Wikipedia:Pending changes Options

[TungstenCarbide]

looks like this is about to go live;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes


limited to 2,000 pages at first;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Queue

[EricBarbour]

looks like this is about to go live;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes

And people are already squawking about it.

This is amusing. Yes, you twats, YOU are responsible for anything posted, and the WMF will NOT indemnify you. What a shock.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Ather]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

[TungstenCarbide]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

maybe i should apply, as both (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Subtle Bee]

It's also amusing watching Giano trying not to accept it, as Coren chases him around his talkpage. You'd think it was poison, the way they're behaving.

In a way, maybe it is, I think G's right to run. I expect someone's going to try and force him to swallow it, sooner or later.

[Malleus]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

[Milton Roe]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

[Malleus]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Yes, it does. In a nutshell, if you don't have this new "right", then any edits you make may need to be approved by one of these "trusted" new reviewers before they're visible to the great unwashed.

[Milton Roe]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Yes, it does. In a nutshell, if you don't have this new "right", then any edits you make may need to be approved by one of these "trusted" new reviewers before they're visible to the great unwashed.

Well, the page (link at the head of this thread) claims:

Edits by autoconfirmed users (registered for four days, with ten edits) are automatically approved except in some rare cases.

Well, what are these "rare cases"??

[Kelly Martin]

This is amusing. Yes, you twats, YOU are responsible for anything posted, and the WMF will NOT indemnify you. What a shock.

The more interesting thing is that with "Pending Changes", the reviewer will be legally liable for any defamatory content s/he approves, in addition to whoever made the edit adding the defamation originally.

[Subtle Bee]

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

yes, it seems so (I assume "Autoconfirmed" = nameuser):

Can edit; a new revision is available immediately, but not displayed by default until a reviewer or administrator accepts the edit.

I loved this explanation:

Reviewers are experienced users who are granted the ability to accept other user's edits on pages protected by pending changes. Reviewers are expected to have a minimal editing history, know what is and what is not vandalism and be familiar with basic content policies. More details are provided at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer.

Reviewer rights can be granted by administrators, at their discretion based on the above guidelines.

...given that, as of now, Jimbo's userpage still defiantly proclaims:

Statement of principles
[...] For example: rather than trust humans to identify "regulars" correctly, we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time.
[...]"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

so, meh.

This post has been edited by Subtle Bee:

[EricBarbour]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

Care to take a stab at guessing which ones are ripe socks?
That oughta lead to some lulz.

[Malleus]

Well, the page (link at the head of this thread) claims:

Edits by autoconfirmed users (registered for four days, with ten edits) are automatically approved except in some rare cases.

Well, what are these "rare cases"??

Depends on who edited the article before you did, and on the level of this new protection that's been applied. There's a table WP:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions here that attempts to make it all a bit clearer.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Milton Roe]

Have you seen the rapidly expanding list of reviewers? There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Yes, it does. In a nutshell, if you don't have this new "right", then any edits you make may need to be approved by one of these "trusted" new reviewers before they're visible to the great unwashed.

Well, the page (link at the head of this thread) claims:

Edits by autoconfirmed users (registered for four days, with ten edits) are automatically approved except in some rare cases.

Well, what are these "rare cases"??

Depends on who edited the article before you did, and on the level of this new protection that's been applied. There's a table somewhere that attempts to make it all a bit clearer.

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif)

[Malleus]

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif)

That wouldn't be fit for purpose, because then you'd have no reason to be beholden to the administrators for allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing for years.

[EricBarbour]

As expected, the bullshit is just getting cranked up.

For example, the sweet and sexy Jeske Couriano demands that he be blocked, as a "protest". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Just walk away. The project is determined to light itself afire over is flagged revisions business. Let it burn. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No shit, smartboy. I can hear the syrupy violins already.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Ottava]

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif)

That wouldn't be fit for purpose, because then you'd have no reason to be beholden to the administrators for allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing for years.

I was rather bothered by Karanacs gracing Nancy Heise with the feature. The only reason why Karanacs would do that is to unsettle Nancy in a very stalkerish manner. Many other admin who have abused non-admin have done the same thing.

I have to side with Malleus on this. Seeing crap like the above makes this just a means to harass and intimidate others. The only way to solve the BLP problem is to not have BLPs.

[Malleus]

I was rather bothered by Karanacs gracing Nancy Heise with the feature. The only reason why Karanacs would do that is to unsettle Nancy in a very stalkerish manner. Many other admin who have abused non-admin have done the same thing.

