Wiktionary talk:Whitelist/Archive

Maybe it would be a good idea to keep the "passes" for a couple months? After six months or so, names can be fed into nominations for WT:A? If growth rates continues to increase... --Connel MacKenzie 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

cosmetics
Someone feel like adding the [show/hide] stuff from WT:VOTE, here?

Also, shouldn't we strive for single-line nominations? Or is the four-line style prettier?

--Connel MacKenzie 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it to the four-line style because I think it looks weird and confusing to have multiple users' signatures on the same line. Also, because the one-line style would get in the way of people including comments — which ordinarily shouldn't be necessary for something so simple, but Wiktionary editors like to talk. :-)  Of course, if this page ends up getting a lot of traffic we might find that only the one-line style is really practicable. —RuakhTALK 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right - the one line format was also to discourage commenting, one way or the other. --Connel MacKenzie 07:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. How about a template to subst: in for new nominations?  P1=user, P2= ~   --Connel MacKenzie 15:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance and rejection
This is a really light "vote" as it were. Only a handful of people patrol edits regularly enough to know who's who. Having the nominations seconded is probably a good idea, even if it takes months to do, just to get a second opinion. My question is on what would be sufficient reason to reject a whitelisted contributor. Wouldn't a veto by a single sysop be enough? Would such requests be made here as well, and would they even require a vote? Is there a list of whitelisted contributors (aside from sysops) and should that be the target of the WT:WL shortcut? DAVilla 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Temporary vetoes require only one sysop, yes -- the deferral mechanism. See the main page for how that is done. As for permanent veto, perhaps that should be logged somewhere? Or should people just delete nominations?
 * There should probably be some sort of "rejection by ignoring" mechanism to expire stale nominations. The list of whitelisted contributors is in User:Connel_MacKenzie/patrolled.js. The shortcut certainly shouldn't go there. Cynewulf 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe rejection by expiry is a good idea, but it would have to be a pretty long period. In a week's time a contributor might not make any contributions at all for one admin to judge, let alone two. I'm not going to go back into the person's contribution history to see if they've got a grip on things. I'd check the talk page and block log for sure, but I'm only going to come here in the course of patrolling edits, perhaps to make my own nomination whereupon I find the user has already been nominated. DAVilla 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A week seems like a decent enough period for consideration. The point is that someone can be nominated again and again.  Whatever.  What expiry period do you suggest?  --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is User:Beobach972 included? He's an admin now. Is it okay to edit the list? DAVilla 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Yes, please!  Edit it NOW!  :-)  Ahem.  That is, yes, the point of having this page is to get more sysops in the habit of editing that.  New sysops should stay on the list for a day (maybe even up to a week) so that residual older edits can get auto-marked (if they somehow were not on the list beforehand.)  --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's too early to judge for sure, but it doesn't seem like this idea has really worked. It was a good idea, and I supported it, but it doesn't seem that enough administrators notice enough different new editors. Further, it doesn't seem that the old system (administrators deciding unilaterally to mark a user for automatic patrolling) was at all problematic, and while I do generally support improving systems before they're broken, this attempt doesn't seem to have worked. (Maybe a better way to do this is to have administrators add users to personal auto-patrol lists as a personal convenience, rather than add users to a single, universal auto-patrol list?) —RuakhTALK 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of three-sysop approval, switch to two (nominate/approve)?
 * The problem with enhancing the JS has several facets. One: there are a lot of features it probably should have that it currently doesn't (whitelist a single user by right-clicking, auto-mark all contribs of a particular user *now* without whitelisting, auto-mark all revisions of an entry, renaming the whitelists variables, relocating the whitelists, tag items on whitelist by date, honor the wikibits.js "enhanced RC", etc.)  The problem I have is that every time I look at that particular bit of JS that I coddled together, I nearly vomit.  It needs to be rewritten or severely refactored.  But I can't seem to make myself want to do it.  I'm also leery to touch it, as I know it is currently in use (besides just en.wiktionary.)  [They use the same style "script includes" that we use to pull Lupin Navigation Popups from Wikipedia.]  --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we had the whitelist as an ordinary page (say a table after the nominations, or a sub-page), then it would not be hard to write a Python program to auto-patrol. Sysops could run that in a separate window, without it interfering much with anything else. You would have to have Python, but it wouldn't depend on platform or browser. Robert Ullmann 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It could just as easily be an Ajax (Javascript) mechanism. As I said, this particular piece of code sickens me, for no particular reason.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * CDVF/VF use 'personal' whitelists to good effect. But that is not "patrolling aware", nor does it know how to mark edits as patrolled.  The whole concept of having a centralized whitelist is so that moderate/good edits get auto-marked by any of the four or five of us that use enhanced patrolling in Firefox.  (Someone pointed out that it doesn't work in IE.)  To go back to using VF and personal whitelists would sortof defeat the purpose of working in unison.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

