Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

These are the results of the Endorsement phase of the RFC, which was active from 8 March 2011-20 March 2011, when it was archived and replaced with the Review/Recommend phase. The results of this phase have been analyzed.

Explanation of format

In this second phase the main RFC page will not be used for open back-and-forth conversations. The main views on the issues will be presented in their own sections. Users will add endorsements to views they agree with, there is no need to add opposition to views that a user does not agree with. Users may endorse as many views as they wish. If a user finds that none of the views adequately represents their position they are free to add a new subsection for their own view. Please review all views to make sure this is the case before adding a new section. Do not edit views by others that are already posted, and be sure to note any substantive changes to your own view if it already has endorsements. When adding an endorsement users may also make a brief statement, preferably no more than one sentence. All threaded discussion will take place on the talk page, which will also be archived for a fresh start. If there are issues that were on the archived page that still need discussion new sections may be opened on the current talk page with links to the archived discussion. It should be stressed that despite the appearance this is not a poll. It is merely an attempt to create more organized discussion in order that a consensus may become clear.

Purpose

General information

Shortcut
Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels
  Unregistered or newly registered Confirmed or autoconfirmed Extended confirmed Template editor  ★ Admin Interface admin Appropriate for
(See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection Normal editing The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes All users can edit
Edits by unregistered or newly registered editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not. 		Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi Cannot edit Normal editing Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed Cannot edit Normal editing Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template Cannot edit Normal editing High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full Cannot edit Normal editing Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. Critical templates and modules.
Interface Cannot edit Normal editing Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
★  The table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
Other modes of protection:

General

PC reduces vandalism

Pending changes reduces vandalism on the article to which it is applied while still allowing unconfirmed users to submit their changes.

users who endorse this view
  1. Definately. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Collect (talk)
  4. Ronk01 talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. --joe deckertalk to me 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. it doesn't just reduce, it hides it from public —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. -- Sailsbystars (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. it doesn't just reduce, it hides it from public and stops it being published through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. -- Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. —SW— chatter 04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. -- Rapier (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. -- ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. -- Yesterday a wave of attacks from 4chan kids hit BioWare with 100 vandalisms in 40 minutes before the article got semi'd. Pending changes would have stopped the attack from gathering any momentum. - Pointillist (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Obviously. AGK [•] 18:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Without a doubt Bped1985 (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Alandeus (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. That's a given. Marcus Qwertyus 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. —hike395 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Wholeheartly agree. When the Wikipedia:Pending changes initiative was suggested and then implemented, I thought it was bound to fail. I was wrong.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Sure, and less problematic then semi is. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Yes--5 albert square (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Definitely! At the beginning I did`t agree with this idea, but now, seeing it in action I changed my mind. Adrian (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Obviously. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. - Ttguy (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. RahulText me 14:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. A must have accessory.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Captain panda 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Johnfos (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. upstateNYer 04:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. Cliff (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. Clearly useful, but needs refinement. Grimsooth (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. Yes, obviously. (Though 'in comparison to what?' is the necessary follow-up). Ocaasi (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. Yes, and it also reduces good faith edits. Jane (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. Polyamorph (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. Definitely, and we should be so liberal with handing out the reviewer flag that we end up giving it to vandals - see my comment on the talk page - and that would still reduce vandalism overall. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. Semi-protection is too hard to get some times Ng.j (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. —mc10 (t/c) 04:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  50. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  51. Bill william comptonTalk 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  52. Yes, most certainly. Mojoworker (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  53. Of course it does. Cj005257 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  54. Prevents more vandalism than it creates. ThemFromSpace 04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  55. Of course it does Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC reduces vandalism, but so does semi-protection

