Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Talk pages

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)

Have you put in a request for protection? I don't see any specific rules against protecting talk pages, but I'm not an admin and I don't know all the criteria for protection. Ask for protection and see what they say. Or post this same question on the talk page. Cliff (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't want protection, because I wanted legit IPs to contact me. But no vandalism has happened in a while, so I'm not worried about PC anymore. Thanks though! :) CTJF83 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Query

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)

They were mostly from the longest protected articles, some from Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely semi-protected articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Archive (Queue). -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes Revisited

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)

Yes, we still apply it if and when some experienced Admins that have a good understanding of it think it will be beneficial, and the new faster version is working now and it much better imo, have you tried it? I see your not a reviewer? Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I am not a reviewer. I am a concerned wikipedian who feels that a current policy was applied without clear consensus and is dangerously vague. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Join the club. I'm actually amazed - and appalled - that an announcement wasn't made on-wiki regarding the revamped PC's test run (not counting a single Signpost article). It's as if they're almost afraid of it. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything to be afraid of, its a simple tool, I know you both dislike pending but some people do like it, so ...... there were quite a few discussions and comments about it around and about, scary indeed. If there was a consensus to switch it off that would be a good reason to switch it off. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It was a Decree from God Emperor Jimbo that it should be enabled, you were expecting something else? Q T C 05:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree that we need a stronger consensus in either direction. Just FYI, Rob and the engineering team asked if I could help Wikipedians form the next discussion about the feature so tech could act either way based on a community decision that was easy (well, easier) to read. We've stayed really busy between the fundraiser and 10th anniversary stuff in the meantime, but we haven't forgotten that we need to have more community discussion if we're going to make a move to keep it, expand use, or just turn it off. Steven Walling at work 21:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
How will we find out when the discussion of the trial is held? I've been editing on one page where it seems to be working poorly. It's basically preventing the addition of new scientific findings, which often first come from IP editors, with autoconfirmed editors then smoothing out the wording and working the findings into the article with proper context. Right now it sure seems to me like the policy amounts to a power grab by admins. Warren Dew (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That's completely specious. Use of PC does not give any power to admins. I would however, appreciate it if we could get an up-or-down decision on if we should use it or not instead of this unhelpful notice that springs up every time you go to protect an article: "The pending changes trial has ended. The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC-protected articles until a new version is released. Please don't do anything drastic. Please don't fight. " It's been months. There really doesn't seem to be much fighting or drastic action among admins regarding this, we just want to know if the community wants us to keep using it or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Beeblebrox in re admin power-grab. What you ran up against, Warren, is a particular gripe I've had with the nature of the reviewer corps - i.e. that they are ill-informed and ill-equipped to deal with pending revisions on articles regarding higher-level science/mathematics. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 07:52, 26 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)

At the very least a listing on WP:CENT would be warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be a top-o-the-watchlist discussion, if you ask me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
So is this happening, or what? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look like discussing it here led anywhere, I suppose we could force the issue by opening an RFC page or something, listing it at CENT, and asking for that sitenotice. I thought I saw a remark somewhere or other from somebody from the front office that they were going to be re-addressing this after the fundraiser, which has been over for a while now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo approves of it, which means there's going to be a massive resistance to discussion. On the whole, I think the only choice will be to force it, like you said (although who knows how WMF will respond to a site-notice request). ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
As of right now Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 is live and ready for your comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The correct link for comment page that Beeblebrox mentioned just above this line is Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. It was moved. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
My bad, thanks for the assist! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

simplify

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)

Becoming a reviewer

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)

Some of your concerns seem based on misinformation. If you conduct your account in good faith, and demonstrate competence, you will get the user rights you have described. If you believe you are now ready, request them. Your internet browser will not be a factor. Cheers to you and good luck. My76Strat 04:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer permission is deliberately easy to get. In fact, I just gave it to you as you have years of experience and a clean block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I just gave my first review a try - it seems pretty intuitive, after I found the PC log. Thanks for the opportunity to participate. Psu256 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Implement

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:

What problem does this solve?

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)

The template box at the top of this page contains links to the past discussions. Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of past discussions, all over the place, and much of it is confused. Pending changes works best where vandalism (insults, libel, slurs, etc) would otherwise remain in articles, in Google, for the world to see, sometimes for long periods. This can be particularly damaging for articles with biographical content. Pending changes solves that problem because the vandalism doesn't appear in the articles. The alternative is to protect everything and rely on the edit requests you mention. That method would generally result in fewer improvements - not because admins would be overrun by requests, but because the requests would not be made in the first place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there evidence for that last assertion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Experience tells me that people are more likely to make a simple edit by clicking on 'edit this page', than bother jumping through hoops learning how edit requests work, or finding out that they even exist at all, or creating autoconfirmed accounts for that matter. There's been some discussion about it before. It's probably the reason we don't protect everything already. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Both edit protect and pending changes can slow down WP:edit warring, discourage those who are just in it for the fun of warring, and make people think carefully about whether its worth it to do the edit at all. I think it only should be used for the most contentious articles, which is all we have enough editors for anyway. So I'm all for it in those cases. Mark me down somewhere since I can't keep watching this page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or does anyone else see that this will possibly cause a huge backlog and cause already taxed editors even more work? It seems that if editors are now going to have to review to approve it wold be putting more work on their plates with an already huge backlog in other areas of wikipedia. I would like to hear how this would be avoided personally. Canyouhearmenow 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Biggest Loser (season 2)

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~~ talkContribs 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed. - Reverted all desired alterations. Multiple alterations and additions to the table, no citation provided, the admin that added the protection earlier today reverted the same IP as vandalism and the IP has other comments about their alteration to this set of articles, I left a note on the admins talkpage, who is experienced on the article, letting them know and a note on the IPs talkpage to move to discussion. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What is a Reviewer, exactly, regarding their user rights in PC?

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)

I'm sorry to tell you that your timing couldn't be worse. At the moment we have no policies in place on these issues. We are currently in the third phase of a very long process to resolve the situation, you can see it at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. However I don't believe the three tiered system you describe is being considered here. During the trial period the reviewer right was handed out liberally to any experienced user who asked for it, and many who didn't, and it was automatically granted to all administrators. It sounds like you may be looking at running a very different version than what we have deployed here, which was in fact developed for this project at the request of the community here. You may want to inquire at the Foundation level about exactly what the differences are. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Who chooses the articles?

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)

Most of the early articles in the trial were from the list of most vandalised, longest protected articles. Subsequent protections were mostly added using admins' good judgment, according to where they considered it might work best. Typical criteria involve a relatively low rate of vandalism and/or a good proportion of constructive edits, in relation to the visibility or possible damage done by vandalism to the article. So the selection is far from random, but comprises these two different groups. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

Jimmer Fredette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • (cur | prev) 15:04, 17 March 2011 205.122.54.149 (talk | block) (22,869 bytes) (→High school career) (rollback | undo) [automatically accepted]
  • (cur | prev) 15:03, 17 March 2011 205.122.54.149 (talk | block) (22,878 bytes) (→High school career) (undo)

How was this edit from an IP automatically accepted? --B (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The users first edit was vandalism. His second edit was reverting his own vandalism. Makes sense that it would be auto accepted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, equates to a null edit acceptance as I have seen it. It either needs accepting or reverting back. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting. Can an IP reject only their own change or any pending change? That would be a bit obnoxious if an IP can revert any pending change (even a good one) and have it not reviewed. --B (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In that case it doesn't accept. I had tested it a while ago and just tried again. Cenarium (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unintended acceptance

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)

They remain outstanding. The user has to make the click to accept them. Cenarium (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FAQ

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)

the damned rfc

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)

No surprise, because of the 600+ people who voiced their opinion earlier, about a quarter remains, primarily those who are opposed to it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Point of RfC

I do not understand the point or meaning of an RfC. -- Polental (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's to prove there is no point or meaning in life at all. - BilCat (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't Worry, seems to be one of the many sockpuppets of a banned user. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't worrying, hence the obtuse (to the sock) response. Glad to know it can be ignored anyway! - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

We need help for 2 articles

  1. America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13 for 6 hours
  2. America's Next Top Model, Cycle 15 for 4 hours

You may review 1 here Also, for 2, do it here ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor has been vandalizing these and similar articles from multiple IPs for months now. I think most of the reviewers are getting sick of seeing them all the time. Ashanda (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Ashanda's opinion, reviewers are probably getting tired of them. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
In such situations a request to transfer the article to semi protection is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sent the 2 articles to WP:RPP for the protection type change. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Still active?

