Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Position #3: ce |
→Position #3: Further information needed |
||
Line 10:
#I agree with Tryptofish. I have not minded giving out a useless reviewer right. Now it is about to become meaningful. The policy should address this.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
# I like the idea, but think it should only be used exceptionally. I'm worried about a huge backlog, and the drama that could ensue when a reviewer decides that an otherwise good-faith edit is rejected. It'll happen, and I fear it'll be hard to tell whether a reviewer was acting maliciously. Furthermore, new editors may perceive a chilling effect when they make a good-faith edit that's at odds with a reviewer's idea of a good-faith edit. I'm not sure if the ensuing drama from this technology will be less than the drama it solves. All in all, I just think there needs to be a whole lot more documentation on what's expected from a reviewer, and what's expected from an admin who has the option of choosing between prot and pending changes. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# We need further information on exactly how frequent the reviewer right will be. We also need a discussion of that PC-protected-level-1 pages will apparently be effectively blocked from (auto)confirmed user (without reviewer) editing so long as an edit remains in the reviewer queue. (This gives rather a motivation for committing vandalism - including not only "regular" vandalism but, say, highly POV material - as an autoconfirmed user, then putting in an edit (vandalism or innocent) as an IP address, to block any non-reviewer from fixing the vandalism.) How much the latter will matter will depend directly on how common the reviewer right will be. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
| |||