 | This is draft for a possible fourth phase of the Pending changes RFC. It is not an active proposal at this time, please do not add comments, endorsements, etc to this page. To discuss this idea please go to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 or my talk page. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011- final phase
Purpose
The purpose of this final phase is to determine what the future of Pending Changes on the English Wikipedia will be. Due to problems with the previous phases this phase will again be restricted in its scope. There will be three positions presented. Each participant will choose one position only to endorse. If you change your mind and decide to switch positions, please strike out your previous endorsement but do not remove it entirely.
Rationale
The official pending changes trial ended several months ago. In the intervening time the tool has been used without any clear policy regarding how it is to be used, or even if it is supposed to be used at all. This phase will resolve these issues. The policy presented is based on the results of phases 1 and 2 of this process, phase one being an open discussion and phase two being the endorsement of specific positions. The format will be similar to phase 2, however users will not be allowed to add additional positions. This may seem overly restrictive but it is necessary in order to arrive at a clear result. Users may add a brief comment to their endorsement, threaded discussions may be removed to the talk page.
Position #1
The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia.
- users who endorse this position
Position #2
Despite the flaws of the trial period pending changes has proven to be a useful tool for combatting vandalism and other types of problematic edits. The tool should be used in accordance with the following draft policy. This policy is intended to reflect the community input in the previous phases of this process. It is not set in stone and after use of the tool is resumed there may be unanticipated problems which can be corrected through normal consensus gathering processes.
- users who endorse this position
Position #3
Pending changes should be kept in the long term, but the draft policy is insufficient and/or out of step with what the community wants from the tool. Pending changes should not be rejected entirely but should remain unused until such time as there is a more complete policy in place that has been explicitly approved by the community.
- users who endorse this position
Discussion
(a separate discussion subpage will be transcluded here)