Reducing vandalism is a good thing, but PC is not the only way to accomplish that.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. —S Marshall T/C 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Revcasy (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Psu256 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Not the only way, and not the best way. Rivertorch (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  8.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Reach Out to the Truth 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Seems obvious. It should not be in dispute that semi-protection also reduces vandalism. But unless we're going to s-protect all BLPs, pending changes is the vandalism reducer we have. --B (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Yes of course just one tool of many. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. so does full protection, but we like people to edit where possible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Of course it also works, the question is which one is better. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. -- Sailsbystars (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. -- Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. I am unsure of the relevance of this question, its apples and pears, full protection stops all vandalism? So the question is of little value in this issue. Of course PC is not the only way to protect articles from vandalism - so the only answer to this question is yes. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Not to pick a fight, but Off2riorob's comment above gets at the exact issue. PC will obviously reduce vandalism, but only where it is applied to articles not currently semi-protected (I can imagine some marginal reduction in currently semi-protected articles). Championing PC as a solution to vandalism demands that we recognize this. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. - self-evident - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Bejinhan talks 10:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Yes . All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. IME, it was utterly useless and didn't reduce vandalism at all. (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Accurate but worthless. Fully protecting everything and us all going home would eliminate vandalism, but wouldn't be a good idea. Courcelles 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Obviously... — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Slon02 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Tideflat (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Minimac (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. both PC and semi should be part of a sysop's toolbox --Guerillero | My Talk 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. —hike395 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Jaguar (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Again, obvious. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. True, but trivial. Blocking AOL, locking the database, and killing User:Tile join with a targeted nuke would also do. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. Yes, but also having pending changes gives more options for ways of reducing vandalism. Captain panda 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. one possible tool VikÞor | Talk 04:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. But depending on the situation, either might be more effective than the other 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. Truthsort (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. BurtAlert (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  50. Ϫ 06:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  51. Ocaasi (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  52. Can't disagree but PC got to be the preferred option to reduce red tape.Polyamorph (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  53.  Sandstein  19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  54. —mc10 (t/c) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  55. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  56. Yes, as do blocking, WP:RCP, etc. So, Pending Changes is just another tool in the toolbox. Mojoworker (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  57.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  58. Certes (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  59. Per Courcelles. Shutting down Wikipedia would also prevent vandalism, but we wouldn't want that. ThemFromSpace 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC drives away new users

Any benefit we may be getting from the continued use of pending changes is diminished by the loss of new editors it can cause.

users who endorse this view
  1. Kingpin13 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. The statement in the section heading does not immediately require we conclude the elaborating blurb, but I agree with the basic idea. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. It would discouage me, if I were new. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Mokele (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Reyk YO! 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. I am worried that widespread use of this tool (i.e. outside BLP) will result in this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. SoWhy 07:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  12.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Most probably. I know it has made my routine contributions (antispam, etc) to the German Wikipedia more difficult and frustrating. ThemFromSpace 04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Protection considered harmful, including pending changes. I'm afraid that pending changes has made protection seem too "nice", but a large part of the draw of editing is being able to see your change take place immediately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. - Nellis 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection drives away new users, PC doesn't

Currently, new editors are driven away by red tape and the bothersome way to the talk page. PC facilitates them just adding their edit and contribute.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Ronk01 talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Mono (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. If we have to choose one, PC is better with this. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. B (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. as much. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Warfieldian (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. That's pretty much the idea behind it all. Marcus Qwertyus 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. —SW— babble 04:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. I think that, here, PC achieves a difficult balancing act: it allows some degree of input from very new editors on pages which attract so much vandalism that they need some degree of protection (which may often be the pages that attract new editors). bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. -- ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Semi-protection certainly does. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Slon02 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Tideflat (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. —PC is a more open editing environment to unconfirmed accounts than semi protection. As for semi protection or pending protection driving those users away I have personally seen little evidence of that. The lowest form of protection that is required to protect an article is the preferable one. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. It's the case that semi is a hinderance to new users. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. RahulText me 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. BurtAlert (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Cliff (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. I believe that semi-protection can drive away CONTENT which is worse then driving away users Grimsooth (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. PC is definitely the lesser of two evils. PierceG (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. Seamless for the editor. A bit disappointing not to go live, but that can be handled with good UI.Ocaasi (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Absolutely, in all likelihood if PC didn't exist the article would be semi-protected and the user would not be able to edit at all. At least PC gives them that chance. Polyamorph (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. —mc10 (t/c) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. Bill william comptonTalk 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Any tool that inhibits edits by new users will tend to drive away new users

It's a matter of balancing that very real concern against the need to reduce vandalism and BLP violations.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. The key word here: "balance". —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yes, we therefore have to choose those tools that allow edits over red tape. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yes, which requires balancing a variety of concerns. I believe having more tools in this case is a positive for being able to tailor solutions to specific issues. --joe deckertalk to me 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Reach Out to the Truth 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. More attention should be given to this issue. Potentially scaring away new editors is not something trivial.--Obsidi♠nSoul 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. well, obviously, but benefits can also be greater —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. -- Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. - it could be argued, of course, that PC doesn't 'inhibit' editors, as semi-prot does - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Rami R 14:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Obviously. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Minimac (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Evanh2008 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. SpinningSpark 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Self-evidently true
  27. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. mabdul 02:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. People have a limited amount of patience. The more hoops you make them jump through to make an edit, the less likely they will be to edit. I'm sure a statistical analysis would show this happening. --nn123645 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. This is self-evident. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. probably, but if they are first editing on something that is controversial, hopefully they will realize that uncontroversial stuff will be easier to edit. VikÞor | Talk 04:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. Agreed. Protecting BLPs is important but driving away new editors will sooner or later leave us with no editors to handle those (or any) articles at all... Regards SoWhy 07:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. I can understand that BLPs are special cases and so applying PC to them is a fair compromise. But In the same way that PC denies vandals instant gratification of seeing their edits immediately effected, so it denies new editors the buzz that we all felt the first time we hit "Save page". I got the buzz, and I've hit that button many times since then. I'm not sure how I'd have reacted if I was been told "wait until someone who knows what they're doing makes sure you're not wrecking the place, come back later". Brammers (talk/c) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. As does creating the impression that we can't protect their contributions from vandalism. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Yes. Jane (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  37.  Sandstein  19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. —mc10 (t/c) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Certes (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 03:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. This is true. ThemFromSpace 04:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. I agree wholeheartedly with Brammers. Part of the draw of Wikipedia when I first started to edit was that my changes were not "awaiting moderation", they took place immediately. If I'd been told otherwise, I may well have gone back to being a read-only participant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. Absolutely. - Nellis 15:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC creates a "class system"

