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
|
(conversation moved from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions trial)
In the consensus formed for this trial, it had been decided that the policy for using flagged protection was the same as for using semi-protection; and for flagged protection without autoreview, that it was the same as for full-protection. However it hasn't been decided in which cases an admin should use semi-protection instead of flagged protection or vice-versa, or if we should use control groups and such.
Since the number of articles that can be switched to Pending Changes is limited, and since our pool of reviewers will be very small at the beginning, I've proposed that we only Pending-Change-protect pages in a controlled way.
I suggest turning it on for 50 articles every day for 30 days. I've started a queue to organize that (as a subpage for now) and filled it with 100 indef-semi-protected articles from a database report (preferring the longest protected ones, only discarding some like Stupid that seemed like bad ideas), as a start. Anyone may and should change that queue by adding, reordering, removing articles. Around 00:00 UTC some admin will remove the top 50 pages and Pending-Changes-protect them, every day.
I'm fairly certain that we need to it in this highly controlled way, to keep the backlog minimal. The number of articles converted can of course be adapted at any time. But thinking back to the recent introduction of RevDelete, I'm certain that we shouldn't just allow any admin to decide independently, since then we'd surely end up with hundreds of Pending-Change-protected pages on the first day, with a very immediate backlog. If an admin processes an
RFPP request and find the article qualified for Pending-Changes-protection, he should semi-protect it normally, and insert the article into the queue for conversion.
Opinions, objections, ideas?
Amalthea 12:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a policy change w.r.t. TFA protection, they no longer have a special status and are subject to the protection policy as any other article. I propose we use pending changes on the TFA instead of semi-protection. Cenarium ( talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick question for clarification. When Amalthea mentioned that if an admin believes an article "qualifies" for pending changes when looking at an article at RFPP, is that more or less a judgement call or is there a general rule of thumb for the articles? Icestorm815 • Talk 02:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the fortuitous timing of this trial, you won't find a better candidate set of articles than those in Category:2010 FIFA World Cup players to compare and contrast the benefits and pitfalls of Pending Changes. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few example where we could try it:
How about we add AN and ANI, plus their talk pages, to the queue. These pages get hit daily with vandalism and are protected quite often. I think having them on their queue would help admins alot so they wouldn't have to be watching every edit that came by, someone else (like a reviewer) could do it for them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There does not appear to be reasons for the request posted, are the reasons for the request posted elsewhere? As I understand it the tool has a specific use and there needs to be a visible related issue at the article to warrant its use , without a specific problem related to the designed use of the tool the trial will not have a value. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That as I see it is not a good reason to add this protection as regards a trial, if an article has been long time semi protected then unprotect it and if and when there is a clear issue that specifically will give a reason for this tool to benefit then apply for the tool this tool is not to replace long term semi protection, is it? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this tool a simple replacement for long term semi protected articles. no it is not, it is another tool to help protect articles. So replacing semi protection with this tool will not test this tool. I suggest removing the semi protection of the article and then when you have a reason that warrants the usage of this tool then state your reason and request permission. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's of any interest, [1] has a list of all indefinitely semi-protected pages in chronological order starting at the longest semi-protected (mainspace only). As you can see, many off the first entries have been indefinitely semi-protected for good reasons :) As always, the community is welcome to review the semi-protections and request they be unprotected. – MuZemike 20:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FT2 recently added to RfPP that that was the place to request pending-changes protection, [2] with the implication that any admin could add it based on an RfPP request. Is that the case, or do we come here to add the page to the queue for others to deal with? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created the redirect WP:PCQ to link to the page - save a few characters when you're typing! -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So we now have (well we did before) 98 articles and one category on the list. Dropping notes to the talk pages to try and gather soem response the the request on the Queue page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
I went ahead and unprotected World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (set for PC on Day 2) after a rough consensus at WT:VG to straight unprotect it. We can substitute another video game article in there if we need to, such as Halo 3 or Battletoads or something. – MuZemike 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm fully in support of pending changes being applied systematically to a set of articles so that its effectiveness can be quantified, however I'm not able to tell whether this is a community-approved list of articles that it will be applied to. Put another way, the top of this page say "For the first phase of the trial (week 1), only pages listed here can be protected under pending changes." - is there a technical measure in place that would stop any admin from applying pending changes to an article that is not on this list? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As the above article is being used by the press as an example of an article which would be used for pending changes, is there a reason why it's not on the list?
