I suspect that any action by an autoconfirmed user will automatically accept something of any actions not yet reviewed. Will those autoconfirmed users get a warning that they might unwittingly be accepting edits they might not have reviewed?
Yup, they do. There's a banner at the top of the page that tells them exactly this.
Rob
I think this could cause complications. If I'm sorting out a typo like artists preforming songs or discuss throwers then I assume that if I'm marking my edit as minor no-one expects me to have checked the rest of the article.
Is it going to be possible for admins to disable their autoreviewer status?
WereSpielChequers
On 22 May 2010 22:00, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
I suspect that any action by an autoconfirmed user will automatically accept something of any actions not yet reviewed. Will those autoconfirmed users get a warning that they might unwittingly be accepting edits they might not have reviewed?
Yup, they do. There's a banner at the top of the page that tells them exactly this.
Rob
I think this could cause complications. If I'm sorting out a typo like artists preforming songs or discuss throwers then I assume that if I'm marking my edit as minor no-one expects me to have checked the rest of the article.
Is it going to be possible for admins to disable their autoreviewer status?
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the previous version was already flagged. If it's not, then they have to actively check a box (next to the minor edit and watch check boxes) saying they want to flag all the pending edits, and their own (which people should only check if they have reviewed all the pending edits).
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the previous version was already flagged. If it's not, then they have to actively check a box (next to the minor edit and watch check boxes) saying they want to flag all the pending edits, and their own (which people should only check if they have reviewed all the pending edits).
Ok if that's the case it makes me a bit less worried on that front though I am still confused. You say "autoreviewer" but a lot of others are using "autoconfirmed" which is obviously very different and much broader. Is this for those with a separate autoreview flag or are all autoconfirmed users getting this ability?
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
On 22 May 2010 22:20, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the previous version was already flagged. If it's not, then they have to actively check a box (next to the minor edit and watch check boxes) saying they want to flag all the pending edits, and their own (which people should only check if they have reviewed all the pending edits).
Ok if that's the case it makes me a bit less worried on that front though I am still confused. You say "autoreviewer" but a lot of others are using "autoconfirmed" which is obviously very different and much broader. Is this for those with a separate autoreview flag or are all autoconfirmed users getting this ability?
Autoreview is a user right held by members of the autoconfirmed user group. Therefore, all autoconfirmeds will be autoreviewers, but you could have autoreviewers that aren't autoconfirmed (although I don't expect that to happen since autoconfirmed is just an easy bar to get over).
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong, I don't think I've seen the word "autoreviewer" tossed about in any other context. I was under the impression that autoreviewer status was something where you can either nominate yourself or another person, after said nominee has written an unusual high amount of policy- complying articles in a row, therefore clogging up New Page Patrol--it doesn't come to you automatically.
Emily On May 22, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:20, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the previous version was already flagged. If it's not, then they have to actively check a box (next to the minor edit and watch check boxes) saying they want to flag all the pending edits, and their own (which people should only check if they have reviewed all the pending edits).
Ok if that's the case it makes me a bit less worried on that front though I am still confused. You say "autoreviewer" but a lot of others are using "autoconfirmed" which is obviously very different and much broader. Is this for those with a separate autoreview flag or are all autoconfirmed users getting this ability?
Autoreview is a user right held by members of the autoconfirmed user group. Therefore, all autoconfirmeds will be autoreviewers, but you could have autoreviewers that aren't autoconfirmed (although I don't expect that to happen since autoconfirmed is just an easy bar to get over).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong, I don't think I've seen the word "autoreviewer" tossed about in any other context. I was under the impression that autoreviewer status was something where you can either nominate yourself or another person, after said nominee has written an unusual high amount of policy- complying articles in a row, therefore clogging up New Page Patrol--it doesn't come to you automatically.
No, we're talking about having your edits automatically flagged as checked under the flaggedrevs extension. This page seems to confirm I am using the terminology correctly:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
Oh, I should've figured that one out on my own. Continue on.
Emily On May 22, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong, I don't think I've seen the word "autoreviewer" tossed about in any other context. I was under the impression that autoreviewer status was something where you can either nominate yourself or another person, after said nominee has written an unusual high amount of policy- complying articles in a row, therefore clogging up New Page Patrol-- it doesn't come to you automatically.
No, we're talking about having your edits automatically flagged as checked under the flaggedrevs extension. This page seems to confirm I am using the terminology correctly:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong, I don't think I've seen the word "autoreviewer" tossed about in any other context. I was under the impression that autoreviewer status was something where you can either nominate yourself or another person, after said nominee has written an unusual high amount of policy- complying articles in a row, therefore clogging up New Page Patrol--it doesn't come to you automatically.
