To helpcentralize discussions and keep related topics together, alltalk subpages redirect here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Archives from /Trial Archives from /Queue Archives from Help Archives from FPPR Archives from /Metrics and subpages See also archives atWikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback

This page has archives. Sections older than50 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Hello,

I would like to raise concerns regarding whether @Gardenkur is suitable for their role as a pending changes reviewer. Gardenkur made these incorrect rejections (a,b,c) on my edits, so I posted ontheir usertalk to explain the nature of the edits and request an explanation for the reverts. They responded onmy usertalk instead, so the conversation continues there.

The initial explanation given for the rejection wasthe user name was confusing. To avoid discrepency and controversy I had to revert. which indicates that my (lack of) username was the primary reason -- showing inappropriate bias against IP users. No elaboration is given as to why my edits may be a "discrepancy" or "controversial", nor was there any attempt to engage with me regarding the explanation I had given. If they had read it and understood, they would have fixed the incorrect rejection. If they didn't understand, they could have asked for more elaboration, or sought help from someone else. Neither happened, I simply got brushed off.

I then challenged their use of "user name" as justification for rejection, but only got the vague excusebeing safeside in response. This suggests that Gardenkur considers all edits by IPs to be somehow "unsafe" and that they can thus reject as a precautionary measure even when uncertain. This is unacceptable; if there is something that they don't understand, they could seek clarification, ask for a second opinion, or just leave it for someone else to take care of. There is no compulsion to handle any particular case, even moreso if it is something you don't fully comprehend.

Returning to the reverts themselves, the reason given in the edit summaries was "No reliable source", which does not make sense. My edits were of a technical nature rather than content-related, so that may be cause for misunderstanding, but I did leave meaningful edit summaries citing a Phab #. A visual comparison with the old revisions would have shown no content changed. A cursory check of the articles' histories would reveal two consecutive edits from me, constituting a self-revert. Clearly, none of this mattered, indicating there was a lack of care and a rush to jump to conclusions based on my unregistered status.

All this worried me enough to take a look at Gardenkur's edit history, where a quick sampling of recent rejections (mostly ignored BLPs) turned up several more problematic rejections:

• [1] uncontroversial capitalization fix: "correction improper"
• [2] copyedit, mostly unobjectionable comma addition: "incorrect revision"
• [3] grammar: "incorrect revision" (to be fair, this one is subtle and the mistake is understandable)
• [4] addition with research article cited (albeit with a bare URL): "No reliable source"
  (Context: second attempt by editor, after previous edit was rejected by a different reviewer, who helpfully pointed the user to WP:CITE and WP:RS.)
• [5] factually correct addition, non-BLP, easily verifiable by web search: "No reliable source"
• [6] factually correct, minor addition of game score, non-BLP, easily verifiable: "No reliable source" despite the whole paragraph originally being already unsourced.
• [7] replacing a picture of a bus with a similar one: "No reliable source"

And a few examples which should indeed have been rejected, but the reason given was faulty:

• [8] good faith addition of a link to "See also" section not needed, as subject already covered in the article. "No reliable source"
• [9][10] good faith addition of item to disambiguation page (×2). Band has no article and likely not notable, but easy to verify that it exists. "No reliable source" -- disambig pages don't require citations.
• [11] obvious vandalism, but rejection reason was "No reliable source" rather than something about vandalism

Gardenkur favors rejection reasons like "correction improper", "not corrrect", "incorrect revision", "No reliable source", using them in bulk. I understand the need for having standard responses for common situations, but these are particularly terse and unhelpful to new and inexperienced editors, in contrast to other examples where I've seen reviewers write a tailored edit summary or include links to relevant guidelines. No attempt is made to contact users whose edits have been rejected or reverted, welcome new users and help them learn the ropes. Combined with the examples above of incorrect rejections for faulty reasons, it gives the impression of a rote rubber-stamping approach without paying enough attention to each case. Furthermore, Gardenkur may be overreaching beyond the scope of pending changes (BLP, vandalism, copyvio), for instance trying to enforce verifiability, which is not required by WP:RPC. Reviewers may check at their discretion, but RPC does stateif information is modified without a new source [...] you should not presume vandalism but check [...] existing source [or] search for one. Examples above show that Gardenkur does not give pending edits a fair chance, even in non-BLP contexts. Their instinctual response seems to be to delete, rather than consider making corrections or applying maintenance templates like{{citation needed}}.

