- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Thank you to all who participated in this discussion. The consensus seems clear. All three proposals are successful.
- There is consensus to allow edit filters to defer changes either passively or actively in accordance with the edit filter guideline. (Passive deferring places the edit on Special:PendingChanges for human review, but still presents it to readers immediately. Active deferring holds back the edit, showing readers instead the revision prior to the edit, similar to how pending changes protection currently works.)
- Bots may, on approval, also defer edits passively, and bots with rollback rights may, on approval, also defer edits actively. A frequently cited example of a bot that would benefit from active deferred changes was ClueBot – the community expressed a lot of faith in it to catch vandalism, and deferred changes would allow the bot to catch edits it suspects may be vandalism, but isn’t quite sure enough to revert.
- The ORES extension is authorized to defer edits both passively and actively under the condition that the thresholds for doing so are decided beforehand by consensus and are higher than what they are currently. Administrators may, at their discretion, increase the thresholds in the event of backlogs.
- There were concerns in the threaded discussion sections about the backlog and about biting newcomers. To address the backlog, one suggested solution was to implement deferred changes cautiously and passively: start with a high passive threshold then slowly lower it until an optimal threshold is reached before allowing active deferring. When actively deferring changes, a friendly notification should be presented to the user who made the changes, carefully worded to avoid biting. There was some discussion about creating a separate queue for deferred changes (rather than Special:PendingChanges) and changing the standards for accepting them, but there is no consensus to deviate from the way pending changes are currently reviewed. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you to all who participated in this discussion. The consensus seems clear. All three proposals are successful.
This request for comment concerns deferred changes, a way to defer for review edits by users who aren't autoconfirmed when they match certain edit filters, are picked up by a bot (e.g. User:ClueBot NG) as warranting attention, or are considered damaging by ORES. Until reviewed, the revision displayed to readers can be chosen to be either the latest revision as usual ('passive' defer) or the revision prior to the user edits[1] ('active' defer). Deferred edits appear at Special:PendingChanges. Should we request implementation of deferred changes? Specifically, should we allow it for the edit filter, bots and ORES, both passively and actively? 08:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- ^ The same revision that rollback would revert to.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search