This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pending changes page. |
|
Pending changes Interface: Pages with pending edits · Pages under pending changes · Pending changes log · Documentation: Main talk · Reviewing guideline · Reviewing talk · Protection policy · Testing · Statistics |
2010 Trial and 2012 Implementation
Historical:
Trial proposal ·
Specifics ·
Reviewing guideline ·
Metrics ·
Terminology ·
Queue ·
Feedback ·
Closure ·
2012 Implementation Discussions: |
Summary information for editors
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all talk subpages redirect here. |
| |||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Are pending changes reviewer notes visible somewhere? If so, IMO an explanation of that should be added to the page.
BTW one common situation where this arises is when someone reviews an edit which passes the pending changes criteria but which the reviewer disagrees with. I'll usually put that in the reviewer notes. If the disagreement is so strong somethings I'll revert the edit after approving it. But otherwise, since very few Wikipedians know otherwise, approving an edit simply for meeting the pending changes criteria looks like an overall approval/endorsement of the edit, which can be the opposite of the case. North8000 ( talk) 17:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I hope this is the right talkpage for this. It feels like such a trivial issue, but also one that should have an answer. Recently I requested semi-protection for Guiding Light because there's an obsessive IP user (range of IPs, but all from the same town in the midwest US) who keeps adding the same wrong info over and over again. Unfortunately, their pending edits keep being approved by pending changes reviewers. Is there any way of leaving a note for these reviewers about this specific pattern of disruptive editing? OsFish ( talk) 05:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, if information is modified without a new source, which may be sneaky vandalism, you should not presume vandalism but check whether the article has an existing source for it, which may have changed as well (e.g. number of YouTube views, box office results, etc.). If no source is provided, you may search for one and if none is straightforward but there are no reasonable reasons to believe the new edit is vandalism, it is acceptable, but if on balance you estimate that the edit is more likely to be vandalism, you should not accept and may revert.Even one of the "explanatory supplements"/essay that you referenced, WP:TPCR, advises:
Don't forget, if you are unsure, you can always take no action and return to the queue, leaving the review for a more experienced reviewer.Regards. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
A couple of years ago I helped put together a pending changes improvement proposal for the m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022 (that's this year's link for ease) on very short notice, and while it got some support, significantly under what it needed. It likely also wouldn't have been ideal.
Is there someone (including more than one someone) better at sculpting these things into a viable and interesting form? Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to raise concerns regarding whether @ Gardenkur is suitable for their role as a pending changes reviewer. Gardenkur made these incorrect rejections ( a, b, c) on my edits, so I posted on their usertalk to explain the nature of the edits and request an explanation for the reverts. They responded on my usertalk instead, so the conversation continues there.
The initial explanation given for the rejection was the user name was confusing. To avoid discrepency and controversy I had to revert.
which indicates that my (lack of) username was the primary reason -- showing inappropriate bias against IP users. No elaboration is given as to why my edits may be a "discrepancy" or "controversial", nor was there any attempt to engage with me regarding the explanation I had given. If they had read it and understood, they would have fixed the incorrect rejection. If they didn't understand, they could have asked for more elaboration, or sought help from someone else. Neither happened, I simply got brushed off.
I then challenged their use of "user name" as justification for rejection, but only got the vague excuse being safeside
in response. This suggests that Gardenkur considers all edits by IPs to be somehow "unsafe" and that they can thus reject as a precautionary measure even when uncertain. This is unacceptable; if there is something that they don't understand, they could seek clarification, ask for a second opinion, or just leave it for someone else to take care of. There is no compulsion to handle any particular case, even moreso if it is something you don't fully comprehend.
Returning to the reverts themselves, the reason given in the edit summaries was "No reliable source", which does not make sense. My edits were of a technical nature rather than content-related, so that may be cause for misunderstanding, but I did leave meaningful edit summaries citing a Phab #. A visual comparison with the old revisions would have shown no content changed. A cursory check of the articles' histories would reveal two consecutive edits from me, constituting a self-revert. Clearly, none of this mattered, indicating there was a lack of care and a rush to jump to conclusions based on my unregistered status.
