Wikipedia:PC2012/Rivertorch

Proposed name change
After several years of contentious discussion, the words "pending changes" carry a lot of baggage. In drafting the proposed policy points below, I also found the phrase to be occasionally ambiguous, since it currently can be used to refer both to the tool itself and to the actual changes (i.e., pending edits) awaiting review under the tool. I believe that adoption of a new term, in conjunction with the placement of judicious limits on PC's scope, could play a meaningful role in building broad community acceptance of PC by denoting this as a fresh start, built on but not bound by any prior application of the tool.

Let's call it reviewed edits. This ties in nicely with the term "reviewer", to which it is directly related, which might enhance understanding of how the tool works on the part of newbies (not to mention Wikignomes who've been hiding under a rock for the past several years). And no one would be tempted to call a pending edit "reviewed".

There's already a precedent for a name change: pending changes is a limited form of flagged revisions. Similarly, I see reviewed edits as a limited form of pending changes.

I've used the phrase "reviewed edits" throughout my draft proposal below, but it's not a big deal. If everyone seems to hate the idea, the old phrase can be substituted back in.

Reaction to proposed name change
'''Please indicate support or opposition, with a brief explanation. Extended discussion goes on the talk page.'''
 * Support as proposer. Rivertorch (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support for a big overhaul of terminology. I think terminology is one reason why PC is so confusing.  I must admit that I hadn't thought of renaming the whole feature before but now you mention it, it makes perfect sense.  However, I would suggest that "reviewed edits" could have the same problem as "pending changes" in that it could be taken to mean edits that have been reviewed, as well as the system as a whole.  I think that if there is going to be any overlap of terminology, the feature should take its name from the protection, as is the case with semi-protection.  So taking the lead from your reviewer idea, how about we call it "reviewer protection"?  (Another word that appeals is occlusion, it sounds weird but Wikipedians are happy with transclusion).  We should also come up with a glossary of terms that make sense.  As a starting point, how about reviewer protection - a form of protection for pages, currently known as pending-changes protection reviewer protection feature - the feature that makes reviewer protection possible.  This can be called simply "reviewer protection" in most situations approved edit - an edit that has been approved by a reviewer non-approved edit - an edit that has not been approved by a reviewer invisible edit - non-approved edit that is after the latest approved edit visible edit - an edit that has not been undone, up to and including the last approved edit. Yaris678 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:PC2012/Rivertorch

Proposed policy points
This is rather wordy—I hope not tl;dr!—but my thinking is that it's better to be as thorough as possible at first, then trim it down from there. Please excuse the unnecessarily formal wording in many places, as well as the occasional redundancy or contradiction.

I don't know the best way to handle the formatting of discussion on this, but it will become chaotic if there are many embedded, threaded comments. For the moment, I suggest commenting on the talk page, copying and pasting liberally from here to there as needed.

Applying reviewed edits to pages
Summary. Establish two pages: one for requests for reviewed edits protection and one as a noticeboard for queries, complaints, and all other requests. Use strict criteria to decide which pages get protection. Only uninvolved admins enact protection, and admins don't unilaterally second-guess each other on deciding which pages to protect. Anyone can place a hold on a request by flagging it and opening a discussion at the noticeboard. Reviewed edits is only for preventing vandalism, is applied only if certain conditions are met, is never applied preemptively, and is subject to certain namespace restrictions. Level 2 is the standard form; applying other forms requires consensus at the noticeboard.

Criteria for applying reviewed edits
In evaluating requests for reviewed edits, administrators consider specific criteria. To be eligible for reviewed edits, a page must:
 * have fewer than 30 watchers, as determined by watcher or a similar, publicly accessible tool. In the event that no such tool is available for an extended interval, other criteria may be used to assess eligibility, such as the number of editors recently editing the page.
 * be subject to repeated instances of vandalism, narrowly construed as per policy), occurring both recently—within the last 30 days—and over a significant duration—during at least three consecutive calendar months—and apparently perpetrated by at least two editors with registered accounts and autoconfirmed or confirmed access levels, at least one of whom is not currently blocked. Administrators may not unblock any editor in order to make a page meet this criterion.
 * be considered a poor candidate for semi-protection because it is frequently subject to constructive edits made by unregistered or non-autoconfirmed editors

Reviewed edits are not employed as a preemptive measure in expectation of vandalism.

Reviewed edits are not applied in order to prevent the addition of perceived violations of any policy other than WP:Vandalism. However, administrators declining requests citing other policies as their basis are generally expected to take reasonable measures to ensure that no serious breach of another policy is currently occurring. Such measures may include examining the content and history of the relevant article and its talk page, querying the requesting editor for further information, or opening a discussion at the relevant noticeboard.

