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

[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).

[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"??

[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.

[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:

[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.