All this worried me enough to take a look at Gardenkur's edit history, where a quick sampling of recent rejections (mostly ignored BLPs) turned up several more problematic rejections:
And a few examples which should indeed have been rejected, but the reason given was faulty:
Gardenkur favors rejection reasons like "correction improper", "not corrrect", "incorrect revision", "No reliable source", using them in bulk. I understand the need for having standard responses for common situations, but these are particularly terse and unhelpful to new and inexperienced editors, in contrast to other examples where I've seen reviewers write a tailored edit summary or include links to relevant guidelines. No attempt is made to contact users whose edits have been rejected or reverted, welcome new users and help them learn the ropes. Combined with the examples above of incorrect rejections for faulty reasons, it gives the impression of a rote rubber-stamping approach without paying enough attention to each case. Furthermore, Gardenkur may be overreaching beyond the scope of pending changes (BLP, vandalism, copyvio), for instance trying to enforce verifiability, which is not required by WP:RPC. Reviewers may check at their discretion, but RPC does state if information is modified without a new source [...] you should not presume vandalism but check [...] existing source [or] search for one
. Examples above show that Gardenkur does not give pending edits a fair chance, even in non-BLP contexts. Their instinctual response seems to be to delete, rather than consider making corrections or applying maintenance templates like {{
citation needed}}.
Gardenkur said I will be careful in future
but given their safeside
remark I don't feel reassured that they actually understand why I find their approach objectionable. They've offered to approve my edits if I resubmit again, but that seems odd. Is there some technical impediment that prevents simply self-reverting the rejection?
Lastly, broadly speaking, looking at their Gardenkur's contribs and userpage does not inspire confidence that they have an adequate grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to serve as a reviewer.
Thanks, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 ( talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"I too face lot of challenges in my articles": @ Gardenkur, this being the case, may I suggest you take things one step at a time, and focus on working on getting better at that with the help of your mentor first, before trying to take on more roles in patrolling and maintenance.
There are notices to me earlier...Sorry, I'm having difficulty parsing this due to a possible language barrier. Gardenkur, did someone (who?) tell you that pending changes reviewers are supposed to guard against these specific offences? Because I don't see anything like that in the PC reviewing guideline. If Gardenkur is using faulty criteria, and being too quick to ascribe bad intentions to editors that fit a certain profile in their mind, it would certainly explain how failed to properly assess changes before rejecting.
Hi 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. Nice to see your reply. It will be a risky affair for anyone to approve edits if there is no good faith on approvers. I check every edits in details before approving or rejection. However, if iam not believed I cannot convince. I am not ascribing bad intentions to any editor or content but just was caution in doing so. As senior I can understand your regrets and leave it to you how you want me to proceed further. Thanks and have a nice day. Gardenkur ( talk) 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept, but up to four of these are precisely the things that PC is supposed to protect against. The other two are lesser issues, out of scope for PC, just examples that I believe could have been better handled differently. Comparing with the rejections listed earlier for "no reliable source", the examples of unsourced additions accepted here reveal a lack of consistency. Earlier, I'd thought there might be
overreaching beyond the scopeof PC but now it just looks a bit haphazard across the board.
"notices to me earlier", two of which don't even apply to the situation. My query seeking clarification about the origins of those criteria has not been answered.
certain underlying basesmay be of concern.
more caution for futuremultiple times, but it is difficult to be reassured by that since you've apparently already
check every edits in detailsand put in a
lot of thinking, yet made iffy judgement calls on the premise of
just was caution in doing soor
being safeside. That is why it is important for us to gain more clarity on what it means for you to "use more caution" or "be more careful". So let me try one more time:
notices to me earliercome from? Can you provide a link to them, so we can see why these are things that a reviewer should be cautious about?
Hi 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. Thanks for your detailed remarks above. Let me assure you of following below guidelines with more attention
1. Observing article edit changes.
2. Guidelines issued for us as reviewer.
3. General Wikipedia policies on Notability, reliable, independent, secondary sources.
4. Any other observations as the situations may warrant in the interest of Wikipedia.
Its not planning things differently but exercise of attention while reviewing.
If you have some suggestions to share, kindly do which can help me improve. Thanks again. Gardenkur ( talk) 11:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
other observations as the situations may warrant in the interest of Wikipediais vague and seems to allow latitude for freestyling; which is worrying because of prior decisions that were made based on some arbitrary, unwritten criteria just to be
safeside— this key concern still has not been addressed. Question about the provenance of the three
"notices to me earlier"criteria has also yet to be answered. Seems like they just won't engage on the specifics (can't say I haven't tried).
more cautionor
more attentionhas already been applied since the start of this discussion, I'm afraid I'm not seeing evidence of it.