Can it be added to Day 1? -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure of the current status but wanted to weigh in with a personal request that this article - which is perhaps the archetype for the kind of article where we have long regretted that good faith edits from anonymous ip numbers were not possible - be included in the test sooner rather than later.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd also have to support, especially since the BBC has decided focus on Bush for its article on Pending Changes → [3]. – MuZemike 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Also Solar System. The BBC article has an image of that page pending rather than semi, so this should also be done today. — kwami ( talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So, you think people will be interested in this particular article because it's in the press in connection with patrolled changes, and yet they will not perhaps click the new buttons?
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.
The last attempted database query was:
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "require/MediaWiki::performRequestForTitle/MediaWiki::performAction/Article::view/Article::showDiffPage/DifferenceEngine::showDiffPage/wfRunHooks/call_user_func_array/FlaggedRevsHooks::onDiffViewHeader/FlaggedArticleView::addToDiffView/Title::invalidateCache/wfGetAllCallers". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)".
Not too pretty. Chzz ► 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Concerning discussion, the articles currently listed in the queue have been selected pretty much randomly. There is no particular reason for including them in the trial. Since
Iceland,
David Cameron,
George W Bush, and
homework were mentioned to and repeated by the BBC as topics where PCP can be used, and as long as there isn't a good reason to not use it on any of them, then by all means add them to the queue.
Agreed with Risker that as long as there are known, unresolved, severe bugs it should be taken slowly, and those high-profile articles in particular should be held back. But let's include them in the trial as soon as possible.
Amalthea 08:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So... unless quite a few more pages are transitioned the review queue is going to remain perpetually empty. This is reducing our ability to test the software and it's also skewing the statistics on how quickly pages are reviewed, since our reviewing capacity is enormously larger than the number of pending pages. I'd suggest that we instead double the number of pages transitioned from semi every day or two until we run out of good candidates, running into community/technical scaling issues (like long delays before changes go live), or hit the current software limit. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
For day 6, one of the article's there is Technical. But, the problem is, its a dab, not to mention that its not protected as well. So um, what should it really be? GamerPro64 ( talk) 03:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Should some of the bolded articles at Wikipedia:Most vandalised pages be added to the queue? -- Malkinann ( talk) 03:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I read the notices at the top of the page but did not really see any explanation of how articles can be added to the list, so I went ahead and added " Andy Goldsworthy", which for some reason attracts high levels of vandalism. Let me know if there is some form of nomination process I should have gone through. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ( speak the truth) 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
User:79.71.192.218 attempted to vandalise an article on the list (first edit for that IP), and when that failed ran off to another completely unrelated stub article and tried there. Seems like presence on the list drew the attack. Rich Farmbrough, 09:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
One of the things that has quickly become apparent is that the use of PC is significantly affecting the load times for pages under this level of protection; in particular, the review interface is coming up very slowly. This does appear to be proportional to the size of the article, and the longer the article, the greater the problems. The deployment team is aware of this, I understand, and is looking at it; however, in the interests of getting more articles up to test PC without having an adverse effect otherwise, perhaps we might want to juggle the queue a little bit to have shorter articles brought into the fold in the next couple of days while the team works on things. (Any comment by one or more of the developers would be helpful here, is this a good idea?) Risker ( talk) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the unaccept button grayed out when attempting to review current pending changes? I just reviewed an edit, did not want to accept it, but could not "unaccept" it (which on a separate issue, hurts my ears. We do not "unaccept" things and I think we should come up with a better word such as "reject", "deny", "repel", "veto", "disallow", "exclude", etc.) Anyway, is this a bug (possibly even on my end?)-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You aren't "acting" like an edit was made then reverting it. The edit _was_ made. It's there, it's done. What PC controls is which edits are displayed by default to anons. You can choose to leave anons seeing an old version, or you can promote a newer version to be visible. If you want to remove an edit, you remove it like normal— by using the undo button, rollback, manually editing it out, or saving a prior version. I think the last minute change to the terminology makes this much more confusing than it needs to be. You may find this poster I made about the feature under the old name informative: [4].
