Talk: Patrollers

Can I be member of this new user group?[]

Hello, this user group seems to be nice, and please can I be member of this new group, I have been a trusted editor and reverted many bad edits, and have also been member of the discussion, and I would have this new group, is this ok? - psl85 (profile | talk | contribs | send email) 06:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for applying - we appreciate your enthusiasm! However, I have several concerns about your behavior that make me think you may not be ready for this right. Specifically, you created many unnecessary templates and modules directly copied from Wikipedia without giving attribution, which is not allowed with Wikipedia's license; same for many of the images you uploaded. Also, you directly copy-and-pasted two giant policy pages, [[MCW:Warning policy]] and [[MCW:Blocking policy]], from another wiki as a copyright vio, although it is true that this did happen a while ago. Additionally, I'm a bit concerned about your civility, specifically here. Although everyone makes mistakes and learns from them, these issues, as well as a few other minor ones, make me unsure whether you would be knowledgeable with what edits generally should be patrolled, and when. With this being said, you have done a lot of awesome things to the wiki - you are doing an awesome job reverting vandalism and participating in discussions! I do hope you keep up the good work! :)-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The copyright vio will I not re-do again, it may result in a block and read-only wiki if i getting blocked, and if I getting the new right will I use them wisely, and if I are more experienced, and are more trusted can I ask admin rights, how many months of editing is needed if I want to request admin rights?

psl85 (profile | talk | contribs | send email) 03:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarifications, please[]

I would like a clarification on a couple of statements.

1. In mcw:Patrollers#Patrolling edits, what is meant by the final words "observe others"? Is it something like "observe other patrollers and copy the way they do things", or perhaps something closer to "be respectful and considerate of others"?

2. mcw:Patrollers#Rolling back edits lists three alternatives to using the rollback button. What is meant by the third one, "revert to an earlier revision"? That's what all the options do, including the rollback button. Is there a fourth way to revert that I'm not thinking of?

– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

1. What this means is a lot of the time it's helpful and beneficial to view when and what others patrol. It's not necessarily to copy them, but more to just get a better idea.

2. Yeah, the wording was pretty unclear, apologizes for that. There are 4 ways for patrollers/administrators to revert:

Using the normal undo
Using the normal rollback, not the custom edit summary
Rollbacking using the custom edit summary
Navigating to an earlier revision, editing it, and saving changes without actually editing anything else. (e.g., this)

Wondering if this makes it a bit better? It probably could still be even more descriptive. Also, I'm pretty sure you're meaning to link to MCW:Patrollers, instead of MCT:Patrollers, in your post.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does, thank you. I was preparing to edit with some clarifications of my own and was stuck on these. (That edit is now done, ready for you and others to review.) Sorry about the namespace error. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit - the page looks much better now. I don't know how I managed to sneak "be in option" into the page.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on the purpose of patrolling edits[]

As touched but not fully discussed in the liked-to old discussion here, I'd like to get consensus on how we want to use the patrol function in relation to the accuracy and correctness of the related content. Should we patrol edits for marking them as non-vandalism and grammatically acceptable etc, or only if they are also content-accurate? In the latter case, it might be required to play-test any added statement to a page, or inspect game files, or otherwise verify that what was edited is indeed true. If we can get consensus on this purpose of the feature, we should clearly state it on the page and also try to enforce it in some way (commenting on user profile/talk page, pinging on discord, possibly permanent notice/news on com portal, etc). What do you guys think? Personally I see great potential in verifying correctness, as that is what I'm heavily invested in with the construction^{(moved to MCW by now 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC))} of a supporting patroller requests page for this purpose. – Jack McKalling [ ] 11:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion: an edit can either be fixed immediately (vandalism is reverted, bad spelling is fixed) and then patrolled, or can't be fixed immediately, but can be put into a maintenance category with a template like {{verify}} and then patrolled. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I say use common sense and kind of make it in between. When it seems very likely that an edit is true, I patrol it without requesting checking, because if we had to check every single edit like this we would get little patrolling done. If I'm not sure if an edit is true, I'll post it on MCW:Patroller requests. If it's likely that an edit isn't true, I'll revert it and then mark it as patrolled. I've been using this method for a while and I think it has turned out okay; it is a bit ambiguous, which may be a problem. The problem with using {{verify}} that it would clog up the verify category with information that is true and it would be a bit discouraging to non-autopatrol editors to have to have tags added to their edits which are clearly correct based on in-game testings.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)