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.

[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:

[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

[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.

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

Malleus, you made it clear that you didn't want something that was given and taken away by administrator whim. Those permissions are how administrators show that they are more powerful than others. Those tools always will be. By adding or removing such things to people who you fight with, it is you rubbing your administrator powers in another person's face. When you deal with someone you've had a long term dispute with, you are no longer an "administrator". You have no right to use your ops regarding them even if they are uncontroversial. There are over a 1000 admin, and thinking -you- have to do something is just an excuse for you to bully and intimidate. What she did is no different from this, an action done without my consent nor what I would deem appropriate or acceptable, by someone merely wanting to show that they could.

It is taunting of the first degree, and those like Karanacs should have been blocked long ago for such actions. She has abused her ops regarding Nancy and others in a disgusting way and it is disturbing that she would harass Nancy like that.

[Malleus]

Malleus, you made it clear that you didn't want something that was given and taken away by administrator whim. Those permissions are how administrators show that they are more powerful than others. Those tools always will be. By adding or removing such things to people who you fight with, it is you rubbing your administrator powers in another person's face. When you deal with someone you've had a long term dispute with, you are no longer an "administrator". You have no right to use your ops regarding them even if they are uncontroversial. There are over a 1000 admin, and thinking -you- have to do something is just an excuse for you to bully and intimidate. What she did is no different from this, an action done without my consent nor what I would deem appropriate or acceptable, by someone merely wanting to show that they could.

It is taunting of the first degree, and those like Karanacs should have been blocked long ago for such actions. She has abused her ops regarding Nancy and others in a disgusting way and it is disturbing that she would harass Nancy like that.

It's perfectly true that I've refused all the admin-bestowed baubles, for the reason you say, but I'm in a very small minority; almost everyone else seems to have been quite flattered that they were given a new permission to do exactly what they'd always been able to do. I've got no reason to believe that Nancy felt any any differently, nor that she considered it to be harassment, and I don't see that it makes the slightest difference who does the handing out.

[Ottava]

It's perfectly true that I've refused all the admin-bestowed baubles, for the reason you say, but I'm in a very small minority; almost everyone else seems to have been quite flattered that they were given a new permission to do exactly what they'd always been able to do. I've got no reason to believe that Nancy felt any any differently, nor that she considered it to be harassment, and I don't see that it makes the slightest difference who does the handing out.

Yes, you are in a small minority that has the ability to voice their concerns about admin abuse without fear of too much ramification. Nancy is not. Karanacs has done far worse to her than John ever did to you, and she has no recourse nor a voice of protest. This current bullying is absolutely shameful, and if you cared about anything ethical regarding the matter, you would have Karanacs distance herself as far as possible from Nancy and not even look at her page.

The admin abuse is ridiculous and absolutely inappropriate.

And Malleus, if you think being given a "bauble" by someone who has inflicted a lot of harm on you for many months is some how "flattering", then you don't understand how victims of harassment feel even when their harassers/stalkers give them "gifts". The "gifts" are especially damaging, and the harassers know it.

[GlassBeadGame]

And Malleus, if you think being given a "bauble" by someone who has inflicted a lot of harm on you for many months is some how "flattering", then you don't understand how victims of harassment feel even when their harassers/stalkers give them "gifts". The "gifts" are especially damaging, and the harassers know it.

I'm beyond caring about what one Wikipedian does to another Wikipedian. Still, that strikes me as insightful.

[SB_Johnny]

And Malleus, if you think being given a "bauble" by someone who has inflicted a lot of harm on you for many months is some how "flattering", then you don't understand how victims of harassment feel even when their harassers/stalkers give them "gifts". The "gifts" are especially damaging, and the harassers know it.

I'm beyond caring about what one Wikipedian does to another Wikipedian. Still, that strikes me as insightful.

It strikes me as fucking delusional, but I think we've established already that we don't see the difference between apples and oranges in the same way.