IP expiry
How long should IPs be retained in the Javascript? One month? Three months? A year? --Connel MacKenzie 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If this can be computed automatically, I would phrase it something like this: If they have not maintained 100 edits in all consecutive 4-week periods for the last 13 weeks, and if they do not have at least 200 edits in the last 13 weeks, then they can be removed. I'm not sure if the number is too high. The point is to make sure that there is no lapse in contribution long enough to warrant investigation of whether the IP has been switched over. DAVilla 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's assume that it can not be determined automatically, for now. (It can, but not easily - only by downloading the full-history dump, instead of just current pages.)
 * Very little is known about a random IP (without checking DNS) so there is no reliable way to know if it is dialup or broadband. Originally, I would nominate IPs if they had over 50 OK-ish edits in one day, just to clear that batch from RC.  Since there was no expiry, I could inadvertently be masking some edits now (which is one reason I think the IP list should be cleared and restarted.)
 * I think the approach of simply expiring them after a set time is a more manageable approach. If they've previously been whitelisted, their re-nomination would then be quite a shoo-in.
 * Come to think of it, even username whitelists should probably expire after 6 months or a year (assuming a hassle-free renomination.) If someone is absent for a year, it is unlikely they will automatically know all the "latest" formatting conventions.
 * --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If they're absent, that's the key. DAVilla 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrolling
It would be neat to have a day set aside, where we had 10 or more sysops spend the day patrolling edits. I don't think anyone appreciates the fact that patrolling could work, if ever we have more than one sysop at a time trying to slog through them, marking all non-vandalism as "patrolled." With an announcement on WT:BP, does anyone think we could get next Thursday to be a test day for it? --Connel MacKenzie 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about having a week where 10 or more sysops each spend the day patrolling edits? Teamwork is fine, but that many sysops on the same day seems like overkill.
 * And the patrolling feature must already cut out some of the work. Even though I haven't patrolled edits in ages, I always have a few on my watchlist to check. That means anyone can make minor contributions without fully devoting themselves. DAVilla 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The burnout rate is simply too high. If a collection of sysops take one day to try it, the benefits of the cooperation will become immediately apparent.  Every time I get one or two people helping for a day or a week, they burn out.  Unless a group of sysops descends on special:RC en-masse, the benefit is not readily apparent.
 * Watchlists don't pass RCID= therefore can't help with patrolling at all. --Connel MacKenzie 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? My watchlist does, and I don't think it's a setting. (Now, since the prefs JScript/JavaScript doesn't touch it, I have to actually visit the diff in order to mark the change patrolled; but built-in-wise, it's the same as the recent-changes page.) —RuakhTALK 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I hadn't noticed.  Rather, I have the vague impression that it was not always that way, but now that it is, I suppose this JS code should be expanded for that page, too.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was spectacularly easy. I hadn't realized the pages were that similar.  Man, my JS could really use a decent code-review.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Level of competency
How competent should users be before they can be whitelisted, generally? Are they to be any more than just good contributors? DAVilla 06:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If stuff of theirs is being rolled back, RFV'd, RFC'd, RFD'd or outright deleted, they shouldn't be whitelisted. If it is clear that they are helpful, they should be whitelisted.  It seems quite subjective - hence this attempt at getting more than one person's opinion...  --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but what about the many users who are really only doing translations, who never do much more than insert a link here or there, or start new foreign-language pages with minimal, almost no content? There's almost no way to tell if they're familiar with WT:ELE or even any of our translations guidelines, and there will never be if that's all they ever contribute. But then if we whitelist them, we risk that they start making other types of edits that are not manually patrolled. Or is that of little concern? DAVilla 18:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally find myself biased towards white-listing translators. The only example of a translator-turned-full contributor I know of is A-cai...if we had a thousand A-cai's we'd be *done*.  :-)     --Connel MacKenzie 06:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List-clearing/archiving
Just to beat a dead horse...we really should work out a more efficient way of keeping this list clear of old stuff. --Connel MacKenzie 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll start by removing dead nominations (>2 weeks) + live whitelistings (> 2 days). This is more useful when very short.  If someone feels the need for an archive page, speak up now.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A full archive I don't think is needed, but perhaps a list of users who were nominated but who did not get approved might be good. Perhaps with a note of the date they were proposed. If someone didn't get whitelisted a week ago its probably not worth nominating them again now. If it was three months ago, then it probably is worth reconsidering. Thryduulf 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're only interested in fairly recent history, then I don't think it's terribly limiting to just rely on MediaWiki's built-in history function. Alternatively, we can just leave entries at this page for a while, rather than having a separate archive. If we want, we can even use &lt;div&gt;s with background colors to distinguish active nominations from ones that have been dealt with. (It's not that I'm opposed to retaining a separate archive, it just seems like much work for little gain.) Also, I'll note that if someone was nominated, but not approved, and their entry was removed a week ago, I really don't think it's a problem for a different admin to re-nominate them. (Now, if the same admin keeps re-nominating someone with no one else approving them, something strange is going on.) —Ruakh TALK 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, Thryduulf, I don't think it is worth keeping them around though. If they become active again, and had a previous stale nomination, it really doesn't mean anything...they just get nominated again.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my question, Ruakh, is, are we interested in tracking renominations? It doesn't seem like a big problem now, but I suppose...well, no.  I don't think I understand how even that could be a problem that a talk page couldn't address.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned that an administrator might intentionally renominate a user every time the nomination expires — that was a rather flippant remark on my part, not meant to be taken too seriously — but come to think of it, I might be somewhat embarrassed to nominate a user, only to realize later that I'd not-&#x200B;too-&#x200B;long-&#x200B;previously nominated him with no support. (As I've said above, though, I really don't think we need an archive page for this; MediaWiki's built-in history support seems more than sufficient.) —Ruakh TALK 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

bots
Should approved bots be automatically whitelisted? Thryduulf 21:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Any residual edits may still need to be marked, but after a day or two, there is no point in having bots whitelisted.  (This behavior used to be quite different.)  --Connel MacKenzie 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of Whitelist
Is there any way of knowing if an editor is on the whitelist when we view the history of a page, or is looking at the .js the only way? DAVilla 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the only current way to know if a user is whitelisted is if their name appears in Administrators or the .js. It might be beneficial to have a list of whitelisted users on a normal wikipage for easier browsing. Thryduulf 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about using a different symbol from the exclamation point, like a green dot or something, to indicate that it was automatically patrolled, or at least that the user is on the auto-patrol list? What's possible now depends on how this automatic patrolling actually works though. It would certainly be a good idea if it were ever rolled into the patrolling extension. DAVilla 11:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist/defer
This page was created by Connel, presumably with the intention of it being a waiting list of users who have been deferred. In practice it hasn't been used at all, with deferrals staying on the main list. Should we delete it and change the procedural notes to reflect current practice? Thryduulf 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From the fact that he never even got around to protecting it, I assume it was a one-off thought that never really came into its own. I've taken the liberty of deleting it, but y'all should feel free to restore it if you want to start using it. —Ruakh TALK 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please leave it deleted.  --Connel MacKenzie 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New auto-patrol code
I've written new code in Python. See the GP comments for now. Robert Ullmann 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

page protection
Why is this talk page protected sysop-only? Why can't other users comment here on the procedure and/or patrolling in general? Robert Ullmann 12:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as they're logged in, they can edit, but they got to have administrator privileges to move the page... \Mike 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, sorry, misread it ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisting

 * This discussion was on the main whiteliste page, but has been archived here.

For which, note, we don't have any established procedure ...

Me too. Regardless of who he is or isn't a sockpuppet of there's something bizarre about him... He has almost never conversed with anyone even when people have left comments on his talk page. Furthermore, recently when I (and other people) requested that he format entries (particularly form ofs) properly he continued to ignore any comments on his talk page and did not switch to using the proper format...>_> 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By Robert Ullmann 07:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done unilaterally for now; please see this edit to hoop (just caught by Jwcf now). This looks like the person with the un-natural focus on spanking. I am very surprised, as Verbo was in the original WL, without any problems. Perhaps there is an explanation? Process needs just a bit of discussion or specification?
 * He's likely the indefblocked User:Matricularius who has a history of "spanking"-related edits, beside doing lots of great work. --Ivan Štambuk 10:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Approved/reviewed by: —Ruakh TALK . I think unilateral de-whitelisting is very reasonable, given that we allow unilateral deferring of proposed whitelisting. (Why should the long-term status of a whitelisting depend on whether an approving or a deferring admin gets there first?) I, for one, would never approve any whitelisting if I didn't think another admin could undo it should the need arise. —Ruakh TALK 13:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree fwiw. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I agree with Ruakh's general comments, not specifically with this delisting (which I have no specific opinion on). &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have agreed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have agreed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We should archive this discussion somewhere when it's done. Perhaps just on the talkpage. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Available on other wikt?
Hi there. I'm a bureaucrat of Japanese Wiktionary. I'm interested in Autopatroller system to maintain the project. I'd like to know whether this system is available on other projects, and how hacks are required to use. Could you please give the answer or show me any pointer? Thanks in advance, electric_goat 15:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Votes/pl-2008-09/Whitelisted users autopatrol. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rameyer48
Has been listed for weeks but not approved. I can't see why. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it suggests another check after 24 hours. You need to do that and decide if you have now decided to nominate him. —Stephen 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Diego Grez
Could you please grant me autopatrolled flag, I've been working on chamorro nouns and words, and I'll continue asap. --Diego Grez 04:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whitelisting is about marking automatically those edits made by users whose edits do not require the attention of other editors to bring them into standard format. Your recent edits to some pages show that you are still learning Wiktionary basic format, such as section order, section formatting, style of deinitions, and so forth.  not being Whitelisted does not mean that you are a bad person, just that you are still learning.  As long as you continue to learn, that is a good thing, since there is always more to learn. --EncycloPetey 04:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Diego Grez 00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rerun
I have been fully working and the most of my creations seem correct, may I get the autopatrolled right please? --Diego Grez 20:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Could someone change the link in  [[Special:ListUsers/autopatroller |the "autopatroller" group]]  in the introduction to Special:ListUsers/autopatrolle d ? It searches for the username "Autopatroller" instead of the users in the group the way it is. Opraco 11:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Conrad.Irwin 11:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)