Reviewed edits are typically applied only in main namespace. Provided all of the standard criteria are met, it may be applied in various other namespaces, including user namespace, but not in project namespace or on article talk pages.

The standard form of reviewed edits protection is reviewed edits level 2, which makes no distinction between unregistered or newly registered users and autoconfirmed users, in keeping with the spirit of the "everyone can edit" mantra. Others forms of reviewed edits are applied only in exceptional situations. Neither reviewed edits level 1 nor reviewed edits level 2 in conjunction with semi-protection is employed on any page without a clear consensus, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. All discussions to determine consensus on this point take place at the Reviewers' Noticeboard.

Administering reviewed edits
A page entitled Requests for reviewed edits (WP:RRE or WP:RREP) and known as the Requests Page shall be established, along with an accompanying Reviewers' Noticeboard (WP:RN).

All requests to apply reviewed edits to pages in any namespace are handled at the Requests Page.

General queries as well as certain special requests, enumerated below, are handled at the Noticeboard.

Any editor, acting in good faith and having read the criteria, may use the Requests Page to request reviewed edits be applied to a given page. One editor may request such protection for a specific page once within any 7-day period.

Administrators must not act upon their own requests.

'''Administrators must not act upon requests for reviewed edits made at any venue other than the Requests Page. Editors making such requests at other venues—including but not limited to talk pages, noticeboards, WP:Requests for page protection, email, and IRC channels—should be advised to use the Requests Page instead.

Requests are active for 7 days or until they are granted or denied, whichever comes first. Unanswered requests remain on the Requests Page for 7 days, after which they are archived as stale.

Any administrator may apply reviewed edits to any page that meets all of the above criteria at his or her discretion, providing that he or she has not been involved in a content dispute at the page during the preceding year. The granting of any request to apply reviewed edits constitutes both an acknowledgment of familiarity with the reviewed edits policy and a certification that the page in question meets all criteria under the policy.

Any administrator granting a request for reviewed edits must notify the requesting editor. Fulfilled requests remain visible on the Requests Page for 7 days and then are archived.

Any administrator denying a request for reviewed edits must briefly explain his or her reason(s) for denial, citing one or more of the criteria. Such requests remain visible on the Requests Page for 7 days and then are archived.

A denied request remains in force for 7 days, after which a fresh request may be made. Any editor making such a subsequent request is strongly encouraged to provide new evidence or a different rationale. Repeated requests may be considered disruptive if they occur frequently or rely on the same evidence or rationale.

No administrator may fulfill a request currently listed as "denied" on the noticeboard unless clear consensus for granting the request is established at the Reviewers' Noticeboard; doing so may be considered de facto wheel-warring. The converse—unilaterally removing reviewed edits protection recently applied by another administrator—would constitute actual wheel-warring.

Any editor may seek to delay the application of reviewed edits to a given page may place a hold on the relevant request by flagging it at the Requests Page and promptly opening a discussion at the Reviewers' Noticeboard. This will allow explicitly consensus-based, informed decisions to be made in cases where the suitability of applying reviewed edits is disputed, by allowing a larger number of editors to review the case. When consensus is reached at the Noticeboard, the request will be marked at the Requests Page as "accept" or "decline" "per discussion at the noticeboard.

While informal queries may be posted at the relevant administrator's talk page, editors wishing to formally protest the granting or denial of a request for reviewed edits protection must use the Reviewers' Noticeboard.

The Reviewers' Noticeboard
The noticeboard is intended for various uses, including:
 * Discussion of pending edits—i.e., whether or not a particular proposed edit should be accepted;
 * Discussion of requests at the Requests Page that have been flagged as "hold";
 * General queries as to the advisability of applying reviewed edits to a given page;
 * Objections to the application of reviewed edits to a given page;
 * Requests to remove reviewed edits protection from any page;
 * Objections to the rejection of a request for reviewed edits;
 * Reports of violations of the reviewed edits policy. This includes
 * allegations of misconduct or incompetence on the part of reviewers in reviewing pending edits, and
 * allegations of misconduct or incompetence on the part of administrators responding to requests for reviewed edits. (Allegations of misconduct on the part of administrators responding to requests for the reviewer flag are dealt with at WP:AN or WP:ANI rather than at this board.)
 * Proposals to apply reviewed edits level 1 or reviewed edits level 2 with semi-protection to a given page.

Reviewer selection
Summary. Experienced editors in good standing may apply to be reviewers. Admins should consider several criteria in assessing such applications. Rejected applicants can try again in 30 days.

