This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How can we implement this on talk pages? Mine is continually vandalized by a sock IP, so I don't want them removing stuff, but I do want legit IPs to be able to leave queries. CTJF83 chat 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me where I will find the list of selection criteria for the original trial articles, please? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'm sure some people will comment on this, telling me to stop beating the dead horse, that there was a poll, that an agreement was reached, and the changes implemented. Now, all of this is true, except for one thing: an agreement was never reached. True, there was a rough consensus to use pending changes, but beyond that, there was no agreement. There were surely at least half a dozen implementations suggested, from the uselessly conservative to the hopelessly absurd. Yet still the trial rattled forwards like a runaway train, angering many, confusing more, and satisfying no-one at all. Pending changes was implemented, all right. On about 200 pages. Except no-one's allowed to apply it to any more, or remove those already aboard. This is ridiculous, and I'm sure everyone will agree that it is entirely unmaintainable. We need real consensus, before it's too late. Discuss. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As a small aside, I think that if and when there ever is a centralized discussion on the topic, there should be some kind of conspicuous notice above watchlists, or something. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, this proposal should say that it should only be used as a response to vandalism. Or if there are other circumstances where it would be appropriate to use it, then state clearly what those are. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat put off by the idea of needing approval to get a "reviewer" flag. If PC gets activated, I'd love to be one. But, I've seen some of the requests for rollback. I'm forced to use IE, so since Twinkle is not supported in IE, and there is a clear (if unspoken) requirement to have experience with Twinkle, I will never have rollback access. I'm afraid that well-meaning people that want to contribute will be turned off by an "RfR" process. Psu256 ( talk) 04:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We should talk less and do more, learn by doing and learning on the job... I suggest to implement PC on BLPs with less than 5 watchers:
Sorry. I haven't been following this. Can someone please explain what problem this solves, or point me to an explanation? What it's good for? I can see it takes the burden of approving page edits off admins. Was that the problem? Were admins being overwhelmed by requests to approve an edit? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a pending request for reviewing of The Biggest Loser (season 2) that was there for over 2 hours. Some Reviewers came and tried to see if it would be accepted or rejected many times and it still not reviewed. Please advise. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! The Finnish Wikipedia may be implementing Flagged Revisions in some form, and as I have been going through the help pages and other manuals, one (thousand) question(s) remain unanswered. As the Flagged Revisions extension creates two new user groups: Editors (who do not edit but review) and Reviewers (who do not review but validate) in addition to the regular Users (who do edit), I would like to know what kind of a creature the reviewer is here in the Pending Changes trial?
Is he/she an Editor (FlaggedRevs) who can review the changes, but for convenience is called a Reviewer here, or is she a Reviewer (FlaggedRevs) who may both review and validate? And more to the point, which user rights (review, autoreview, validate, patrol, autopatrol) does the PC-Reviever have? And what kind of flags or markers (Sighted, Quality, Checked) can she set to the versions (revisions), or is the PC rather a special version of the Flagged Revs extension that is particularly calibrated to suit the needs of the English Wikipedia? And what is the difference between action: review and action: validate? And... (More questions available on request :) -- Pxos ( talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Who chooses the articles on which is this tool being tested? According to what clue do they choose the articles? Are they chosen randomly?-- Me ne frego ( talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How was this edit from an IP automatically accepted? -- B ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If an established user edits a page under PC on which there are unaccepted edits outstanding, but does not specifically accept or reject them, do they then become automatically accepted or do they remain outstanding? If the former is the case I see that as a bit of a problem, vandalism could accidentally be accepted. SpinningSpark 09:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we need a FAQ, I've started one (at the top of this page), please add. Cenarium ( talk) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Has more or less been hijacked. It does not appear that any plan aimed at resolving the main issues in a timely fashion is going to be allowed to move forward. I have drafted a possible policy for the use of PC and am posting it here because the rfc is broken and I've pretty much lost all hope of it being allowed to be set back on track. This is based on the temporary policy we had during the trial but has been significantly altered to reflect the results of phases one and two of the rfc. User:Beeblebrox/pc draft Use it, ignore it, modify it, whatever. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand the point or meaning of an RfC. -- Polental ( talk) 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We need help for 2 articles
You may review 1 here Also, for 2, do it here ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 22:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is pending changes still active and if so, is there somewhere to request it for pages? — Mike Allen 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick notice that FlaggedRevs was included in the April engineering update:
Status: Aaron Schulz continued to refactor the extension and to fix bugs. He improved the API error messages, added other features to the API, and worked on performance improvements.
Full post here Steven Walling at work 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
These two sets of numbers are right beside each other on this page... I'm just wondering how it was that a second RfC with 1/4 the participation ended something that over twice as many editors supported the continued use of... Why wasn't an RfC held to determine how it was implemented, rather than an RfC to remove it when it was functioning pretty well, based on the backwards notion of this site that things must be discussed before being implemented, no matter how productive the tool is. It's a real shame that the second RfC is held to any regard. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a solid policy and I agree with the user above who questioned about 400-150 being out-voted by 125-65 or something like that. The policy is clear, and I think should be used. Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As a new editor I am still exploring so please forgive silly questions. Sometimes in the academic community an issue becomes a matter of extremely contentious debate. Global warming is one such issue. In cases where the debate sometimes gets heated, and both sides have valid points and consider the science settled, I wonder what would be involved in dividing such pages into two separate talk pages?-- CometHunter ( talk) 20:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)CometHunter
Because it is old, and should probably soon be replaced by a template describing the outcome of the 2012 RfC, currently still ongoing. I have also updated Template:Pending changes trial. Cheers, theFace 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. The second sentence of the Trial results states: "None of these edits could have been made if the pages had remained semi-protected." In fact, all of those edits could have been made, they just could not be made directly by unregistered or new users. An example of an accurate sentence would be "If the pages had remained semi-protected, the anonymous editors would have had to request on the article's talk pages that the edits be made, rather than making the edits themselves."
As a more minor note, to improve NPOV, the 2/3 of edits that were not of acceptable quality should be given at least equal weight as the 1/3 of edits that were of acceptable quality.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Are there any statistics on how many acts of vandalism are perpetrated by unregistered/non-autoconfirmed users? And how many such acts are sock puppetry? An indication of the scale of such acts?
I hesitate to support proposition 2 because I'm not sure if there is a genuine need for this tool. Supaiku ( talk) 06:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The current method encourages potential editors (and vandals, Lord knows!) that "anyone" can edit and see their changes immediately (important for young people, many of whom don't make good editors but a few of which do).
You may not want to slow down potential new editors.
When this was first proposed, the admins were just getting a really good handle on auto-reverting vandalism and (finally) cracking down on obvious vandals, which they had been ignoring, allowing "the system" to handle them. bots now handle half or more of the vandalism I see. Hurray for the bots! And the bots seem to pick up more with time with only rare errors. Also, questionable edits are flagged "references removed," "tags removed," that sort of thing which usually trigger a quick revert by watching editors.
I often have to "amend" input from a new user. It is easier to see it "in place" when I do so.
The quality of content should jump tremendously, but at the cost of losing potential editors. We would only have edit warring left, which is often transparent to casual readers. Near-perfect copy or "pretty close."
Note that little read articles will have slow(er) input, but higher quality.
I think I can live with the old system now that vandals frequently are reverted by bots and/or treated seriously by admins. Maybe the bots will evolve into AIs! :) Student7 ( talk) 18:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
With the overwhelming support for this feature in the recent RFC, what is the future of pending changes? When will it be implemented? -- xensyria T 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In light of the recent RFC close, I suggest we retain the current version of WP:Pending changes for historical purposes at a new location in preparation for using WP:Pending changes to describe the current consensus regarding pending changes moving forward, and eventually the policy for its use with a see also to the more detailed historical information currently here. Monty 845 04:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
As stated in the above topic, we need to either update this page, or make a new page and move this to an archive to show the results of RfC 2012. Can someone with more knowledge go ahead and do this? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you want to see on this page? The policy or a how-to guide? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have integrated the changes from the various RfCs, and what was remaining that was valid in the provisional policy (not much). I have marked this and WP:Reviewing as proposals, and moved most of the RfC matter that would not belong in a final policy to WP:PC2012 Gigs ( talk) 17:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the new table, and I've finally been able to put a finger on what I don't like about it. Here's my reasoning: PC/2 is not going to go away. It will always be in the admin toolset, and it will probably come up in another RfC in a few months. The differences between PC/1 and PC/2 need to be explained somewhere, preferably on this page. The best way to show the difference between PC/1 and PC/2 is to show it in the table. To write it in text would take a paragraph, and that paragraph will be confusing. When I first learned about Pending Changes I didn't understand it until after I saw the graph, even though I had read scores of paragraphs about it. That is why I think the full graph should be shown on this page, if nowhere else. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we are all roughly in agreement. It's not very desirable to mention PC/2 here since it unnecessarily complicates the issue at this point in time. At the same time admins need to be aware it exists so they don't use it accidentally. I'm OK with putting that on the help page only. Since I'm sure people will monitor the PC/2 list and use appropriate trouting on admins that make the mistake, I don't think it's a big deal.