Pending changes will create another class of user, the "reviewer," further dividing users into levels and increasing the perception that WP is an insider club or a game.

users who endorse this view
  1. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Kingpin13 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. cronyism/cliques can become a real problem without solid guidelines on giving reviewer rights and expected reviewer conduct--Obsidi♠nSoul 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Rivertorch (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Clearly. However, the insider perception is also apparent through our current use of reverts, warnings and tagging for edits that don't follow all our guidelines. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Materialscientist (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Again, a mismatch between section heading and explanation, but the basic idea is sound. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Any institution tends, over time, to become closed and elitist. This is happening, and (I believe) inevitably will happen, with Wikipedia. However, let's keep Wikipedia as free as possible, as long as possible. Pending changes is a step down the road to elitism and all that Wikipedia is not. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Gotta catch them All Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Are stewards higher than ombudsmen? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Jebus989✰ 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. SudoGhost (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. SpinningSpark 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Indeed, this sends us down the road to a four-class system: People who must be accepted, regular users, reviewers, and admins. This is not a good road to go down. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. What SchuminWeb said. It's bad enough that people already think there are different kinds of editors without reinforcing that opinion by creating more "classes". Regards SoWhy 07:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Four very rigid tiers of "active" user (i.e. excluding 'crats, stewards, ombudsmen, researchers...) is silly. It makes Wikipedia more like an RPG, and frowns upon editors who do fine work but haven't built up a reputation yet. If my edits weren't being trusted by some self-appointed demigods sitting on a cloud above me in the power structure, I'm not sure how encouraged I'd be to continue editing. Brammers (talk/c) 09:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. I second the opinions of: IanOfNorwich,SchuminWeb, SoWhy, Brammers. - Grimsooth (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Surturz (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Inevitably, which is why reviewer status should be granted automatically (along with rollback), subject to some time/edits standard. Ocaasi (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  25.  Sandstein  19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. —mc10 (t/c) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  28.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Most certainly. And this is definitely a very bad thing. ThemFromSpace 04:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Tend to agree. It seems to create an "all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others" mentality. That's not the Wikipedia I signed up for, and it's not the road I want to go down. There are cases where we do need to restrict things to users who have demonstrated trustworthiness, but that should be kept to a minimum, and when it does occur, we should be clear that we're making an exception and imposing that restriction. "Well, we're not really restricting editing, just moderating it..." shouldn't be our practice. Required moderation is restriction, and is antithetical to an open editing model. We can already impose that restriction honestly by saying "Well, you're just not allowed to edit this page unless you've been here a while", or in extreme cases, "Well, no one but admins may edit this page". That's regrettable, but sometimes necessary, and at least honest. "You can edit this page* *but someone else must approve it" is dishonest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. C628 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. I agree. Because of these rights this is definitely how I tend to think of Wikipedia. --PCB 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. There are already too many different classes of users. - Nellis 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A "class system" already exists in WP

PC cannot create a system that already exists. The ease of becoming a reviewer allows editors to "get their foot in the door" of the existing system.

users who endorse this view
  1. Cliff (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. asdofindia (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Obviously. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer right is easy to get

For the trial period thousands of users, including every single administrator, were granted the reviewer right. The user right will continue to be easy to get. Anyone with a few hundred edits and a clean recent block log can be granted it, and there must be a demonstrable pattern of misuse to merit revocation.

users who endorse this view
  1. Collect (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Any autoconfirmed user can read an IP's pending edit and submit it himself. Why not make that formal? Wnt (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. I think the bar for reviewer should be slightly higher than WP:AUTOCONFIRMed, but not much. If you haven't been blocked for vandalism in your first ~100 edits, you're unlikely to start approving other people's vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Reviewers ought to be more competent. Mono (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. A good point. bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Slon02 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. most definitely Tideflat (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. and needs to be Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. If it is not, it should be. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Strict requirements stifle the project. Spangineerws (háblame) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Cliff (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Was easy to get, but should be automatic, and only slightly more difficult. Ocaasi (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Polyamorph (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. —mc10 (t/c) 04:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Yes, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps we need to instruct them to be cautious in examining why an article was subjected to pending changes before accepting edits without thinking. ThemFromSpace 04:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer right is too easy to get

