Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 25 March 2021

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

How to leave comments for a reviewer?

Under what circumstances might it be considered appropriate and useful for someone to leave comments for a reviewer, and how should that be done?

Might this article benefit from a brief section with a title something like "How to leave comments for a reviewer"?

I ask, because on 2020-04-02 I added a section on "Violations of the NPT" to the article on "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". On 2020-04-04 I saw an edit by User:14.201.99.159 that cited an article by Noam Chomsky that included what I felt was poorly worded and misrepresented what Chomsky had said. That inspired me to substantially revise that section, citing that Chomsky article. When I posted that revision, I was surprised to see the message, "The latest accepted version was reviewed on 2020-04-02. There are 7 pending revisions awaiting review." Those 7 include 5 by User:14.201.99.159 followed by two by me. I thought about leaving a comment for the reviewer but decided against it, not knowing what to say. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You got the message because, until the IP's edits were accepted or reverted, all subsequent edits to the article go into the queue of edits to be reviewed. I'm not sure what comment you felt that you needed to leave, but you could have made a null edit with an appropriate edit summary, for example. The pending changes procedure is intended to be a quick check to weed out obviously bad edits so an explanation is not ordinarily needed. I've accepted your edits. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What triggered this?

Is this now triggered by any edit from an IP number to any Misplaced Pages article?

I ask, because I don't see any protection symbol on that page, now that you've accepted those edits.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's applied only to a small number of pages. The usual use case is articles where there is a low volume of editing, most of which is disruptive. There's a load more detail here.If I edit Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the wikitext editor there's a box at the top which reads Note: Edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication (help). (show details), and clicking on show details reveals 05:33, 27 February 2019 Samsara configured pending changes settings for Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Persistent vandalism: via RfPP) (hist). I've added the pending changes protection icon template, which must have been overlooked when the page was protected originally. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Exception for DOY?

