Misplaced Pages

:Pending changes: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:23, 4 February 2009 view sourceMion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,091 edits →Scope: only the 3000← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:10, 9 July 2024 view source Fgnievinski (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users66,944 edits →top: DAB pageTag: Disambiguation links added 
(646 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages information page}}
{{freq}}
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{proposal}}
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}
{{nutshell|] could be placed on an individual article in the same manner that ] currently is}}
{{shortcut|WP:FLR/S|WP:FLP}} {{Redirect|WP:PC}}
{{Redirect|WP:PEND|pending AFC submissions|CAT:PEND}}
'''Flagged protection''' is a proposed implementation of ] which would provide an alternative to the current semi-protection feature to allow anonymous editors and new users to edit protected articles in a limited fashion. This proposal is meant to give ] another option besides the present full protection and semiprotection. (It is possible that, some time in the future, this might displace the present semiprotection altogether, however, this proposal does not yet suggest that the traditional system of page protection should be replaced altogether, merely suggesting flagged protection can be used as an alternative to the current system of page protection for now. Although if there is a consensus, flagged protection may become more favorable as time progresses.)
{{Redirect-distinguish|WP:FLR|Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates}}
{{for|a list of articles with pending changes needing review|Special:PendingChanges}}
{{Infopage|WP:PC|WP:FLP|WP:PEND}}


''']''' is a tool used to suppress ] and certain other recurrent nuisances on Misplaced Pages while allowing a ] user to submit an edit for review. Intended for infrequently edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such troublesome edits from new or unregistered users, pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a ] (also called a "reviewer") or ]. There are relatively few articles on Misplaced Pages with this type of protection.
==Problem Statement==
One of the problems that this proposal is trying to solve is that there are many articles that are semi-protected. While 3,000 might not sound like a huge number of semi-protected articles, in reality, only articles that receive a good amount of traffic are semi-protected. Since these are high-traffic articles, there will naturally be many people who want to legitimately contribute to the article. Though it makes us somewhat safer from vandalism, semi-protection locks out people who want to legitimately contribute to an article. Although anonymous and new users can use the {{tl|editsemiprotected}} template to suggest changes to the page, it is very tedious and daunting to use, especially if one has never edited Misplaced Pages before. Therefore, this system is designed to replace the need for {{tl|editsemiprotected}}, and to allow users to directly make changes to the article without knowing how to use the template.


When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an ] (also called an "IP editor") or a ], the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Misplaced Pages readers until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the ].
==Scope==
Like the name of this proposal, only the 3000 articles that would otherwise be semi-protected should be considered for flagged revisions under this proposal. The condition for flagged revisions should be the same or similar as to what the current ] policy allows. If the article does not meet the requirements for semi-protection under the current ], then it should not be protected with flagged revisions either. As noted above, this proposal does not suggest that the current page protection system should be removed, or even fully replaced. Due to the lack of experimental data on flagged protection and solid consensus, it is proposed that as of now the choice of using the traditional page protection or flagged protection is up to administrator's discretion provided that there is a need for page protection on ]. Usage policy for flagged protection should be updated as consensus develops if flagged protection is adopted. This implementation is intended to reduce the need for semi-protection on articles.


Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". The latest accepted revision is displayed to the general public, while logged-in users see the latest revision of the page with all changes applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as "pending review" and are not visible to most readers until they are reviewed.
==Experience==
{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! colspan=2 | Protection type
! ] / non-autoconfirmed
! ]
! Administrator / Bureaucrat
|-
! Semi-protected pages
! Current experience
| style="background:#ffdddd;" | Cannot edit
| colspan=2 style="background:#ddffdd;" | Can edit; edits are immediately visible
|-
! Semi Flagged protection
! Proposed experience
| style="background:#ffeedd;" | Can edit; edits are visible to registered users, but are not visible to readers until reviewed by <tt>'autoconfirmed'<tt>
| style="background:#ffffdd;" | Can edit; edits are visible immediately if there are no unflagged edits by anonymous users; otherwise not visible to readers until reviewed by other <tt>'autoconfirmed'</tt>
| style="background:#ffffdd;" | Can edit; edits are visible immediately if there are no unflagged edits by anonymous users; otherwise not visible to readers unless the administrator flags them, or flagged by <tt>'autoconfirmed'</tt>
|-
! Fully-protected pages
! Current experience
| colspan=2 style="background:#ffdddd;" | Cannot edit
| style="background:#ddffdd;" | Can edit; edits are visible immediately
|-
! Full Flagged Protection
! Proposed experience
| colspan=2 style="background:#ffeedd;" | Can edit; edits are visible to registered users, but are not visible to readers until reviewed by ]
| style="background:#ffffdd;" | Can edit; edits are visible to registered users, but other intervening edits are not visible to readers unless an administrator flags them
|}