The Reviewer needs a level of vetting and mostly a commitment to excellence which requires we also 'can' bad reviewers at the first indication of incompetence.

users who endorse this view
  1. Nothing major, but not just handed out. My76Strat 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Not necessarily too easy, in one sense of the word, but rather requirements need to be better defined. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. And the proposals that all users that meet a certain threshold automatically get it are very concerning. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. —S Marshall T/C 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. at the very least, more emphasis on checks and balances for possible misuse--Obsidi♠nSoul 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. B (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Reviewers should provide evidence that they can classify edits accurately through either a good history of anti-vandal work, some type of test or being granted probational reviewer status and then evaluating their first 20 reviews. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. It's ok as it is now. 100 edits and no blocks isn't enough, 1,000 constructive edits is the minimum. Rollbackers can be Reviewers is good now as there are only a few articles under PC. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. If it's that easy to get, what's the point? Mokele (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Hasteur (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Low quality reviews of BLP edits make PC almost meaningless except for obvious vandalism.--Scott Mac 22:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Agree with Scott. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Useless. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. SpinningSpark 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. mabdul 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. RahulText me 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Far too easy and often abused.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Captain panda 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Reviewers need to be able to identify more than just vandalism and legal threats which are usually pretty obvious - they must also be able to clearly and regularly identify BLP violations and copyvio which are not always easy tasks to pick up on. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. I've seen some questionable edit acceptions, but not too many. Should be a similar level of trust as for rollback, perhaps bundle the two. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Johnfos (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. I have seen some pending changes rejected for seemingly no reason. But raw edit count doesn't necessarily translate into good judgement either. Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Far too easy and possibly open to abuse. I've also seen applications from users who clearly consider it a 'promotion' and who demand the right based on a couple of hundred edits. Kudpung (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC helps with libel on BLPs

Pending changes on biographies of living persons helps reduce the incidence of libel and other BLP violations by preventing them from ever being posted to the article, thus reducing Wikipedia's risk of being the subject of lawsuits or negative public attention.

users who endorse this view
  1. Most definitely! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Collect (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Kingpin13 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Ronk01 talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. —S Marshall T/C 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. (edit conflict) —GƒoleyFour— 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. --Obsidi♠nSoul 22:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. William Avery (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah this is a key valuable use.
  14. Mono (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. --joe deckertalk to me 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. MartinezMD (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) In general, I don't like PC, but this is the exception.
  17. B (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Of course --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. --rgpk (comment) 15:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. /) x * (Ch. 16) 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. -- Warfieldian (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. - All forms of protection do this - Pending protection is a form of protection, there is no other answer to this than yes. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. —SW— squeal 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Couldn't agree more; we would benefit from more tools against vandalism in difficult areas. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. -- ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Although I disagree with "preventing" - editors not caught by this or semi-protection can add BLP violations as well. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. a little (but not much)--Scott Mac 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. Slon02 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. Bped1985 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Minimac (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Alandeus (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. as does semi --Guerillero | My Talk 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. —hike395 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. Most definitely!--5 albert square (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. Certainly. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. Gonfaloniere (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. Most assuredly. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  50. Captain panda 17:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  51. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  52. Johnfos (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  53. upstateNYer 04:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  54. BigDom 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  55. BurtAlert (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  56. I'd agree with this. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  57. I just saw this in action on Jillian Michaels' page. I can't comment on the reduction in likelihood of being sued Cliff (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  58. Its raison d'etre Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  59. Polyamorph (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  60. Yes, but so would full-protecting every page on WP.  Sandstein  19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  61. Concur Ng.j (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  62. —mc10 (t/c) 04:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  63. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  64. Bill william comptonTalk 16:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  65. Mojoworker (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  66. Yes, but its not the only tool we have to combat BLP vandalism. Removing all mentions of any living person would cure the "BLP problem" but wouldn't advance our interest as a comprehensive, open encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  67. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC helps with libel on BLPs, but other tools are available too