Recently a change was added without consensus here which added Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE. I feel this goes against General criteria and Acceptable edits and as such removed it. It does not fit any of the exsisting General criteria and is directly opposed to the Acceptable edits part that states It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PackMecEng. The change that you are referring to merely assists reviewers in understanding the guidelines on DOTY articles, which were agreed by consensus two years ago, after a long discussion. To suggest that reviewers ignore these guidelines is not acceptable. Please be aware that you can have your reviewer status removed if you encourage others to ignore guidelines. Deb (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In that vein, I've restored the material so WP:POINTily removed by PackMecEng. Please do not remove it again without consensus. That material is highly useful and was added by another user for all the right reasons without objection quite a while ago. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: The issue with that is it is outside the scope of pending change reviewing. Pending change is not to curate content for every niche topic. It is to prevent BLP vios, vandalism, copyright vios, and personal attacks. In fact it specifically states it is not responsible for venerability. So how do you square that circle? Also I will be removing it until consensus is formed per the top of the page Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. So changing the whole scope of what pending change is to something that contradicts it is obviously unacceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PackMecEng. I understand what you are saying. I have also noted your comment that you "do not plan on going with it". Stating that you don't intend to go along with a guideline is fine as long as you don't actually put that view into practice. If you decide to add unverified content to DOTY articles, or if you encourage others to do so, that may be regarded as disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: That is fine and I understand that. That is not the question here, this is about accepting revisions and following pending change reviewing. What you are purposing, that reviewers are responsible for DOY content guidlines, is outside the scope of pending change review. The purpose of pending change is not to police content but to prevent BLP vios, vandalism, copyright vios, and personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: The guideline currently says Furthermore, reviewers should take special consideration of the reason given for protection and attempt to uphold it.. The reason for the protection of the DoTY pages is to prevent the addition of unsourced content. In my opinion it is helpful to reviewers to have a general statement of that on the guideline page that they will have read, since it is not obvious. The DOTY pages are a fairly substantial fraction of the pages under pending changes protection (I can't find the total number right now) and are fairly frequently edited compared to the average page under PCP, so this is not a niche aspect of a pending changes reviewer's work. The alternative to PC protection being used in this way would be to semi-protect all the DOTY pages; I do not feel that would be an improvement. Wham2001 (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wham2001: The reason those pages are protected is generally vandalism. For example at February 26 it was added in 2014 for vandalism here. The passage you cite also is more along the lines of if a reviewer wants to do that they can. Which is certainly the case here, if a review wishes to revert based on that guideline they are welcome to. The issue I have is forcing them to do something outside their scope. It conflicts with the core ideals of what pending change review is. It is not a tool to enforce individual guidelines for each sections of Misplaced Pages. PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also if the reason for pending change on a page is to enforce verifiability, then it is outside the scope of pending change. Per It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. Which is why you will notice at WP:PC and WP:PCPP they do not use verifiability as a criteria. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus reflected at WP:DOYCITE is clearly intended to improve the encyclopedia. Perhaps an RFC to determine whether to add it to the scope of WP:RPC would help? Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is intended to improve the encyclopedia and help the people that edit DOY lists a lot. Though I do maintain that it goes against the purpose of PCR. Like where WP:PC states The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content and 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 or the essay WP:PCC which states The main reason for the above limitations is the position that reviewers find themselves in. Those working through a reviewer backlog are often not subject matter experts. They are not in a position to review edits for validity. If they did engage in such behavior, they risk immersing themselves in content disputes in every article they touch. We want to encourage reviewers, not punish them for volunteering to review edits by immersing them into disputes. By sticking to the clear cases, we avoid this negative effect. It also goes against what is acceptable for placing an article under pending change as it does not fit any of the criteria. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's why I suggested an RFC to determine whether editors in general feel it should or should not be included in WP:RPC instructions. It's not a burden; just as you glance at a pending review to determine Y not vandalism, Y not a BLP vio, Y not copyvio, it takes only a second to identify no source on DOY (and takes much less time than identifying and dealing with copyvio). I don't check the source (unless it's obviously unreliable), just confirm that one is included. My personal opinion is that this is for the benefit of readers more than "people who edit DOY lists". Arguing that it isn't in the rules now doesn't answer whether it should be. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see where you are coming from. Perhaps something at village pump might be warranted. I suppose I was more giving reasons why I might oppose such a change. Also it is not so much that it is not in the rules now, but expressly opposed by the rules that I have an issue with. PackMecEng (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, good enough. Obviously, I would support the change. I don't think A citation to a reliable source is included in the edit is asking PCR to verify the information, so it isn't explicitly opposed by the rules. It's a supplement rather, for a specific class of article. There's probably an argument to be made there for slippery slope and every article class and project wanting special considerations, I just don't see that as a compelling objection to a simple review item for these articles. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The only issue is that to comply with WP:DOYCITE reviewers would be required to look over the source and confirm it supports the sentence. It is more than just having a source. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I see consensus here supporting the language which PackMecEng removed with only him dissenting. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing it. I see agreement for a RFC though. So perhaps we could work on some wording for a RFC at VPP. Also not a him PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's clear you're not WP:HEARing it and you haven't initiated the RFC you propose. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct, would you like to work on some wording with me on that? PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think per WP:PGCHANGE, any proposal for a significant change, to be valid, needs to be widely advertised, especially if it conflicts with another PAG elsewhere. Bold edits and local consensus can be (and have been) reverted. It should be a formal RFC at VPP. Levivich  16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for a formal RFC at VPP, please feel free to adjust wording as needed: Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the instructions for pending changes reviewers be amended to include Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE.?

Background: In October 2017, a discussion at WP:WikiProject Days of the year reached consensus that day-of-the-year articles are not exempt from WP:V and that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE were updated to include that language.In July 2019, the language Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE. was added to WP:RPC. There has been an objection to the addition of this language on the grounds that it contradicts WP:RPC, specifically It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting.

• I created a sandbox for this, I think it is pretty close. I added the background section you talked about as well I just don't have RFC in the title for bot reasons. It is at User:PackMecEng/sandbox2. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  (responding at User talk:PackMecEng/sandbox2) Schazjmd (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Deb, Toddst1, and Levivich:, I think PackMecEng and I have reached agreement on wording for an RFC here, would any of you like to weigh in before we post it? Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Schazjmd, it looks good to me. Thank you both for your quick efforts! Levivich  17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Okay started the RFC here. Thanks everyone for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Add "Optional criteria" section to guideline?

Hello friends. I've got a couple hundred PC reviews under my belt, and I'm starting to see all the common scenarios pretty clearly now.