A secondary matter is that we do want to have PC/2 documented somewhere so that we don't shut out the possibility of future community discussions on turning it on. I think a new non-policy non-guideline page documenting PC/2, summarizing the consensus and reasons why people objected to it in the past, with links to the discussions would be appropriate. We could link to that in our see-also here. That removes any distracting debate over how to describe PC/2 here, since this is "official" and the other summary page need not be anything but an informal compilation of information. Gigs ( talk) 14:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC temporarily placed on hold for further refinement and new questions. Discussion on this is here Gigs ( talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
BackgroundWe've had numerous RfCs, but there's a few places where wider feedback is still need prior to finalizing pending changes policy. Pending changes, level 1 only, will go live on December 1st. Many questions have already been discussed to death, so don't add any sections prior to discussing the issue in what is now the bottom section below on general feedback on the proposed policy text. Gigs ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC) New noticeboard or not?
Discussion
Must specific eligibility criteria be met for PC to be applied to a page?
Discussion
Possible additional hard requirements proposal 1
DiscussionIs it permissible to apply PC to all name spaces?
Discussion
Policy location
Discussion
Discussion on the stuff that's on the proposed policy page
Discussion |
As there was discussion on the effect of pending changes protection on registered users, I propose making the following change to the lead section:
I understand this adds additional complexity, but given the discussion I think it may be warranted. isaacl ( talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion the Lead section should only touch on the bare essentials, so when someone who knows nothing about Pending Changes and decides to just read the Lead, they'll have an adequate understanding of it, and won't end up feeling confused. While the proposed addition is technically accurate, the result is that it would muddy the picture without further detailed explanation. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought we'd work out a proposal on the talk page rather than going back and forth on the article, but we can do it this way, too. You reintroduced a sentence which I had removed as not essential for summarizing how pending changes works, and is only a rough analogy, as there are consequences for anyone trying to edit the page after there is a pending change in the queue. I suggest omitting the sentence starting with "Like Semi protection...".
I'm a bit confused in that you asked for the description to be shorter, and yet you have lengthened it. Nonetheless, it seems like a reasonable summary; I'll have a closer look to see if I can tighten up anything. isaacl ( talk) 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think that most of the description is just a repetition of the lead, and so can be merged into the lead (see the discussion thread above). However, if we are going to keep the description section, then it should be at least as clear as the lead, and so I believe it should not have an abbreviated version of what is in the lead. If the wording that has been worked out for the lead is agreed upon as being concise and accurate, then I'd prefer to just re-use it. If there are any additional points of clarification that anyone would like to add, then I can work on incorporating them into the text. isaacl ( talk) 16:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, done. Ready for RfC now? Gigs ( talk) 20:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Please direct comments to Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_3#Discussion_on_draft_PC_policy after that RfC is open. Gigs ( talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused about something. If a user makes an "unconfirmed" edit so that there are pending changes, and then if other users make "confirmed" edits before a reviewer had reviewed the pending changes, then what happens? Do you get article "branching"? Is there some kind of a " merge" process? Or would a "confirmed" editor be editing from the "head" revision and then automatically cause the "pending" changes to be accepted even though the confirmed editor is not a "reviewer"?
It would happen like this:
What effect does the "confirmed" edit have on the "unconfirmed" edits? Am I missing something?
Thanks, -- Wykypydya ( talk) 08:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Pending changes goes live on Saturday. We've had enough discussions and RfCs and so on: now it is time to actually roll it out.
Are we ready?
Last night, I granted reviewer rights to a user and tried to use {{ reviewer granted}}. It was completely out-of-date so I've updated it. It'll need to be updated again after pending changes is activated. It might be useful if we actually worked out all the steps that need to be taken. One thing very high on the list would be a detailed notice on WP:AN explaining the new policy to admins. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the worst of the outdated content there, but I think the page needs considerably more work. More eyes needed. Rivertorch ( talk) 16:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeing some inappropriate PC requests come in on RFPP. I wrote the above linked essay to help people understand the limitations of PC and why they exist. This essay material might possibly be better of merged into a section here. I'll leave that up to you guys. Move the WP:PCC shortcut to the section it lands in if you do, so people have an easy way to turn inappropriate requests down at RFPP. Gigs ( talk) 21:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused, my understanding from the RFCs was that an edit that was pending review, when reverted by someone with the reviewer right (and I assume supersets of that right) would be automatically accepted. Yet at [2] I reverted a vandal using WP:TW and it did not automatically accept the reversion, despite there being no other intervening unreviewed edits. What is going on with that? Monty 845 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's an issue I noticed. Many admins believe that semi-protection should be used more than PC. I'd like to propose that on request current semi-protection pages can be downgraded to PC as long as there are no current issues with the page. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
(indent)
Tom's analysis is correct if the article has a low edit rate. If the article has a high edit rate, there is the chance that (auto)confirmed editors will have to wait for their edit to be reviewed before it is shown, which is an hoop they wouldn't have to jump through with semi. This arises when an (auto)confirmed editor edits after a new editor but before a reviewer has reviewed. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It differs as once there is a pending edit in the queue, the protection level in a sense upgrades to a higher one, where all subsequent edits by non-reviewers are held in abeyance, pending approval. isaacl ( talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about whether we should have templates that are added and removed when the article gains and loses pending changes status (to be consistent with our practice for other protection levels), rather than relying on the MediaWiki interface and user scripts. Cheers, Bovlb ( talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Recently, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey had both PC and semi applied to it. I've just had a quick discussion with the protecting admin on his talk page, and I can't see anything in the policy about this, nor do I remember it in the discussions. This isn't a criticism of that protection, but I wondered what others thought about the concept. To me it seems like double protection. Ged UK 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The edit rate shows no sign of slowing down. Maybe it will in another week or so, when the hype around the film had died down. Until then, its probably best to keep it semied. Yaris678 ( talk) 15:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
So just so I understand this, as semi is also on, all edits are automatically accepted and don't need to be reviewed? Ged UK 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I notice that the article on Jay Westerveld has been given PC protection with the stated reason "Edit warring / Content dispute: see talk page".
WP:Protection policy says "Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage." This statement is reiterated here at WP:PC. Am I missing something?
Perhaps the protecting admin considers it to be a non-genuine content dispute. I can definitely see that the new users may not understand the finer points of WP:UNDUE... but that still sounds like a genuine content dispute to me. It's not the same as someone inserting blatant falsehoods into the article.
But maybe I'm drawing too tight a definition of non-genuine content dispute. Opinions please!
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't semi-protect these articles anymore so I propose doing this so that IP vandalism wouldn't get to the Main Page. -- Николай95 ( talk) 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There are currently 2 pending revisions on Gun control where a user vandalized, and then self-reverted. They are currently pending, but I cant see a way to reject them both, only accept them both. The UI says it will let me reject just the first change, but that seems like a weird split. Assistance/guidance appreciated. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Monty just put the full table back with an edit summary saying there are articles under PC2 protection ... why is PC2 being used? - Dank ( push to talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for my ineptitude, but I am totally unable to figure out how to reject a vandal edit and then accept the following reasonable edit at Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. It now lists my edit rejecting the former as pending review and won't let me change the pre-existing version to reproduce the latter without vetting my own edit! I'm an admin; surely I don't still have to apply for the relevant permission? Sorry folks, I am unwatching the article and any others on my watchlist to which pending changes gets applied, someone else will have to deal with it. I hadn't realized that in addition to being rammed down our throats, this thing was going to be impossible to master. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at this. I was reviewing Special:PendingChanges, saw the edit in question ( [4]) -- it looked fine, but first I clicked edit to make one more little modification. Based on my understanding of Pending Changes (and the helpful editnotice that showed that "when I edited, I would also be inserting the IP edit"..yadda yadda), I made the change, and clicked save. After saving, though, I was brought back to the review screen...for my own edit! Why on earth would I need to "review" my own changes? — Theopolisme ( talk) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that as I am a reviewer, my changes were not subject to review but were automatically accepted. However, this appears to show otherwise. Am I allowed to accept my own changes and why is this necessary? Automatic Strikeout ( T • C) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm also a reviewer. However, if I revert changes using Twinkle, I have to accept my own changes. Does Twinkle reverts by autoconfirmed editors/reviewers on PC pages need to be accepted? Arctic Kangaroo 02:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just reverted Princes Group to the last reviewed version but it is not accepted as reviewed - why not? What do I as an editor with 7 years and 20,000 edits on my record, and no administrative action against me ever, need to do so that my edits are accepted as valid? It is quite frankly insulting to be told my edits need to be reviewed, no way to treat long term good editors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Please can you change the details for Adam Gemili - his correct height and weight are as follows.