Both logged-in users and ] who click the "edit this page" tab edit the latest revision as usual. If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title pointing to the pending changes.
==How it works==
All accounts with ] rights gets '''reviewer''' rights and will have the ability to review any revision made by new accounts and anons, or simply put, if you can edit semi-protected articles, then you have the ability to sight revisions made by anons and new accounts. Administrators will have '''surveyor''' rights.


Pending changes may be used to protect articles against persistent vandalism, violations of the ] policy, and ].
The process will work like this:
#Article receives heavy vandalism from anons or users that have yet to be ]
#Someone requests flagged protection on ]
#Administrator activates flagged revisions on the article
#Anon makes a legitimate edit to the article
#An autoconfirmed user can decide to sight or revert the revision made by the anon


==Applying pending changes protection==
The basic workings of flagged revision can be previewed , except in this implementation, there is no need to set user rights to sight revisions.
{{ombox | text = For the policy on applying pending changes protection, see ]. This section is intended to supplement or clarify the policy. If they disagree, please defer to the policy or ].}}
==Tools==
Administrators may apply pending changes protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent ], violations of the ], or insertion of content that violates copyright. Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] (Flagged protection log with non-autoconfirmed review or autoconfirmed review)


In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption.
==Procedure on dealing with vandalism==
When reviewing a valid edit, simply sight the edit and move on. If the edit is vandalism, revert it. Reverting vandalism on an article with flagged protection is essentially the same as it is without it, the only difference being that the vandalised version of the article will not appear to the public. However, if an editor attempts to edit the latest version of the article, ''regardless if the latest version is visible to the public or not'', it is very important that the vandalised revision be reverted, since these edits could end up in the next revision without the editor knowing about the edit. The role of RC-patrolling will be vital on articles with flagged protection on.


Like semi-protection, PC protection should '''never''' be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage.
===Note for editors===
When you edit the article, by default, you are editing the latest version. A diff will be shown above the edit page if there are any changes since the last sighted version. When you edit, you may be editing the draft that contains vandalism because the previous anon editor has vandalised the article even though the vandalism is not visible to the public. If you do find any vandalism that has not been reverted yet, you must revert the edit in order to ensure the vandalism does not make it into the next revision, even if you do not plan to edit that article.


Editors without administrator privileges can ] if the above criteria are met. Removal of pending changes protection can be done by any administrator, or requested at ].
== Full Flagged Protection ==
Full flagged protection is similar to flagged protection as described above, but with the reviewer rights limited to the group ] like the full protection counterpart. This could be used as an alternative to full protection during disputes or for articles under heavy vandalism attacks from sock-puppet accounts. Administrators can elevate an article to full flagged protection, in accordance to the current ] with regards to full protection. Full flagged protection can also be used alongside the traditional semi-protection to allow only autoconfirmed accounts to make even draft edits to the article, to be sighted by administrators later on, although this should be used with very great caution and double protect like this should be kept as brief as possible. The rights to flag a full flagged protected page may be extended to a new user group, 'moderators', if the admin group is too small.


== Proposed configuration == == Reviewing pending edits ==
{{ombox | text = For the guideline on reviewing edits, see ]. This section is intended to supplement or clarify the guideline. If they disagree, please defer to the guideline or ].}}
The following is the tentative proposed configuration for this setup:
The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain:
<source lang=php>
# Limit it to mainspace only
$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );
# Don't set any FlaggedRevs level for new pages
$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReviewNew = false;
# Pages display the current version by default - i.e. unprotected
$wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false;
# This requires it to be turned on by an admin for each page
$wgFlaggedRevsReviewForDefault = true;
# Flagging types
$wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'protection' => 2 );
# Number of levels (full=2/semi=1/none=0)
$wgFlaggedRevValues = 2;
# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected
$wgFlagRestrictions = array(
'protection' => array( 'review' => 1 ),
);
# Group permissions for autoconfirmed
$wgGroupPermissions = true;
$wgGroupPermissions = true;
$wgGroupPermissions = true;
$wgGroupPermissions = true;
# Group permissions for admins
$wgGroupPermissions = true;
$wgGroupPermissions = true;
# We're using autoconfirmed, so we don't need this
$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote = false;
# Can users make comments that will show up below flagged revisions?
$wgFlaggedRevsComments = true;
</source>
The default values for these variables and other unchanged variables can be seen on .