No, we're talking about having your edits automatically flagged as checked under the flaggedrevs extension. This page seems to confirm I am using the terminology correctly:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
I think you have the terminology right but that is something we probably want to change if we can.. if we keep using "autoreviewer" as a statement there it is going to confuse a lot of people on En who have seen autoreview as a very different thing for a while now.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
I think you have the terminology right but that is something we probably want to change if we can.. if we keep using "autoreviewer" as a statement there it is going to confuse a lot of people on En who have seen autoreview as a very different thing for a while now.
Ya know, I was just thinking that, but I needed more time to think about the whole interaction. Names are, after all, a big part of making stuff usable to most humans.
Emily
On May 22, 2010, at 4:44 PM, James Alexander wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong, I don't think I've seen the word "autoreviewer" tossed about in any other context. I was under the impression that autoreviewer status was something where you can either nominate yourself or another person, after said nominee has written an unusual high amount of policy- complying articles in a row, therefore clogging up New Page Patrol--it doesn't come to you automatically.
No, we're talking about having your edits automatically flagged as checked under the flaggedrevs extension. This page seems to confirm I am using the terminology correctly:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
I think you have the terminology right but that is something we probably want to change if we can.. if we keep using "autoreviewer" as a statement there it is going to confuse a lot of people on En who have seen autoreview as a very different thing for a while now.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
Ok if that's the case it makes me a bit less worried on that front though I am still confused. You say "autoreviewer" but a lot of others are using "autoconfirmed" which is obviously very different and much broader. Is this for those with a separate autoreview flag or are all autoconfirmed users getting this ability?
Here's what we're currently on track to implement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
What this means is that there would not actually be a separate "autoreview" group. Autoconfirmed users would be given the access rights. I made this simplification because I wasn't able to find any documentation of any clear decision on this front.
Since that time, a debate was started over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Flagged_revision...
Listed in there is documentation of a couple of polls that were run. I'm reading through those polls to try to understand where the support and opposition comes from. Needless to say, we need to wrap up that debate before I can explain further how this is going to work. If you have opinions, please post them there.
Thanks Rob
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say, since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified in the last few days upon seeing the implementation.
Now that we actually have a proposal, it needs to be approved
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@robla.net wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
Ok if that's the case it makes me a bit less worried on that front though I am still confused. You say "autoreviewer" but a lot of others are using "autoconfirmed" which is obviously very different and much broader. Is this for those with a separate autoreview flag or are all autoconfirmed users getting this ability?
Here's what we're currently on track to implement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
What this means is that there would not actually be a separate "autoreview" group. Autoconfirmed users would be given the access rights. I made this simplification because I wasn't able to find any documentation of any clear decision on this front.
Since that time, a debate was started over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Flagged_revision...
Listed in there is documentation of a couple of polls that were run. I'm reading through those polls to try to understand where the support and opposition comes from. Needless to say, we need to wrap up that debate before I can explain further how this is going to work. If you have opinions, please post them there.
Thanks Rob _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 23 May 2010 03:05, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say, since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified in the last few days upon seeing the implementation.
Now that we actually have a proposal, it needs to be approved
Since this is only intended to be a trial, I would be tempted not to bother trying to get general approval for every aspect of it. It is probably not worth the effort. If people don't like some aspects of the implementation, they can say so when we discuss the results of the trial.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:00, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
I suspect that any action by an autoconfirmed user will automatically accept something of any actions not yet reviewed. Will those autoconfirmed users get a warning that they might unwittingly be accepting edits they might not have reviewed?
Yup, they do. There's a banner at the top of the page that tells them exactly this.
Rob
I think this could cause complications. If I'm sorting out a typo like artists preforming songs or discuss throwers then I assume that if I'm marking my edit as minor no-one expects me to have checked the rest of the article.
Is it going to be possible for admins to disable their autoreviewer status?
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the previous version was already flagged. If it's not, then they have to actively check a box (next to the minor edit and watch check boxes) saying they want to flag all the pending edits, and their own (which people should only check if they have reviewed all the pending edits).
Yes, exactly. I was quite careful to demonstrate this in the poster I created:
http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection.png
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:00 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@googlemail.com> wrote:
Is it going to be possible for admins to disable their autoreviewer status?
WereSpielChequers
This is my biggest question of all this to be honest. Part of me think it would actually turn out ok but I'm also fairly worried that this is in no way what the community approved given that what I got from the discussion was the community fully expected to have to specifically give out the right to review (and there was some considerable discussion about whether or not that right should be given automatically to certain group, the consensus being no). It seems to me the consensus wasn't for this, which appears to be a bit of a semi-protection using Flagged Revisions, but more for something akin to the german version just on specific articles (and so the people who were able to approve would be significantly smaller then "all autoconflirmed users"
It isn't to say that this would be totally bad.. just not what was approved. I do have to say that there are a ton of autoconfirmed users who I would not trust to realize they were approving old edits (perhaps vandalism) when they did a small edit. I would also be a bit concerned because if they get approved they would be much more likely to get missed (if it slips through the cracks it can take months to be found unless it is on a popular page).
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l