Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:40, 17 April 2012

Revision as of 18:25, 17 April 2012

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. (I might favor PC if only the second level were used, as an alternative to full protection.) [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

# I support PC, but the polarisation towards options one and two suggests to me that we haven't learned the lessons of the failure first time around. There are two broad groups of situations where pending changes is useful. One, where the vast majority of edits are good faith, but bad faith ones are causing exceptional damage. Two, where the vast majority of edits are bad faith, but the article nonetheless has a history of productive anon edits. Pending changes in its current form is a <u>''terrible''</u> solution on articles that attract a large number of good faith and bad faith contributions alike (current events, suspected deaths, extremely high profile figures etc). In a nutshell, the draft policy in option #2 does not give any guidance on the tool's strengths and limitations. '''It must.''' —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (there is a third, important group PC is useful for that I omitted: very low traffic BLPs). —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

# The current draft policy will need to be revised before I can support reactivating Pending changes/Flagged revisions. To this end I recommend that [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions|WikiProject Flagged Revisions]] be reactivated (and if need be renamed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pending Changes|WikiProject Pending Changes]]) to address the concerns of Tryptofish and Allens amoung others. – [[User:Allen4names|Allen]]4[[User talk:Allen4names|names]] 05:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)