Height 180cm weight 78kg
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.219.64 ( talk) 18:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! Has anyone, other than User:Nbound who has reported the issue here, seen User:Addbot having a pending change? Or any other bot that has the bot flag? ·addshore· talk to me! 09:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I know that there are currently pending revisions to pages on my watchlist. I don't care to review them. Is there any way to get rid of this annoying message? (I want the pages on my watchlist. I just don't like pending changes...) -- Onorem ( talk) 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Pending changes are visible in the edit history, where they are marked as pending review." (paragraph three)
At David Bowie: Revision history I see that some changes are marked "Visual editor", some "automatically accepted", some "accepted by ..." (all three annotations are new to me), none pending. The difference report does distinguish "[accepted revision]" and "[pending revision]". [6]
This feature and thus its documentation is entirely new to me. -- P64 ( talk) 16:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Could we please get some documentation on the top of Special:AdvancedReviewLog please? Currently there is no clue on the page wtf is going on and what these are. I'd suggest some text and links myself, but to be honest I'm pretty sketchy myself. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The first two entries in the FAQ imply that if an IP makes an edit, and an autoconfirmed non-reviewer undoes it, the edit won't automatically be accepted. However, I recently did just that, and my edit was automatically accepted ( diff). I'm not sure exactly which statement on the page is wrong, or if I'm interpreting something wrong. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Just thought a mention of the pages currently subject to PC level 2 should be made again. [7]
Obviously the office action stays, but thought another discussion on the rest would be a good idea. Monty 845 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than the office action (that's a bit puzzling unto itself, but whatever) these should all be undone or changed to some other form of protection. One would assume that the protecting admins were not aware that the community has rejected PC2 while accepting PC1. That distinction is clear to those of us that have been heavily involved in getting to where we are now but may be lost on those who did not participate in the long, arduous process that got us to where we are now. One of the biggest obstacles was a lack of trust, the feeling that a fait accompli had been used to foist PC ont he community. If we don't want to lose what trust the community has placed in this tool we should start by approaching the admins who issued these protections and asking them to reconsider in light of the fact that we simply are not supposed to be using PC2 right now, or possibly ever. If they are unwilling to reconsider or unavailable the protections should simply be undone. PC2 absolutely should not be used until the community has explicitly approved it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This just added to the edit history of Wikipedia:Pending changes:
How ironic! davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the FAQ, the only non-article pages that are eligible for pending changes are "pages in Wikipedia namespace reserved for testing at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing." Irony aside, this page is quite clearly not a candidate for pending changes protection and it should be removed. Quite frankly, the vandalism is so sporadic I don't think any form of protection is necessary. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Just in case someone wants a more significant explanation about templates:
In practice, right now, using Pending Changes on templates or other transcluded pages is possible but pretty pointless. We can force pages to display only accepted versions of a template if and only if both the template and the article are under Pending Changes. So we can't say, "Look, moderately high-risk template, let's put it under PC and then nobody can vandalize a thousand articles at once." We'd have to put both the template and all thousand articles under PC to do that.
If we really wanted unprotected pages to display only accepted versions of a PC-protected template, then that would definitely require new code. Additionally, the devs I spoke to were somewhat concerned that such an enhancement might have some significant performance issues. The reason that we WP:Don't worry about performance is because they're rightly cautious about creating and deploying features that the infrastructure might not be able to support. So even if we want it, we might not be able to get it any time soon. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am probably guilty of not reading all the text here, as I am busy today. However, what I read on the proposal page is a great first step toward doing away with "anyone can edit Wikipedia". Here is my opinion: The unregistered user's edits being "temporary until reviewed" and not displayed is wonderful. My objection is, I don't need a reviewer to review the changes "I" make on my watched pages. So, if I see a vandal edit, or an advertizement disguised as an edit, I should be able to save the reviewers some work and revert the unregistered editor's comments when I am positive they are baloney. "pending or not"-thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Wondering what happens when I accept a change, I found myself instead in someone's essay about how Wikilife is tough, so get on with it and don't let it bother you. Shouldn't the redirect go here? Jim.henderson ( talk) 21:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
mergefrom: Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
Please comment further. Tag my name if you wanna gimme a nudge to reply. :) Thanks. --- SzMithrandir ( talk) 18:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that. I mentioned those because in many cases the content were just redundant. Since the content is fine, I will go ahead and fix the old links and new links (WikiData). SzMithrandir ( talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The two pages describe different (though related) things. Shouldn't merge. If there's agreement, can we remove the proposed merge boxes? -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Pending Changes the same as PC-1? It's been confusing with the RFCs the past year. Assuming I'm on the right talk page, I have recently seen how PC-1 works in reality. Here's how I see it:
No protection at all:
PC-1
So, it really changes nothing at all for non auto-confirmed editors, unless you count that their edits aren't really seen until confirmed by someone else. So what? What it really changes, is that it makes more work for registered editors. Meanwhile, non auto-confirmed editors are just doing what they want to do anyway. What's the point in this? PC-1 does not seem to me to be doing anything useful. — Maile ( talk) 22:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This help page states "If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title". But this has not happened to me, I had a "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." message, instead. So, I had to go to history and manually pick up the actual last version (a trick not easy to an experienced user, and not explained in this help page)
(Maybe because the pending version that I was going to edit was by myself?) -- 109.53.231.99 ( talk) 21:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe it's now been a couple of years since we enabled Pending Changes (type 1) on En.
Has there been any organized review, once we got past the "test" phase, of how well PC is working? Indicia would be the ratio of bad edits kept out of articles to good ones delayed, how long it takes edits to get past the reviewers, and so forth?
Relatedly, is there a cogent summary (in English) of how well PC has worked on other language projects that use it more widely? My thanks for any information or links anyone can provide. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be two levels of pending changes protection. Yet this page does not mention these levels anywhere. I understand there's rfc's and work in progress, but that still does not excuse the fact that nothing at all is being said about a tool that obviously already is implemented. Please state something about these levels, even if only "there exists two levels of protection, consensus about directions and instructions have not yet been achieved". Thx CapnZapp ( talk) 08:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There are currently five pages under PC protection in the Wikipedia namespace [9]. I truly fail to see the utility of using PC outside of mainspace. Should the individual admins be pinged as in the PC2 discussion above? — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 04:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Like the discussion above, it's months or even a year too soon to start a formal discussion, but be thinking about whether having "approve=reviewer" will be "good enough" for any future PC2 implementation given how easy it has been (and still is?) to get the "reviewer" bit, and if not, should there be a harder-to-qualify-for "reviewer2" class of users that can review PC2-pending pages, or should that job be left to admins (i.e. "reviewer=admins" as described above)?
Again, this is something to just think about.
My personal hope is that these extensions are implemented in the software, but that 6 months from now the English Wikipedia is running so smoothly (i.e. fast response times) with respect to responding to {{ requested edit}}s and edits awaiting pending changes approvals that most editors won't see a need to change anything, and that any use of "approve=reviewer2" or "approve=admin" on this Wikipedia will only be needed for WP:OFFICE actions (similar to the current use of PC2 in Conventional PCI). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Defined: PC-0 means anyone can edit (just like PC-1) but any confirmed or autoconfirmed editor can approve edits and edits by confirmed and autoconfirmed edits are automatically accepted.
I think it would be useful to have "PC-0" be the default preferred protection instead of semi-protection on most semi-protected pages. The exception would be pages where logged-in editors seeing the bad edit would cause significant harm. BLP-attacks by impractical-to-whack-a-mole-block new or unregistered editors would be an example where semi-protection would be better than PC-0 as proposed here.
Technical challenges: The code to do PC would have to be changed to accept multiple classes of "reviewers" - the current reviewers that are used for PC1, and a second "class" that simply consists of everyone who is either confirmed or autoconfirmed.
Possible arguments against: There may be a "slippery slope" argument of using PC-0 for pages that would not qualify for semi-protection. That is not my intent. My intent is that it would only be used for pages that currently qualify for semi-protection and would likely be semi-protected under current rules. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I edited a page where edits by unregistered or new users are subject to review. If a page is protected in this way, does the review process apply to all users (new and old)? I have been editing for seven years and yet my edits to the page are still subject to review. Is there any reason for this? Thanks. JayJ47 ( talk) 04:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There's discussion at WikiProject Articles for Creation about utilizing PC2 solely to protect Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants so the AfC Helper script and draft articles aren't abused. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite our belief that there has been "no consensus" for Pending Changes level 2, it was imposed indefinitely at Zoe Quinn. [13] Now this is understandable, when we recognize that censorship is the sole pillar of Wikipedia, and this, being a controversial issue in the news, obviously needs to be censored and told from the right point of view. Apparently people have been posting what so far as I know is publicly available information about Quinn from a variety of news sources, and the admins want to keep "review" of these edits tightly coupled with their deletion with WP:REVDEL. (For those who keep track of these things, this is by now fairly mild for the censorship Wikipedia uses to impose its spin on the news; for example the AfD for David Cawthorne Haines was "suppressed" instead, with no trace visible even to admins, because some British news sources didn't want to repeat the name while the rest of the world was giving human interest stories and interviews with his wife) People here think that the RfC is what is used to establish consensus, but really, on Wikipedia, Consensus is defined as an edict imposed from above. Who above, I don't really follow; knowing that is beyond our pay grade. Wnt ( talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding was that if there are pending changes, a subsequent edit by someone who does not have the reviewer privilege will go into the pending queue. However, when I reverted an edit that was pending to List of Stanley Cup champions, my reversion was flagged as "automatically accepted", as can be seen in the the history. This seems contrary to the FAQ on Wikipedia:Pending changes, where it says that multiple edits made by different users that add up to a null edit are not automatically accepted. Can someone help clarify this behaviour? Thanks! isaacl ( talk) 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium ( talk) 12:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's months too early to propose this formally so soon after the recent PC2 RFC closure, but I want to put a bug in people's ears to think about this over the next few months:
Even if it's not desirable on the English Wikipedia, are there other Wikimedia Wikipedias or non-Wikimedia web sites that use the Wikimedia software where this might make sense to implement, thereby justifying the cost of a software change? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This actually was the 'full flagged protection' level of the original trial proposal. But it was found to be of too little use in the discussions of its implementation and was replaced by 'level 2 pending changes protection' (and we know how that one turned out too). Cenarium ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but I see that there's been consensus for level 2 PCP on some articles, ANI archive. This is as I predicted, there are some uses and it was a good idea to propose this. And an absence of community consensus for global use doesn't prevent a community consensus for a specific use. Cenarium ( talk) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It does prevent it,small local groups shouldn't go against global decisions. You leave the tool on the table and it gets abused in time. Mion ( talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is now available at Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, it has been thoroughly rewritten. I welcome all opinions, though it isn't yet the time for a definitive determination of consensus, so this is really about first impressions or suggesting modifications and clarifications. In light of previous PC discussions, consensus should preferably be assessed in an organized RFC, or it gets unwieldy, so I've made a draft for it, I also invite comments on it. Feel free to copy edit and such both of those. Cenarium ( talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for a way of putting something on my page to see when there are outstanding changes for review. If pending changes was a category something like {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Special:PendingChanges}} Edits Need [[Special:PendingChanges|Reviewing]]! would work. However it's not. Is there any way of getting either a count or a yes/no from the special:PendingChanges page to see when changes are outstanding? SPACKlick ( talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way to signify to the reviewer why the protection is in place, when they're reviewing an edit? The Jon Gaunt article is pp1-protected because of IP editors repeatedly adding a running joke that the obscure right-wing British radio pundit starred in the American sitcom Diff'rent Strokes. The last two such edits have been waved through by editors who presumably just saw a "TV show added to list" edit regarding somebody they'd never heard of and took it in good faith.