If you have some suggestions: Yes, I have already suggested that
you take things one step at a timeand focus on working on dealing with your
"face lot of challenges in my articles"for now. To put it very bluntly: that means to give up the reviewer role. You may be sincerely trying to help, but honestly, I don't think you are ready to take on maintenance responsibilities yet. It is not helpful if you keep making mistakes and other people have to take the time to fix it, or when you create a bad impression on new and unregistered editors. Concentrate on writing and editing for now, and gradually gain a better understanding of the policies first.
I worked extensively with them in 2022. They were very cooperative, well-intentioned, active, and not well-versed on how Wikipedia works. I've not watched them lately but circa 2022 IMO they shouldn't be doing PCR. North8000 ( talk) 17:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
When working PC, is 3RR in effect? Meaning can a reviewer conceivably deny 4 of the same edits? - FlightTime ( open channel) 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
So just how do I decline a pending edit? I didn't see anything on the document page on how to do this. Clicking Undo doesn't seem right, since it hasn't been published. Why isn't the answer to this in the FAQ? It seems like something editors would ask. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I am mistaken, but as an IP editor I've noticed a decline in use of WP:WHITELOCK in favor of WP:SILVERLOCK, over the last couple of years. Can anyone confirm this, are there page counts for these two by year? This is a shame, because it makes Wikipedia less open and less inviting; there seems to be a growing divide between IP editors and (auto)confirmed registered users. -- 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:7BB1:ECF5:7FBE:B5A1 ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
As of the time of writing, there are:
In 2018, there were:
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
On average, 1,055 new pages become semi-protected every year (excluding this year), and 44.4 new pages become under pending changes protection. As for why it's preferred to semi-protect, I have no idea. I think pending changes should be preferred, in order to allow the encyclopedia to be free for anyone to edit, while still having protection. Millows! | 🪧 16:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pending changes page. |
|
Pending changes Interface: Pages with pending edits · Pages under pending changes · Pending changes log · Documentation: Main talk · Reviewing guideline · Reviewing talk · Protection policy · Testing · Statistics |
2010 Trial and 2012 Implementation
Historical:
Trial proposal ·
Specifics ·
Reviewing guideline ·
Metrics ·
Terminology ·
Queue ·
Feedback ·
Closure ·
2012 Implementation Discussions: |
Summary information for editors
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all talk subpages redirect here. |
| |||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Are pending changes reviewer notes visible somewhere? If so, IMO an explanation of that should be added to the page.
BTW one common situation where this arises is when someone reviews an edit which passes the pending changes criteria but which the reviewer disagrees with. I'll usually put that in the reviewer notes. If the disagreement is so strong somethings I'll revert the edit after approving it. But otherwise, since very few Wikipedians know otherwise, approving an edit simply for meeting the pending changes criteria looks like an overall approval/endorsement of the edit, which can be the opposite of the case. North8000 ( talk) 17:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I hope this is the right talkpage for this. It feels like such a trivial issue, but also one that should have an answer. Recently I requested semi-protection for Guiding Light because there's an obsessive IP user (range of IPs, but all from the same town in the midwest US) who keeps adding the same wrong info over and over again. Unfortunately, their pending edits keep being approved by pending changes reviewers. Is there any way of leaving a note for these reviewers about this specific pattern of disruptive editing? OsFish ( talk) 05:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, if information is modified without a new source, which may be sneaky vandalism, you should not presume vandalism but check whether the article has an existing source for it, which may have changed as well (e.g. number of YouTube views, box office results, etc.). If no source is provided, you may search for one and if none is straightforward but there are no reasonable reasons to believe the new edit is vandalism, it is acceptable, but if on balance you estimate that the edit is more likely to be vandalism, you should not accept and may revert.Even one of the "explanatory supplements"/essay that you referenced, WP:TPCR, advises:
Don't forget, if you are unsure, you can always take no action and return to the queue, leaving the review for a more experienced reviewer.Regards. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
A couple of years ago I helped put together a pending changes improvement proposal for the m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022 (that's this year's link for ease) on very short notice, and while it got some support, significantly under what it needed. It likely also wouldn't have been ideal.