It is very important to reduce BLP violations, but semi-protection can also accomplish this.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Kingpin13 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Ronk01 talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. —S Marshall T/C 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. --Obsidi♠nSoul 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Psu256 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Also article probation. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Different tools, both of which have their place in my view. --joe deckertalk to me 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Reach Out to the Truth 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. one of many useful tools. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. semi-prot limits editing though —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Of course, the question again is which tool is better. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. This question tell us nothing, we know there are other tools we can use and have available to use. The question being offered here is actually something like, do you support more liberal use of semi protection in preference to some use of pending protection.. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. This ties into the protection issue. PC cannot limit "libel" (sigh why are we using this word) unless it is applied to an article. It is not magic. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Semi means it's never even in the page history. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Minimac (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. I prefer semiprotection (in PC, the edit is made by the IP who is then gone and possibly unable to explain the rationale for their change, leaving a reviewer often scratching their head as to the change's validity.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. True. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Yes, semi- or full protection can do this too. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Of course there are, but having another tool to use can only be of help. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. If there is a problem with an article, the worst action to take is to say "Your edits will have to be screened by a group of people 'superior' to you but others can edit freely". Protection also limits "anyone can edit" but at least it's honest (i.e. it's "You cannot edit this at the moment"). Regards SoWhy 07:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  34.  Sandstein  19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. —mc10 (t/c) 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  36.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Certes (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. ThemFromSpace 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. As SoWhy said, at least semiprotection is honest: "We're not allowing just anyone to edit this page right now, and you can't." PC is disingenuous: "We'll allow you to edit this page, but not really. Your edit will look like it's accepted, but will really be placed on moderation hold until someone 'trusted' approved it" is not honest. Either let people edit the page, or don't, but tell them the truth either way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that big of a problem

While simple vandalism is common, actual libelous statements are relatively rare and can be dealt with existing tools such as semi-protection, revision deletion, and oversight/suppression.

users who endorse this view
  1. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. There's libel, and there's facilitating libel, and then there's simply allowing something that potentially might be libel if certain specific requirements are met. The term is being bandied about carelessly, with no evidence of an actual problem. Rivertorch (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Surturz (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Nothing in my experience indicates otherwise.  Sandstein  19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Siegenthaler incidents are rare, and if that article had been a problem, it would've been semiprotected anyway. BLP makes a nice talking point, but I've only seen a handful of cases of actual false statements. Out of millions of articles, that's really pretty good. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. I've really only ever seen one article get hammered with libel, and even then it was only up for all of a half-minute (and suppressed a few minutes later via OS). Libel isn't too big of a problem, and if a case does pop up, rv+OS+semi works. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 17:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Semi-protection is a preferable option to PC because it prevents problematic edits from being submitted in the first place. Unconfirmed users can still submit proposed changes on the talk page.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. There are situations where it's preferable that certain edits are never made in the first place. Pending changes cannot actually prevent those edits from being made. Reach Out to the Truth 04:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Courcelles 09:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Depends on the article. In some cases the attempted edits are almost entirely unhelpful, in which case PC is not the best tool in the toolbox; but there are other articles which need some protection against vandalism but still have a better proportion of helpful edits from new/unregistered users. bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Mokele (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Minimac (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Yes and no. The strongest argument for PC is that it can replace persistent semi-protection of problematic pages (this has its own issues, like dealing with a large queue of obviously unproductive edits, but I digress), but it also means that we will apply PC liberally not only to currently semi'd articles but to articles which may or may not be semi'd. At least semi-protection forces us to come face to face with the fact that we are restricting editing. With PC we can lie to ourselves about it. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. yes! this was my feeling after reviewing changes long after the IP had gone....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. SpinningSpark 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. mabdul 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. SoWhy 07:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Truthsort (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. It ain't broke Surturz (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  23.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Exactly as Protonk says. If we're going to restrict editing, let's tell the truth about it—"You may not edit this page." Saying "You can edit this page", and then placing the edit on "moderation hold", is dishonest to the prospective new editor and to the community. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is preferred over semi-protection to curb vandalism and BLP libel

PC allows faithful editors to add their edit without the hassle of going to the talk page etc, while semi-protection leads to red tape of not allowed to edit. For that reason, PC should be promoted over semi-protection.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Psu256 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. We should use both, but PC is preferable, especially in low-activity articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Mono (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. A bit of both depending on the levels --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. in some cases, per WhatamIdoing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. unless it gets persistent —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. As long as all pending edits are dealt with (approved or reverted) within a reasonable amount of time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Yes. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Slon02 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Tideflat (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Sure PC wins on all accounts. Easier for newbies, less admin time required to sort out and less of a class system then semi-protection. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Yes--5 albert square (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. By a small amount. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Johnfos (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Yes, but this only applies if there's direct substitution between Semi and PC. If it's applies to a new class of articles, then not necessarily. Ocaasi (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Yes because new users might not even know about talk pages and if new to wikipedia not be familiar with the use of templates to request an edit. Polyamorph (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Agree with above Ng.j (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Bill william comptonTalk 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Mojoworker (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Per Ocassi. - Nellis 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is confusing