* ]
* violations of the ]
* copyright violations
* other obviously inappropriate content

Reviewers are sufficiently experienced users who are granted the ability to accept other users' edits. Reviewers have a similar level of trust to ]; all administrators have the reviewer right. Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have a reasonable level of experience editing Misplaced Pages. Reading the ], where the reviewing process and expectations for a reviewer are detailed, is recommended.

Reviewers and administrators will see a yellow watchlist banner on their watchlist whenever there is a pending edit needing review. If a reviewer or administrator wishes to disable it, they can paste {{code|#mw-fr-watchlist-pending-notice {display: none} }} to ].

Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above.

Reviewer rights are granted upon request at ]. While any administrator has the technical ability to remove the reviewer permission, removal should occur only as the result of consensus from a discussion or when an editor requests the removal of their own permission. Discussion regarding removal of the reviewer permission should normally occur at the ]. Discussion with the involved editor and/or a request for a second opinion at the ] is recommended before formally requesting removal.

Reviewing of pending changes should be resolved within reasonable time limits (at most a few hours). Backlog management should be coordinated at a community level. The backlog can be viewed at ]. As of July 2021, edits are rarely unreviewed for more than a day or two and the backlog is frequently empty.

==Pending changes adds highlighting that is lost when disabled==
In the edit history, accepted revisions are highlighted, which improves readability. Additionally, visible tags are applied to indicate why particular edits were accepted ("automatically accepted"/"accepted by "). {{As of|September 2018}}, this highlighting is still permanently lost for past changes on a given page whenever the pending changes setting is disabled.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T189422|title=⚓ T189422 Disabling pending changes removes visual highlighting and labelling of reverts and accepts|website=phabricator.wikimedia.org|accessdate=26 April 2019}}</ref> When pending changes are enabled again, the highlighting will only be applied to ''newer'' changes. Therefore, it is a good choice to '''leave pending changes enabled''' when other protections are applied.<ref>As of September 2018, there are no protections weaker than pending changes level 1 (PC1), therefore PC1 will not interfere when other protections are enabled.</ref>

== Effect of various protection levels ==
{{protection table}}

==Frequently asked questions==
;If an established user edits an article with unreviewed pending changes, is the new version automatically accepted?
:No. If the user is a ] (that is, the user has been granted the "reviewer" permission), they will be prompted to review and accept any unreviewed pending changes. If the user is not a reviewer, the edit will also be marked as "pending review". (Reviewers can ] by unaccepting the current version of a page under pending changes and then trying to edit.) An exception to this is when a user reverts a pending edit to the latest accepted revision: in this case the revert is automatically accepted.
;What happens if several IP edits to an article under pending changes result in a ]? (For example, an IP makes an edit, then another IP ] it.)
:If they were all made by a single IP, the new version is automatically accepted. If different users edited, the new version is not accepted (to prevent potential abuse).
;On which ] can pending changes be used?
:At first, it was determined by consensus that pending changes could be used only on articles, subject to the ], and on ] in project space. A later request for comment found it permissible to use pending changes beyond articles; however, it is restricted by the software to the main and project namespaces, and no request to allow other namespaces was made. It is not technically possible for talk pages to be placed on pending changes.
;Wasn't pending changes protection dropped?
:Yes and no. Pending changes protection was deployed on a trial basis in 2010. In 2011, pending changes protection was dropped as a mechanism for protecting pages, until a consensus agreement on its deployment was reached. There have been a series of discussions on using the feature and it was put back into service on December 1, 2012. Since then only pending changes level 1, affecting the edits of new and unregistered users, is being used. As of January 2017 there has been consensus to drop pending changes level 2, and as a result only level 1 is now used.
;How can you tell if a page has pending changes protection?
:Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner depending on its level of protection. Also, there will be a drop-down box next to the article title, pointing to the pending changes, if there are any.
;How can I see the details of review?
:On a page with pending page protection, hover the mouse over the arrow in the box {{box|border size=1px|border color=var(--border-color-interactive,#72777d);|1=] {{fake link|{{int:revreview-quick-basic-same}}}} {{Tooltip|]|hover over this arrow|style=border-bottom:none;}}}} (for logged in users) or {{box|border size=1px|border color=var(--border-color-interactive,#72777d);|1=] {{Tooltip|]|hover over this arrow|style=border-bottom:none;}}}} for logged out users. You'll see a popup with text: {{box|border size=1px|border color=var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1);|1={{int:revreview-basic-same||''{{TODAY}}''}}}}. The link "reviewed" leads to the log of the review.

