Wikipedia talk:Reviewing pending changes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

Bruce1ee

Bruce1ee was also wrong by skipping space without checking 102.165.247.112 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)