Pending changes is confusing to both the user submitting the edit and confirmed users.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Kingpin13 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Make sure it is easy for new editors to understand PC and how it works, as well as making unaccepted revisions visible by anyone on demand (even IPs).--Obsidi♠nSoul 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. definitely must be improved if implemented Revcasy (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Too slow, too stupid, too creepy. Mono (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Even some experienced editors have trouble with pending changes. If they can't figure it out, how are new editors supposed to understand it? Reach Out to the Truth 04:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Many reviewers just gave up. The only way I could get the system to work was to first accept everything and then go revert whatever was bad the normal way. Terribly confusing when a reviewer makes a small change to an article for non-review reasons and doesn't know that there are unreviewed changes. No easy way for a reviewer to experience the interface from the perspective of another class of user. Documentation doesn't cover the pitfalls and how to handle them. Ask 10 PC experts a question and you'll get 10 different answers. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. PC uses unfortunate terminology, the duties of a reviewer are unclear and it is more complicated than at least one alternative I can think of. Yaris678 (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Yup. -- Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Yes. I never use it, and i no longer even try to use it. every time i tried to use it, someone else had gotten there already anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. - it can be - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. —SW— comment 04:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Courcelles 09:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. I think a clearer UI would be helpful, in particular for new/unregistered users. We need to be able to protect articles against vandalism, but if our efforts deter/confuse potentially very helpful new editors, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Mokele Mokele (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Geoff Who, me? 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Sometimes I may be making one simple change on a series of articles, say, updating a infobox. If I come upon a PC article I will skip it because I don't want to edit it and make it appear an inappropriate edit has been approved, and I haven't got the time or inclination to look for and inspect the edit under question to make sure it is OK. SilkTork *YES! 21:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Peter 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Reyk YO! 23:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. And it's annoying. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Alandeus (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. For sure Jebus989✰ 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. I've had difficulty trying to accept or reject edits. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. SpinningSpark 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Its user-friendliness needs improvement. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. First saw in German WP. Was really new to WP. whoa was that confusing... mabdul 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. The user interface is not intuitive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. I'm no newbie but I'll admit it confuses the Hell out of me. I think it creates more problems than it solves. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. Unfortunately, yes. I would like to keep pending changes, but it does need some improvements. Captain panda 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. Definitely. Spangineerws (háblame) 00:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. Even with a sizeable amount of experience (if I may say so), I was and still am confused by the system and I think most people feel the same. Even those arguing in favor of PC probably have to admit that the current system is more confusion than help. Regards SoWhy 07:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. Sometimes it's tough to figure out. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. This is my biggest issue, the process seems a little obtuse and not all that useful when implimented. Grimsooth (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. Finally, something I can get behind!☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 01:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  50. The interface is non-intuitive; rollbacking is far easier/predictable/straightforward, if less "automatic". --moof (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  51. Needs to be better, cleaner, more intuitive. Worth improving though. Ocaasi (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  52. Yes. Jane (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  53. Very much so. It is too damn confusing for me, at any rate, and I am a veteran editor with several tens of thousands of edits.  Sandstein  19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  54. Unfortunately. —mc10 (t/c) 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  55. In fact I still don't know how it works --asdofindia (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  56.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  57. Yes, but isn't everything about Wikipedia confusing? ;) ThemFromSpace 04:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  58. It confused me, and I'm hardly a new editor. I can only imagine the effect on a new user—"You can edit this page. Well, not really, you can't, someone else has to approve it. No, we don't know when or if that will happen, nor will you necessarily receive any feedback about your edit. Just check back later. No, we don't know how much later." Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  59. PC sometimes confuses even so called "experienced" editors like me. Especially the levels of protection and all. Yes Michael? •Talk 17:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  60. C628 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  61. - Nellis 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is not confusing

Reviewers who find the interface too confusing can decide not to be reviewers.

users who endorse this view
  1. Cliff (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Well, I agree with the subheading that "Reviewers who find the interface too confusing can decide not to be reviewers". Mojoworker (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. On the contrary it's efficient Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC needs to be improved as soon as possible

PC is experienced as cumbersome, so an update of the interface is desperately needed.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Mono (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. worst thing was that it was/is slow Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. If PC is found to be worth having if we disregard the UI/UX issues, then yes. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PC causes slow load speeds

