Thread:Talk:New Page Patrol Zoom Interface/Initial thoughts/reply (6)

There is a danger, or even an irresponsibility in say  only 5%. Let's say that  most  attack  pages get  deleted fairly  quickly. The solution requested by  the community  at WP:ACTRIAL was not  conjured up  by  a group of exclusionists as was suggested by  the WMF at  Bugzilla, but  from  far  deeper concerns such as for example, that Sod's Law is that  the one attack  page  that  doesn't get  quickly  deleted is the one that  could involve the Foundation  in  a litigation  for millions of dollars. Since the deal was struck with  Google to  reference Wikipedia pages at  the speed of light, this is not  good. It's a risk  we should neither be taking  with donated funds nor with the inconsitency  of amature patrolling  at  such  a crucial  stage of page creation. It's my guess that  most  patrollers are fascinated by  the live feed in  the side bar, and when those ten entries are lost  from view, the unpatrolled pages rely  on  people working  directly  from special:new pages which  as far as I  understand has to  be constantly  manually  refreshed.

The immediate problem therefore is not  the number of patrollers who  are available for work, but  those who  are totally  incompetent  to  be doing  it. Unfortunately there are no  bots that  can count  the number of times I  have deleted attack  pages that  were labelled A7 because the patrollers were not  interested in  taking  time to  read past  the first  sentence of   the often long  and carefully  crafted pieces of libel.

Let's also not  forget  that  there are, or have been times, that  the 30 day  period has been greatly  exceeded, hence the creation  of the Snotbot  last  fall  as a desperate measure to  get  at  least  something  done to  track  the unpatrolled pages.

These are all reasons why  it  is most  important  to  listen  to what  the  the mature editors and admins have to  say  who  have had long  and involved experience at  NPP specifically  to research  its weaknesses.