I'd like to suggest that we add an "Optional criteria" section to the guideline, where we can uncontroversially put "suggestions" for common scenarios, without needing to modify the General criteria (aka the minimum criteria/strict criteria). Here's a link to my draft. Misplaced Pages:Tips for pending changes reviewers. Transcluded below:

Misplaced Pages:Tips for pending changes reviewers

This is an explanatory essay about Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Shortcut WP:TPCR Explanatory essay about Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes This page is an optional, non-binding list of tips, suggestions, and criteria for pending changes reviewers to apply while doing pending changes patrol. This is in addition to the required criteria laid out at Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes § General criteria. Accept or revert? The question to think of when reviewing an edit is If this page was not pending-changes protected, do you think it would be reverted? If the answer is yes, then revert the edit. If the answer is no, then accept it. Also keep in mind these particular exceptions to the rule: Mandatory citations – WikiProject consensus requires new additions to these types of pages to have a citation: Date pages (for example, March 16), per WP:DOYCITE Requested Articles subpages about companies (for example, Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/A-E) or living persons. Birthdates – If the page is a biography of a living person, and the information being added is an unsourced or poorly sourced birthdate, reject it. Not an improvement – Even if the edit does not violate the PC criteria, if you are confident the edit does not improve the page, feel free to revert it. If you are unsure – Don't forget, if you are unsure, you can always take no action and return to the queue, leaving the review for a more experienced reviewer. Complex content disputes – Reject obvious content problems such as strong POV or factual inaccuracies. But don't feel obligated to reject something complex that would normally be solved on a talk page. You can accept it and let the page's regular editors figure it out. User talk pages Welcoming – If you accept an edit from a registered editor with a redlinked talk page, consider starting a talk page for the editor with a {{subst:Welcome}} ~~~~ template (or one of the many welcome options in Twinkle) to welcome them to the project and give them some places to go to get help and become more familiar with the way things work here. Warnings – If you reject an edit, and the edit is a severe violation of our guidelines, consider placing a user warning template on the editor's talk page. You can use Twinkle to assist with this. Warning users communicates clearly to them how they can improve their editing in the future, and is an important first step in the process used to block disruptive editors. Other tips Google – If something seems factually incorrect, take a second to google it. You can often figure out if it's true or not. Many edits – If there are many edits in a row by many different editors, review them one editor at a time, bottom up. Do this by viewing a diff of the edits you want to review. The diff page also contains the pending changes tools. Take a moment to check that a problem edit isn't already reverted by one of the later pending edits, though. Comments – In general, you do not need to leave a comment for accepts, and you should always leave a comment for reverts. We all make mistakes – Edits awaiting approval sometimes contain formatting errors or other coding issues, especially if an infobox or table is involved, as these are sensitive to misplaced formatting characters. While these can be reverted, if the edit is otherwise an improvement to the article, you should consider fixing the issue and then accepting the change. Non-English names - Biographies sometimes contain foreign-language versions of the name of the subject. These are sometimes hijacked by vandals to add insults that can only be understood by those who speak that language. Be especially suspicious of changes to longstanding foreign-language versions of names. Google Translate can be helpful. Most active reviewers Log in, click "Fork", then click "Submit query" to get updated results. Most active pending changes reviewers (all time). Note that this query can take a while to execute so be patient! Most active pending changes reviewers (last 30 days)

These are "de facto" practices that are not clearly stated to brand new reviewers, but that I have discovered while doing reviewing. Therefore I feel it would be good to document these. Thoughts? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I thought about this more, and I decided that instead of adding a bunch of content to a guideline, which would require a consensus on this fairly quiet talk page and maybe even an RFC, that I will just make this a Misplaced Pages-space essay and link to it instead. Feel free to make edits to it, especially if you are an experienced PC reviewer and you have some tips to add. Misplaced Pages:Tips for pending changes reviewers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Admins no longer automatically get reviewer privileges?

I was trying to accept an edit today but did not have the buttons to do so, even though I'm an admin. After I added myself to the reviewer group, I have privileges. Is this an intended change or a bug in the code? —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

vieclamphothongvietnammb

Việc Làm Cho Người Lao Động○http://laodongvieclam.com