Wikipedia talk:Deferred changes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deferred changes page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Hugely in favor![edit]

Is there a discussion of implementing this? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mscuthbert: Sorry I hadn't noticed your question. I plan on launching a discussion soon. Cenarium (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

There is currently a RFC on the proposal at Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Cenarium (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC update[edit]

The RfC regarding whether or not to implement pending changes has passed in its entirety. The evaluation includes some directions on how to implement ORES for the time being. — Gestrid (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! @Gestrid:! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking reverts[edit]

Just thinking about the impacts of this on pending changes. During the RfC, Cenarium told us rollbacking an edit with Stiki or Huggle would remove it from the [pending changes] queue. Are the means in place to assure this? How about other reverts done by editors with rollback or higher permissions? Because PC-reviewers won't want or need to spend their time second-guessing the valid reverts done by editors who, like themselves, have been selected as good eggs: Noyster (talk), 13:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: Deferred changes is like a temporary pending changes protection that gets automatically removed when a revision gets reviewed. This works the same way as pending changes with regard to reverting. Rollbacks also are reviewed automatically, and the "temporary pending changes protection" gets removed on this occasion. So reverted edits don't need to be reviewed. I'm the main developer of deferred changes, and I've made sure of that. Cenarium (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PendingChanges notice[edit]

Cenarium, do you think it would be good to put a notice at the top of Special:PendingChanges about the rollout of Deferred Changes when we know of a specific rollout date? That way, PCRs who didn't know about the DC RfC will know about DC and when to expect it. — Gestrid (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: Yes, it's a good idea to add such a notice. We could ask them to help in the testing too. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenarium: Ok. I think I found the MediaWiki page to add the notice to when you're ready to. It's MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list (which is transcluded to MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list/en-gb), which contains the text at the top of Special:PendingChanges. Also, do you happen to have an estimate of when you think DC will be ready to test? — Gestrid (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: I think we'll test it in the next couple of weeks but not here, maybe on labs or at testwiki. Cenarium (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenarium: You mean here or here? I'm not exactly sure how to get Reviewer rights on either of those. I've asked at the latter's Village Pump how to request for that site, but I'm not even sure where to ask where to request for the other one. For the former, the best answer I got was something about opening a task on Phabricator. Is that how it's done? — Gestrid (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: The links are correct. There's no need to get involved in the testing at labs (I don't really use it either), and it isn't even sure there will be testing there. When the testing will come to testwiki, later, it will be interesting to involve the community. I'll assign you reviewer there. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: We now have a test instance of deferred changes at http://deferred-changes.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page. I'll add a notice inviting reviewers to test at MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list, and another at the edit filter noticeboard. Cenarium (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenarium: You may have to somehow automatically give some people PCR rights automatically. Apparently, that test instance isn't connected to SUL. — Gestrid (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: Rights can be given to oneself. Cenarium (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Maybe you should include that somewhere for those unfamiliar with a testing environment. — Gestrid (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: Where should we file bug reports? Deferred changes isn't showing up in the "All public logs" portion of Special:Log. You have to specifically select "Defer log" from the dropdown to see deferred edits. — Gestrid (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's like patrol entries, they're hidden unless you select "Show defer log". I'll add a section here for bug reports and requests. Cenarium (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a bug though, it shouldn't be possible to defer a new page multiple times. Cenarium (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should it possible to even actively defer a brand new page? As in, the vandal created the page and then it was actively deferred? Because I was able to do both what you mentioned and what I just said on the same page. (Look for "Vandal page" in the test instance.). First, I set passive defer, then I set active without having reviewed the passive. — Gestrid (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and abuse filters can't know in advance if a page is new. So if they request active deferral for an edit on a page that happens to be new (in the sense of having a single author), the deferral is downgraded to a passive deferral. Cenarium (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Testing: Bug reports and requests[edit]

Testing is now available at http://deferred-changes.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page. Please add bug reports and enhancement requests here. Cenarium (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting........[edit]

Very much support this.....from what I've read. --Bddmagic (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

This proposal looks very interesting and helpful thus far, but I have a few concerns: say a group of people from multiple accounts and IPs are vandalising a certain page, and the edits of one vandal is correctly actively deferred. As I understand, the page will be set to have pending changes protection and further edits will not be shown until the edits by the vandal is reviewed. I also understand that page protection will be removed once the edits are reviewed. In that case, doesn't that allow other vandals to vandalise the page (perhaps more discreetly so that they don't trip the edit filter)? In that case, if a page is being persistently vandalised by a group of editors, wouldn't it be better for reviewers to intentionally leave the page unreviewed until an admin protects the page? This way, the page will be locked to an unvandalised version, and reviewing the page will only unprotect it. If so, would this cause a backlog at Special:PendingChanges with pages that are better left unreviewed, confusing reviewers? Could there be an option for a page to be still protected for a short period of time (perhaps 1 hour) after rolling back an edit to mitigate this issue, or will that be too stringent? Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was ever intended to be a level of protection (or a temporary substitute for a protection level) in itself. I would continue to treat pages with actively deferred changes as unprotected, reverting the vandalistic changes, and continue to revert while reporting to WP:RFPP and WP:AIV as appropriate. Mz7 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darylgolden: Vandals may indeed try to get around the edit filter/bots after the rollback. Giving reviewers the option to let pending changes enabled would be overbroad as it would effectively allow them to apply PC1 despite not having the requisite permission, in that case a reviewer should just request protection at RFPP. But regarding your suggestion to let pending changes enabled for a little bit after a rollback, it is something I had considered as it could indeed fend off attempts to get around filters/bots/ores, though it wouldn't prevent the user(s) from going to other articles (for that, I had considered 'pending changes blocks'. Cenarium (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State of the project[edit]

I remember being very interested and excited about this project half a year ago, but it seems that there is no development being done recently. Just to ask, is this still in development, or has it been abandoned? Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All quiet for 8-9 months now. Those who supported and took an interest in this are owed some explanation: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cenarium: Perhaps they're busy in real life. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on Community Tech[edit]

Seeing as the project has seemingly been abandoned by the original developers, I have proposed its implementation on the Community Tech Survey. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist[edit]

We're still stuck on the technical implementation. As above from Darylgolden, I've reproposed it on the Community Wishlist: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Implement deferred changes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]