The reason there can't generally be a "reject" button is that if there have been multiple intermediate edits, some good some bad, a rejection that actually undid the pending changes would cause good changes to be lost. Fortunately, the system is designed to reduce the urgency in reviewing... you can take the time to go carefully revert vandalism because the public isn't seeing a big penis-picture in the meantime. Cheers. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be sensible to add another column to indicate whether protection has or hasn't been applied (possibly with commentary)? The comments section is generally being used by the nominator to explain their rationale. That would also save people having to go through and check each one to see whether PC has been applied or not. Ged UK 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I for one never noticed any pending revisions in
Special:OldReviewedPages today, so we're apparently very good in that regard. Personally, I'd react to that by converting decidedly more articles tonight, at least 30 (and wouldn't mind converting a batch during the day if nothing comes up).
Or are there any technical issues that I'm unaware of which should make us tread that carefully?
Amalthea 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
What about adding featured articles currently on the Main Page? These tend to attract a high level of vandalism (such as what is being experienced by " Robert Hues" at the moment). — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some opinions on how to deal with articles proposed for pending changes when they've got an OTRS ticket confirmation on them. OTRS can't always tell us why there's a ticket there, but I think they might be able to tell us if there is a connection between the OTRS ticket and the semi-protection. If there *is* such a connection, I'd suggest that we not include those articles in the trial itself. Should the community decide to keep the pending queue process going at the end of the trial, this is an issue that could be revisited, but I think there are probably sufficient articles available for the trial that we can probably skip these few. Thoughts? Risker ( talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there no pages with pending changes now? AirplanePro Radio Checklist 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This defacement of a featured article needs to be sorted. The editor who originally added TS to the pending articles already added a template at the top; now the article is being defaced with this template. Tourette syndrome is vandalized when unprotected because of the nature of the content ( coprolalia related), but there should be a way to implement this without a large, ugly template at the top of the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: Discussion of the use of the PC template on FAs is at Help talk:Pending changes#Article defacement for centralisation of the discussion. Risker ( talk) 02:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
When I accepted an edit to World War I, I had a "Wikimedia Foundation Error", a timeout, "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary ...details below."
Request: POST
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:RevisionReview&action=submit, from <my ip addy> via knsq29.knams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE6) to 91.198.174.46 (91.198.174.46) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:36:40 GMT
I reported this in the #wikimedia-tech connect channel.
I'm told that it is related to the page size - that it takes approx. 17 seconds to render that page, that PC "often tries to parse things twice", and that the squid caching servers timeout at 30 seconds. Chzz ► 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
After the page was split, the notice advising to Be Bold and add new entries was somewhat misleading. It implies that you still should edit this page unless you click on the Link which seems like it would just take you to the bottom of the page (where there is still a Heading)
I think it should simply ask for one to submit proposals to the Pool page.