I assume there are other articles which have been pp1-protected for similar vandalism which would seem innocuous to a reviewer unfamiliar with the subject. Is it possible (or worth implementing a way) to include a short "this article is protected because..." sentence where the reviewer can see it, when asking them if they want to approve an edit? Or should articles just go under regular protection when the nature of the vandalism wouldn't be clear to every reviewer? -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm not clear if this discussion should be here or at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing. So if I'm in the wrong place, please move or tell me to re-ask there.
Anyway, I just accepted a group of three pending changes at Stephenie Meyer, (three the edits made 24 November, between 20:43 and 20:44). The first two were obvious vandalism by an IP user (67.80.62.61), and the third was another IP user (73.159.24.89) reverting the (pending) vandalism. So after my accept, the article was in the state it was before all three edits. Now the same result would have been had by reverting them (via the PC interface). So what was the appropriate action? Accept? Revert? Something else? Doesn't matter? Rwessel ( talk) 21:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewer powers. If I come across an article with one pending change, I know what to do. But if there are several, and I want to accept some and reject some, which end should I start at? The answer seems obvious - start with the oldest, otherwise some of the pending edits might not make sense. But I think that when I tried that, it said something like "You are about to accept all 8 outstanding edits, ok?" Maproom ( talk) 19:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Permanently deleted from history never to be reinstated including all illegal information that can violate any policy that is used to break private interests of all organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:B4C5:BC00:FD50:8C3:3C70:DEA3 ( talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the text from this section to Talk:Gamergate controversy#Call for deletion posted accidentally on a different talk page. I think that is where it was intended to be placed. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Yaris678 ( talk) 08:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was reviewing some pending changes on Steven Kynman and when I clicked the "Show pending changes protection log" it said it could not find the reason it was protected. Has this occurred for anyone else before on this or another page? Is this a bug in the software, and if so who should I notify? Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
On WP:PC, there's a statement, "It was determined by consensus that pending changes could only be used on articles. ..." In the most recent discussion of PC1 implementation that I can find, however— Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3—the closer concluded, "There was very strong consensus to enable the use of Pending Changes throughout all namespaces." I've glanced through the archives of this talk page and can't find any consensus that PC should be used only in mainspace. Can anyone clarify this apparent contradiction? Deor ( talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering if there is a way to dismiss the "pending revisions" notification on the watchlist page when a user determines that they will not be responding to the pending edit, without removing the page from the watchlist. Mlpearc ( open channel) 23:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Does WP:3RR affect reverting pending changes? Can this be made clear on the policy page? -- Gestrid ( talk) 22:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal for deferred changes, a way for bots, the edit filter or ORES to defer for review suspicious edits. The RFC is at Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Cenarium ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal to lower the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage. Please comment at the RfC. — Andy W. ( talk) 00:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC regarding (1) the streamlining of the pending changes reviewing process and (2) the proposed protection of certain articles with Level 1 Pending Changes protection. Please do not comment here—your support or opposition to the proposals should be indicated in the relevant sections, and general discussion should be occur in the "General discussion" section at the bottom of the RfC page. Thank you. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible and feasible to put the template on the very top of the page? (If I'm not mistaken, there was a notice at the top of the page recently about one of the RfCs.) This would allow PC Reviewers easy access to past and current RfCs effecting pending changes. If it's not feasible to put that template on the page, perhaps another template could be created that only has very recently closed PC RfCs (perhaps with the result included) and open PC RfCs. — Gestrid ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The RfC has passed in its entirety. See Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016 for the full closing evaluation. — Gestrid ( talk) 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Pending changes are not necessary. Because it's the same with semi protection and full protection.Semi protected pages can be editted after a request of edit protected is accepted,and level 1 of Pending changes also shows drafts of pending editions.I think Pending changes can be replaced by semi protection and full protection. TEntEn4279 ( talk) 11:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A display may become available showing the current size of the pending changes backlog, which reviewers could place on their user pages (same idea as the "Defcon" boxes for levels of vandalism). Please see this discussion and add any thoughts you may have on format and thresholds : Noyster (talk), 13:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
Pending Changes backlog}}
is now available. Reviewers are welcome to transclude it to their userpages, or to tweak it or make other versions. Thanks to
DatGuy for creating
the bot that provides the current size of the queue
: Noyster
(talk), 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)The discussion is relisted. You may comment there as soon as possible. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a chart showing the total of pages protected over a given period of time to track usage/need for the protection level? Currently there are <3000 pages under a WhiteLock. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
One of the big issues I have with PCs is that it is slow. One way to speed it up would be to remove the need to confirm. I do not need a second screen to appear to confirm that I do not want to accept the change, "one click" is enough. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe pending changes is pretty standard on the German Wikipedia. Maybe useful to mention that in the article.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there anyway to turn off the watchlist banner for pending changes? It has consistently been the most annoying thing about Wikipedia's site design for me for almost a year. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just for information, I've reported a small bug in the Pending Changes interface in which the blue Submit button suddenly becomes the old 'Save changes' one. Details can be found here. Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been accepting/rejecting many changes but I am not seeing the same in my contributions. There should be some way to give credit.. Anshuk ( talk) 05:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This may not be the place to bring this up (or at least, there may be a better place), but I noticed that the filtering on the Advanced review log is kind of weird. I'm not clear on how the Review action categories map to... you know... actual actions.
Automatic
or Manual
) are attributed to a particular reviewer. It strikes me as odd to read so many "<editorname> automatically reviewed a version of..." entries, as that seems to use a different definition of the word "automatic" than I'm used to.Accepted
Type: Manual
produces no results. Apparently only Reaccepted
or Unaccepted
are manual actions? Most of the normal reviews I'd consider "manually accepted" are actually showing up in the "Reaccepted" filter bucket. I would expect very few items on that list, but clearly that expectation is incorrect.Unaccepted
Type: Automatic
not only produces no results (which I suppose makes sense, unlike the previous items), but if you request that combo the search filtering box disappears!-- FeRDNYC ( talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
What happens to the text you type into the comment field, when you accept a pending change?
I'm fairly new to pending changes, and I've seen my added comments go into the standard edit summary field when I've rejected a pending change upon review. Just now, I accepted an IP edit at A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film). I thought that the acceptance of an IP's deletion of 513 bytes might be worthy of an explanation, so I gave one in the comment field. But after the acceptance was processed, I don't see that comment anywhere.
I get it that the acceptance just tags the last edit rather than provide a new edit with a new &oldid, but if there's nowhere in the db to hang an acceptance comment and render it, then the review page should gray out the field, and prevent you from placing the cursor in it in the first place. Mathglot ( talk) 03:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
[Accepted by Bloggins]
: Noyster
(talk), 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Readers of this page may be interested in WP:VPPRO#RfC: should we automatically pending-changes protect TFAs?. Please comment there. -- Izno ( talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
When accepting pending changes, one of the possible outcomes after pressing "Accept revision" is a page which reads:
Action complete
Revision of {{PAGENAME}} flagged. ([view reviewed versions])
You may want to view [this accepted revision] and see if it is now the [latest accepted revision] of this page.
...Where the bracketed strings are links.
I feel like, as a reviewer, I should be able to understand that page, but I have absolutely no idea what it means, why it's only sometimes shown, how to interpret the information on it, or what I should do in response to seeing it. Even the "You may want to view..." suggestion doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense to me. (At least, I've never seen the version I accepted not be the latest accepted version, so I've started just ignoring that suggestion.) Does anyone have any insights into... all that? -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 01:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This is silly, but I can't seem to sort out the history at Me Too movement. It only looks like I did one rollback, but I actually tried several attempts at either accepting or rejecting pending changes, and a couple additional rollbacks that didn't have any affect. GMG talk 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Accepting a later change seems to leave earlier change no longer reviewable. Or, that's how it appears to this guy who doesn't know this very well. There were a series of 4 changes at Artificial intelligence I started by accepting the most recent one and then the earlier ones seemed no longer reviewable. In the end I just save the latest version of the article as an attempted workaround. North8000 ( talk) 13:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How can we implement this on talk pages? Mine is continually vandalized by a sock IP, so I don't want them removing stuff, but I do want legit IPs to be able to leave queries. CTJF83 chat 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me where I will find the list of selection criteria for the original trial articles, please? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'm sure some people will comment on this, telling me to stop beating the dead horse, that there was a poll, that an agreement was reached, and the changes implemented. Now, all of this is true, except for one thing: an agreement was never reached. True, there was a rough consensus to use pending changes, but beyond that, there was no agreement. There were surely at least half a dozen implementations suggested, from the uselessly conservative to the hopelessly absurd. Yet still the trial rattled forwards like a runaway train, angering many, confusing more, and satisfying no-one at all. Pending changes was implemented, all right. On about 200 pages. Except no-one's allowed to apply it to any more, or remove those already aboard. This is ridiculous, and I'm sure everyone will agree that it is entirely unmaintainable. We need real consensus, before it's too late. Discuss. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As a small aside, I think that if and when there ever is a centralized discussion on the topic, there should be some kind of conspicuous notice above watchlists, or something. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, this proposal should say that it should only be used as a response to vandalism. Or if there are other circumstances where it would be appropriate to use it, then state clearly what those are. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat put off by the idea of needing approval to get a "reviewer" flag. If PC gets activated, I'd love to be one. But, I've seen some of the requests for rollback. I'm forced to use IE, so since Twinkle is not supported in IE, and there is a clear (if unspoken) requirement to have experience with Twinkle, I will never have rollback access. I'm afraid that well-meaning people that want to contribute will be turned off by an "RfR" process. Psu256 ( talk) 04:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We should talk less and do more, learn by doing and learning on the job... I suggest to implement PC on BLPs with less than 5 watchers:
Sorry. I haven't been following this. Can someone please explain what problem this solves, or point me to an explanation? What it's good for? I can see it takes the burden of approving page edits off admins. Was that the problem? Were admins being overwhelmed by requests to approve an edit? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a pending request for reviewing of The Biggest Loser (season 2) that was there for over 2 hours. Some Reviewers came and tried to see if it would be accepted or rejected many times and it still not reviewed. Please advise. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! The Finnish Wikipedia may be implementing Flagged Revisions in some form, and as I have been going through the help pages and other manuals, one (thousand) question(s) remain unanswered. As the Flagged Revisions extension creates two new user groups: Editors (who do not edit but review) and Reviewers (who do not review but validate) in addition to the regular Users (who do edit), I would like to know what kind of a creature the reviewer is here in the Pending Changes trial?
Is he/she an Editor (FlaggedRevs) who can review the changes, but for convenience is called a Reviewer here, or is she a Reviewer (FlaggedRevs) who may both review and validate? And more to the point, which user rights (review, autoreview, validate, patrol, autopatrol) does the PC-Reviever have? And what kind of flags or markers (Sighted, Quality, Checked) can she set to the versions (revisions), or is the PC rather a special version of the Flagged Revs extension that is particularly calibrated to suit the needs of the English Wikipedia? And what is the difference between action: review and action: validate? And... (More questions available on request :) -- Pxos ( talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Who chooses the articles on which is this tool being tested? According to what clue do they choose the articles? Are they chosen randomly?-- Me ne frego ( talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How was this edit from an IP automatically accepted? -- B ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If an established user edits a page under PC on which there are unaccepted edits outstanding, but does not specifically accept or reject them, do they then become automatically accepted or do they remain outstanding? If the former is the case I see that as a bit of a problem, vandalism could accidentally be accepted. SpinningSpark 09:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we need a FAQ, I've started one (at the top of this page), please add. Cenarium ( talk) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Has more or less been hijacked. It does not appear that any plan aimed at resolving the main issues in a timely fashion is going to be allowed to move forward. I have drafted a possible policy for the use of PC and am posting it here because the rfc is broken and I've pretty much lost all hope of it being allowed to be set back on track. This is based on the temporary policy we had during the trial but has been significantly altered to reflect the results of phases one and two of the rfc. User:Beeblebrox/pc draft Use it, ignore it, modify it, whatever. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand the point or meaning of an RfC. -- Polental ( talk) 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We need help for 2 articles
You may review 1 here Also, for 2, do it here ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 22:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Is pending changes still active and if so, is there somewhere to request it for pages? — Mike Allen 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick notice that FlaggedRevs was included in the April engineering update:
Status: Aaron Schulz continued to refactor the extension and to fix bugs. He improved the API error messages, added other features to the API, and worked on performance improvements.
Full post here Steven Walling at work 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
These two sets of numbers are right beside each other on this page... I'm just wondering how it was that a second RfC with 1/4 the participation ended something that over twice as many editors supported the continued use of... Why wasn't an RfC held to determine how it was implemented, rather than an RfC to remove it when it was functioning pretty well, based on the backwards notion of this site that things must be discussed before being implemented, no matter how productive the tool is. It's a real shame that the second RfC is held to any regard. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a solid policy and I agree with the user above who questioned about 400-150 being out-voted by 125-65 or something like that. The policy is clear, and I think should be used. Go Phightins! ( talk) 02:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As a new editor I am still exploring so please forgive silly questions. Sometimes in the academic community an issue becomes a matter of extremely contentious debate. Global warming is one such issue. In cases where the debate sometimes gets heated, and both sides have valid points and consider the science settled, I wonder what would be involved in dividing such pages into two separate talk pages?-- CometHunter ( talk) 20:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)CometHunter
Because it is old, and should probably soon be replaced by a template describing the outcome of the 2012 RfC, currently still ongoing. I have also updated Template:Pending changes trial. Cheers, theFace 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. The second sentence of the Trial results states: "None of these edits could have been made if the pages had remained semi-protected." In fact, all of those edits could have been made, they just could not be made directly by unregistered or new users. An example of an accurate sentence would be "If the pages had remained semi-protected, the anonymous editors would have had to request on the article's talk pages that the edits be made, rather than making the edits themselves."
As a more minor note, to improve NPOV, the 2/3 of edits that were not of acceptable quality should be given at least equal weight as the 1/3 of edits that were of acceptable quality.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Are there any statistics on how many acts of vandalism are perpetrated by unregistered/non-autoconfirmed users? And how many such acts are sock puppetry? An indication of the scale of such acts?
I hesitate to support proposition 2 because I'm not sure if there is a genuine need for this tool. Supaiku ( talk) 06:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The current method encourages potential editors (and vandals, Lord knows!) that "anyone" can edit and see their changes immediately (important for young people, many of whom don't make good editors but a few of which do).
You may not want to slow down potential new editors.
When this was first proposed, the admins were just getting a really good handle on auto-reverting vandalism and (finally) cracking down on obvious vandals, which they had been ignoring, allowing "the system" to handle them. bots now handle half or more of the vandalism I see. Hurray for the bots! And the bots seem to pick up more with time with only rare errors. Also, questionable edits are flagged "references removed," "tags removed," that sort of thing which usually trigger a quick revert by watching editors.
I often have to "amend" input from a new user. It is easier to see it "in place" when I do so.
The quality of content should jump tremendously, but at the cost of losing potential editors. We would only have edit warring left, which is often transparent to casual readers. Near-perfect copy or "pretty close."
Note that little read articles will have slow(er) input, but higher quality.
I think I can live with the old system now that vandals frequently are reverted by bots and/or treated seriously by admins. Maybe the bots will evolve into AIs! :) Student7 ( talk) 18:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
With the overwhelming support for this feature in the recent RFC, what is the future of pending changes? When will it be implemented? -- xensyria T 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In light of the recent RFC close, I suggest we retain the current version of WP:Pending changes for historical purposes at a new location in preparation for using WP:Pending changes to describe the current consensus regarding pending changes moving forward, and eventually the policy for its use with a see also to the more detailed historical information currently here. Monty 845 04:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
As stated in the above topic, we need to either update this page, or make a new page and move this to an archive to show the results of RfC 2012. Can someone with more knowledge go ahead and do this? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you want to see on this page? The policy or a how-to guide? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have integrated the changes from the various RfCs, and what was remaining that was valid in the provisional policy (not much). I have marked this and WP:Reviewing as proposals, and moved most of the RfC matter that would not belong in a final policy to WP:PC2012 Gigs ( talk) 17:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the new table, and I've finally been able to put a finger on what I don't like about it. Here's my reasoning: PC/2 is not going to go away. It will always be in the admin toolset, and it will probably come up in another RfC in a few months. The differences between PC/1 and PC/2 need to be explained somewhere, preferably on this page. The best way to show the difference between PC/1 and PC/2 is to show it in the table. To write it in text would take a paragraph, and that paragraph will be confusing. When I first learned about Pending Changes I didn't understand it until after I saw the graph, even though I had read scores of paragraphs about it. That is why I think the full graph should be shown on this page, if nowhere else. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we are all roughly in agreement. It's not very desirable to mention PC/2 here since it unnecessarily complicates the issue at this point in time. At the same time admins need to be aware it exists so they don't use it accidentally. I'm OK with putting that on the help page only. Since I'm sure people will monitor the PC/2 list and use appropriate trouting on admins that make the mistake, I don't think it's a big deal.