Gardenkur saidI will be careful in future but given theirsafeside remark I don't feel reassured that they actually understand why I find their approach objectionable. They've offered to approve my edits if I resubmit again, but that seems odd. Is there some technical impediment that prevents simply self-reverting the rejection?

Lastly, broadly speaking, looking at their Gardenkur's contribs and userpage does not inspire confidence that they have an adequate grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to serve as a reviewer.

Thanks,2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk)03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. I had a detailed look to your response here. I thank you for the research and time you took to understand the background. We do everything in the interest of Wikipedia as platform and many edits I saw were just a passing content without mention of the source. I cant point my action for each decision I took. I requested for apolgies and will be more caution for future. Every edit of mine comes with lot of thinking whether in my articles or any others. I too face lot of challenges in my articles whether in part or full but we have to work as team. I take every article of Wikipedia as ours and every editor as a team. However if a small issue is causing a big harm I leave it at the dicretion of good faith of administrators.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGardenkur (talk •contribs)

It's less specific mishits that concern me, but certain underlying bases. For example,@Gardenkur:, I would still like more detail on thebut the user name was confusing and your refusal on those groundsbeing safeside. Whatspecifically about the username made you feel it necessary to be especially cautious, as opposed to an edit from any other username that you don't recognise?Nosebagbear (talk)10:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiNosebagbear. Thanks for your message. There are notices to me earlier 1. when an edit is made to increase counts 2. Edits not made through accounts 3. Edits which were controversial. Need to keep many things in mind while approving edits. Wikipedia being open and global platform as approver face risks both for approving and not approving. Appreciate if everyone understands. Thanks.Gardenkur (talk)11:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently rejectionscan be self-reverted, and Gardenkur has done so after I'd raised the possibility ... but for only one out of the three edits in question. It feels like we're talking past each other and making little progress, so I've gone ahead and submitted undo edits for the other two cases, even though I would have really preferred not to (among other reasons, it might be mistaken for engaging in a revert war).

"I too face lot of challenges in my articles": @Gardenkur, this being the case, may I suggest you take things one step at a time, and focus on working on getting better at that with the help of your mentor first, before trying to take on more roles in patrolling and maintenance.

@Nosebagbear, I should probably have mentioned that four of the specific examples listed involved registered users. I think it shows a wider pattern of haphazard rejections that extends beyond only IP editors.

There are notices to me earlier... Sorry, I'm having difficulty parsing this due to a possible language barrier. Gardenkur, did someone (who?) tell you that pending changes reviewers are supposed to guard against these specific offences? Because I don't see anything like that in the PC reviewing guideline. If Gardenkur is using faulty criteria, and being too quick to ascribe bad intentions to editors that fit a certain profile in their mind, it would certainly explain how failed to properly assess changes before rejecting.

Question:is there a way to list accepted changes by a reviewer?Edit: found it.^{2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk)10:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk)15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.182.1.116.80 (talk)04:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. Nice to see your reply. It will be a risky affair for anyone to approve edits if there is no good faith on approvers. I check every edits in details before approving or rejection. However, if iam not believed I cannot convince. I am not ascribing bad intentions to any editor or content but just was caution in doing so. As senior I can understand your regrets and leave it to you how you want me to proceed further. Thanks and have a nice day.Gardenkur (talk)15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found thereview log, made a quick survey of a block of roughly ten accepts dating from around the time this thread was started, and spotted these issues:

• [12] New facts added to BLP lead with no source
• [13] Unexplained photo removal (repeat attempt after several prior reverts)
• [14]Copyvio, added material was lifted from the cited source
• [15] In an article that consistently uses US spelling "vapor", accepted change of one instance (out of over 20) to "vapour"
• [16] Addition of rumors not supported by preexisting source, no new source
• [17] LHT/RHT are defined at start of article and used throughout; replacing with left/right alters the meaning of captions. Removal of "Southern African Development Community" from caption removes important context.