Please don't directly add new articles here without going through the pool first. To suggest a new article for this queue, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue/Pool. |
-- KelleyCook ( talk) 16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposing for level 2 protection: Satanic ritual abuse, Amaras Monastery, Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery and Gandzasar monastery. Those articles have been subject to disruption by persistent sockpuppeters, who bypassed semi-protection with autoconfirmed accounts. The use of level 2 protection is controversial so we need to achieve a rough consensus for their protection. Cenarium ( talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is appropriate to suggest, but homophobia and homosexuality are consistently used as POV fodder for one reason or another. This is compounded by the fact that neither article is particularly well-written. I don't know what would happen if either of these were accepted. I imagine some pretty inflammatory conversations about ownership and cabals and whatnot. However, after all, this is a trial, and I suppose were all interested in trying times. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I see Amalthea has run a list of the football players participating in the World Cup whose articles are semi-protected; looks like quite a batch. I'm thinking maybe they should be added en masse on Monday or Tuesday (while the tournament and most of the teams are still active), and pretty well make that the day's worth of additions. I know that's jumping the "category" queue a bit early, but we won't be seeing the full effects of the pending changes tool if we aren't using it at a time when there is likely to be a significant mix of both good and problem edits. These will be very good "test articles". Risker ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Selena Gomez was one of the articles put on PC trial.
As far as I can tell, the trial was working. Anonymous editors could now vanadalize the page, but no-one saw these changes without explicitly requesting to see them. And everything was getting reverted very quickly.
Apparently not understanding this new feature, a good intending anonymous user looked at the history file and saw dozens of recent reverts, so he/she requested page protection [5] which was granted by a helpful admin User:SlimVirgin patrolling the RfPP page.
Another user questioned why it was removed (and not entirely properly) and the Admin said he didn't quite understand all the details of the trial. [6]
So it looks like we have a process and education breakdown, which brings to my mind a couple of questions.
I'd answer No, Yes, Yes. But those are only my thoughts and am looking for other ones or suggestions. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, when you use Twinkle to rollback an edit after reviewing it, it doesn't mark it as accepted automatically, only if I rollback manually. Would there be any way to fix this? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's early days yet, but the edit history suggests an unnecessary amount of timewasting from the pending edits. My vote goes to plain semi-protection for this article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to cancel a review (if one doesnt want to accept or reject a PC (eg if it seems wrong or poor rather than vandalism)) ? Just using the browsers back button still shows the page as "under review" for a few seconds. ... Seems to sort itself out so I'll use the 'back' button for now. Rod57 ( talk) 22:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this queue still necessary?
We have at the moment 841 pages under PCP. I think it is clear that the reviewers could manage 2000 pages as well. I would suggest that RFPP can from now on put any article under PCP right away, if they want, and that mass PC-protections should be proposed at
WT:Reviewing from.
Amalthea 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Earthquake just hit Central Canada this afternoon (felt it personally during a meeting). It would be nice to see how pending changes played out for a current and on-going events to gauge the ratio of good-faith and bad-faith edits so I was being bold and activated pending changes on that page without first listing it in the queue. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is a high profile BLP that tends to attract a fair amount of bratty kids as well as fans of some other band he had a dispute with once who like to add BLP violating stuff about a backstage fight. PC1 would be fine for this since the vast majority of the vandalism and BLP violations are from anon IPs and SPAs with few or no other edits. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone help me? I am an accepted "reviewer" and yet when I try to review a "pending change" only the "accept" botton can be selected; the "unaccept" button is grayed out for me and cannot be selected? Why is this? (In trying to "fix" this problem, I accidentally "accepted" some changes to the Al Gore article that clearly should not have been accepted because they were incidents of vandalism!) Can someone explain to me why I am only able to select "accept" and not allowed to select "unaccept" when reviewing an article? Thanks! -- Skb8721 ( talk) 21:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Right now, we have just over 900 articles enrolled in this trial; we need to make a very serious effort to increase this number to closer to 2000 to get a sense of how well our reviewers cope with a higher number of articles. I propose the following:
Comments? Other suggestions? Risker ( talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We have agreed that the queue is no longer necessary. So I suggest we redirect this talk page to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes and move the discussion over there. I'd also like to do the same with other talk pages ( Help talk:Pending changes, Wikipedia talk:Reviewing, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Noticeboard, etc.) so that we have one central place to discuss pending changes. If there are no objections to this I will do it later today. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
A frequent vandalism target (including once by myself back on April Fool's day 07:) it has been semi-proted since that particular padlock was created. It is a controversial BLP and, in short, a perfect candidate for this interesting little experiment.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 11:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
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
|
(conversation moved from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions trial)
In the consensus formed for this trial, it had been decided that the policy for using flagged protection was the same as for using semi-protection; and for flagged protection without autoreview, that it was the same as for full-protection. However it hasn't been decided in which cases an admin should use semi-protection instead of flagged protection or vice-versa, or if we should use control groups and such.
