Wikipedia talk:Reviewing pending changes

This is the talk page for discussing Reviewing pending changes and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Pending changes
Interface: Pages with pending edits · Pages under pending changes · Pending changes log ·
Documentation: Main talk · Reviewing guideline · Reviewing talk · Protection policy · Testing · Statistics

2010 Trial and 2012 Implementation

Historical: Trial proposal · Specifics · Reviewing guideline · Metrics · Terminology · Queue · Feedback · Closure · 2012 Implementation
Discussions:

Summary information for editors

Current status - Pending changes (level 1) was re-enabled on December 1st, 2012 by community consensus according to the 2012 RFC.
Logged in users – Logged in users (or users choosing to view pending changes) will see all edits as usual (unless the relevant setting has been changed in their preferences). All edits will still be added to the wiki and inappropriate edits must still be reverted or fixed as usual.
Logged out users – Until checked for obvious vandalism or superseded by appropriate editing, edits by new and unregistered users to "pending changes protected" pages will not be seen by users who are not logged in until approved. Edits by autoconfirmed users are approved automatically at level 1 when the prior revision is approved.
Policy – See the pending changes usage policy and the guideline on reviewing
Reviewer rights – Become a reviewer!.
Support and testing – Test page: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing. Bugs: Report them at WT:PC. For more information visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-en-pc ^connect
Provide feedback and suggestion – Feedback page: Wikipedia talk:Pending changes. Your feedback and suggestions are appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Anonymous/New editors can revert a reviewer's edit so that their reverted edit is reinstated

Today while doing reviewing I came across something that frankly shouldn't be allowed for anonymous/new editors to do. A new editor (Jankrapper$) created a pending edit (1171340297) which I reverted due to the edit being opinionated and not from an NPOV (1171340640). The new editor then reverted my revert back so that their edit was reinstated, effectively overriding me (1171349653). Another editor than reverted his edit back to mine, cancelling out the new user's revert (Permalink/1171354108). Now I'm checking the page again and now the new user has reverted their edit, and now it's an edit war. I'm going to figure out how to fix this but I wanted to finish this by stating that if new users weren't able to revert edits reverting their own edits, none of this would have happened. Thanks, Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with me, you can say it to my face instead of being a coward about it. Jankrapper$ (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After multiple users with thousands of edits each revert your edit in your account with barely ten edits, it may be wise to ask them in a polite manner what the problem with the edit was and they would be able and happy to help. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, having the reviewer right doesn’t make you a big deal. They hand those privileges out to everyone to make them feel like the are important and valued and even have a shot at becoming an admin so they keep editing. Jankrapper$ (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If so, feel free to submit a request to become a pending changes reviewer and see if it's granted then. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha wow, you really do have an inflated sense of importance, don’t you? I bet you’re gunning to become an admin too? Jankrapper$ (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tht user is blocked for disruption and likely block evasion. Either way, there's nothing to be done here. The pending change system is working as intended. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But again, new users shouldn't be able to revert a reviewer's revert otherwise it basically undermines the importance of the whole pending changes system. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the design of pending reviews. Pending reviews goal is to prevent problematic edits from being shown live to readers until they are reviewed. The reason the editor's third edit was not under pending review is because they were autoconfirmed at that point. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I see. Thank you for the clarification! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements

How many edits do you need to have before applying? Also, if applicable, how long do you need to have been editing for? ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatOneWolf. There's no edit requirement for this permission. The requirements are laid out at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Criteria to receive this permission. This is one of the "easier" perms, so I'd encourage you to read over the page in detail, make sure you understand everything, then apply :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition: Barnstars for top Pending changes reviewers

Hello everyone, I have created a page in my userspace at User:DreamRimmer/Reports/PendingChanges to recognize and award the top pending changes reviewers from the last 30 days. Anyone interested can join me in this effort. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]