Is there someone (including more than one someone) better at sculpting these things into a viable and interesting form? Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to raise concerns regarding whether @ Gardenkur is suitable for their role as a pending changes reviewer. Gardenkur made these incorrect rejections ( a, b, c) on my edits, so I posted on their usertalk to explain the nature of the edits and request an explanation for the reverts. They responded on my usertalk instead, so the conversation continues there.
The initial explanation given for the rejection was the user name was confusing. To avoid discrepency and controversy I had to revert.
which indicates that my (lack of) username was the primary reason -- showing inappropriate bias against IP users. No elaboration is given as to why my edits may be a "discrepancy" or "controversial", nor was there any attempt to engage with me regarding the explanation I had given. If they had read it and understood, they would have fixed the incorrect rejection. If they didn't understand, they could have asked for more elaboration, or sought help from someone else. Neither happened, I simply got brushed off.
I then challenged their use of "user name" as justification for rejection, but only got the vague excuse being safeside
in response. This suggests that Gardenkur considers all edits by IPs to be somehow "unsafe" and that they can thus reject as a precautionary measure even when uncertain. This is unacceptable; if there is something that they don't understand, they could seek clarification, ask for a second opinion, or just leave it for someone else to take care of. There is no compulsion to handle any particular case, even moreso if it is something you don't fully comprehend.
Returning to the reverts themselves, the reason given in the edit summaries was "No reliable source", which does not make sense. My edits were of a technical nature rather than content-related, so that may be cause for misunderstanding, but I did leave meaningful edit summaries citing a Phab #. A visual comparison with the old revisions would have shown no content changed. A cursory check of the articles' histories would reveal two consecutive edits from me, constituting a self-revert. Clearly, none of this mattered, indicating there was a lack of care and a rush to jump to conclusions based on my unregistered status.
All this worried me enough to take a look at Gardenkur's edit history, where a quick sampling of recent rejections (mostly ignored BLPs) turned up several more problematic rejections:
And a few examples which should indeed have been rejected, but the reason given was faulty:
Gardenkur favors rejection reasons like "correction improper", "not corrrect", "incorrect revision", "No reliable source", using them in bulk. I understand the need for having standard responses for common situations, but these are particularly terse and unhelpful to new and inexperienced editors, in contrast to other examples where I've seen reviewers write a tailored edit summary or include links to relevant guidelines. No attempt is made to contact users whose edits have been rejected or reverted, welcome new users and help them learn the ropes. Combined with the examples above of incorrect rejections for faulty reasons, it gives the impression of a rote rubber-stamping approach without paying enough attention to each case. Furthermore, Gardenkur may be overreaching beyond the scope of pending changes (BLP, vandalism, copyvio), for instance trying to enforce verifiability, which is not required by WP:RPC. Reviewers may check at their discretion, but RPC does state if information is modified without a new source [...] you should not presume vandalism but check [...] existing source [or] search for one
. Examples above show that Gardenkur does not give pending edits a fair chance, even in non-BLP contexts. Their instinctual response seems to be to delete, rather than consider making corrections or applying maintenance templates like {{
citation needed}}.
Gardenkur said I will be careful in future
but given their safeside
remark I don't feel reassured that they actually understand why I find their approach objectionable. They've offered to approve my edits if I resubmit again, but that seems odd. Is there some technical impediment that prevents simply self-reverting the rejection?
Lastly, broadly speaking, looking at their Gardenkur's contribs and userpage does not inspire confidence that they have an adequate grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to serve as a reviewer.
Thanks, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 ( talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"I too face lot of challenges in my articles": @ Gardenkur, this being the case, may I suggest you take things one step at a time, and focus on working on getting better at that with the help of your mentor first, before trying to take on more roles in patrolling and maintenance.
There are notices to me earlier...Sorry, I'm having difficulty parsing this due to a possible language barrier. Gardenkur, did someone (who?) tell you that pending changes reviewers are supposed to guard against these specific offences? Because I don't see anything like that in the PC reviewing guideline. If Gardenkur is using faulty criteria, and being too quick to ascribe bad intentions to editors that fit a certain profile in their mind, it would certainly explain how failed to properly assess changes before rejecting.