Since the number of articles that can be switched to Pending Changes is limited, and since our pool of reviewers will be very small at the beginning, I've proposed that we only Pending-Change-protect pages in a controlled way.
I suggest turning it on for 50 articles every day for 30 days. I've started a queue to organize that (as a subpage for now) and filled it with 100 indef-semi-protected articles from a database report (preferring the longest protected ones, only discarding some like Stupid that seemed like bad ideas), as a start. Anyone may and should change that queue by adding, reordering, removing articles. Around 00:00 UTC some admin will remove the top 50 pages and Pending-Changes-protect them, every day.
I'm fairly certain that we need to it in this highly controlled way, to keep the backlog minimal. The number of articles converted can of course be adapted at any time. But thinking back to the recent introduction of RevDelete, I'm certain that we shouldn't just allow any admin to decide independently, since then we'd surely end up with hundreds of Pending-Change-protected pages on the first day, with a very immediate backlog. If an admin processes an
RFPP request and find the article qualified for Pending-Changes-protection, he should semi-protect it normally, and insert the article into the queue for conversion.
Opinions, objections, ideas?
Amalthea 12:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a policy change w.r.t. TFA protection, they no longer have a special status and are subject to the protection policy as any other article. I propose we use pending changes on the TFA instead of semi-protection. Cenarium ( talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick question for clarification. When Amalthea mentioned that if an admin believes an article "qualifies" for pending changes when looking at an article at RFPP, is that more or less a judgement call or is there a general rule of thumb for the articles? Icestorm815 • Talk 02:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the fortuitous timing of this trial, you won't find a better candidate set of articles than those in Category:2010 FIFA World Cup players to compare and contrast the benefits and pitfalls of Pending Changes. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few example where we could try it:
How about we add AN and ANI, plus their talk pages, to the queue. These pages get hit daily with vandalism and are protected quite often. I think having them on their queue would help admins alot so they wouldn't have to be watching every edit that came by, someone else (like a reviewer) could do it for them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There does not appear to be reasons for the request posted, are the reasons for the request posted elsewhere? As I understand it the tool has a specific use and there needs to be a visible related issue at the article to warrant its use , without a specific problem related to the designed use of the tool the trial will not have a value. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That as I see it is not a good reason to add this protection as regards a trial, if an article has been long time semi protected then unprotect it and if and when there is a clear issue that specifically will give a reason for this tool to benefit then apply for the tool this tool is not to replace long term semi protection, is it? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this tool a simple replacement for long term semi protected articles. no it is not, it is another tool to help protect articles. So replacing semi protection with this tool will not test this tool. I suggest removing the semi protection of the article and then when you have a reason that warrants the usage of this tool then state your reason and request permission. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's of any interest, [1] has a list of all indefinitely semi-protected pages in chronological order starting at the longest semi-protected (mainspace only). As you can see, many off the first entries have been indefinitely semi-protected for good reasons :) As always, the community is welcome to review the semi-protections and request they be unprotected. – MuZemike 20:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FT2 recently added to RfPP that that was the place to request pending-changes protection, [2] with the implication that any admin could add it based on an RfPP request. Is that the case, or do we come here to add the page to the queue for others to deal with? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created the redirect WP:PCQ to link to the page - save a few characters when you're typing! -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So we now have (well we did before) 98 articles and one category on the list. Dropping notes to the talk pages to try and gather soem response the the request on the Queue page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
I went ahead and unprotected World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (set for PC on Day 2) after a rough consensus at WT:VG to straight unprotect it. We can substitute another video game article in there if we need to, such as Halo 3 or Battletoads or something. – MuZemike 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm fully in support of pending changes being applied systematically to a set of articles so that its effectiveness can be quantified, however I'm not able to tell whether this is a community-approved list of articles that it will be applied to. Put another way, the top of this page say "For the first phase of the trial (week 1), only pages listed here can be protected under pending changes." - is there a technical measure in place that would stop any admin from applying pending changes to an article that is not on this list? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As the above article is being used by the press as an example of an article which would be used for pending changes, is there a reason why it's not on the list?
