke userspace patroller privileges?

So, do people agree with the general concept? And if so, is there feedback on the details? --Nephele^Talk 18:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That all looks like an excellent set of ideas to me. The requirements are fine, and I think giving UPs SkipCaptcha is a good idea too. I'd prefer to keep the ability to assign the role to admins, and I don't think UPs should be able to patrol outside userspace - there are potentially too many different things that need doing to talk page posts for somebody who's only been on the site two weeks to deal with them: removal of talk page posts, use of Good Question tags, referrals to other pages, answering of questions and so on. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, can someone highlight when Captcha is used? I went looking and couldn't find a clear-cut listing. Apart from that possible consideration, I agree with all of rpeh's points. I could conceive of Talkpage Patrollers being added as a step between Userspace Patrollers and regular Patrollers, but that's probably over-complicating things. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's just account creation and external links. I can imagine the external links thing being a pain if you're trying to link to mods that would improve a roleplay (for instance). rpeh •T•C•E• 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, excellent work Nephele. For the requirements, I'm more or less ok with those proposed, although I agree with rpeh: patrolling talk pages is a bit different. A UP might patrol it because it's formatted/signed/etc but then again, as a patroller, I notice questions asked on pages when they are marked as unpatrolled. --SerCenKing ^Talk 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a great idea overall. I'd prefer Userspace Patrollers not be able to patrol talk page edits, since by the time we can trust them to adequately do that they're probably ready to be a "for-real" patroller.;) Also, I'd prefer to keep the ability to grant rights restricted to admins; I don't think there's such a shortage of admins that they'd have to wait any unreasonable amount of time to be granted the rights. --GK^talk2me 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)--

It may just be me, but 100 edits sounds like too little. Possibly 200, or 250, which is the minimum in Patrollers, I notice - that seems too small, also. But since it can also include talk pages and so we won't have random users who have been around for a week becoming UP's, 300-400 edits total may be acceptable. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only people who really aren't "qualified" to be userspace patrollers are vandals -- because vandalism is the main problem that userspace patrollers are checking for. I think 100 edits is more than enough to confirm that an editor is actually trying to help the site. The required edit count is higher for full patrollers, because for full patrollers the community also needs to be able to check the quality of the editor's work (spelling, grammar, fact-checking, etc.) and therefore needs a more examples of the editor's work. I think a random user who has only been around for a week (but has made 100 edits in that time and learned enough about the site to discover that userspace patrollers even exist) should be able to become a userspace patroller -- if the person is legitimately interested in trying to help the site, why stop them?

The same basic logic also applies to having a nomination system. I don't think the community can provide much significant input if the primary qualification is that the person is not a vandal. If a nominee has caused problems, that that nominee's talk page should already contain a warning -- which automatically disqualifies the person from being a userspace patroller. There's no need for community members to provide feedback on subjective criteria (such as whether a person can accurately check facts), so what exactly would community members be expected to say about a nominee?

I think a userspace patroller system will work best if the process is as open and all-inclusive as reasonably possible. A decisive factor for me is that even if occasionally a "bad" editor is mistakenly given userspace patroller privileges, there's really no way for that editor to do any harm to the site. Worst case scenario is that some userpage vandalism gets marked as patrolled. First, only userspace content can possibly be affected, not "real" site content. Second, the logs can be used to provide a list of every single edit that was patrolled by that editor, so it's easy for someone else to go through and double-check/cleanup/undo those edits. A userspace patroller really doesn't have much more ability than a regular wiki editor, so I'd rather follow the basic wiki principle of giving the benefit of doubt to anyone who's interested in helping out. --Nephele^Talk 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) I agree with Nephele's reasoning. In most cases, people who have bad intentions towards the site won't put in 100 good edits first. I see this more like the Rollbacker rights on WP which, last I checked, were assigned at an Administrator's discretion. Any discussion of full Patrollers' rights should take place on UESPWiki_talk:Patrollers (and has before). – Robin Hood↝talk 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"For any of this to work, creation of Userspace Patrollers needs to be significantly easier than regular Patrollers." I agree with Neph on this point. I'd prefer it be an "easy come, easy go" system. After all, they're only patrolling userspace edits, so no real harm can be done. Here I've posted a mock-up of a possible UESPWiki:Userspace Patrollers. Feedback? --GK^talk2me 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. The only thing that scares me, and I can't think of a reasonable solution - is that in a couple of months there might be dozens of UP's. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What's so scary about that? As has been said several times, they would only be userspace patrollers. No real harm can be done in the long run. Lots of userspace patrollers will only mean less patrolling userspace for our regular patrollers. --GK^talk2me 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess, yeah. This response seems too little . . . but I have nothing else to say. Except, possibly, there is a removal of rights after three months of inactivity, like the Mentors. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Break

So... what is the finalization of this? Do we vote if UP's are a 'yay' or 'nay'? Do we start electing them now? Are they even elected? What's those final little rules? Has this been dropped? Have I missed this discussion when it was moved? Can someone ever possibly answer these jumbled questions? --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 04:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) It's funny you should bring that up, as it was on my list of things to do tonight and I forgot about it until I saw your post.

I've gone ahead and filled out the Userspace Patrollers page based on the Patrollers page, along with creating a comparable template and category. I did use some discretion in changing the Immediate Disqualifications section, though, mostly just reducing the times and edits involved before re-applying after a disqualification. That's entirely open for discussion if anybody disagrees with it — I just wanted to fill in some rough numbers so we can get this process moving and iron out the specifics later.

If I missed anything else, by all means, please add it to the page, and let's let people start applying for the rights.

One thing I didn't add to the page is the title for "inactive" userspace patrollers. I don't know if the intent would be to remove their rights after a certain time (give or take an admin getting around to it), or just allow them to go inactive like admins and patrollers, but either way, it's a moot point at the moment, since I'm sure nobody will be inactive for some time yet. :) Still, I thought I'd put it out there for debate. Personally, I'd be in favour of allowing them to go inactive. If the list gets unreasonably long, there's always {{Hide}}. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The page looks like a good start, RH. I'd still prefer a three-month restriction for warnings/blocks, though, since the other restrictions are so lax. The only other thing is that it could possibly be understood as saying that there is nothing else taken into consideration. Perhaps just a small note mentioning that civility/etiquette/other things may be taken into consideration? --GK^talk2me 12:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd been thinking of leaving it at three months as well, initially, but then I second-guessed myself based on the "easy come, easy go" philosophy. I'm fine either way. I agree, there should probably be something about proper conduct and other considerations as well. I'm still having my "morning" coffee, so if you've got something (or anyone else reading this does), go for it; or just nudge me in IRC later and I'll go over it. – Robin Hood↝talk 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added another requirement about courteous interaction with other users. Really not that fond of my wording, but I can't seem to come up with anything better. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

@AMM: I'd suggest you go add your name to the List of Applicants. I don't see any reason we can't start collecting applicant names now, and then when an Admin feels the process has been suitably hashed out (if it hasn't been already), they can just start granting the rights. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)