Longer articles with pending changes protection applied take a long time to load.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. —GƒoleyFour— 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Rivertorch (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Apparently improvements have been made, but it's still pretty slow. Reach Out to the Truth 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. I think so, but this should be settled by formal experiment (i.e. changing one article's status and measuring its load speeds either way from several types of computers) Wnt (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Maaaaaaybe? Again. No data. Also bear in mind Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, though lack of developer attention seems to put the ball back in our court. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Took my relatively new computer forever to load. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. So slow I often just don't bother trying. Courcelles 09:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. I think so, but Wnt's empirical stance is commendable - it would be helpful to run a little experiment. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. My experience was that this was true, not recently tried however. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. As Davewild. Not seen enough examples recently to comment on current status, but in earlier parts of trial it was certainly true. Peter 22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Definitely, the js takes forever. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Minimac (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. yes!!! worst problem +++ Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. In my experience. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. This is indeed an undesirable side-effect. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Even if a new contributor is willing to go through all that trouble to change something (which they probably aren't), they will then be repulsed by the fact that the very interface they are forced to use to contribute through is working badly, if at all. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. I tried helping at some PC pages when it first came out, but it was often agony due to slowness. Sure, we don't worry about server performance, but someone should. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Was noticeably slower in UK  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Under PC, more editors can edit

PC allows users to edit who otherwise would be prohibited by semi-protection.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Collect (talk)
  4. Ronk01 talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. unless PC is applied more widely than semi-protection Revcasy (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Psu256 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. William Avery (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Some pages that are currently semied could be PCed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Warfieldian (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. For unconfirmed users Pending protection is a more open editing environment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Definitely, yes; and this is a Good Thing. bobrayner (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. PC achieves a good balance, which is ultimately what we're looking for. AGK [•] 18:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. But only if it is used just on articles which would otherwise by semi-protected. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Slon02 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Bped1985 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. very much so Tideflat (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. —hike395 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Sure, more editors edit with PC then semi. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. A simple fact. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. Johnfos (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. BurtAlert (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Cliff (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. Yes, implicitly. Ocaasi (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. —mc10 (t/c) 04:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should not be used until consensus is gained

Since the trials are now over, PC should be removed from all articles while there is no consensus to be using it.

users who endorse this view
  1. Kingpin13 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. My76Strat 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC) It is proper to divert our full attention to developing these consensus guidelines
  3. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. I don't really care if existing PC protected articles remain as is, just no new applications while guidelines are still being formulated.--Obsidi♠nSoul 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. But I accept that all parties have been acting in good faith all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. —S Marshall T/C 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. —GƒoleyFour— 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Rivertorch (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Enough is enough. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Revcasy (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Clearly. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. We must now have the final debate without a new trial because the PC advocates have proven that a "trial" is to be interpreted as permanent deployment. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. No consensus = no right to continue. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. I don't see consensus for it either Yoenit (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. There's never been consensus to continue this system. Courcelles 09:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. The trail failed, simple as that. Suck it up, fix the problems, and try again. Mokele (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. I agree completely. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Yes, the way this has been handled has been awful. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. As agreement to try out pending changes was explicitly on a trial basis, that should be honoured until new consensus to continue to agreed. Not honouring this will put in jeopardy any future trials (for any proposal) as people are more likely to be opposed to them if they think they will be stuck with the 'trial' for all time unless there is obvious consensus otherwise. So bad precedent if we let this continue. Peter 22:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22.  Chzz  ►  22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Reyk YO! 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. What we've been arguing for eight months. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Minimac (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Undoubtedly Jebus989✰ 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. postdlf (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. Does this apply to Wikipedia:Pending changes? I would most strongly argue that it does.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Adrian (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. SpinningSpark 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. It's continued use is diluting the term "trial"...this is what consensus is forSmallman12q (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Pending changes should have been turned off a long time ago, and the fact that it is still on represents a broken promise, as we were promised a trial of a finite duration, and how long has it been now since that trial ended? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Trial Period implies that once the trial period is over, whatever is being tested will be evaluated, and may continue or not, depending on the review. It sounds like the evaluation/review step for Pending Changes has not happened. VikÞor | Talk 03:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Trial means trial, anything more is building a house on a bad foundation. --nn123645 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. We've had the trial: now is the time to attempt to evaluate the results. I agree with Peter's comment above: allowing a "trial" to extend indefinitely is an unacceptable precedent. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. Doesn't appear to be a consensus; don't further change the definition of "trial". Spangineerws (háblame) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. Agree with Vik-Thor who put it quite eloquently. Regards SoWhy 07:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. Agree. I am not necessarily against PC myself, but if it cannot be conclusively said that everyone else does too, then it should be removed. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. It's not a matter of being against it, this is a round peg for a square hole and currently it fits because we're using the hammer. - Grimsooth (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  44.  Sandstein  19:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  45.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. Agree with headline; PC should be removed for now unless this RfC quickly and clearly produces a consensus for PC. Certes (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. Let's get consensus for implementation before we expand from the trial. In the mean time, the trial has ended, so the tool should be turned off. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. The trial is long over, and the tool should be turned off until there's clear consensus to use it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. Of course there's the questions of what constitutes consensus... whether we need majority consensus or supermajority... whether consensus to "change" means changing to PC or ditching it, etc. ThemFromSpace 04:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  50. PC should've been turned off after the first no consensus result. No consensus to make a change means we don't make it, just as no consensus at an AfD discussion means the article is not deleted, no consensus at an RfA means the candidate is not given admin privileges, and so on. Since no consensus existed to continue pending changes, and clearly (at this point of the discussion) none does now, it's time to shut it down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  51. C628 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should continue to be used