Can it be added to Day 1? -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure of the current status but wanted to weigh in with a personal request that this article - which is perhaps the archetype for the kind of article where we have long regretted that good faith edits from anonymous ip numbers were not possible - be included in the test sooner rather than later.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd also have to support, especially since the BBC has decided focus on Bush for its article on Pending Changes → [3]. – MuZemike 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Also Solar System. The BBC article has an image of that page pending rather than semi, so this should also be done today. — kwami ( talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So, you think people will be interested in this particular article because it's in the press in connection with patrolled changes, and yet they will not perhaps click the new buttons?
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.
The last attempted database query was:
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "require/MediaWiki::performRequestForTitle/MediaWiki::performAction/Article::view/Article::showDiffPage/DifferenceEngine::showDiffPage/wfRunHooks/call_user_func_array/FlaggedRevsHooks::onDiffViewHeader/FlaggedArticleView::addToDiffView/Title::invalidateCache/wfGetAllCallers". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)".
Not too pretty. Chzz ► 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Concerning discussion, the articles currently listed in the queue have been selected pretty much randomly. There is no particular reason for including them in the trial. Since
Iceland,
David Cameron,
George W Bush, and
homework were mentioned to and repeated by the BBC as topics where PCP can be used, and as long as there isn't a good reason to not use it on any of them, then by all means add them to the queue.
Agreed with Risker that as long as there are known, unresolved, severe bugs it should be taken slowly, and those high-profile articles in particular should be held back. But let's include them in the trial as soon as possible.
Amalthea 08:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So... unless quite a few more pages are transitioned the review queue is going to remain perpetually empty. This is reducing our ability to test the software and it's also skewing the statistics on how quickly pages are reviewed, since our reviewing capacity is enormously larger than the number of pending pages. I'd suggest that we instead double the number of pages transitioned from semi every day or two until we run out of good candidates, running into community/technical scaling issues (like long delays before changes go live), or hit the current software limit. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
For day 6, one of the article's there is Technical. But, the problem is, its a dab, not to mention that its not protected as well. So um, what should it really be? GamerPro64 ( talk) 03:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Should some of the bolded articles at Wikipedia:Most vandalised pages be added to the queue? -- Malkinann ( talk) 03:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I read the notices at the top of the page but did not really see any explanation of how articles can be added to the list, so I went ahead and added " Andy Goldsworthy", which for some reason attracts high levels of vandalism. Let me know if there is some form of nomination process I should have gone through. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ( speak the truth) 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
User:79.71.192.218 attempted to vandalise an article on the list (first edit for that IP), and when that failed ran off to another completely unrelated stub article and tried there. Seems like presence on the list drew the attack. Rich Farmbrough, 09:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
One of the things that has quickly become apparent is that the use of PC is significantly affecting the load times for pages under this level of protection; in particular, the review interface is coming up very slowly. This does appear to be proportional to the size of the article, and the longer the article, the greater the problems. The deployment team is aware of this, I understand, and is looking at it; however, in the interests of getting more articles up to test PC without having an adverse effect otherwise, perhaps we might want to juggle the queue a little bit to have shorter articles brought into the fold in the next couple of days while the team works on things. (Any comment by one or more of the developers would be helpful here, is this a good idea?) Risker ( talk) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the unaccept button grayed out when attempting to review current pending changes? I just reviewed an edit, did not want to accept it, but could not "unaccept" it (which on a separate issue, hurts my ears. We do not "unaccept" things and I think we should come up with a better word such as "reject", "deny", "repel", "veto", "disallow", "exclude", etc.) Anyway, is this a bug (possibly even on my end?)-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You aren't "acting" like an edit was made then reverting it. The edit _was_ made. It's there, it's done. What PC controls is which edits are displayed by default to anons. You can choose to leave anons seeing an old version, or you can promote a newer version to be visible. If you want to remove an edit, you remove it like normal— by using the undo button, rollback, manually editing it out, or saving a prior version. I think the last minute change to the terminology makes this much more confusing than it needs to be. You may find this poster I made about the feature under the old name informative: [4].