==Timeline==
{{Shortcut|WP:PCRFC}}
{{See also|Template:Pending changes discussions}}
Below is a list of past discussions and polls relating to the Pending Changes feature:
* ''March 2009:'' ] 4 to 1 approving ]
* ''May 2010:'' ] on some pre-trial issues
* ''June 2010 – August 2010:'' Pending changes trial
* ''August 2010:'' ] 2 to 1 in favor of continuing PC in some form
* ''September 2010:'' ] on interim usage
* ''September 2010 – May 2011:'' Continuation of pending changes without clear mandate
* ''February 2011 – May 2011:'' ] Ended the original PC trial.
* ''March 2012 – June 2012:'' ] established consensus to enable PC before the end of 2012.
** ''September 2012:'' ] discussed whether to use Level 2 pending changes.
** ''October 2012:'' ] discussed when to apply pending changes, the criteria for rejecting edits, and various ideas for reducing backlog.
** ''November 2012:'' ] discussed deployment and usage of the pending changes feature.
* ''December 2012 – :'' Pending changes re-enabled on a permanent basis
* ''May 2013:'' ] is closed as requiring further discussion for implementation. It reopened the question of whether to use Level 2 pending changes.
* ''January 2014:'' ] opened to determine if there is consensus on how to implement pending changes level 2. By the time it was closed in June, there was no longer a consensus to use pending changes level 2 at all, but if and when such a consensus does develop, there is some consensus on when to apply it.
* ''October 2016:'' ] opened to determine if the edit filter, bots and ORES should be allowed to defer suspicious edits for review using ]. The RfC passed in its entirety.
* ''November 2016:'' ] opened to propose lowering the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage criteria.
* ''November 2016:'' ] opened to propose several things, including implementing pending changes for all articles, implementing it for certain types of articles (including ], ], ], and ]), auto-granting the reviewer right for those meeting certain criteria, and creating a semi-automated tool for reviewing. The portion for creating a semi-automated review tool was withdrawn from the RfC as not needing consensus, and the RfC was later ] with consensus against all remaining proposed changes.
* ''January 2017:'' ] to remove pending changes level 2, after all RFCs on the subject failed to achieve consensus for using it.
* ''November 2017:'' The ] was marked as dormant, following a lack of work on its technical implementation.

== See also ==
* ], proposal to allow ], the ], and/or ] to defer suspect edits for review (originally ]).
* ], the original trial proposal.
* ], a request for a passive reviewing system, part of the original proposal.
* ], an overview of the 2012 implementation of pending changes.
* ], proposal for a form of user specific editing restriction that is to a classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection.
* ], an essay on why the use of pending changes was severely limited.
* ], a proposal to add timed autoreview to Pending Changes, to function as a softer(broader) protection tool.
=== Interface ===
* ], pages with pending edits.
* ], pages under pending changes.
* ], various statistics pertaining to the Pending Changes feature.
* ], a display of the current backlog, which can be added to user pages.

=== Logs ===
* ], actions to enable or disable pending changes.

==Footnotes==
{{reflist}}

{{Misplaced Pages technical help|collapsed}}
] ]

Latest revision as of 04:10, 9 July 2024

Misplaced Pages information page

"WP:PC" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:PC (disambiguation). "WP:PEND" redirects here. For pending AFC submissions, see CAT:PEND. "WP:FLR" redirects here. Not to be confused with Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates. For a list of articles with pending changes needing review, see Special:PendingChanges. Misplaced Pages information page
This is an information page.
It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Misplaced Pages's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.		Shortcuts

Pending changes protection is a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other recurrent nuisances on Misplaced Pages while allowing a good-faith user to submit an edit for review. Intended for infrequently edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such troublesome edits from new or unregistered users, pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a pending changes reviewer (also called a "reviewer") or administrator. There are relatively few articles on Misplaced Pages with this type of protection.