A secondary matter is that we do want to have PC/2 documented somewhere so that we don't shut out the possibility of future community discussions on turning it on. I think a new non-policy non-guideline page documenting PC/2, summarizing the consensus and reasons why people objected to it in the past, with links to the discussions would be appropriate. We could link to that in our see-also here. That removes any distracting debate over how to describe PC/2 here, since this is "official" and the other summary page need not be anything but an informal compilation of information. Gigs ( talk) 14:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC temporarily placed on hold for further refinement and new questions. Discussion on this is here Gigs ( talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
BackgroundWe've had numerous RfCs, but there's a few places where wider feedback is still need prior to finalizing pending changes policy. Pending changes, level 1 only, will go live on December 1st. Many questions have already been discussed to death, so don't add any sections prior to discussing the issue in what is now the bottom section below on general feedback on the proposed policy text. Gigs ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC) New noticeboard or not?
Discussion
Must specific eligibility criteria be met for PC to be applied to a page?
Discussion
Possible additional hard requirements proposal 1
DiscussionIs it permissible to apply PC to all name spaces?
Discussion
Policy location
Discussion
Discussion on the stuff that's on the proposed policy page
Discussion |
As there was discussion on the effect of pending changes protection on registered users, I propose making the following change to the lead section:
I understand this adds additional complexity, but given the discussion I think it may be warranted. isaacl ( talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion the Lead section should only touch on the bare essentials, so when someone who knows nothing about Pending Changes and decides to just read the Lead, they'll have an adequate understanding of it, and won't end up feeling confused. While the proposed addition is technically accurate, the result is that it would muddy the picture without further detailed explanation. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought we'd work out a proposal on the talk page rather than going back and forth on the article, but we can do it this way, too. You reintroduced a sentence which I had removed as not essential for summarizing how pending changes works, and is only a rough analogy, as there are consequences for anyone trying to edit the page after there is a pending change in the queue. I suggest omitting the sentence starting with "Like Semi protection...".
I'm a bit confused in that you asked for the description to be shorter, and yet you have lengthened it. Nonetheless, it seems like a reasonable summary; I'll have a closer look to see if I can tighten up anything. isaacl ( talk) 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think that most of the description is just a repetition of the lead, and so can be merged into the lead (see the discussion thread above). However, if we are going to keep the description section, then it should be at least as clear as the lead, and so I believe it should not have an abbreviated version of what is in the lead. If the wording that has been worked out for the lead is agreed upon as being concise and accurate, then I'd prefer to just re-use it. If there are any additional points of clarification that anyone would like to add, then I can work on incorporating them into the text. isaacl ( talk) 16:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, done. Ready for RfC now? Gigs ( talk) 20:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Please direct comments to Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_3#Discussion_on_draft_PC_policy after that RfC is open. Gigs ( talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused about something. If a user makes an "unconfirmed" edit so that there are pending changes, and then if other users make "confirmed" edits before a reviewer had reviewed the pending changes, then what happens? Do you get article "branching"? Is there some kind of a " merge" process? Or would a "confirmed" editor be editing from the "head" revision and then automatically cause the "pending" changes to be accepted even though the confirmed editor is not a "reviewer"?
It would happen like this:
What effect does the "confirmed" edit have on the "unconfirmed" edits? Am I missing something?
Thanks, -- Wykypydya ( talk) 08:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Pending changes goes live on Saturday. We've had enough discussions and RfCs and so on: now it is time to actually roll it out.
Are we ready?
Last night, I granted reviewer rights to a user and tried to use {{ reviewer granted}}. It was completely out-of-date so I've updated it. It'll need to be updated again after pending changes is activated. It might be useful if we actually worked out all the steps that need to be taken. One thing very high on the list would be a detailed notice on WP:AN explaining the new policy to admins. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the worst of the outdated content there, but I think the page needs considerably more work. More eyes needed. Rivertorch ( talk) 16:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeing some inappropriate PC requests come in on RFPP. I wrote the above linked essay to help people understand the limitations of PC and why they exist. This essay material might possibly be better of merged into a section here. I'll leave that up to you guys. Move the WP:PCC shortcut to the section it lands in if you do, so people have an easy way to turn inappropriate requests down at RFPP. Gigs ( talk) 21:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused, my understanding from the RFCs was that an edit that was pending review, when reverted by someone with the reviewer right (and I assume supersets of that right) would be automatically accepted. Yet at [2] I reverted a vandal using WP:TW and it did not automatically accept the reversion, despite there being no other intervening unreviewed edits. What is going on with that? Monty 845 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's an issue I noticed. Many admins believe that semi-protection should be used more than PC. I'd like to propose that on request current semi-protection pages can be downgraded to PC as long as there are no current issues with the page. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
(indent)
Tom's analysis is correct if the article has a low edit rate. If the article has a high edit rate, there is the chance that (auto)confirmed editors will have to wait for their edit to be reviewed before it is shown, which is an hoop they wouldn't have to jump through with semi. This arises when an (auto)confirmed editor edits after a new editor but before a reviewer has reviewed. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It differs as once there is a pending edit in the queue, the protection level in a sense upgrades to a higher one, where all subsequent edits by non-reviewers are held in abeyance, pending approval. isaacl ( talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about whether we should have templates that are added and removed when the article gains and loses pending changes status (to be consistent with our practice for other protection levels), rather than relying on the MediaWiki interface and user scripts. Cheers, Bovlb ( talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Recently, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey had both PC and semi applied to it. I've just had a quick discussion with the protecting admin on his talk page, and I can't see anything in the policy about this, nor do I remember it in the discussions. This isn't a criticism of that protection, but I wondered what others thought about the concept. To me it seems like double protection. Ged UK 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The edit rate shows no sign of slowing down. Maybe it will in another week or so, when the hype around the film had died down. Until then, its probably best to keep it semied. Yaris678 ( talk) 15:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
So just so I understand this, as semi is also on, all edits are automatically accepted and don't need to be reviewed? Ged UK 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I notice that the article on Jay Westerveld has been given PC protection with the stated reason "Edit warring / Content dispute: see talk page".
WP:Protection policy says "Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage." This statement is reiterated here at WP:PC. Am I missing something?
Perhaps the protecting admin considers it to be a non-genuine content dispute. I can definitely see that the new users may not understand the finer points of WP:UNDUE... but that still sounds like a genuine content dispute to me. It's not the same as someone inserting blatant falsehoods into the article.
But maybe I'm drawing too tight a definition of non-genuine content dispute. Opinions please!
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't semi-protect these articles anymore so I propose doing this so that IP vandalism wouldn't get to the Main Page. -- Николай95 ( talk) 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
There are currently 2 pending revisions on Gun control where a user vandalized, and then self-reverted. They are currently pending, but I cant see a way to reject them both, only accept them both. The UI says it will let me reject just the first change, but that seems like a weird split. Assistance/guidance appreciated. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Monty just put the full table back with an edit summary saying there are articles under PC2 protection ... why is PC2 being used? - Dank ( push to talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for my ineptitude, but I am totally unable to figure out how to reject a vandal edit and then accept the following reasonable edit at Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. It now lists my edit rejecting the former as pending review and won't let me change the pre-existing version to reproduce the latter without vetting my own edit! I'm an admin; surely I don't still have to apply for the relevant permission? Sorry folks, I am unwatching the article and any others on my watchlist to which pending changes gets applied, someone else will have to deal with it. I hadn't realized that in addition to being rammed down our throats, this thing was going to be impossible to master. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at this. I was reviewing Special:PendingChanges, saw the edit in question ( [4]) -- it looked fine, but first I clicked edit to make one more little modification. Based on my understanding of Pending Changes (and the helpful editnotice that showed that "when I edited, I would also be inserting the IP edit"..yadda yadda), I made the change, and clicked save. After saving, though, I was brought back to the review screen...for my own edit! Why on earth would I need to "review" my own changes? — Theopolisme ( talk) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that as I am a reviewer, my changes were not subject to review but were automatically accepted. However, this appears to show otherwise. Am I allowed to accept my own changes and why is this necessary? Automatic Strikeout ( T • C) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm also a reviewer. However, if I revert changes using Twinkle, I have to accept my own changes. Does Twinkle reverts by autoconfirmed editors/reviewers on PC pages need to be accepted? Arctic Kangaroo 02:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just reverted Princes Group to the last reviewed version but it is not accepted as reviewed - why not? What do I as an editor with 7 years and 20,000 edits on my record, and no administrative action against me ever, need to do so that my edits are accepted as valid? It is quite frankly insulting to be told my edits need to be reviewed, no way to treat long term good editors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Please can you change the details for Adam Gemili - his correct height and weight are as follows.