The reason there can't generally be a "reject" button is that if there have been multiple intermediate edits, some good some bad, a rejection that actually undid the pending changes would cause good changes to be lost. Fortunately, the system is designed to reduce the urgency in reviewing... you can take the time to go carefully revert vandalism because the public isn't seeing a big penis-picture in the meantime. Cheers. -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be sensible to add another column to indicate whether protection has or hasn't been applied (possibly with commentary)? The comments section is generally being used by the nominator to explain their rationale. That would also save people having to go through and check each one to see whether PC has been applied or not. Ged UK 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I for one never noticed any pending revisions in
Special:OldReviewedPages today, so we're apparently very good in that regard. Personally, I'd react to that by converting decidedly more articles tonight, at least 30 (and wouldn't mind converting a batch during the day if nothing comes up).
Or are there any technical issues that I'm unaware of which should make us tread that carefully?
Amalthea 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
What about adding featured articles currently on the Main Page? These tend to attract a high level of vandalism (such as what is being experienced by " Robert Hues" at the moment). — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some opinions on how to deal with articles proposed for pending changes when they've got an OTRS ticket confirmation on them. OTRS can't always tell us why there's a ticket there, but I think they might be able to tell us if there is a connection between the OTRS ticket and the semi-protection. If there *is* such a connection, I'd suggest that we not include those articles in the trial itself. Should the community decide to keep the pending queue process going at the end of the trial, this is an issue that could be revisited, but I think there are probably sufficient articles available for the trial that we can probably skip these few. Thoughts? Risker ( talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there no pages with pending changes now? AirplanePro Radio Checklist 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This defacement of a featured article needs to be sorted. The editor who originally added TS to the pending articles already added a template at the top; now the article is being defaced with this template. Tourette syndrome is vandalized when unprotected because of the nature of the content ( coprolalia related), but there should be a way to implement this without a large, ugly template at the top of the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: Discussion of the use of the PC template on FAs is at Help talk:Pending changes#Article defacement for centralisation of the discussion. Risker ( talk) 02:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
When I accepted an edit to World War I, I had a "Wikimedia Foundation Error", a timeout, "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary ...details below."
Request: POST
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:RevisionReview&action=submit, from <my ip addy> via knsq29.knams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE6) to 91.198.174.46 (91.198.174.46) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:36:40 GMT
I reported this in the #wikimedia-tech connect channel.
I'm told that it is related to the page size - that it takes approx. 17 seconds to render that page, that PC "often tries to parse things twice", and that the squid caching servers timeout at 30 seconds. Chzz ► 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
After the page was split, the notice advising to Be Bold and add new entries was somewhat misleading. It implies that you still should edit this page unless you click on the Link which seems like it would just take you to the bottom of the page (where there is still a Heading)
I think it should simply ask for one to submit proposals to the Pool page.
Please don't directly add new articles here without going through the pool first. To suggest a new article for this queue, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue/Pool. |
-- KelleyCook ( talk) 16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposing for level 2 protection: Satanic ritual abuse, Amaras Monastery, Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery and Gandzasar monastery. Those articles have been subject to disruption by persistent sockpuppeters, who bypassed semi-protection with autoconfirmed accounts. The use of level 2 protection is controversial so we need to achieve a rough consensus for their protection. Cenarium ( talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is appropriate to suggest, but homophobia and homosexuality are consistently used as POV fodder for one reason or another. This is compounded by the fact that neither article is particularly well-written. I don't know what would happen if either of these were accepted. I imagine some pretty inflammatory conversations about ownership and cabals and whatnot. However, after all, this is a trial, and I suppose were all interested in trying times. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I see Amalthea has run a list of the football players participating in the World Cup whose articles are semi-protected; looks like quite a batch. I'm thinking maybe they should be added en masse on Monday or Tuesday (while the tournament and most of the teams are still active), and pretty well make that the day's worth of additions. I know that's jumping the "category" queue a bit early, but we won't be seeing the full effects of the pending changes tool if we aren't using it at a time when there is likely to be a significant mix of both good and problem edits. These will be very good "test articles". Risker ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Selena Gomez was one of the articles put on PC trial.
As far as I can tell, the trial was working. Anonymous editors could now vanadalize the page, but no-one saw these changes without explicitly requesting to see them. And everything was getting reverted very quickly.
Apparently not understanding this new feature, a good intending anonymous user looked at the history file and saw dozens of recent reverts, so he/she requested page protection [5] which was granted by a helpful admin User:SlimVirgin patrolling the RfPP page.
Another user questioned why it was removed (and not entirely properly) and the Admin said he didn't quite understand all the details of the trial. [6]
So it looks like we have a process and education breakdown, which brings to my mind a couple of questions.
I'd answer No, Yes, Yes. But those are only my thoughts and am looking for other ones or suggestions. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, when you use Twinkle to rollback an edit after reviewing it, it doesn't mark it as accepted automatically, only if I rollback manually. Would there be any way to fix this? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's early days yet, but the edit history suggests an unnecessary amount of timewasting from the pending edits. My vote goes to plain semi-protection for this article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to cancel a review (if one doesnt want to accept or reject a PC (eg if it seems wrong or poor rather than vandalism)) ? Just using the browsers back button still shows the page as "under review" for a few seconds. ... Seems to sort itself out so I'll use the 'back' button for now. Rod57 ( talk) 22:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this queue still necessary?
We have at the moment 841 pages under PCP. I think it is clear that the reviewers could manage 2000 pages as well. I would suggest that RFPP can from now on put any article under PCP right away, if they want, and that mass PC-protections should be proposed at
WT:Reviewing from.
Amalthea 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Earthquake just hit Central Canada this afternoon (felt it personally during a meeting). It would be nice to see how pending changes played out for a current and on-going events to gauge the ratio of good-faith and bad-faith edits so I was being bold and activated pending changes on that page without first listing it in the queue. OhanaUnited Talk page 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is a high profile BLP that tends to attract a fair amount of bratty kids as well as fans of some other band he had a dispute with once who like to add BLP violating stuff about a backstage fight. PC1 would be fine for this since the vast majority of the vandalism and BLP violations are from anon IPs and SPAs with few or no other edits. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone help me? I am an accepted "reviewer" and yet when I try to review a "pending change" only the "accept" botton can be selected; the "unaccept" button is grayed out for me and cannot be selected? Why is this? (In trying to "fix" this problem, I accidentally "accepted" some changes to the Al Gore article that clearly should not have been accepted because they were incidents of vandalism!) Can someone explain to me why I am only able to select "accept" and not allowed to select "unaccept" when reviewing an article? Thanks! -- Skb8721 ( talk) 21:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Right now, we have just over 900 articles enrolled in this trial; we need to make a very serious effort to increase this number to closer to 2000 to get a sense of how well our reviewers cope with a higher number of articles. I propose the following:
Comments? Other suggestions? Risker ( talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We have agreed that the queue is no longer necessary. So I suggest we redirect this talk page to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes and move the discussion over there. I'd also like to do the same with other talk pages ( Help talk:Pending changes, Wikipedia talk:Reviewing, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Noticeboard, etc.) so that we have one central place to discuss pending changes. If there are no objections to this I will do it later today. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
A frequent vandalism target (including once by myself back on April Fool's day 07:) it has been semi-proted since that particular padlock was created. It is a controversial BLP and, in short, a perfect candidate for this interesting little experiment.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 11:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)