Eligibility
Any editor in good standing who has made at least 2000 contributions to the English Wikipedia, has had a registered account for at least one year, and has held the rollbacker flag for at least three months is eligible to request the reviewer flag. Requests are made at Requests for permissions/Reviewer or by asking one of the administrators listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant reviewer requests.

Criteria
Administrators considering such requests weigh various factors in deciding whether to offer the reviewer flag to each applicant. While there are no hard and fast criteria other than the basic eligibility standards named in the preceding paragraph, an ideal applicant will
 * clearly understand the difference between vandalism and other unconstructive edits;
 * not be the subject of a current complaint at AN, AN/I, WQA, RfC/U, or SPI;
 * have no recent or lengthy blocks;
 * have a history of constructive contributions in article space;
 * have a recent history free of substantiated complaints about
 * competence,
 * civility,
 * edit warring,
 * editing against consensus, and
 * persistent or blatant violations of any of the three core content policies;
 * have a history of of clear communication and positive interaction with other editors.

Administrative protocol
When approving a request for the reviewer flag, the administrator places a link to the reviewed edits policy on the applicant's user talk page.

When declining a request for the reviewer flag, the administrator provides a clear rationale for the decision upon request from the applicant.

Reapplication
Editors whose requests for the reviewer flag have been declined may request it again after 30 days at Requests for permissions/Reviewer or by asking a different administrator listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant reviewer requests. Before reapplying, editors should seek to adjust their on-wiki activities in light of any rationale given for their previous request(s) being declined.

Rejection of a request for the reviewer flag does not constitute evidence of an editor's unfitness to hold other advanced permissions on Wikipedia.

Administrators are encouraged to recuse themselves from considering applications from editors with whom they have had significantly negative interactions in the past. Any administrator, for any reason, may advise an applicant to apply to a different administrator; the applicant may do so immediately and without prejudice.

The role of reviewers
Summary. Reviewers should reject vandalistic pending edits, approve fully constructive edits, and use their best judgment in accepting or rejecting all the others. Some problematic edits shouldn't be approved unless the reviewer follows up by fixing the problem. Reviewers should use their best judgment whether to warn would-be vandals. Report reviewer misconduct at the Reviewers' Noticeboard.

Assessing pending edits
Reviewers assess each pending edit to determine whether it constitutes an attempt at vandalism. Those pending edits identified as attempted vandalism must be rejected. Other edits generally should be accepted, although it is permissible for reviewers to reject certain types of non-vandalistic edits.

The purpose of reviewed edits is to protect little-watched pages from ongoing bouts of vandalism. While reviewed edits are not applied to any page with the express aim of restricting other types of unconstructive edits, it is inevitable that such edits will be made to pages on which reviewed edits is active.

Reviewers encountering such an edit have two possible ways to proceed. They may approve the unconstructive edit and then perform a subsequent edit to remove or modify it or they may reject the edit outright. While the former approach is theoretically preferable, since it is most closely aligned with the anti-vandalism purpose of reviewed edits, uninvolved reviewers acting in good faith will suffer neither censure nor sanction for using the latter approach. However, no reviewer should use the latter approach to reject repeated, substantively similar non-vandalistic edits to the same article within a short period of time. Neither should any reviewer accept blatantly unconstructive edits without subsequently editing the affected page to correcting the problem(s) introduced by such edits.

Reviewing is ideally a collaborative process, and reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the Reviewers' Noticeboard to discuss the wisdom of accepting particular pending edits.

Warning would-be vandals
Reviewers may use their discretion in deciding whether to warn users attempting to vandalize pages where reviewed edits protection is applied. Isolated or infrequent attempts may be best ignored: denial of both the instant gratification of seeing their vandalism go live and the explicit acknowledgment that their attempts were even noticed may discourage would-be vandals from making future attempts. Since persistent attempts at vandalism are disruptive and wasteful of reviewer time, it is advisable to warn repeat offenders (and block persistent repeat offenders).

Reviewer conduct and competence
Like all other Wikipedians, reviewers are human and are expected to make occasional mistakes. Issues of reviewer conduct or competence, which include should be reported at the Reviewers' Noticeboard. Users filing such reports must notify the subjects promptly. While warnings and the opportunity to explain and/or improve are typically afforded the subject of such reports, in extreme circumstances a user's reviewer flag may be removed without warning by any administrator who deems such action necessary to protect the integrity of the project. To regain the flag after it has been removed for cause, users must make a request at Requests for permissions/Reviewer and disclose that they previously held the reviewer permission. Reviewers may voluntarily give up the flag without prejudice against requests for its reinstatement.
 * repeated rejection of constructive edits,
 * repeated acceptance of vandalistic edits, and
 * chronic acceptance of unconstructive edits without making subsequent corrections,