I understand thatreviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept, but up to four of these are precisely the things that PC is supposed to protect against. The other two are lesser issues, out of scope for PC, just examples that I believe could have been better handled differently. Comparing with the rejections listed earlier for "no reliable source", the examples of unsourced additions accepted here reveal a lack of consistency. Earlier, I'd thought there might beoverreaching beyond the scope of PC but now it just looks a bit haphazard across the board.

@Gardenkur, it feels like we are continuing to experience barriers to communication here. You appeal to AGF, but no one has accused you of malicious intent or deliberately causing harm. I raised concerns about your reviewing, and this is an opportunity to discuss the reasoning behind your actions, but we've not been getting much to work with. In response to Nosebagbear's question regarding why my username warranted extra caution, we got a list of three broad criteria"notices to me earlier", two of which don't even apply to the situation. My query seeking clarification about the origins of those criteria has not been answered.

Unlike ordinary editors who don't hold maintenance or administrative roles, being a pending changes reviewer confers account privileges and comes with responsibilities. It is reasonable to expect that reviewers know certain policies and follow the reviewing guidelines. Sure, the policies can be complex, no one is expected to be perfect, and mistakes may happen from time to time. However in this case rather than an isolated mishap there may be a pattern and as Nosebagbear saidcertain underlying bases may be of concern.

Gardenkur, you've promisedmorecaution for future multiple times, but it is difficult to be reassured by that since you've apparently alreadycheck every edits in details and put in alot of thinking, yet made iffy judgement calls on the premise ofjust wascaution in doing so orbeingsafeside. That is why it is important for us to gain more clarity on what it means for you to "use more caution" or "be more careful". So let me try one more time:

• Where did thosenotices to me earlier come from? Can you provide a link to them, so we can see why these are things that a reviewer should be cautious about?
• Can you please elaborate in more detail on how you plan to do things differently in future?

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk)11:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730. Thanks for your detailed remarks above. Let me assure you of following below guidelines with more attention

1. Observing article edit changes.

2.Guidelines issued for us as reviewer.

3. General Wikipedia policies on Notability, reliable, independent, secondary sources.

4. Any other observations as the situations may warrant in the interest of Wikipedia.

Its not planning things differently but exercise of attention while reviewing.

If you have some suggestions to share, kindly do which can help me improve. Thanks again.Gardenkur (talk)11:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This answer mainly just restated what any reviewer should have been doing to begin with (points 2, 3), but Gardenkur's problematic reviewed changes (both accepts and rejects), as well as their own contrib history, are not indicative of an adequate understanding of relevant guidelines and policies. The additional line (point 4)other observations as the situations may warrant in the interest of Wikipedia is vague and seems to allow latitude for freestyling; which is worrying because of prior decisions that were made based on some arbitrary, unwritten criteria just to besafeside — this key concern still has not been addressed. Question about the provenance of the three"notices to me earlier" criteria has also yet to be answered. Seems like they just won't engage on the specifics (can't say I haven't tried).

Meanwhile in the past few days they'veattracted the ire of another IP editor,accepted obvious vandalism,rejected properly sourced changes, as well as accepted 4 other dubious quality edits (out of 5 accepts in the past two days) that have had to be undone or reverted by others. Ifmore caution ormore attention has already been applied since the start of this discussion, I'm afraid I'm not seeing evidence of it.

If you have some suggestions: Yes, I have already suggested thatyou take things one step at a time and focus on working on dealing with your"face lot of challenges in my articles" for now. To put it very bluntly: that means to give up the reviewer role. You may be sincerely trying to help, but honestly, I don't think you are ready to take on maintenance responsibilities yet. It is not helpful if you keep making mistakes and other people have to take the time to fix it, or when you create a bad impression on new and unregistered editors. Concentrate on writing and editing for now, and gradually gain a better understanding of the policies first.

I have nothing else useful to add for now; seeking more input from third parties. @Nosebagbear or anyone else — please do chime in, because I just don't seem to be getting through.

I will wait a few more days but will consider petitioning AN regarding permissions removal if this discussion remains stalled.