Hi 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. Nice to see your reply. It will be a risky affair for anyone to approve edits if there is no good faith on approvers. I check every edits in details before approving or rejection. However, if iam not believed I cannot convince. I am not ascribing bad intentions to any editor or content but just was caution in doing so. As senior I can understand your regrets and leave it to you how you want me to proceed further. Thanks and have a nice day. Gardenkur ( talk) 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept, but up to four of these are precisely the things that PC is supposed to protect against. The other two are lesser issues, out of scope for PC, just examples that I believe could have been better handled differently. Comparing with the rejections listed earlier for "no reliable source", the examples of unsourced additions accepted here reveal a lack of consistency. Earlier, I'd thought there might be
overreaching beyond the scopeof PC but now it just looks a bit haphazard across the board.
"notices to me earlier", two of which don't even apply to the situation. My query seeking clarification about the origins of those criteria has not been answered.
certain underlying basesmay be of concern.
more caution for futuremultiple times, but it is difficult to be reassured by that since you've apparently already
check every edits in detailsand put in a
lot of thinking, yet made iffy judgement calls on the premise of
just was caution in doing soor
being safeside. That is why it is important for us to gain more clarity on what it means for you to "use more caution" or "be more careful". So let me try one more time:
notices to me earliercome from? Can you provide a link to them, so we can see why these are things that a reviewer should be cautious about?
Hi 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. Thanks for your detailed remarks above. Let me assure you of following below guidelines with more attention
1. Observing article edit changes.
2. Guidelines issued for us as reviewer.
3. General Wikipedia policies on Notability, reliable, independent, secondary sources.
4. Any other observations as the situations may warrant in the interest of Wikipedia.
Its not planning things differently but exercise of attention while reviewing.
If you have some suggestions to share, kindly do which can help me improve. Thanks again. Gardenkur ( talk) 11:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
other observations as the situations may warrant in the interest of Wikipediais vague and seems to allow latitude for freestyling; which is worrying because of prior decisions that were made based on some arbitrary, unwritten criteria just to be
safeside— this key concern still has not been addressed. Question about the provenance of the three
"notices to me earlier"criteria has also yet to be answered. Seems like they just won't engage on the specifics (can't say I haven't tried).
more cautionor
more attentionhas already been applied since the start of this discussion, I'm afraid I'm not seeing evidence of it.
If you have some suggestions: Yes, I have already suggested that
you take things one step at a timeand focus on working on dealing with your
"face lot of challenges in my articles"for now. To put it very bluntly: that means to give up the reviewer role. You may be sincerely trying to help, but honestly, I don't think you are ready to take on maintenance responsibilities yet. It is not helpful if you keep making mistakes and other people have to take the time to fix it, or when you create a bad impression on new and unregistered editors. Concentrate on writing and editing for now, and gradually gain a better understanding of the policies first.
I worked extensively with them in 2022. They were very cooperative, well-intentioned, active, and not well-versed on how Wikipedia works. I've not watched them lately but circa 2022 IMO they shouldn't be doing PCR. North8000 ( talk) 17:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
When working PC, is 3RR in effect? Meaning can a reviewer conceivably deny 4 of the same edits? - FlightTime ( open channel) 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
So just how do I decline a pending edit? I didn't see anything on the document page on how to do this. Clicking Undo doesn't seem right, since it hasn't been published. Why isn't the answer to this in the FAQ? It seems like something editors would ask. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I am mistaken, but as an IP editor I've noticed a decline in use of WP:WHITELOCK in favor of WP:SILVERLOCK, over the last couple of years. Can anyone confirm this, are there page counts for these two by year? This is a shame, because it makes Wikipedia less open and less inviting; there seems to be a growing divide between IP editors and (auto)confirmed registered users. -- 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:7BB1:ECF5:7FBE:B5A1 ( talk) 08:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
As of the time of writing, there are:
In 2018, there were:
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
On average, 1,055 new pages become semi-protected every year (excluding this year), and 44.4 new pages become under pending changes protection. As for why it's preferred to semi-protect, I have no idea. I think pending changes should be preferred, in order to allow the encyclopedia to be free for anyone to edit, while still having protection. Millows! | 🪧 16:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)