Is pending changes still active and if so, is there somewhere to request it for pages? —Mike Allen 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending protection is still active and currently protecting around 1000 articles There is currently a multi part RFC that is closed for commenting at this time, the talkpage is active and at Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011 but you can request it at WP:RFPP and you may or may not get it depending on the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I already have a discussion active on the talk page of WP:RFPP, here. However, I had thought pending protection was no longer being used. So RFPP talk page is the best place to continue the discussion? —Mike Allen 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Update from the WMF engineering team

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)

If 400/150 users wanted this, then 150/65 editors removed it... Why did the later group get its way

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)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-29/Opinion essay. It is "temporarily" out of service, but still turned on and sitting there waiting for a determination as to whether we use it or not. At some point we will need to actually make that decision, but the last RFC turned into such a train wreck that nobody wanted to talk about it anymore. Perhaps enough time has passed now to revisit the issue. I, however, will not be the one initiating any new RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe I will as it seems nobody else will do it and it has been nearly a year now it has been in limbo. I might initiate it, and add my endorsement, but that's it, I won't be trying to keep it organized and keep discussion on track, but hopefully that won't be an issue as the RFC design I am working on narrowly defines the scope of the RFC so that a clear result may be found. If anyone is interested in looking it over or pitching in before it goes live, it's currently at User:Beeblebrox/sandbox. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The issues I had with this project was that, at the end of it, some serious design problems existed and these were going to be very, very difficult to resolve. The WMF has (quite understandably) stopped investing resources in the improvement and development of our "one-off" request, after having gone to a lot of work to build what the community asked for. I suppose it was a classic example of the community not understanding what the end result was likely to be. To be honest, we would have been better off to go with the "standard formation" for a trial rather than a specialized design. The majority of articles included in the trial were not suitable for it: featured articles were too large for it to work properly, for example, and it kept timing out; frequently edited BLPs wound up with far more BLP violations in their history than they would have had semi-protection remained on; and in some cases, editors became gatekeepers to keep certain information out of articles that was perfectly valid. We did a bad job of planning the trial, and very very few uers tested the tool before it went live to give it a proper shakedown, which might have caught many of the issues that arose (e.g., no way to communicate why an edit was being rejected). I'd be really hesitant to try another trial at this point, until there's a lot more buy-in, though. Risker (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't planning on suggesting another trial, but rather to resolve the unresolved issues from last year when we "temporarily" stopped using it. We were close to having this discussion then but unfortunately that effort was derailed by the short-term concerns about it, and after 100 days of discussions nobody wanted to finish discussing the main issue of whether we should have this at all or not, which was actually the only thing the original RFC was meant to resolve in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Then since you initiated the RFC (or I understand that's what you did from what I read), maybe you should get on there and mention the fact that you didn't plan on suggesting another trial, cause right now that's the way it seems to be going, and it would be better to knock this "trial phase" on the head now rather than wait till later, no?  BarkingFish  12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your referring to, at the moment the RFC is trending about 3/1 in favor of turning the tool on and using it. In any event, I am staying out of actual debating this time around, I've already had my say and then some. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Policy

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)

Contentious Issues

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

Hello CometHunter, welcome! Cutting a talk page into two is not something I've seen before, and I wouldn't know if it would make sense. Or do you mean splitting an article, with each page containing one side of the discussion? I wouldn't support that. One of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is neutrality: separating facts from opinions and describing all viewpoints proportionally. The perfect article is an article everybody agrees with.
By the way, this talk page is about discussing pending changes. If you're having questions about Wikipedia in general, you may want to visit The Teahouse or another place. Again, welcome! Cheers, theFace 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Template:Pending changes May 2011

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)

Error inTrial results section

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)

I don't think I'd call that an error, but I can see that some people might think it more neutral to present it in the way you describe. For me, a bigger question is the statement "All pages in the trial had previously been subject to long-term semi-protection." Do we know that to be true? Certainly there were some pages that had previously been on long-term semi-protection but I think many of these only lasted for a very short period on PCP because they quickly attracted a lot of vandalism. Towards the end of the trail, it looked like people were realising that PCP was more appropriate for borderline cases. Yaris678 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Quantifying the Tool's Effects

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)

Old stats are linked at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing, but I don't know where you would find information from the last couple of years.
The tool has so far been used to reduce limitations on article protections, from semi-protected (no unregistered or newly registered editors) to essentially time-delayed (anyone can edit, but it won't show up until someone else checks to make sure that it's not vandalism or libel). If there was no "genuine need", then there would be no semi-protected pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Delay

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)

Future

With the overwhelming support for this feature in the recent RFC, what is the future of pending changes? When will it be implemented? --xensyriaT 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

December 1, 2012. If you haven't thrashed it out by November 1st (which I suspect will be likely gien that even those who support it can't even agree on a fucking implementtion), it defaults to the draft policy. (See the header at the top of the RfC). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

May want to move the current page

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. Monty845 04:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the talking-about-PC pages need to be moved, but it might be more appropriate to merge Wikipedia:Pending changes/Provisional policy into he existing WP:PROT policy rather than creating yet another policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree that we don't need another policy page. This page should be updated to reflect the recent RfC close and the current provisional policy. If we want to include a link to the historical version we can do that by linking to an older revision of the page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating

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, Nathan2055talk - 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)

The updated policy. And then redirect the help page here. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
So you want the policy (e.g., "Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption") and the step-by-step guide on what to click (e.g., "To accept an edit, click on the button that says...") to be on the same page? We could do this, but it doesn't seem to be the normal practice for most policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think what Nathan is saying is that the contents of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Provisional policy should be on this page, as opposed to (or in addition to) in a subpage.
That provisional policy is the nearest thing we have to a policy at the moment. Obviously we could also point out that it is also being discussed at WP:PC2012 and its subpages.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any need to move or archive the current page.policy pages get updated all the time to reflect current practice. I have addded a pointer to the current discussions and a collapsed transclusion of the provisional policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated to policy proposal

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)

Thanks for getting a start on that. I'm going to make a few changes to the protection table as well. (I discussed them on the PC2012 page some months ago and people liked the ideas.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't know what to do with that table. Sounds good. Gigs (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't locate this discussion; do you happen to know where it is? (If you don't have a ready pointer to it, I can wait to see what you propose, or we can discuss it if you like—just trying to get an idea of what you are thinking.) isaacl (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the proposal and discussions seem to have been more in my space (WP:PC2012/Adjwilley) rather than the main PC2012 page. And there weren't as many people participating in the discussion as I thought either (it was a while ago). Either way, I've made a bold change here and if somebody doesn't like it they can revert. Basically I just added on a new column to the table summarizing when it's appropriate to use the various forms of protection. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, but you should probably make the same change on Template:Pending changes level 1 table, since that's probably what we should be using anyway. Gigs (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I like the new table since level 2 is still an option for future versions (per the close of RfC 1). The way I see it, adding the descriptions saying that PC/2 should not be used eliminates the need for the new level 1 table. I can add the descriptions to the new table if you'd like though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Is level 2 going to remain an option in the UI that is visible to administrators? If so, then we probably should leave it in the table. If nothing else than a warning not to use it. Gigs (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I can see how for those who are new to the idea of pending changes, it's simpler to just drop any mention of level 1 and level 2 (and maybe if level 2 gets deployed later, it can be given another, more descriptive name). I changed Help:Pending changes to say that level 2 should not be used. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Gigs (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm no admin, but as far as I know, both PC/1 and PC/2 are currently available for use. (Every so often an admin will protect an article with either PC/1 or PC/2, sometimes getting their hands slapped.) I can't imagine that if they've been available while they were outlawed that they would suddenly decide to make one unavailable when PC goes live again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well, but since I can't see the tools I couldn't be sure. I think we need to have it documented somewhere in policy that admins shouldn't use level 2, not necessarily in the chart, but not in the help namespace either. Gigs (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I say here. This is the page that's supposed to be all about pending changes. This is the one that should be most specific. Keep the Help one simple for people who need help; make this page detailed enough so that people can learn all they want to on the page where they'd most expect to find all the information. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was implying here too, but without seeing what the UI looks like, I think I'm ill equipped to draft the text to document it. Can someone with admin post a screen shot or just draft something for the policy? Gigs (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to spend much time discussing the mechanics of PC2 on the policy page until and unless we decide it can be used at all. So as to not interfere with PC2 discussion, the original table still has it, but again, I it doesn't make sense to include it on the policy page other then to say it shouldn't be used yet. Monty845 20:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Help page implies it is not labeled "Pending changes level 2" in the admin tools. I agree we just want like one sentence that says don't use it. Gigs (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not called Pending Changes in the Admin tools. It's something weird like autoccept=autoconfirmed for PC1 or autoaccept=Reviewer for PC2. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:45, 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)

What about a link to the full chart combined with a bit of text, but only having the PC1 chart inline on the page? Monty845 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to keep pushing this, but I don't really get what's the problem with just using the full chart. Confusion/simplicity was mentioned above, but as I see it, mentioning PC-2 without the full chart is much more confusing than simply showing the full chart. It doesn't take up that much more space, if space is the concern. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The audience of editors learning about pending changes can be broken down as follows: those who will request it, those who will apply it, and those who try to edit articles under its protection. (Those who try to read articles under its protection is another, overlapping audience.) I don't see why we shouldn't have a page tailored for those who apply it, which can discuss the details of the admin interface (like Gigs, I can't see it, so I don't know how to describe it), and a different one for those who request it and try to edit articles with it. The complexity of pending changes was one of the criticisms against it; why not simplify matters by just dealing with what people will see applied right now? I believe we need to make things as easy as possible for the vast majority of the community that have never encountered pending changes, even if this means those who want to discuss and debate its deployment need to read a separate page to learn more about its details. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Of the groups you mentioned, I think that the suggested simple page would be best for people editing PC-protected pages. Those who are requesting the protection and who are doing the protection need to have a more in-depth understanding. Do you have a specific pages in mind that you think should be reserved for the various interested groups? Also, do you have a specific reason why the full chart is worse than trying to explain it in words? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding the full chart; I have no objection to the Template:Pending changes table page, and making use of it on a page with more information. I believe this article, as the place where the proposed policy is located, is best targeted at those requesting pending changes protection and editing pages under its protection, with a description of the protection choices that are available for use (based on this year's discussions). I think the section for admins in Help:Pending changes can be usefully expanded to help admins with the mechanics of applying pending changes protection. I suggest that WP:PC2012 (potentially renamed, or a successor page) would be suitable for a more in-depth discussion of the different options supported by the pending changes MediaWiki feature (regardless of whether or not the options have been deployed). isaacl (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get it about the Help:Pending changes page for admins (I didn't know that the Help pages were targeting admins, but that's fine). I'm also on board with having the in-depth discussion of the different levels on pages targeting different users, and cutting mention of PC/2 on this page down to a single sentence saying that it is not to be used. The specific question I want answered, is what's wrong with using Template:Pending changes table on this page as opposed to Template:Pending changes level 1 table. (My argument is that using the former is better, because it contains all the information in a compact and easily accessible way. This would be a boon to admins who don't stumble onto the Help page.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Before Monty changed the table used in this article, the only place where pending changes level 2 protection was mentioned was in the table. If I were an editor with no prior knowledge of pending changes, I'd be wondering, why is this table introducing this new terminology for the first time, particularly since I'm also being told to ignore it? Do I have to understand the two levels before I can understand why I can't edit this page? I don't believe it is warranted at this time to require these editors to spend time thinking about this. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 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)

I had suggested that WP:PC2012 (or its successor, if it is renamed or a new page started for next year—maybe it can be called something like "Pending changes road map" or "Pending changes planning") be updated with this information on pending changes level 2, perhaps within a summary of the outcome of the first mini-RFC. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Gigs (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions for feedback

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

Background

We'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?

  • Should we have additional hard requirements, or leave it up to administrator discretion? We already have the requirement that the page must have persistent vandalism, copyright, or BLP problems in the policy as a result of RfC 2 input.

Discussion

  • No. We don't have hard requirements for conventional protection, and I see no reason why we should impose requirements on PC. Let the admin use his/her judgement. David1217 What I've done 16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It should be a case-by-case judgment call left to administrative discretion. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • General guidelines are sufficient, admins are expected to use their discretion and to treat any policy with common sense. hard requirements would be obstructive instead of helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No requirement is hard, per WP:IGNORE. There is obviously some room for discussion about how amazingly good your reason has to be before you can ignore these rules. However, I think that can be worked out as we go along. If an admin applies PC to a page and then another admin quickly removes it its not the end of the world. If it is removed after a day of discussion it is not the end of the world... that sort of situation may even help us to improve the guidelines. Obviously it would be nice if people were civil in any such discussions but the important thing is that we will get to the answer in the end. That is the strength of wikis. We don't need to decide everything in advance. Yaris678 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible additional hard requirements proposal 1

  • have fewer than 30 watchers,
  • be considered a poor candidate for semi-protection because it is frequently subject to constructive edits made by unregistered or non-autoconfirmed editors, and
  • be subject to recent, repeated instances of vandalism or BLP violations from multiple editors, at least one of whom is not indefinitely blocked.

Discussion

Is it permissible to apply PC to all name spaces?

  • Note that it not technically possible to use it on talk pages at this current time.

Discussion

Policy location

  • Should we keep the policy here on a separate page or integrate it with the general protection policy?

Discussion

  • Same place. Keeps it simpler. The only time I would support spinning PC out is if it had so many rules on when it can be used (such as the ones above) that it makes the protection policy very long. David1217 What I've done 16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Should be integrated with the protection policy. Despite how some have characterized PC it really is just a different way of protecting a page and it should not be made out to be some big deal that is somehow segregated from other forms of protection. Also, having all protection policies in one place is more helpful for those unfamiliar with how protection works. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Should be explained here in detail and summarized at WP:Protection policy. Basically the way it is now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • So would you make this page our 55th official {{policy}} page, or would you make it an informational page or guideline, with the formal policy at WP:PP? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Point taken, and thanks for helping me understand the real question. I would make this an informational/guideline page, leaving the official policy at WP:PP. (I think PC should basically be treated the same as Semi-protection.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the stuff that's on the proposed policy page

  • Raise any issues you have with the proposed policy here. Keep in mind it integrates consensus from the earlier RfCs. After this RfC, what's on there will become the policy, so speak now if you have a problem.

Discussion

Lead section

As there was discussion on the effect of pending changes protection on registered users, I propose making the following change to the lead section:

...When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (also called IP) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, pending review and acceptance by an editor with the reviewer right. In addition, all subsequent edits by all editors will be hidden, pending review. Pending changes are visible in the page history (marked as pending), and logged-in users will always see the latest copy of the page, with all changes applied.

I understand this adds additional complexity, but given the discussion I think it may be warranted. isaacl (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I don't like: It's not clear enough about what is meant by all when it says "all subsequent edits by all editors". (Is it all edits by all editors for all time?)

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 think it is important for someone thinking of applying pending changes protection to know that one pending change edit will hold following edits in abeyance. In my proposed sentence, it ends with "pending review", which indicates the holdup is not for all time. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. It's very important that a protecting admin understands that. My concern is that the proposed addition muddies the waters for all users, admins included. Tacking "pending review" on the end doesn't make it clear enough. It can still be interpreted that all changes by all editors will be hidden until they're reviewed. I think we both agree it's an important detail, it's important for admins/reviewers to understand, and it should be clearly explained in the body. We obviously disagree about it being in the Lead. I think it's too complicated to explain clearly in the Lead without giving it undue weight over other more important details, but I'm open to compromise... I'd settle for shorter wording that clearly explains it, without the danger of it being misinterpreted. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It is true, though, that all subsequent changes by all editors will be hidden until they are reviewed. I don't believe I can make it shorter, but I can draft other proposals that may be clearer. How about the following:
...When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (also called IP) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers: the article is frozen in its current state until all pending changes are reviewed and accepted by an editor with the reviewer right.
isaacl (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "frozen in its current state" is the best way of describing it either. How about this edit? It says, "If logged-in editors make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending." To solve the weight problem, I've added a middle paragraph to the Lead, putting the general overview stuff in the 1st paragraph, the nitty gritty technical stuff (including this) in the second paragraph, and leaving the 3rd paragraph as is (a sentence about when to apply PC). ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 30 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)

I'm happy to self-revert. The main thing I wanted was a diff to talk about. I really like the semi-protection analogy because it gives people something to compare it with and establishes a context. As for the length, you're right that I don't like it longer, but clarity is my first priority. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
(In the mean time, do you mind if I make other unrelated changes to the page while we discuss the Lead section?) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It is true, though, that all subsequent changes by all editors will be hidden until they are reviewed
I'm not sure that's quite true. I think that if an editor with Reviewer or Admin privs edits the page, then their edits (and all the previous ones) go live. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That's right. What happens is when they hit "save", they get an extra page showing a diff of all the pending changes. In order to save their edit they have to review the pending changes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Their edits become visible because they also review all pending changes, including their own edits. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the description again, I'm not sure a lead section is necessary; I think a revamped description section may suffice. I'm unenthusiastic about the analogy to semi-protection because it isn't quite similar enough; the table I think does a better job setting a context for comparing the different article protection methods. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I just browsed through about 10 random policy pages. All of them have Lead sections, and I think we should follow suit there. I can put the semi-protection analogy in the Description section if you like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opinionated about whether the information appears before or after the table of contents. With the current lead section, the description section can probably be eliminated, since its contents is now covered in the lead. Let's see what other people think about the comparison to semi-protection. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Description section

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)

I'm in favor of removing the material in the Description section that duplicates the lead section, since there's so much overlap. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
How about changing the lead to the following, and eliminating the Description section?
Pending changes protection is a tool used to suppress vandalism on Wikipedia while allowing good-faith users to submit their edits for review. Pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a reviewer.
When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (also called IP) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the reviewer right.
Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as pending review. The latest accepted revision is displayed to the general public, while logged-in users see the latest revision of the page, with all changes applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers.
Both logged-in users and anonymous users who click the "edit this page" tab edit the latest version as usual. If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title, pointing to the pending changes. For more details, see Help:Pending changes.
Pending changes may be used to protect articles against persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and copyright violations.
isaacl (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done. Ready for RfC now? Gigs (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC discussion on the promotion of this draft

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)

Article race conditions??

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:

  1. Unconfirmed edit -- pending
  2. Unconfirmed edit -- pending
  3. Confirmed edit

What effect does the "confirmed" edit have on the "unconfirmed" edits? Am I missing something?

Thanks, --Wykypydya (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you mean there are two edits by unconfirmed users, and one by a confirmed user who is not a reviewer: whenever a pending edit is made to an article, all subsequent edits by non-reviewers will also be marked as pending. Thus in your example, the edit by a confirmed user will also be marked as pending. All editors (confirmed, unconfirmed, reviewer) are always editing the latest copy of the article from the article's edit history, including all pending changes. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we actually ready?

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)

While we should try to prepare as well as possible, we also need to expect to find a dozen things we missed that only get noticed once it is live. Monty845 15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I went through several things and marked historical, moved things around, redirected things, etc. There is quite a bit of stuff that has out-of-date info on it. It's going to take a little while to blow all the dust off the works. Gigs (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep. It's not gonna be super slick when we roll it out. While we should obviously make efforts to tidy things up now, it is also important that we roll things out slowly so we can deal with issues as they arise. Yaris678 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no switch to flip. It has actually been on this whole time, we just weren't using it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, apparently I was just looking in the wrong places. The last RFC said it should be enabled for all name spaces, and I was checking in name spaces where it appears to be disabled. Wont be an issue for the roll out but will want to look into it eventually. Monty845 21:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The reviewing page

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)

Wikipedia:Pending changes caveats

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)

Perhaps a "rationale" section on/linked from the Wikipedia:Protection policy page would be useful; a more detailed explanation of the tradeoffs and considerations of different protection mechanisms may help editors understand which methods are most appropriate for which circumstances. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Auto accept reverts of reviewers

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? Monty845 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reviewing#Reviewing_process, only work with native rollback and undo. I have left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Review_of_pending_change_when_reverting for a possible feature request. -- KTC (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Monty845 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

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. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many cases in which semi-protection is more appropriate. See WP:PCC. Gigs (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right, but I feel like PC isn't being given a fair shot by admins. Glance through my contribs and track down the last few RFPP's I've done (forget the ones relating to AfC, that was a crazy idea I had that I gave up on). It just seems like most admins consider semi-protection a better route than PC. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 03:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We're not on a deadline to ramp up use. I think this kind of proposal will be more favorably received a few months from now, when (on "internet time") PC will "have (almost) always been there". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe admins are choosing semi-protection because it is a "better route" than PC. At the very least, semi is a known quantity, almost always functioning exactly as it is supposed to. Anyway, not everyone agrees that switching an article from semi to PC is "downgrading", at least in the sense I think you mean. It may well make an article less securely protected, which is something I think we'd want to avoid. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It is downgrading in terms of protection. No protection => anyone can edit, semi-protection => non-autoconfirmed user & IP cannot edit. PC1 is half in between. I'm not sure how else you can describe it. -- KTC (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends on how one defines the words. For more than a decade, "edit" has referred to modifying an article in a way that anyone can immediately see, and "protection" has involved locking an article so that, in order to edit, certain contributors are obliged to participate in a highly transparent discussion on the talk page (i.e., a discussion that anyone can immediately see). PC shifts the process of negotiating edits to a protected article to the background, out of public view, but it also removes the ability of autoconfirmed users to participate in that process and effectively locks the article from them until the pending changes are dealt with by someone else. In that sense, it's upgrading, not downgrading, since it can, under certain circumstances, prevent a larger group of contributors from editing than occurs under semi-protection. Rivertorch (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
See, I see it rather differently. When there's an article that says "View source", I can't actually edit it. Pending changes fixes this by letting people edit. They just have to wait for approval. It's just a user-friendly version of semi-protection because rather than having to write a load of stuff on the talk page about the edit that you want to make, you just make the edit directly and wait a few minutes for a trusted user to approve it. It's a change in UI, not a significant change in policy. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 19 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)

Templates for articles with pending changes

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)

PC and semi-protection

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. GedUK  15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So, my personal justification for doing SP+PC is simple. If there's an article which satisfies policy for both, putting it on both semi-protection and pending changes means that we deal with the short term problem and can have shorter term semi-protection, and then have pending changes active after that. I'm happy to be overruled on this, so feel free to change protection settings on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey if I have erred. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me, given the that the SP is a few days long and the PC is indef. I seem to remember a case some time back where I wished I could do full protection short term and have it revert later to a longer period of semi-protection, which, if it'd have been possible, would have had a similar rationale. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. For me, though, I'm guessing the Hobbit might be a bad choice for PC because of editing volume. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm unclear on the net effect: is it the same as pending changes level 2 protection plus semi-protection? isaacl (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The net effect is the same as semi, until the semi expires, at which point it is PC. The difference is that the admin doesn't have to come back later to apply the PC. Sounds like a good solution to me... but yes... we do need to consider the edit rate. Yaris678 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the PC and Semi affect the same user groups (non-autoconfirmed) so Semi prevents them from editing, and PC doesn't do anything until the Semi expires. This makes sense to me as well (keeps the protection log a bit cleaner). I'm putting this article on my watchlist because I'm curious to see how PC works in real life on high-edit rate articles. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It fails utterly, and that's what the trial itself told us wrt Barack Obama and George W. Bush. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it didn't work well before on high-edit articles; backlogs build up too fast, and it's too easy to lose track of a good edit. GedUK  12:44, 20 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? GedUK  13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Only edits by (auto)confirmed users are allowed and these edits are automatically accepted in PC1, which is the only type of PC currently in use.
In theory, a reviewer can still unaccept edits, but there's not much point in unaccepting: reviewers can just undo the edit.
Yaris678 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PC for a content dispute

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)

I believe there's more than a simple content dispute going on there. Before protection at all, the insertion of abecedarian and dilettante, each later reverted, appear to be intended as pejorative, would go to BLP. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Jay_Westerveld, Wikipedia:BLPN#Jay_Westerveld. I haven't seen an SPI lodged but I saw accusations around that as well. I do wonder whether most reviewers would catch the problem with abecedarian, though. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's exactly what Pending Changes is *not* supposed to be used for, and it is level 2 pending changes at that, which we had agreed as a community not to use. It gives an unfair content advantage to those who hold reviewer permissions. If one editor is adding BLP violations (which is what it looks like here), then deal with that *editor*, don't add protection to the article. Risker (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh crap, that's a PC2? I totally missed that. Yes, we agreed to not use PC2, and we shouldn't. (I think if you go back further in the article history, e.g., to 9 Dec, you'll see there's more than one user (presuming no socks involved) involved in the BLP issues, but that's kinda moot since we're discussing PC2.) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
[ec. joe decker, thanks for the link.] I've responded at ANI. I used PC since I've seen it used elsewhere in similar circumstances, and as I indicated at ANI I thought this would prevent both sides from editing this article. Please point me to the relevant PC discussion--I'm not a fan of it anyway, but I thought it would give other editors the opportunity to improve the article, thinking that both sides might see the light and refrain, and that their socks would be easily fished out. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Link to the discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rivertorch, I'm not sure why you've linked to that discussion. I think the relevant discussions are:
Yaris678 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I had both RfC 1 and RfC 2 open in separate tabs, and apparently linked to the wrong one. Oops! Thanks for noticing. (I've seconded your request at ANI, btw.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Coolio.
The PC protection has been removed.
Yaris678 (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It was on 28 December. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Apply PC1 to Featured Articles on the Main Page

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)

What we don't do is to preemptively protect TFAs. PC is regulated by the same policy. I also think we should be very careful about broadening the definition of what PC is for, there have been enough problems already with saying we will do one thing and then doing something else, i.e. the PC trial. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I can see two acceptable ways of using PC for things not covered by Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection.
  1. For a very limited number of pages for a fairly short period, people (admins or those able to persuade admins at WP:RFP) can apply PC protection in other situations and claim WP:IGNORE. Obviously they should believe they have a very good reason for doing so and should be prepared to explain it and to reverse the change if it proves controversial.
  2. For anything else (including cases that originally qualified for item 1, but people want to extend beyond a very limited number of pages or a fairly short period) there should be considerable discussion and consensus gathering before going ahead.
Pre-emptive PC protecting TFA would obviously not qualify for item 1. In theory it could happen under item 2 but I don't think there is any point in trying to get consensus for it. Firstly, as Beeblebrox said, it would go against the the protection policy which is against pre-emptive protection. Secondly, it is impractical because PC doesn't work well on pages with a high edit rate, which obviously includes TFA.
Yaris678 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Issue rejecting changes

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)

If the second edit undid the first, there is no reason not to go ahead and accept it as the article is not changed. Someone elde has already done so. However, witht he level of vandalism I am seeing there I wonder if PC is really the best fit, semi protection might be a better option. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC):
I thought about accepting them both, but thought that might raise issues with making the first edit a valid "revert to" target? Semi protection would be fine by me too. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

PC2 in use

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)

Why shouldn't it be used, its a simple protection tool - where is it being used? Youreallycan 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
@Dank, See WP:An#PC2_for_Mangoeater_targets ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (Basically persistent autoconfirmed sock-puppetry.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
1948 Arab–Israeli War was the result of an AN/I discussion. No idea for the others. Monty845 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
See Special:StablePages for the full list and filter as needed. CIreland (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
[3] this is a direct link to just the PC2 listing. Monty845 01:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have two pages on my watchlist, one is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and it needs to be under PC since there is a lot of good-faith meaningless edits, and Gerard Depardieu was there for a week after he was granted a Russian citizenship since hordes of editors came to replace French actor with Russian actor, and did not care to look at the talk page where it was discussed. Before I put these to on my watchlist, I was checking every several hours the list of unreviewed pages, and mostly it was empty. I believe I reviewed in total may be several dozen edits, not more.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I continue to believe PC2 is a mostly meaningless extension for the tool, but consensus can change. If a local consensus somewhere believes they have found a situation where it is actually more useful than all other protection options, it may be interesting to see what use they get out of it. Multiple autoconfirmed socks are such a rare situation, but is maybe the one time it is really the best option. As policy is meant to reflect practice,not dictate it, perhaps we should just incorporate this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Say what? If one admin, somewhere, somewhen, uses a feature he's not supposed to, that legitimizes the practice? I would rather not. Nobody wants PC2. Incidentally, from the discussion below it sounds like someone has managed to sneak through a backdoor version of PC2 already simply by "deprecating" the autoconfirmed revisions. Meanwhile there's a thread at Village Pump about revisions somehow not being accepted if they replicate previous IP edits? Pending Changes is a disease, and the one thing you can count on it to do is spread. Wnt (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Wnt,
  1. I don't fully agree with what Beeblebrox is saying but I think you misrepresent what he is saying. He is saying that consensus can change, not that a single person can force it to change.
  2. The consensus at Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1 was not "Nobody wants PC2" it was "no consensus, which would default to not using PC level 2 for the time being. We will leave discussions about PC level 2 until we have used PC level 1 as a community for 3-6 months."
  3. The ability to unapprove or "deprecate" an approved edit has always been there. It is not the same as PC2, which assumes edits by non-reviewers aren't approved until they are approved. There is nothing "backdoor" about it.
  4. I assume the discussion on the village pump you are talking about is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Confusion about Pending Changes. This is a bit weird and needs investigating.
Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This has just defeated me

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)

Let's see here....
No, you do not need to apply for any permissions, you already have the user right and you used it when reviewing these changes
It looks to me as though you already did exactly what you intended to do, rejecting the one change and accepting the one that followed, and your edit is listed as accepted from what I can see, there may have been some temporary bug or something that affected what you saw
And lastly, PC was not rammed down anyone's throat, the community discussed it over the course of several years and decided it wanted the tool turned on. So, consensus, not some secret cabal or the foundation or whoever you are implying with your remark, is responsible for PC being in use.
I hope this clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not really ... what I saw was that the 2 pending changes had multiplied to 3, of which the last was my own, and the software refused to allow me to proceed with either accepting the 2nd IP change or editing the Cluebot version until I had ... accepted my own change? That seemed counterproductive if not Kafkaesque, so at that point I gave up. It has been suggested to me by someone who is more of a hacker than I am that I could have changed the protection status of the article, made my edit, then re-enabled pending changes, but as you say, it has been decided that we must have this thing, so that would be naughty of me. I do however disagree about the process, but I'm aware that those pushing it thought it would be a good thing. I just hadn't realized I wouldn't be able to edit with it in place! Sorry, it's beyond me, perhaps it requires one to be using Vector or something, but I'm glad the 2nd IP got their edit accepted somehow (likely someone else came by and sorted it out) - I just checked the article history, someone had to accept my edit! So something is not working here, either in pending changes or, quite likely, at my end PBKAC. If it is a bug, it would be nice if it could be fixed, but I'll be leaving articles with pending changes in place for others to monitor. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Look, you can of course push yourself in the position "I do not understand it, and I do not want to understand it, hence it is wrong, hence I quit". However, it is not particularly constructive. If you wanted to make the point that the software is evil, you made it. I personally find it fine, but this is not relevant. If you would like to learn better how to use it, Beeblebrox's reply gives a good starting point, and I am sure there will be more people here to help you. But you can not say "help me" and "I quit" at the same time.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying something rather different. Namely: pending changes was imposed to an article I monitor for vandalism. So I gave it the old college try. And it did not work! Given that I supposedly have the right, my edit should not have needed to be approved by someone else! That makes me feel very bad for the second IP. And I had not realized that in addition to being something I disapprove of, it doesn't work right! Or is one supposed to somehow respond to both changes simultaneously, or in reverse order? or is it actually a two-step process where one does have to approve one's own edit to proceed? Or is it that it requires me to use Vector ??? I am not going to mess with it any more. It's not a matter of my needing instruction. It's a matter of either the instructions need tweaking or there is a bug ... in addition to its being IMO a Bad Thing. Does that clarify why I have followed up here? I know I am a luser who can break most forms of software and that the vast majority of admins know what they are doing with computers, but something failed to work here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Or, to put it differently, it does not work in the way you thought it should. This might be a software problem, or it might be your personal problem, and from your explanation it is not particularly clear what it actually is. If you want to know, I can actually look into the logs and/or ask somebody more technically qualified to do it. If you do not care, I will not spend my time on that.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do, because it may affect others trying to use it, and thus the poor editors trying to improve articles that have this in place. It's quite apparent from the history of the article that something went awry: someone had to accept my change. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Whet I can figure out from the edit history is that at some point pending changes were patrolled, then two IPs edited, let us call them IP1 and IP2. You did not like the edit by IP1 and undid it. The resulting version were obviously still not patrolled, since it still contained edits by IP2. One needed to accept it. Presumably, you could have done it yourself, but found it weird, and then another user did it. No rocket science, from my perspective.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I gave up and wrote it off. I'd wondered whether that was the case, but that wasn't what the messages on the screen appeared to be saying. I'm told this happens fairly often - users are reporting problems with the software but the developers can't see the problem. In this instance maybe what's needed is clarity in the instructions, particularly when there are multiple unreviewed edits already present? It looks to me as if the problem reported in the section below was much the same. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, below is indeed the same problem reported. I am not sure how it could be improved, may be it is smth for the developers (I hope they are reading the page).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do I have to accept my own edits?

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)

This is how it is supposed to be. The new version of the page included your change and the change by the IP. Since you hadn't already accepted the version by the IP, it asks if you want to accept the new version with all the changes. This is to prevent unwanted changes being accepted by mistake.
Then again... I don't know anything about this "helpful edit notice". It sounds like we might have some confusing redundancy here. What exactly does the edit notice say? Does it say that by saving the change you are accepting the previous edit?
Yaris678 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That was the impression that I got; then again, I could have been reading between the lines. —Theopolisme (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

When are changes automatically accepted?

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? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you are not autopatrolled. Please apply.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I did not realize I needed to be autopatrolled. I actually applied for that a short while back, but was denied as I did not have the requisite number of articles created. However, I believe I remember having changes automatically accepted on a PC article in the past. Are there different levels of pending changes? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 13:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are several levels, but only one can be implemented according to the conclusion of RFC (I guess it is PC-1, but I do not remember exactly).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Am I allowed to accept my own changes? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not know but I guess yes. Just try.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Something is clearly wrong, based on the configuration of the page, your change should have been automatically accepted... If its just a one off thing, I guess its not an issue, but if it re-occurs we definitely need to look into what is causing it. Monty845 17:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason for this is that Jerem43 removed [5] the reviewed status ("deprecated the revision") from the revision. Your edit was automatically accepted at first, but for some reason it was unnecessarily "unreviewed". Someone should tell Jerem43 that revisions should not be unaccepted. --Pxos (talk) 14:46, 22 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)

Why is a reversion to the last accepted version not automatically accepted?

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)

The short answer is that you need to become a reviewer, which should be very easy for you. Have a read over Wikipedia:Reviewing. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer and ask for the permission.
Yaris678 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! What about reversions to previously reviewed versions - accepting them as already reviewed would surely reduce the workload? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Automatically accepting reversions to previously accepted versions has been discussed before. I think it was rejected because of fears of how it could play out in an edit war. One side would get there version automatically accepted just because it has already been accepted. Doing it this way means that a reviewer is more likely to look at intermediate edits and see which is preferable. Of course, if they are all acceptable the reviewer should accept all the versions... but only the last one will display... which is a bit weird... but that's just one of the weirdnesses of Pending Changes.
Yaris678 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Adam Gemili

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)

This needs to be asked at Talk:Adam Gemili, not here. Such a change will only be made if a reliable source more current than the existing cited sources provide new information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Addbot in pending changes

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)

Addshore, if I am seeing this correctly, this is because of unaccepted edits make before Addbot's edit. This is intended behavior (just in case the previous editor, say, vandalized) and shouldn't be too much of a problem. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 01:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, so if someone makes an edit on a page which is then 'pending' and before it is checked out addbot then edits? :) Makes sense! ·addshore· talk to me! 08:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are currently pending revisions to pages on your watchlist.

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)

There are no pages right now with PC, so I can't reproduce the message, but it's possible that there's a CSS class for the message that could be used to make it invisible. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Visible in edit history

"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)

The changes marked "accepted by" were made by unregistered or new editors and then accepted by editors with Reviewer rights. The ones marked "automatically accepted" are edits that were made by established editors and so do not require reviewing before being visible. This is shown in the table at Wikipedia:Pending changes#Effect of various protection levels. The page explains all of this, but perhaps it's not as clear or easy to understand as it could be. The "VisualEditor" tag is unrelated to all this. It marks changes that were done using the Wikipedia:VisualEditor. That's the new editing interface that allows the article to be edited more directly, instead of the traditional way of editing the markup. On articles the Edit tab now invokes the Visual Editor and the Edit Source tab gets you the markup editor. — Mudwater (Talk) 04:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
1. Now visiting the same David Bowie: Revision history from a different station where some settings may differ, I see that all "automatically accepted" or "approved" entries in the edit history are shaded light blue. I have seen this before at DE.wikipedia and know it to be effective.
2. Evidently "pending review" is the default, not marked in the edit history by [annotation] or background color. So we should revise to say something like,
"Pending changes are visible in [alt: may be inferred from] the edit history as those listings not shaded and not marked accepted or approved."
By the way, this convention mismatches the edit histories of ordinary pages, where all entries are (a) automatically accepted and (b) neither [annotated] nor shaded. So it isn't "intuitive". But the documentation should fit. --P64 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Documentation on Special:AdvancedReviewLog

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)

FAQ contradicts observations

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)

N.B. I wasn't a reviewer at the time this happened. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Originally, there was an issue where if you rolled back an edit, it was automatically accepted, but if you used anything other then actual rollback, and didn't have reviewer, it would not be. I'm guessing that was fixed and the text never updated. Monty845 20:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like it was a bug, though. It sounds like desired behavior, "to prevent potential abuse." Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... I guess there is a potential for abuse here. I'm not going to go into details about it because of WP:BEANS. I guess there are two posibilities here:
  • Someone decided that abuse was unlikely and would probably be spotted eventually so its worth letting it go for the sake of reduced backlog.
  • Someone thought it was a bug and "fixed" it, when actually it was a feature that was supposed to be there.
Yaris678 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you email me (or something) how the abuse could happen? I don't see it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

PC2 In use Followup

Just thought a mention of the pages currently subject to PC level 2 should be made again. [7]

Colin Cheong
Roman polytheistic reconstructionism
Dinh Bo Linh - Explicitly invoked WP:IAR
Dave Benson Phillips
Jimmy Fallon
Conventional PCI - WP:OFFICE action

Obviously the office action stays, but thought another discussion on the rest would be a good idea. Monty845 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows:
  • Colin Cheong - I would have preferred to see the offending user blocked first and then only resort to PC2 if we saw several other attempts by new accounts.
  • Roman polytheistic reconstructionism - Maybe it makes sense, judging by the phrase "looks like the spammers are back", referring to a newly autoconfirmed user. If someone could point me to more background that would help decide.
  • Dinh Bo Linh - Yes. WP:IAR discussed here. And it makes sense since there was an edit that had to be deleted, which was added after the article was semi-protected.
  • Dave Benson Phillips - I can't really see why this is PC2 and not PC1.
  • Jimmy Fallon - Possibly valid. There does seem to be some BLP issues with material that keeps being added by new accounts. I think most of these new accounts aren't autoconfirmed but arguably that would happen if the article was just PC1 or semi.
  • Conventional PCI - I'm not going there
I also think it is about time that we start drafting some rules around use of PC2. We can probably start by thinking which of the above is acceptable and unacceptable uses of PC2 and then try to generalise into some rules.
Yaris678 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Cart before horse. At this time, there is no consensus to permit the use of PC2 under any circumstances. Rivertorch (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
To be more precise, the closing admin of the RfC on the subject said "the result is no consensus, which would default to not using PC level 2 for the time being. We will leave discussions about PC level 2 until we have used PC level 1 as a community for 3-6 months. By then, we will have a better idea of how PC works, and people can work out a policy and come up with/adjust their views in accordance with that." That was almost a year ago. It is high time that we have a conversation about when PC2 can and can't be used.
I think is is OK for an admin to invoke WP:IAR and apply PC2 now if there is a very good reason. I think the reasons given for Dinh Bo Linh qualify, but others may disagree. Apart from Conventional PCI, which I'm not going to comment on, I think the others shouldn't be PC2 at the moment, but arguably some of them might be candidates for PC2 when we have consensus for it. That is why we need some rules.
I don't want to get stuck in a cycle where we go "Shall we use PC2?" -> "Not until we have a policy" -> "Shall we have a policy?" -> "Policy should just document practice / how do we know what policy will work if we can't try it out?" -> "Shall we use PC2?". I think that thinking about these cases in front of use should help us come up with a decent draft policy which we can then have an RfC on.
If an admin wants to remove PC2 from them for the time being I won't object, with the possible exception of Dinh Bo Linh.
Yaris678 (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Note there's been another RFC this year already. The one sentence summary of the closure is "There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first." isaacl (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I'd forgotten that one. Probably because the result was inevitable, given the way that the question was phrased. I think this just proves the point that we should try to come up with some rules that we can gain consensus around. Yaris678 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You'd "forgotten that one"? It was closed less than a week ago. (I see you didn't !vote in it, although you did make a couple of comments.) In any event, as Isaacl noted, the closer provided a path forward for anyone who wants one. Personally, I'm rather sick of hearing about pending changes at this point. RfC after RfC after RfC ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It really does seem sometimes that its supporters are determined to push and push and push relentlessly until pending changes has infected as much of the wiki as possible. Is there anything broken here that PC2 would magically fix or might our energies be better spent on other matters, I wonder. Rivertorch (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow. That RfC ran for a long time. Personally I am rather bored of being asked about PC2 too. And I don't have any strong feelings about whether it should or shouldn't be used. But I would like to try to come to some kind of arrangement that gets a degree of consensus.
I think the last RfC was illconceived. Where did it come from anyway? It seems to be in marked contrast to WP:PC2012 where we spent ages talking about options before we fixed on what questions to ask in what order.
Yaris678 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense you're looking for compromise. I'd generally applaud that, but please consider that the current policy enabling PC1 is already the result of a hard-won compromise (of sorts), and anything further smacks more of concession than consensus. Sometimes the de facto consensus is no consensus at all, and that's okay. With Herculean effort it might be possible to put together an RfC that by year's end resulted in a close sanctioning the limited use of PC2. Would it be worth it—i.e., would the benefits outweigh the amount of effort required, not to mention the possible ill effects of increased PC2 usage? I don't know. I have an opinion, but I don't know. I do know that I can live with the occasional IAR employment of PC2 as long as it's subject to review and doesn't get out of hand. (Sorry if I was snappish, btw. I remember your contributions to last year's RfCs in a positive light. It's the RfCs themselves that I'd just as soon not think about anytime soon.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:11, 3 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)

I can't really disagree with anything you just said, but I would note that there's a substantial precedent for applying pending changes without explicit approval. Never mind the period immediately following the end of the "trial"; during the interval between when PC was removed en masse from the "trial" articles and the explicit reauthorization to reapply it, PC1 was applied to various articles by various administrators. This was noted several times and, with one or two exceptions, no one seemed inclined to pursue the matter. This time around, who is going to "simply" undo it if the admins decline? Will it require an interminable discussion at WP:AN? If certain admins, citing WP:IAR and particularly WP:BLP, insist that PC2 is vital on certain articles, will removing it entice them into wheel warring? I'm not posing these questions to discourage this from being dealt with, but I do think they're worth considering. Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the approach outlined by Beeblebrox. (Basically for the reasons outlined by Beeblebrox. While I consider the last RfC illconceived, that doesn't change the possibility of the reduced trust Beeblebrox mentions.) I think what will happen in response to raising it with the admin will vary from case to case. For Dave Benson Phillips, I suspect the admin intended to apply PC1 (but maybe I missed something). For some of the others, the threat may have passed and/or the admin may agree it would be better dealt with by blocking a small number of users. If there is anything left, where an admin feels that semi-protection isn't enough, then the only real option at the moment is full protection. Yaris678 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I've asked all the protecting admins (except Philippe, who did the office action) to reconsider and have informed them of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
2 of the original 5 have had PC2 removed, and Brooks City-Base is now PC2 protected. Monty845 20:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize that this is about a month old, but I recall that consensus was that there should be rules for the application of PC/2 BEFORE any usage was to be approved. thus, preventing discussion of rules by saying" there's no consensus for use" is just circular logic. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all

This just added to the edit history of Wikipedia:Pending changes:

  • (cur | prev) 20:40, 25 September 2013‎ Cyberbot II (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,817 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Tagging page with PC1 protection template. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 5))) (rollback: 1 edit | undo) [automatically accepted]
  • (cur | prev) 20:39, 25 September 2013‎ Mark Arsten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,806 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Configured pending changes settings for Wikipedia:Pending changes: Persistent vandalism [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission]) (undo) [automatically accepted]

How ironic! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it. It's very "meta". — Mudwater (Talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Irony is so ironic. - BilCat (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The main protection policy page has been protected for some time. Lots of policy pages are protected to prevent vandals or others upset by the policies from just changing them to something they like better. But it is still kind of ironic. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
And it's not even April Fools Day. Ah, well, my watchlist needed weeding anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 03:49, 26 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)

Someone turned off PC protection in the last few days. It was turned on in late September, after several edits were reverted in a relatively short period of time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About templates

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)

RfC on usage of Pending Changes level 2

Please comment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

almost a great idea

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)

Then the vandals can just watch the page before editing. Reviewing pages where a revert has already occurred is very simple. You just a press a button. If you revert it, then it is like nobody has edited it and pending changes would not make a difference. In fact, it is better that pending changes was enabled because the vandal edit was not seen by the public. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not quite what he's asking for. He's saying that if an autoconfirmed user reverts a PC1 page back to its last accepted version, it should be autoaccepted even if previous IP/new user edits would otherwise result in it not being accepted. I personally agree with that idea. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's what is supposed to happen. If it is not happening, then PC isn't working properly. Risker (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently it happens intermittently, depending on how the revert is done. I'll try to get it fixed to happen all the time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes. But it's not being maintained, as was noted in past discussions, so it's unlikely to get fixed. It also doesn't work properly with VisualEditor. Risker (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll code the fix myself then. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Risker: I've submitted gerrit:106737. Once it's deployed here, reverts by autoconfirmed users back to the last accepted version will always be autoaccepted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Deployment of that here will be on January 23. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ACCEPTIT

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)

I don't see any reason why it should. If you think it should, send it to RfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mergefrom

mergefrom: Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions

reason
  1. see the WikiData situation: "Pending changes" as d:Q6656393, whereas the "Sighted versions" d:Q15801814 is alone. I noticed this just now when I went from Polish to Chinese to English and found language link on the left being inconsistent. It is quite confusing.
  2. Oh, look, it is a chain of confusion! "Reviewing/Historical" d:Q11107170, whose Georgian (ka) is old-linked on "Sighted versions". From there (the Georgian) I can see a Belarussian link to Autopatrolled! OMG, what has been done?!

Please comment further. Tag my name if you wanna gimme a nudge to reply. :) Thanks. --- SzMithrandir (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There may be a good reason to change Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions to a redirect to Wikipedia:Pending changes. However, the fact that the current situation makes a mess on Wikidata isn't one of them. Wikidata may have highlighted a mess on Wikipedia that we want to tidy up. That would be very useful. However, now that the situation has been highlighted, we should make our decision for the benefit of Wikipedia, not the benefit of Wikidata. Yaris678 (talk) 17:55, 4 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)

Sighted versions is an old failed flagged revs proposal, among many others, only tangentially related to pending changes. It shouldn't be merged, even mentioned here. Cenarium (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I trust that we can therefore remove the merge template ? I'll do so if there is no objection. Cenarium (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cenarium (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

PC-1

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:

  • Everybody can edit
  • Unregistered editors can contribute, either useful or unhelpful to vandalism
  • If an edit is incorrect or vandalism, someone reverts it
  • If an unregistered editor makes a good edit, nobody has to do anything

PC-1

  • Everybody can edit
  • Non auto-confirmed editors can contribute, either useful or unhelpful to vandalism
  • If an edit is incorrect or vandalism, someone reverts it
  • If non auto-confirmed editor makes a good edit, a registered editor then has to accept the edit, creating an extra step for registered editors.

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)

It keeps readers from seeing vandalism from the time between when the page was vandalized and when it was reverted, and it makes sure that someone eventually notices the edit. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66: Not quite. With PC-1, If an unregistered or non-autoconfirmed editor makes an edit, that edit and all subsequent edits are invisible to non-logged-in editors (and by extension, to search engines) until an editor with reviewer rights accepts or rejects the edits. If there are no "pending" changes waiting to be "reviewed," then if an autoconfirmed editor edits, the change is automatically accepted. Wikipedia:Pending changes#Effect of various protection levels has a nice chart with the current state of affairs. Should "Pending changes level 2" ever be approved, then you will need to read this chart. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not as explained in this help page ( If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title)

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)

Evaluation?

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)

I don't know of any formal evaluation. Informally, if a page that is followed by a significant number of people is protected and nobody complains about the level of protection, then it was probably a good thing to add that level of protection.
I occasionally see pending changes on my watchlist, and I assume others do as well. Unless a PC1'd article is unwatched or only being watched by people with PC1-approval rights who rarely check their watchlists, the backlog should never be high. As of a few minutes ago, Special:PendingChanges is empty. See Special:SpecialPages and scroll down to the "Pending changes" section to see other useful special pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The same in

Level 1 and 2?

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)

With rare exceptions, pending changes level 2 is not in use on the English Wikipedia. It will not be until a community discussion finishes which officially endorses its use. Until then, the documentation does not have it to avoid confusion. Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) currently has only 2 non-testing pages listed on it. Conventional PCI is under PC2 as the method to enforce an WP:OFFICE action. There has already been an extensive discussion about whether this protection level should be changed to a different protection level for that page - it won't happen. Sari Gelin is tagged as having PC2 protection but I think this was a mistake. @DangerousPanda: can you make sure that the protection on Sari Gelin is no higher than needed to protect from non-autoconfirmed editors? The autoconfirmed editor who was causing problems is now blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Davidwr: The category you linked now contains a half dozen articles that are set to PC2. Admins seem to be using as one notch below full protection, which I'm not convinced is appropriate. Also, there are five pages in the Wikipedia namespace set for PC protection, which says to me that not only are people not reading the guidelines, they're fundamentally misunderstanding how PC works. That makes ten pages (leaving off the article under WP:OFFICE action) now under PC that fall outside of the current guidelines. I am not sure if the individual admins should be contacted, or if this should be more widely discussed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
At this point, any non-office use of PC2 that started before the close of the most recent PC2 AFD should be evaluated under WP:AIR and the previous PC2-related RFC. While the previous RFC didn't allow for any procedure to use PC2, it did appear to say that the community supported PC2. This leaves significant wiggle-room for an WP:IAR use of PC2. The most recent RFC changed from "consensus to use, but we don't know how" to "no consensus regarding whether use, but once a consensus does develop, there is a partial consensus as to how." This leaves far less wiggle-room for an IAR-justification for PC2.
As for the articles in Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) and [8] (which at the moment are one in the same):
As all of these had the protection set before the most recent close, we can probably give a little more slack to the administrators than we would if such protection were imposed today. My recommendation: As all of the administrators who placed the protection have now been {{ping}}'d, they should go back and decide whether to summarily change the protection level from PC2 to something else, decide whether to continue to rely on WP:IAR but set a relatively short (weeks or days, not months) expiration on the PC2, decide if they want to try to gain community consensus to have PC2 on that page even without any current global consensus to use it at all (in other words, they will still be justifying keeping PC2 using WP:IAR, but they will be able to point to a local consensus that endorses the particular use of IAR), or continue to rely on IAR and keep things the way they are. Bear in mind, any time any editor relies on IAR, if he "gets it wrong" (i.e. if it's NOT the right thing to do after all is said and done), he is risking backlash and possibly even sanctions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

PC in Wikipedia namespace

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)

I've cleared four of the five; the fifth one may warrant further discussion. Risker (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Two left: WP:Wikipedians and WP:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters. The log on the first speaks of vandalism, the second of unsourced/non-notable content. I fail to see how PC helps for either of these; it doesn't stop the posts, it only reduces their public visibility. What difference does that make on project pages that are already mostly out of the public eye? As a reviewer, I'm especially not going to try to figure out whether a requested band article is notable enough, isn't that the reason the page is there in the first place? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: My opinion seems to reflect consensus amongst the reviewers -- of the four PC reversions done on the Requested articles page, three were performed by the selfsame admin who had set the page to PC in the first place. On the Wikipedians page, only two PC reversions have been performed since it was configured. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
IMHO I would support PC1 on project pages that would otherwise be semi-protected, but only if PC1 actually solved the problem and there was either a clear local consensus to use PC1 instead of SEMI or someone suggested using PC1 instead of SEMI on the project-talk page and there was no objection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind having PC1 set of WP:Wikipedians as an alternative to semi. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Something to think about for any future PC2 RFC

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)

Time for "PC-0" as an alternative to semi-protection?

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)

No. It's been pointed out repeatedly that just autoconfirmation is not enough justification for the reviewer right, and that reviewers should ideally have a lot more experience with Wikipedia than just 4/10. Not to mention that all forms of PC fail on pages which receive a high volume of edits, and most indef-semi'd pages would the moment the semi was removed. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The proposed PC0 is intended to keep obvious vandalism and other obvious "bad edits" from being seen by non-logged in editors and search engines. Project pages such as
which has had 3 probably-good-faith "bad edits" ([10], [11], and [12]) in the last couple of months by non-autoconfirmed editors are examples of pages where this kind of protection would be highly desirable. Due to the lack of PC0, I've started a discussion on the talk page recommending PC1 (as an alternative to SEMI) for that page, so that if someone does make a "bad edit" non-logged-in visitors won't see it. If we had PC0, I would recommend it over the stronger levels of protection in a heartbeat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, PC0 is meaningless if any autoconfirmed user can review. 4/10 is not a strong enough justification for granting anyone review powers. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Which users do "pending changes" affect?

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)

As there was a previous edit by an unregistered user in the queue pending review, your subsequent change is also pending review. If there hadn't been any edits pending review when you made your changes, then your edit would have been visible immediately to all users. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the help! JayJ47 (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC wants to use PC2

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)

Indefinite PC2 used to conceal information on Zoe Quinn

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)

If this is about Zoe Quinn, you'll get more eyes on this if you take it to ANI. About Haines, I'm curious if anybody contacted AUSC? BethNaught (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Automatic acceptance

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)

Here's my take on it: the reason it was automatically accepted was because you were reverting to a revision that was already the "current accepted revision". If, however, you were reverting to a revision that was still pending (IP1 edits article, IP2 edits article, you revert only the change by IP2) then your revert would be pending as well, even though you are autoconfirmed. In my mind this slight preference toward the WP:Status quo makes sense...you shouldn't need to wait for a reviewer to come along to revert every-day IP vandalism and free up the article for others to edit. And think about it, if it weren't that way, whenever a regular user reverts an IP (as you did) you'd have to have a reviewer come along to accept the null edit...not a very productive use of time. Also, I don't think this behavior contradicts the examples in the FAQ if you read it a certain way, although the FAQ could certainly be much clearer on this point. (If you don't object, perhaps we could edit the FAQ.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think the second question (prior to your change) was pretty clear in saying that the edits will remain pending, so it did contradict this specific case, though it may not have been important enough to warrant a change. However, now that you've edited the FAQ, I just want to check: is this the behaviour as documented or determined from the code? isaacl (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes block

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)

@Cenarium: Where is you draft? (You did not provide a link.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Oups, added. It's User:Cenarium/PCB. Cenarium (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes with approve=admin as an alternative to full protection?

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:

  • Are there fully-protected, low-traffic pages in or out of article space where allowing pending changes that require an admin to approve would work out better than the current method of using the {{Request edit}} template? If so, is the number high enough to ask for this to be implemented?

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 is a normal feature of the Flagged Revisions, which is the technique behind the Pending Changes. Among others the Finnish Wikipedia has this ability and we never use it. There is no point because full protection is usually applied to stop an edit-war between established users. The stabilization (as it is called in FR) of a page such as to allow only administrators to review the edits during an edit war makes little sense. --Pxos (talk) 21:40, 14 August 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)

It would prevent it if there would be a consensus against using it. There's an absence of consensus for using it. It's different. Even if the decision was made by a small local group, the community let it stand, indicating tacit approval. Cenarium (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, its creep and you know it. Mion (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes block proposal

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)

Changes awaiting review counter.

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)

Telling the reviewer why the article is protected

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)

You can expand the "show pending changes protection log" link that is to the right of the accept/reject buttons. I actually came here to suggest that the reason be shown by default, but given the amount of unanswered questions on this page it doesn't appear as if anyone is actually watching it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If reviewers are still letting in such vandalism edits, especially when it is persistent and repetitive over that long period of time, IMO there really is no other choice but to increase it to semi-protection. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy question

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 would say does not matter. I guess it would even technically not possible to revert the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What to do if there are several pending changes.

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)

If you go to the page history, view the diff's of each user (which could be multiple edits) separately, and accept/reject them separately. And yes, start with the oldest. Gap9551 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This Article needs to be removed.

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)

Moved to Talk:Gamergate controversy § Call for deletion posted accidentally on a different talk page

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)

"Show pending changes protection log" button did not work on Steven Kynman

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)

This is phab:T59912, the article was moved. Re-protected with a rationale. Cenarium (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Namespaces

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've updated this. This was a restriction of the original trial, indeed there is this finding of consensus that use can be broader that just articles and test pages, and in effect some project pages like Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/A-E are under PCP, but no request at phab: was made to extend the allowable namespaces. For such a request, a new discussion would probably be needed as 2012 is a bit old. Cenarium (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dismissing notification on watchlist

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)

I would be nice if the Mark all pages as visited button would also dismiss the notifacation. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

3RR?

Does WP:3RR affect reverting pending changes? Can this be made clear on the policy page? -- Gestrid (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

3RR applies, unless it is within the regular exceptions. I've added a note about those to the guideline on reviewing. Cenarium (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Deferred changes

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)

PC2 usage

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)

Request for comment on PC protection

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)

The RfC has snow-closed as oppose. — Gestrid (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Pending changes discussions on Special:PendingChanges?

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)

Update on Deferred Changes RfC

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)

Pending changes

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)

Backlog indicator

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)

The template {{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)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

The discussion is relisted. You may comment there as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Chart of total pages?

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)

Confirmation of acceptance or non acceptance

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 think this is a bug. I do get the second screen occasionally, but usually I just do everything in one click.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay would be nice to see it fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

German

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)

Turn off watchlist banner

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)

Minor bug: Save changes button

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)

How will the reviewers get credit for their work?

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)

Ok I can see the advanced review log. But I am not sure if they are considered in the contributions count. Anshuk (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry about edit count. Just continue doing good work. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Advanced review log filtering is weird

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.

  1. All action types (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.
  2. Review action: 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.
  3. Review action: 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)

Where did my acceptance comments go?

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)

Mathglot There's only one place I know of where these obiter dicta are visible and that's in the "Advanced review log", e.g. [14]. I've sometimes thought it would be good to display these also in page history, straight after where it shows [Accepted by Bloggins]: Noyster (talk), 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Also noted that the same applies when Unaccepting a previously accepted change, an action which you are much more likely to want to justify in a comment readily accessible to other editors. One dodge to get round this is to make a small or null edit of your own, and add your comment in the edit summary in the normal way: Noyster (talk), 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that, while I agree there are times when it might be helpful to display the reviewer's comments, that's only necessary if the edits in question don't already contain explanatory edit summaries. In the ideal case, each edit being reviewed would be accompanied by a good summary that would say all that's needed, and our review explanations (if any) would really only be of interest to other reviewers (hence their relegation to the log).
Unfortunately we don't live in that world, and as we're all well aware most editors don't write useful edit summaries. IP / non-autoconfirmed editors probably even less frequently. So, commentary from reviewers that fill in for their lack of detail is probably going to remain a necessary evil. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Pending-changes-protect TFA proposal

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)

What does the "revision flagged" result mean?

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)

Dangit

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. GMGtalk 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: what version of the page were you trying to restore to? If you go to that diff and then edit the source of that diff, you can save the page and it will be the version you meant to roll back to. Be sure to leave an informative edit summary if you do this though. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I believe the problem was that the IP made an edit and then removed their own edit. So rollback wouldn't roll back because it thought it was restoring the current version of the page (which it was), but pending changes wouldn't let me review both edits for some reason. I'm still not totally sure why, but it looks like when AnomieBOT edited the page after me it fixed it for some reason. GMGtalk 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I restored it to C.Fred's most recent revision. When you tried rolling back, you also undid this edit by Bradv which rejected a pending change, and so actually wound up including content that had been rejected. If that was your intent, feel free to revert, but I think the page now should be what you were looking for. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Good catch. Yeah, I thought it was all clean reverts and I was just reverting further, not reverting differently. One way or another seems to be fixed. GMGtalk 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Accepting a later change seems to leave earlier pending changes no longer reviewable

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)

I'm not seeing a problem, and have since accepted one of the earlier revisions. You should be able to see the Accept button by scrolling through the diffs. For example, this is currently available for review. In general though, only the latest revision is what matters. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@North8000: What maybe isn't explicitly-enough stated, here, is that accepting always accepts all of the pending changes. That's the only way it's ever worked, and how it's intended to work. You either accept the whole chain, or don't. If you want to not accept anything in the chain, you need to individually revert those edits, one by one (which will add more edits to the pending-acceptance chain), then when you've reverted everything that shouldn't be accepted, you accept the entire review list. But accepting is very much an all-or-nothing thing, only possible on the most recent pending edit and including all previous pending edits as well. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't know that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
While it is in the blurb sent on creation, and it is in the full page, FeRDNYC is correct - it actually is surprisingly non-blatant for such a key bit - it might be worth stating it as a bolded line in the "reviewing edits" bit. Obviously if the above request for the community wishlist succeeds the edits could be reviewed independently Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Archive_4&oldid=1151037448"