Height 180cm weight 78kg
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.219.64 ( talk) 18:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! Has anyone, other than User:Nbound who has reported the issue here, seen User:Addbot having a pending change? Or any other bot that has the bot flag? ·addshore· talk to me! 09:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I know that there are currently pending revisions to pages on my watchlist. I don't care to review them. Is there any way to get rid of this annoying message? (I want the pages on my watchlist. I just don't like pending changes...) -- Onorem ( talk) 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Pending changes are visible in the edit history, where they are marked as pending review." (paragraph three)
At David Bowie: Revision history I see that some changes are marked "Visual editor", some "automatically accepted", some "accepted by ..." (all three annotations are new to me), none pending. The difference report does distinguish "[accepted revision]" and "[pending revision]". [6]
This feature and thus its documentation is entirely new to me. -- P64 ( talk) 16:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Could we please get some documentation on the top of Special:AdvancedReviewLog please? Currently there is no clue on the page wtf is going on and what these are. I'd suggest some text and links myself, but to be honest I'm pretty sketchy myself. Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The first two entries in the FAQ imply that if an IP makes an edit, and an autoconfirmed non-reviewer undoes it, the edit won't automatically be accepted. However, I recently did just that, and my edit was automatically accepted ( diff). I'm not sure exactly which statement on the page is wrong, or if I'm interpreting something wrong. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Just thought a mention of the pages currently subject to PC level 2 should be made again. [7]
Obviously the office action stays, but thought another discussion on the rest would be a good idea. Monty 845 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than the office action (that's a bit puzzling unto itself, but whatever) these should all be undone or changed to some other form of protection. One would assume that the protecting admins were not aware that the community has rejected PC2 while accepting PC1. That distinction is clear to those of us that have been heavily involved in getting to where we are now but may be lost on those who did not participate in the long, arduous process that got us to where we are now. One of the biggest obstacles was a lack of trust, the feeling that a fait accompli had been used to foist PC ont he community. If we don't want to lose what trust the community has placed in this tool we should start by approaching the admins who issued these protections and asking them to reconsider in light of the fact that we simply are not supposed to be using PC2 right now, or possibly ever. If they are unwilling to reconsider or unavailable the protections should simply be undone. PC2 absolutely should not be used until the community has explicitly approved it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This just added to the edit history of Wikipedia:Pending changes:
How ironic! davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the FAQ, the only non-article pages that are eligible for pending changes are "pages in Wikipedia namespace reserved for testing at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing." Irony aside, this page is quite clearly not a candidate for pending changes protection and it should be removed. Quite frankly, the vandalism is so sporadic I don't think any form of protection is necessary. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Just in case someone wants a more significant explanation about templates:
In practice, right now, using Pending Changes on templates or other transcluded pages is possible but pretty pointless. We can force pages to display only accepted versions of a template if and only if both the template and the article are under Pending Changes. So we can't say, "Look, moderately high-risk template, let's put it under PC and then nobody can vandalize a thousand articles at once." We'd have to put both the template and all thousand articles under PC to do that.
If we really wanted unprotected pages to display only accepted versions of a PC-protected template, then that would definitely require new code. Additionally, the devs I spoke to were somewhat concerned that such an enhancement might have some significant performance issues. The reason that we WP:Don't worry about performance is because they're rightly cautious about creating and deploying features that the infrastructure might not be able to support. So even if we want it, we might not be able to get it any time soon. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am probably guilty of not reading all the text here, as I am busy today. However, what I read on the proposal page is a great first step toward doing away with "anyone can edit Wikipedia". Here is my opinion: The unregistered user's edits being "temporary until reviewed" and not displayed is wonderful. My objection is, I don't need a reviewer to review the changes "I" make on my watched pages. So, if I see a vandal edit, or an advertizement disguised as an edit, I should be able to save the reviewers some work and revert the unregistered editor's comments when I am positive they are baloney. "pending or not"-thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Wondering what happens when I accept a change, I found myself instead in someone's essay about how Wikilife is tough, so get on with it and don't let it bother you. Shouldn't the redirect go here? Jim.henderson ( talk) 21:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
mergefrom: Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
Please comment further. Tag my name if you wanna gimme a nudge to reply. :) Thanks. --- SzMithrandir ( talk) 18:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that. I mentioned those because in many cases the content were just redundant. Since the content is fine, I will go ahead and fix the old links and new links (WikiData). SzMithrandir ( talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The two pages describe different (though related) things. Shouldn't merge. If there's agreement, can we remove the proposed merge boxes? -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Pending Changes the same as PC-1? It's been confusing with the RFCs the past year. Assuming I'm on the right talk page, I have recently seen how PC-1 works in reality. Here's how I see it:
No protection at all:
PC-1
So, it really changes nothing at all for non auto-confirmed editors, unless you count that their edits aren't really seen until confirmed by someone else. So what? What it really changes, is that it makes more work for registered editors. Meanwhile, non auto-confirmed editors are just doing what they want to do anyway. What's the point in this? PC-1 does not seem to me to be doing anything useful. — Maile ( talk) 22:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This help page states "If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title". But this has not happened to me, I had a "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." message, instead. So, I had to go to history and manually pick up the actual last version (a trick not easy to an experienced user, and not explained in this help page)
(Maybe because the pending version that I was going to edit was by myself?) -- 109.53.231.99 ( talk) 21:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe it's now been a couple of years since we enabled Pending Changes (type 1) on En.
Has there been any organized review, once we got past the "test" phase, of how well PC is working? Indicia would be the ratio of bad edits kept out of articles to good ones delayed, how long it takes edits to get past the reviewers, and so forth?
Relatedly, is there a cogent summary (in English) of how well PC has worked on other language projects that use it more widely? My thanks for any information or links anyone can provide. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be two levels of pending changes protection. Yet this page does not mention these levels anywhere. I understand there's rfc's and work in progress, but that still does not excuse the fact that nothing at all is being said about a tool that obviously already is implemented. Please state something about these levels, even if only "there exists two levels of protection, consensus about directions and instructions have not yet been achieved". Thx CapnZapp ( talk) 08:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There are currently five pages under PC protection in the Wikipedia namespace [9]. I truly fail to see the utility of using PC outside of mainspace. Should the individual admins be pinged as in the PC2 discussion above? — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 04:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Like the discussion above, it's months or even a year too soon to start a formal discussion, but be thinking about whether having "approve=reviewer" will be "good enough" for any future PC2 implementation given how easy it has been (and still is?) to get the "reviewer" bit, and if not, should there be a harder-to-qualify-for "reviewer2" class of users that can review PC2-pending pages, or should that job be left to admins (i.e. "reviewer=admins" as described above)?
Again, this is something to just think about.
My personal hope is that these extensions are implemented in the software, but that 6 months from now the English Wikipedia is running so smoothly (i.e. fast response times) with respect to responding to {{ requested edit}}s and edits awaiting pending changes approvals that most editors won't see a need to change anything, and that any use of "approve=reviewer2" or "approve=admin" on this Wikipedia will only be needed for WP:OFFICE actions (similar to the current use of PC2 in Conventional PCI). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Defined: PC-0 means anyone can edit (just like PC-1) but any confirmed or autoconfirmed editor can approve edits and edits by confirmed and autoconfirmed edits are automatically accepted.
I think it would be useful to have "PC-0" be the default preferred protection instead of semi-protection on most semi-protected pages. The exception would be pages where logged-in editors seeing the bad edit would cause significant harm. BLP-attacks by impractical-to-whack-a-mole-block new or unregistered editors would be an example where semi-protection would be better than PC-0 as proposed here.
Technical challenges: The code to do PC would have to be changed to accept multiple classes of "reviewers" - the current reviewers that are used for PC1, and a second "class" that simply consists of everyone who is either confirmed or autoconfirmed.
Possible arguments against: There may be a "slippery slope" argument of using PC-0 for pages that would not qualify for semi-protection. That is not my intent. My intent is that it would only be used for pages that currently qualify for semi-protection and would likely be semi-protected under current rules. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I edited a page where edits by unregistered or new users are subject to review. If a page is protected in this way, does the review process apply to all users (new and old)? I have been editing for seven years and yet my edits to the page are still subject to review. Is there any reason for this? Thanks. JayJ47 ( talk) 04:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There's discussion at WikiProject Articles for Creation about utilizing PC2 solely to protect Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants so the AfC Helper script and draft articles aren't abused. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite our belief that there has been "no consensus" for Pending Changes level 2, it was imposed indefinitely at Zoe Quinn. [13] Now this is understandable, when we recognize that censorship is the sole pillar of Wikipedia, and this, being a controversial issue in the news, obviously needs to be censored and told from the right point of view. Apparently people have been posting what so far as I know is publicly available information about Quinn from a variety of news sources, and the admins want to keep "review" of these edits tightly coupled with their deletion with WP:REVDEL. (For those who keep track of these things, this is by now fairly mild for the censorship Wikipedia uses to impose its spin on the news; for example the AfD for David Cawthorne Haines was "suppressed" instead, with no trace visible even to admins, because some British news sources didn't want to repeat the name while the rest of the world was giving human interest stories and interviews with his wife) People here think that the RfC is what is used to establish consensus, but really, on Wikipedia, Consensus is defined as an edict imposed from above. Who above, I don't really follow; knowing that is beyond our pay grade. Wnt ( talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding was that if there are pending changes, a subsequent edit by someone who does not have the reviewer privilege will go into the pending queue. However, when I reverted an edit that was pending to List of Stanley Cup champions, my reversion was flagged as "automatically accepted", as can be seen in the the history. This seems contrary to the FAQ on Wikipedia:Pending changes, where it says that multiple edits made by different users that add up to a null edit are not automatically accepted. Can someone help clarify this behaviour? Thanks! isaacl ( talk) 01:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium ( talk) 12:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's months too early to propose this formally so soon after the recent PC2 RFC closure, but I want to put a bug in people's ears to think about this over the next few months:
Even if it's not desirable on the English Wikipedia, are there other Wikimedia Wikipedias or non-Wikimedia web sites that use the Wikimedia software where this might make sense to implement, thereby justifying the cost of a software change? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This actually was the 'full flagged protection' level of the original trial proposal. But it was found to be of too little use in the discussions of its implementation and was replaced by 'level 2 pending changes protection' (and we know how that one turned out too). Cenarium ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but I see that there's been consensus for level 2 PCP on some articles, ANI archive. This is as I predicted, there are some uses and it was a good idea to propose this. And an absence of community consensus for global use doesn't prevent a community consensus for a specific use. Cenarium ( talk) 20:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It does prevent it,small local groups shouldn't go against global decisions. You leave the tool on the table and it gets abused in time. Mion ( talk) 21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is now available at Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, it has been thoroughly rewritten. I welcome all opinions, though it isn't yet the time for a definitive determination of consensus, so this is really about first impressions or suggesting modifications and clarifications. In light of previous PC discussions, consensus should preferably be assessed in an organized RFC, or it gets unwieldy, so I've made a draft for it, I also invite comments on it. Feel free to copy edit and such both of those. Cenarium ( talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for a way of putting something on my page to see when there are outstanding changes for review. If pending changes was a category something like {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Special:PendingChanges}} Edits Need [[Special:PendingChanges|Reviewing]]! would work. However it's not. Is there any way of getting either a count or a yes/no from the special:PendingChanges page to see when changes are outstanding? SPACKlick ( talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way to signify to the reviewer why the protection is in place, when they're reviewing an edit? The Jon Gaunt article is pp1-protected because of IP editors repeatedly adding a running joke that the obscure right-wing British radio pundit starred in the American sitcom Diff'rent Strokes. The last two such edits have been waved through by editors who presumably just saw a "TV show added to list" edit regarding somebody they'd never heard of and took it in good faith.
