Help talk:Patrolled edits

Unpatrolled symbol
Is there a way of hiding the exclamation mark so that users cannot see if their edits have been patrolled or not in Recent Changes? --Ggrannum 09:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think normal users don't see them at all anyway by default. e.g. if you look at Special:RecentChanges on the this wiki. You're a normal user. No exclamation marks. -- Harry Wood 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

on by default in recent builds?
I'm running 1.12 and it appears that DefaultSettings.php sets wgUseRCPatrol to true by default... ViktorHaag 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

no info in user preferences?
the page says, there is a user pref. for auto-patrolling - however, I couldn't find that and in the referred help page is no hint neither... what did I miss?
 * It's only available in versions 1.6 through 1.8, according to the article. It is a little unclear about this, though. I'll fix that.

ambiguous
After reading this page, I am not sure what the purpose of the patrol function is? What does an un-patrolled article look like? What is the difference between a patrolled and unpatrolled article? I think it would be nice if an article marked patrolled wiped out edit history from the database to save space. Please describe what exactly this patrol feature entails.. -- annon


 * I've added another sentence at the top there. Basically this feature doesn't do much, and it's nothing to get massively excited about. It's only really useful if you promote several users to sysops (which can be a good idea), and then these users need to coordinate their efforts -- Harry Wood 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

approve edits before publishing
Would it be possible to use this to make it so that sysops have to approve edits before they're published? --Scott 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the option in patrolled edits to go through a reviewer or moderator for approval before they go live. Is there a plug-in or a code snippet that would make this easy?


 * Doesn't this make it kind of pointless to use a wiki software. If every comment must be moderated what advantage does the wiki-format have over traditional software. The 'everyone can see their changes immediately' style is what drives wiki's and makes them effective. 80.5.107.76 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am looking for the same feature. It is mostly because the wiki is internal, and the namespaces have certain permissions and also have custom groups. We would like to approve 'cross-posts' across namespaces/groups. -JS


 * Hmmm "Moderation". That old chestnut.
 * It doesn't work. Wikis are an openly editable space where people bounce ideas of each other, sometimes in very rapid succession. Now add some kind of moderation mechanism, and the whole idea is broken. I'm sure I read an in-depth reasoned out argument against "moderation" somewhere maybe somewhere on http://www.wikipatterns.com/   Certainly I've heard this as a feature request time and time again, but it just doesn't work. If it did work, they would surely deploy this magical technique on wikipedia, where they have to deal with vandalism and trolling a scale you would never see in an organisation. Unlike on an internet exposed wiki, you kind of trust the people you work with a little bit don't you? In fact whenever the question has been asked "how many times have people vandalised your internal company wiki?" the answer is always zero. You don't need moderation. I can see how you might think you do... but you don't
 * -- Harry Wood 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What about an internet exposed wiki?
 * The ability to approve edits/pages before they are posted to a small online wiki would be handy for various reasons. I do not dispute the open wiki model.  I simply want this for my site.

See Extension:FlaggedRevs. Mike.lifeguard 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of Patrolled/Unpatrolled?
Is there any way to make the Patrolled/Unpatrolled status of a page visible on that page? I ask because my employer is wanting a "Moderated" wiki (like mentioned above, all edits are pending until approved) and it seems like I may be ablel to make the Patrol function acceptable if pages that have not been patrolled show some visible disclaimer. -- annon

Customization
The info in the "Customization" isn't aimed at end-users and should be moved to Manual:, shouldn't it? Bradleyb 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the part on the user option is OK; the rest should probably go. -Steve Sanbeg 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wut
What exactly does marking something as patrolled do? I did it once, and nothing happened except it said something like "this article is patrolled." What the hell does it do? Is it the same as Special:Watchlist or something? All it does is make pages in Special:Recentchanges not have a red exclamation mark? Seems kinda pointless… -- annon


 * I've added another sentence at the top there. Basically this feature doesn't do much, and it's nothing to get massively excited about. It's only really useful if you promote several users to sysops (which can be a good idea), and then these users need to coordinate their efforts -- Harry Wood 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling
New patrol log is a good idea. It improves credibility of the article, also checks the (in)activity of admins. But I feels two things are not that much necessary:
 * After clicking the link to patrol, it redirects to some other pages showing that page is patrolled, I feel it is better to go to the original page without the link to patrol.
 * Even after an admins edit the page remains unpatrolled. Its also hard to digest.

Thank you --Praveenp 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Server administration information belongs in the manual not here
There is a lot of server administration information, such as configuration variables, on this page currently. It should not appear on this page, except as very minor admin tip boxes. See Project:PD help. This belongs in the technical manual, and could be moved there if it isn't in the manual already. -- Harry Wood