I have to side with Malleus on this. Seeing crap like the above makes this just a means to harass and intimidate others. The only way to solve the BLP problem is to not have BLPs.

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Milton Roe]

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif)

That wouldn't be fit for purpose, because then you'd have no reason to be beholden to the administrators for allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing for years.

Yes. Plus, why do anything by automation that your lackies can do in manual mode? It's like Chinese build-your-dam-with-shovels routine. Emperor Jimbo and his Coolies.

The irony. This policy change is happening on a website where they refused to sprotect most articles, on grounds that they can't, since if IPs couldn't get instant gratification, they'd be so offended as not to edit rather than register (which takes very minimal effort).

But now, they're planning to treat their senior editors that way! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And WHY are they doing this? Well, so that IP-anon users can still edit most articles and continue to get immediate gratification.

I'm beginning to feel a sort of middle-class squeeze. Perhaps I need to resgister to be a reviewer, and then not review. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

The shear stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

[Moulton]

The sheer stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.

[Jon Awbrey]

The sheer stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.

You'd think that some of that knowledge would soak in, if only by osmosis, but then — they probably wear gloves.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

And here is Jimbo Wales, asking for the Reviewer status that ALREADY COMES BAKED INTO his Admin status. What a clod.

[Milton Roe]

The shear stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.

What makes you think the average policy-prick actually reads much of the encyclopedia? Let alone any real political history?

The new "improved" WP "skin" still takes forever to load. I doubt they even beta-tested it. They just imposed it. As with all the other major policies on this site which is supposedly run by the editors. Okay, that's a second "mad belief" that juicers are expected to hold. I should probably start a list of these.

[edit-- started in another thread]

[Moulton]

What makes you think the average policy-prick actually reads much of the encyclopedia? Let alone any real political history?

Oh, it's abundantly obvious they don't consult the lessons of history sprinkled throughout the article space. That's why it's so ironic.

[GlassBeadGame]

It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.

Really quite profound. The participants of this "encyclopedic" project are in fact hostile to the central purpose of any learning project. Those hundreds of thousands of articles are not there for use or application. They are not about learning at all, only narcissistic self expression.

[Jon Awbrey]

See also

• Vector

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Malleus]

And here is Jimbo Wales, asking for the Reviewer status that ALREADY COMES BAKED INTO his Admin status. What a clod.

I imagine that he was taking the piss. If not, then God help him.

[taiwopanfob]

In a way, maybe it is, I think G's right to run. I expect someone's going to try and force him to swallow it, sooner or later.

Yes. It's inevitable that, like everything else, they will weaponize the bit in some way.

It is indeed pretty fucked up that members in good standing should have to grovel for this, especially when they will be bestowed by some typical asswipe admin. Almost as importantly, removal of the bit should be at least at the discretion of the user. There should be no need to fill in some form, bow three times towards San Francisco and them present your posterior to the nearest fruitcake admin for permission to be relieved of duty.

A tick box on some user config page and that's that. This should be true of all bits of course, not just this reviewer bit.

[TungstenCarbide]

This is amusing. Yes, you twats, YOU are responsible for anything posted, and the WMF will NOT indemnify you. What a shock.

The more interesting thing is that with "Pending Changes", the reviewer will be legally liable for any defamatory content s/he approves, in addition to whoever made the edit adding the defamation originally.

good point

[NuclearWarfare]

It is indeed pretty fucked up that members in good standing should have to grovel for this, especially when they will be bestowed by some typical asswipe admin.

There was some discussion about this here a while back.

I imagine that someone will just script-add these editors to the usergroup eventually.

[Ottava]

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.

Bull shit.

Her actions are 100% what would have been done if John were to give you the flag. It is an outrageous abuse of admin powers to harass. People who have a long, negative, and combative history should have -no- use of the ops to give or remove privileges in any capacity. It is an intimidation action and is shameful.

[SB_Johnny]

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.

Bull shit.

Her actions are 100% what would have been done if John were to give you the flag. It is an outrageous abuse of admin powers to harass. People who have a long, negative, and combative history should have -no- use of the ops to give or remove privileges in any capacity. It is an intimidation action and is shameful.

Thus speaks Ottava, overlord of Wikiversity ;-).

[The Wordsmith]

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

Another interesting thing: If for example you have a series of ten edits waiting to be approved on an article, and one is vandalism, there is no way to simply approve all edits except that one. You have to approve all or nothing, and approving all would allow some clever vandal to revert his vandalism back in and have it automagically approved. There should be a simple list of edits with a checkbox next to them, so that a reviewer can selectively approve revisions, but there isn't.