Regards, —2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk)16:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP - I didn't come to a clearcut decision on whether to yank PCR (the specific decision by them to deny your changes based seemingly purely on a higher threat level ascribed to IP editors Ido view as incorrect, however). By all means take it to AN/ANI for a broader audience and a specific request. Make sure to follow the rules for notification. You can also reference this discussion including my engagement if you're nervous that you'd get a complaint about taking it to AN.Nosebagbear (talk)19:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on your IP address182.1.116.80 (talk)04:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked extensively with them in 2022. They were very cooperative, well-intentioned, active, and not well-versed on how Wikipedia works. I've not watched them lately but circa 2022 IMO they shouldn't be doing PCR.North8000 (talk)17:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am mistaken, but as an IP editor I've noticed a decline in use ofWP:WHITELOCK in favor ofWP:SILVERLOCK, over the last couple of years. Can anyone confirm this, are there page counts for these two by year? This is a shame, because it makes Wikipedia less open and less inviting; there seems to be a growing divide between IP editors and (auto)confirmed registered users. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:7BB1:ECF5:7FBE:B5A1 (talk)08:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, though I don't have any additional information.NotAGenious (talk)13:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Millows!| 🪧16:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, odd. Trying to paste something into the editor on mobile view makes it not show up. Anyway,

As of the time of writing, there are:

• 3,689 pages under pending changes protection (pc)
• 14,065 pages under semi-protection (sp)

In 2018, there were:

• 3,477 pages under pc
• 8,656 pages under sp

(2019)

• 3,477 pc
• 8,656 sp

(2020)

• 3,559 pc
• 10,987 sp

(2021)

• 3,921 pc
• 12,919 sp

(2022)

• 3,921 pc
• 13,378 sp

On average, 1,055 new pages become semi-protected every year (excluding this year), and 44.4 new pages become under pending changes protection. As for why it's preferred to semi-protect, I have no idea. I think pending changes should be preferred, in order to allow the encyclopedia to be free for anyone to edit, while still having protection.Millows!| 🪧16:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected articles that use pending changes really have become rare. It's almost all semi-protected now. This concept seems to have more or less failed, unfortunately. --62.166.252.25 (talk)14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested pending changes the other day. I got semi, and I'm not sure why.Cremastra (talk)12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

تعريف النظرية المحاسبية واهميتهاMachamwisse (talk)01:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Machamwisse! This is a discussion page for an information page on the English Wikipedia. Are you looking forthe Arabic Wikipedia?Perfect4th (talk)02:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

لطفاً در مورد ویزای من اطلاعات دهید همچنان من را به دفتر انتقال دهنده ارجاع دهیدAbdulmatinqasemi (talk)22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Abdulmatinqasemi. This is a discussion page for an information page on the English Wikipedia and we cannot help you with a visa. If you're looking for Wikipedia in Arabic, you canvisit the main page with this link.Perfect4th (talk)22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the page says:"For Featured list removal candidates, seeWP:FLR". What the page should say:"For Featured list removal candidates, seeWP:FLRC".WP:FLR links to this page whereasWP:FLRC leads to the correct page.ChangingTheGraphicsLurker (talk)20:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneAnnh07 (talk)20:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I think the "Checked ✔" as seen onAdam Smith for example is extremely misleading. I think the most natural interpretation of that icon is that an experienced user or expert has checked the factual accuracy of the entire page, which is clearly not the case. Something like "the most recent edits by unregistered and new users may not be shown" would be much more accurate, though I'm sure that could be worded way more concisely.IAWW (talk)16:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's technically possible, I would support removing this from reader view. It's theoretically useful for pending changes reviewers (though I doubt it's part of anyone's workflow), but I agree it's much more likely to confuse than inform readers.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason it didn't occur to me to completely remove it, but indeed I think that would be the best solution.IAWW (talk)16:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave this up for a few days to see if any watchers want to comment. After this, I'm thinking maybeWP:Village pump (technical).Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t imagine this would be very helpful for most readers. I just asked two people I know who don’t edit and they both assumed it was some kind of marker that the content had been fact-checked.Perfect4th (talk)17:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "IP" to "temporary account" as it is changed now.~2025-30910-55 (talk)09:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anedit notice I also saw upon starting this topic links toWP:IPs are also humans which is irrelevant now considering temporary accounts exist~2025-30910-55 (talk)09:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]