I assume there are other articles which have been pp1-protected for similar vandalism which would seem innocuous to a reviewer unfamiliar with the subject. Is it possible (or worth implementing a way) to include a short "this article is protected because..." sentence where the reviewer can see it, when asking them if they want to approve an edit? Or should articles just go under regular protection when the nature of the vandalism wouldn't be clear to every reviewer? -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm not clear if this discussion should be here or at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing. So if I'm in the wrong place, please move or tell me to re-ask there.
Anyway, I just accepted a group of three pending changes at Stephenie Meyer, (three the edits made 24 November, between 20:43 and 20:44). The first two were obvious vandalism by an IP user (67.80.62.61), and the third was another IP user (73.159.24.89) reverting the (pending) vandalism. So after my accept, the article was in the state it was before all three edits. Now the same result would have been had by reverting them (via the PC interface). So what was the appropriate action? Accept? Revert? Something else? Doesn't matter? Rwessel ( talk) 21:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewer powers. If I come across an article with one pending change, I know what to do. But if there are several, and I want to accept some and reject some, which end should I start at? The answer seems obvious - start with the oldest, otherwise some of the pending edits might not make sense. But I think that when I tried that, it said something like "You are about to accept all 8 outstanding edits, ok?" Maproom ( talk) 19:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Permanently deleted from history never to be reinstated including all illegal information that can violate any policy that is used to break private interests of all organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:B4C5:BC00:FD50:8C3:3C70:DEA3 ( talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the text from this section to Talk:Gamergate controversy#Call for deletion posted accidentally on a different talk page. I think that is where it was intended to be placed. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Yaris678 ( talk) 08:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was reviewing some pending changes on Steven Kynman and when I clicked the "Show pending changes protection log" it said it could not find the reason it was protected. Has this occurred for anyone else before on this or another page? Is this a bug in the software, and if so who should I notify? Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
On WP:PC, there's a statement, "It was determined by consensus that pending changes could only be used on articles. ..." In the most recent discussion of PC1 implementation that I can find, however— Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3—the closer concluded, "There was very strong consensus to enable the use of Pending Changes throughout all namespaces." I've glanced through the archives of this talk page and can't find any consensus that PC should be used only in mainspace. Can anyone clarify this apparent contradiction? Deor ( talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering if there is a way to dismiss the "pending revisions" notification on the watchlist page when a user determines that they will not be responding to the pending edit, without removing the page from the watchlist. Mlpearc ( open channel) 23:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Does WP:3RR affect reverting pending changes? Can this be made clear on the policy page? -- Gestrid ( talk) 22:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal for deferred changes, a way for bots, the edit filter or ORES to defer for review suspicious edits. The RFC is at Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Cenarium ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal to lower the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage. Please comment at the RfC. — Andy W. ( talk) 00:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC regarding (1) the streamlining of the pending changes reviewing process and (2) the proposed protection of certain articles with Level 1 Pending Changes protection. Please do not comment here—your support or opposition to the proposals should be indicated in the relevant sections, and general discussion should be occur in the "General discussion" section at the bottom of the RfC page. Thank you. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible and feasible to put the template on the very top of the page? (If I'm not mistaken, there was a notice at the top of the page recently about one of the RfCs.) This would allow PC Reviewers easy access to past and current RfCs effecting pending changes. If it's not feasible to put that template on the page, perhaps another template could be created that only has very recently closed PC RfCs (perhaps with the result included) and open PC RfCs. — Gestrid ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The RfC has passed in its entirety. See Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016 for the full closing evaluation. — Gestrid ( talk) 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Pending changes are not necessary. Because it's the same with semi protection and full protection.Semi protected pages can be editted after a request of edit protected is accepted,and level 1 of Pending changes also shows drafts of pending editions.I think Pending changes can be replaced by semi protection and full protection. TEntEn4279 ( talk) 11:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A display may become available showing the current size of the pending changes backlog, which reviewers could place on their user pages (same idea as the "Defcon" boxes for levels of vandalism). Please see this discussion and add any thoughts you may have on format and thresholds : Noyster (talk), 13:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
Pending Changes backlog}}
is now available. Reviewers are welcome to transclude it to their userpages, or to tweak it or make other versions. Thanks to
DatGuy for creating
the bot that provides the current size of the queue
: Noyster
(talk), 12:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)The discussion is relisted. You may comment there as soon as possible. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a chart showing the total of pages protected over a given period of time to track usage/need for the protection level? Currently there are <3000 pages under a WhiteLock. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
One of the big issues I have with PCs is that it is slow. One way to speed it up would be to remove the need to confirm. I do not need a second screen to appear to confirm that I do not want to accept the change, "one click" is enough. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe pending changes is pretty standard on the German Wikipedia. Maybe useful to mention that in the article.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there anyway to turn off the watchlist banner for pending changes? It has consistently been the most annoying thing about Wikipedia's site design for me for almost a year. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just for information, I've reported a small bug in the Pending Changes interface in which the blue Submit button suddenly becomes the old 'Save changes' one. Details can be found here. Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I have been accepting/rejecting many changes but I am not seeing the same in my contributions. There should be some way to give credit.. Anshuk ( talk) 05:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This may not be the place to bring this up (or at least, there may be a better place), but I noticed that the filtering on the Advanced review log is kind of weird. I'm not clear on how the Review action categories map to... you know... actual actions.
Automatic
or Manual
) are attributed to a particular reviewer. It strikes me as odd to read so many "<editorname> automatically reviewed a version of..." entries, as that seems to use a different definition of the word "automatic" than I'm used to.Accepted
Type: Manual
produces no results. Apparently only Reaccepted
or Unaccepted
are manual actions? Most of the normal reviews I'd consider "manually accepted" are actually showing up in the "Reaccepted" filter bucket. I would expect very few items on that list, but clearly that expectation is incorrect.Unaccepted
Type: Automatic
not only produces no results (which I suppose makes sense, unlike the previous items), but if you request that combo the search filtering box disappears!-- FeRDNYC ( talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
What happens to the text you type into the comment field, when you accept a pending change?
I'm fairly new to pending changes, and I've seen my added comments go into the standard edit summary field when I've rejected a pending change upon review. Just now, I accepted an IP edit at A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film). I thought that the acceptance of an IP's deletion of 513 bytes might be worthy of an explanation, so I gave one in the comment field. But after the acceptance was processed, I don't see that comment anywhere.
I get it that the acceptance just tags the last edit rather than provide a new edit with a new &oldid, but if there's nowhere in the db to hang an acceptance comment and render it, then the review page should gray out the field, and prevent you from placing the cursor in it in the first place. Mathglot ( talk) 03:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
[Accepted by Bloggins]
: Noyster
(talk), 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Readers of this page may be interested in WP:VPPRO#RfC: should we automatically pending-changes protect TFAs?. Please comment there. -- Izno ( talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
When accepting pending changes, one of the possible outcomes after pressing "Accept revision" is a page which reads:
Action complete
Revision of {{PAGENAME}} flagged. ([view reviewed versions])
You may want to view [this accepted revision] and see if it is now the [latest accepted revision] of this page.
...Where the bracketed strings are links.
I feel like, as a reviewer, I should be able to understand that page, but I have absolutely no idea what it means, why it's only sometimes shown, how to interpret the information on it, or what I should do in response to seeing it. Even the "You may want to view..." suggestion doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense to me. (At least, I've never seen the version I accepted not be the latest accepted version, so I've started just ignoring that suggestion.) Does anyone have any insights into... all that? -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 01:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This is silly, but I can't seem to sort out the history at Me Too movement. It only looks like I did one rollback, but I actually tried several attempts at either accepting or rejecting pending changes, and a couple additional rollbacks that didn't have any affect. GMG talk 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Accepting a later change seems to leave earlier change no longer reviewable. Or, that's how it appears to this guy who doesn't know this very well. There were a series of 4 changes at Artificial intelligence I started by accepting the most recent one and then the earlier ones seemed no longer reviewable. In the end I just save the latest version of the article as an attempted workaround. North8000 ( talk) 13:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)