[thekohser]

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

Another interesting thing: If for example you have a series of ten edits waiting to be approved on an article, and one is vandalism, there is no way to simply approve all edits except that one. You have to approve all or nothing, and approving all would allow some clever vandal to revert his vandalism back in and have it automagically approved. There should be a simple list of edits with a checkbox next to them, so that a reviewer can selectively approve revisions, but there isn't.

Before you pat yourself too hard on the back, Nihiltres/Gerard/Poet/whoeveryouare, I distinctly recall that there were a few among us here who predicted that even if/when flagged revisions got implemented, the WMF would find a way to botch the execution, such that it would continue the reputation of fail.

[Jon Awbrey]

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

Another interesting thing: If for example you have a series of ten edits waiting to be approved on an article, and one is vandalism, there is no way to simply approve all edits except that one. You have to approve all or nothing, and approving all would allow some clever vandal to revert his vandalism back in and have it automagically approved. There should be a simple list of edits with a checkbox next to them, so that a reviewer can selectively approve revisions, but there isn't.

Before you pat yourself too hard on the back, Nihiltres/Gerard/Poet/whoeveryouare, I distinctly recall that there were a few among us here who predicted that even if/when flagged revisions got implemented, the WMF would find a way to botch the execution, such that it would continue the reputation of fail.

Oddly enough, no bookie in the world would give us any against.

I Know, I Tried (IKIT) …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

The deeper critique says that any reform carried out by "the community," not just FR, will fail. It is even predictable that assholes like you will make pronouncement like the one above. Measures to protect the interests of BLP or any stakeholders outside the community need to be imposed on a board level. Otherwise they will be ignored by the insular and ignorant community. The only buyers remorse needed is that of the wider society who have been sold a bill goods by Wikipedia.

[Malleus]

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.

Bull shit.

Her actions are 100% what would have been done if John were to give you the flag. It is an outrageous abuse of admin powers to harass. People who have a long, negative, and combative history should have -no- use of the ops to give or remove privileges in any capacity. It is an intimidation action and is shameful.

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Giano]

It's also amusing watching Giano trying not to accept it, as Coren chases him around his talkpage. You'd think it was poison, the way they're behaving.

In a way, maybe it is, I think G's right to run. I expect someone's going to try and force him to swallow it, sooner or later.

Well I won't be accepting it for a very good reason. One is not allowed to make legal threats on Wikipedia, to such an extent is that paranoia that the other day someone was stupidly blocked for even using the adjective "libel." Oddly, the project fails to realise that rule does not work in reverse - anyone libelled by Wikipedia may sue - the uploader of the slanderous information and the owners for publishing it - I have no idea what famous people do in their private lives, but how easy it would be to let a slander slip through one's fingers. To even mention this risk on Wikipedia would probably get me blocked for mentioning the "legal" word.

Anyhow, that is just one aspect, albeit the most serious, I have no wish to sanction the edits of others or spend endless hours verifying them, to save the project subsequent legal fees. I also believe, the powers that be will extend this "protection" across into FAs and GAs and any half decent page, the intimations are there already - while that may (and I'm not sure it will) make Wikipedia more credible and reliable in the eyes of the world's press, it will simultaneously create "the encyclopedia not everyone can edit." While that "not everyone" may once have just meant some of the folks here, it now means an awful lot of drive-by people with interesting information to add - and that is against the ethos of the project which I have supported through thick and thin. Finally, I think it will lead to censorship and ultimately an official Wikipedia office stance on many matters - the global aspect and view will be lost. So for those reasons I am having nothing to do with it.

Giacomo

This post has been edited by Giano:

[Ottava]

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.

Sorry, but that is a crap response.

That is like saying "There are bad pages that should be deleted, so Karanacs started deleting them and only happened to focus on one person who she had a previously very bad relationship with and abused ops with before."

Giving a noble claim as an excuse for ignoble actions is never acceptable and is instead very disgraceful.

She had no right involving herself in any way like that. It is pure harassment.

[Malleus]

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.

Sorry, but that is a crap response.

That is like saying "There are bad pages that should be deleted, so Karanacs started deleting them and only happened to focus on one person who she had a previously very bad relationship with and abused ops with before."

Giving a noble claim as an excuse for ignoble actions is never acceptable and is instead very disgraceful.

She had no right involving herself in any way like that. It is pure harassment.

How handing out a new "right" in an attempt to minimise its negative impact can be be regarded as "harassment" will have to remain a mystery to me