Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:59, 14 January 2015

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all talk subpages redirect here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Archives from /Trial Archives from /Queue Archives from Help Archives from FPPR Archives from /Metrics and subpages See also archives at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Feedback

This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

AfC wants to use PC2

There's discussion at WikiProject Articles for Creation about utilizing PC2 solely to protect Misplaced Pages: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. Now this is understandable, when we recognize that censorship is the sole pillar of Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 block proposal

The proposal is now available at Misplaced Pages: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)

This Article needs to be removed.

This is last time I'm going to suggest this.

WP:NPOV has been cirumvented on this article.

Despite this entire article being accurate due to WP:DUE, a large amount of the cited sources can be either directly, or indirectly traced back to Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or Silverstring Media. Leigh Alexander is a prominent tech writer, and is subcontracted to many different media outlets. She is friends with many of the writers cited in this article. Many of the writers at Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Polygon are friends or known associates of hers, making all articles cited by them subject to massive bias. Leigh Alexander herself writes for TIME, Vice and others. The above and many more writers covering this are also Patreon supporters of each others work.

None of these writers have recused themselves about writing about a subject that they are actually involved in. All of these writers have ended up shaping the initial narrative of #GamerGate for the media outside the initial Games/Tech Industry.

I am unsure if cited articles being inherently biased due to their closeness to the subject they are covering is covered under[REDACTED] policy.

But hey, I'll give it a shot and ask you.