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.