When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor (also called an "IP editor") or a new user account, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Misplaced Pages readers until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right.

Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". The latest accepted revision is displayed to the general public, while logged-in users see the latest revision of the page with all changes applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as "pending review" and are not visible to most readers until they are reviewed.

Both logged-in users and unregistered users who click the "edit this page" tab edit the latest revision as usual. If there are pending changes awaiting review, there will be a dropdown box next to the article title pointing to the pending changes.

Pending changes may be used to protect articles against persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and copyright violations.

Applying pending changes protection

For the policy on applying pending changes protection, see Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Pending changes protection. This section is intended to supplement or clarify the policy. If they disagree, please defer to the policy or discuss the option of changing it.

Administrators may apply pending changes protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, or insertion of content that violates copyright. Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered.

In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption.

Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage.

Editors without administrator privileges can request page protection if the above criteria are met. Removal of pending changes protection can be done by any administrator, or requested at requests for unprotection.

Reviewing pending edits

For the guideline on reviewing edits, see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes. This section is intended to supplement or clarify the guideline. If they disagree, please defer to the guideline or discuss the option of changing it.

The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain:

Reviewers are sufficiently experienced users who are granted the ability to accept other users' edits. Reviewers have a similar level of trust to rollbackers; all administrators have the reviewer right. Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have a reasonable level of experience editing Misplaced Pages. Reading the reviewing guideline, where the reviewing process and expectations for a reviewer are detailed, is recommended.

Reviewers and administrators will see a yellow watchlist banner on their watchlist whenever there is a pending edit needing review. If a reviewer or administrator wishes to disable it, they can paste #mw-fr-watchlist-pending-notice {display: none} to their common.css.

Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above.

Reviewer rights are granted upon request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions. While any administrator has the technical ability to remove the reviewer permission, removal should occur only as the result of consensus from a discussion or when an editor requests the removal of their own permission. Discussion regarding removal of the reviewer permission should normally occur at the Administrators' noticeboard. Discussion with the involved editor and/or a request for a second opinion at the Pending changes talk page is recommended before formally requesting removal.

Reviewing of pending changes should be resolved within reasonable time limits (at most a few hours). Backlog management should be coordinated at a community level. The backlog can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges. As of July 2021, edits are rarely unreviewed for more than a day or two and the backlog is frequently empty.

Pending changes adds highlighting that is lost when disabled

In the edit history, accepted revisions are highlighted, which improves readability. Additionally, visible tags are applied to indicate why particular edits were accepted ("automatically accepted"/"accepted by "). As of September 2018, this highlighting is still permanently lost for past changes on a given page whenever the pending changes setting is disabled. When pending changes are enabled again, the highlighting will only be applied to newer changes. Therefore, it is a good choice to leave pending changes enabled when other protections are applied.

Effect of various protection levels

Interaction of Misplaced Pages user groups and page protection levels
  Unregistered or newly registered Confirmed or autoconfirmed Extended confirmed Template editor   Admin Interface admin Appropriate for
(See also: Misplaced Pages:Protection policy)
No protection Normal editing The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes All users can edit
Edits by unregistered or newly registered editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not. 		Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi Cannot edit Normal editing Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed Cannot edit Normal editing Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template Cannot edit Normal editing High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full Cannot edit Normal editing Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
Interface Cannot edit Normal editing Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
  The table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
Other modes of protection:


Frequently asked questions

If an established user edits an article with unreviewed pending changes, is the new version automatically accepted?
No. If the user is a reviewer (that is, the user has been granted the "reviewer" permission), they will be prompted to review and accept any unreviewed pending changes. If the user is not a reviewer, the edit will also be marked as "pending review". (Reviewers can test this by unaccepting the current version of a page under pending changes and then trying to edit.) An exception to this is when a user reverts a pending edit to the latest accepted revision: in this case the revert is automatically accepted.
What happens if several IP edits to an article under pending changes result in a null edit? (For example, an IP makes an edit, then another IP undoes it.)
If they were all made by a single IP, the new version is automatically accepted. If different users edited, the new version is not accepted (to prevent potential abuse).
On which kinds of pages can pending changes be used?
At first, it was determined by consensus that pending changes could be used only on articles, subject to the protection policy, and on test pages in project space. A later request for comment found it permissible to use pending changes beyond articles; however, it is restricted by the software to the main and project namespaces, and no request to allow other namespaces was made. It is not technically possible for talk pages to be placed on pending changes.
Wasn't pending changes protection dropped?
Yes and no. Pending changes protection was deployed on a trial basis in 2010. In 2011, pending changes protection was dropped as a mechanism for protecting pages, until a consensus agreement on its deployment was reached. There have been a series of discussions on using the feature and it was put back into service on December 1, 2012. Since then only pending changes level 1, affecting the edits of new and unregistered users, is being used. As of January 2017 there has been consensus to drop pending changes level 2, and as a result only level 1 is now used.
How can you tell if a page has pending changes protection?
Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner depending on its level of protection. Also, there will be a drop-down box next to the article title, pointing to the pending changes, if there are any.
How can I see the details of review?
On a page with pending page protection, hover the mouse over the arrow in the box Accepted (latest) (for logged in users) or for logged out users. You'll see a popup with text: This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 28 December 2024.. The link "reviewed" leads to the log of the review.

Timeline

Shortcut See also: Template:Pending changes discussions

Below is a list of past discussions and polls relating to the Pending Changes feature:

  • March 2009: First poll 4 to 1 approving original trial
  • May 2010: RFC on some pre-trial issues
  • June 2010 – August 2010: Pending changes trial
  • August 2010: Straw poll 2 to 1 in favor of continuing PC in some form
  • September 2010: Straw poll on interim usage
  • September 2010 – May 2011: Continuation of pending changes without clear mandate
  • February 2011 – May 2011: PC RfC 2011 Ended the original PC trial.
  • March 2012 – June 2012: PC RfC 2012 established consensus to enable PC before the end of 2012.
    • September 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 1 discussed whether to use Level 2 pending changes.
    • October 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 2 discussed when to apply pending changes, the criteria for rejecting edits, and various ideas for reducing backlog.
    • November 2012: WP:PC2012/RfC 3 discussed deployment and usage of the pending changes feature.
  • December 2012 – : Pending changes re-enabled on a permanent basis
  • May 2013: PC RfC 2013 is closed as requiring further discussion for implementation. It reopened the question of whether to use Level 2 pending changes.
  • January 2014: PC RFC 2014 opened to determine if there is consensus on how to implement pending changes level 2. By the time it was closed in June, there was no longer a consensus to use pending changes level 2 at all, but if and when such a consensus does develop, there is some consensus on when to apply it.
  • October 2016: DC RFC 2016 opened to determine if the edit filter, bots and ORES should be allowed to defer suspicious edits for review using deferred changes. The RfC passed in its entirety.
  • November 2016: PC RFC 2016 #1 opened to propose lowering the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage criteria.
  • November 2016: PC RFC 2016 #2 opened to propose several things, including implementing pending changes for all articles, implementing it for certain types of articles (including good articles, featured articles, vital articles, and biography of living persons articles), auto-granting the reviewer right for those meeting certain criteria, and creating a semi-automated tool for reviewing. The portion for creating a semi-automated review tool was withdrawn from the RfC as not needing consensus, and the RfC was later snow-closed with consensus against all remaining proposed changes.
  • January 2017: RFC to remove pending changes level 2, after all RFCs on the subject failed to achieve consensus for using it.
  • November 2017: The proposal for implementing deferred changes was marked as dormant, following a lack of work on its technical implementation.

See also

Interface

Logs

Footnotes

  1. "⚓ T189422 Disabling pending changes removes visual highlighting and labelling of reverts and accepts". phabricator.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
  2. As of September 2018, there are no protections weaker than pending changes level 1 (PC1), therefore PC1 will not interfere when other protections are enabled.
Misplaced Pages technical help
Get personal technical help at the Teahouse, help desk, village pump (technical), talk pages or IRC.
General
technical help
Special
page-related
Wikitext
Links and diffs
Media files: images,
videos and sounds
Other graphics
Templates and
Lua modules
Data structure
HTML and CSS
Customisation
and tools
Automated editing
Categories: