Disable "Patrol Page" functionality

[hasteur]

In order to make sure that the checks and balances between New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation remain even, we should disable the code that does the "Patrol Page" functionality that can occur from any edit that changes a AFCH eligible page.

AFC checks for one set of criteria, whereas NPP is checking for a different set. Even if a editor is cleaning a AFC submission, if the "Patrol Page" link is available, the helper is marking the page as approved.

"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" - Linus's Law

[hasteur]

Giving 48 hours for feedback before I code in the change

[theopolisme]

@Technical-13, comments as original suggester of this feature?

[Technical-13]

Yeah, I oppose reverting this change. Everyone keeps telling me that NPP is terribly backlogged and mostly intended to make sure that edits to article space are reasonable. AfC drafts are not (and should never be) in article space unless they have been read and approved which eliminates the need for a NPP reviewer to look them over anyway.

[hasteur]

So the wisdom of 25 volunteers substitutes for the wisdom of hundreds of volunteers and the backing of WMF? The new page triage looks for different items in addition to a random sampling of afc volunteers believing that the npp catch net is below us?

I reiterate my assertion that the arch tool should not patrol at all and especially in cases of declines/cleans/comments.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:46 PM, "Donald J. Fortier II" [email protected] wrote:

Yeah, I oppose reverting this change. Everyone keeps telling me that NPP is terribly backlogged and mostly intended to make sure that edits to article space are reasonable. AfC drafts are not (and should never be) in article space unless they have been read and approved which eliminates the need for a NPP reviewer to look them over anyway.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[hasteur]

Npp is no more back logged than afc in addition to having hundreds of volunteers instead of the paltry 25 active reviewers here

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:46 PM, "Donald J. Fortier II" [email protected] wrote:

Yeah, I oppose reverting this change. Everyone keeps telling me that NPP is terribly backlogged and mostly intended to make sure that edits to article space are reasonable. AfC drafts are not (and should never be) in article space unless they have been read and approved which eliminates the need for a NPP reviewer to look them over anyway.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[Technical-13]

I would support a "reviewer option" to disable patrolling of draft upon review, if that is something you want to code up. However, since we are technically "reviewing" these drafts, they should be marked as reviewed/patrolled. If you want to add a checkbox to the review form that will allow the reviewers to not patrol a specific submission for what-ever reason, go for it, but it needs to be patrolled by default.