Now that the trial is over, and Jimmy Wales has approved it, it should be used as is available.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Collect (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. I'd support PC even if the trial weren't over and Jimmy Wales didn't approve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. The Foundation needs to globally turn it on and just decree "this is a part of the service we're providing". There's no reason to not use a good technology because it doesn't meet some wiki purism ideal. --B (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Yes of course --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Whether Jimmy approves or not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. nothing to do with the god-king but its just one tool in a sysop's tool box --Guerillero | My Talk 14:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. As one tool among many Sailsbystars (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. --Warfieldian (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. We are not subjects of His Majesty Jimbo the First. We should do it because the good is worth the cost. W Nowicki (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Jimbo doesn't have much to do with it. —SW— express 04:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. I don't care what Jimbo said. I care that it's a helpful tool to improve wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Only as before, though. As an alternative to sp. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Rami R 14:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. -- ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. With much respect to Jimmy, his opinion is largely an irrelevancy. We should continue to use PC because we need it and because it works. AGK [•] 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Geoff Who, me? 20:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Improve it, yes. Don't go backwards.--Scott Mac 22:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Slon02 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Bped1985 (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. If there is consensus to use it on a case-by-case basis then by all means use it! Marcus Qwertyus 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. It's a helpful tool to improve wikipedia. So support in this section but noting that my support of the tool is because I use it and it helps me protect articles. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. Allen4names 08:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. Unless there is consensus against it I have no problem using it in limited capacity while it's improved. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Absolutely--5 albert square (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. Although I disagree with the invocation of our primus inter pares and find this page silly. Gonfaloniere (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. It works. Why all the wonkery about "OH NOES THERE WAS NO PROPER CONSENSUS!"? Stifle (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. RahulText me 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. Captain panda 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. The points about the extension of the trial listed above are valid, however regardless that the error was made, PC is beneficial to the project and should be continued. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. Johnfos (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. Strong support and honestly, Jimbo's input is irrelevant. upstateNYer 04:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. BurtAlert (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. I didn't know who jimmy was until I read this statement and went to look. Cliff (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  50. Within reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  51. Yes, but not cause Jimmy said so. 60% was significant, use is limited, improvement is likely, and continuing is not a suicide pact. Ocaasi (talk)
  52. Absolutely Polyamorph (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  53. Agree Ng.j (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  54. —mc10 (t/c) 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  55. Sod all to do with Mr Wales' approval, I think that should be removed from the statement. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  56. Mojoworker (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Endorsed when phrase "Jimmy Wales has approved it" was missing

PC should be removed, improved by the developers, and then resubmitted to the community

It needs further software development to be useful. It would be best to improve it and then resubmit it as a new proposal.

users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Mokele Mokele (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't need it, but would like to see where it goes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. I haven't come across an article with Pending Changes, so don't know the issues it causes. But from the comments I've read here and elsewhere, it does sound like there could be quite a bit of improvement in the implementation. Even though Mr. Walling (below) says that this isn't really a possibility, it does seem like this is what "should" be done.VikÞor | Talk 04:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. With respect it should be removed, developed into something else that is then resubitted Grimsooth (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Yes, theoretically this would also be acceptable, since it implies a new version would happen, theoretically. Ocaasi (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is a fact of life per Jimbo's decision

Jimmy Wales has already ordained that PC is implemented. The questions remaining is how exactly.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Not sure if I endorse it but do agree that it might be the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. true Collect (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. William Avery (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is not a fact of life despite Jimbo's decision

Even if the mechanism to use PC is active on WP, it will still take administrators to actively support its use. Therefore, PC isn't a forgone conclusion even if Jimbo wants it.

users who endorse this view
  1. Psu256 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Read what Jimbo said. He wanted it enabled and studied over "coming weeks". He did not mandate it as a long-term policy or specify any article that must be subject to it. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Jimbo has expressed clear support for it, but he has always shown himself willing to listen to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. You are wrong because: One is the world. (example: Jimbo Wales doesn't listen to Fox News Radio. Thus Fox News Radio is not popular.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Consensus is policy. We don't do things just because Jimbo says so, we do it because there is consensus to do so. Reach Out to the Truth 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Wide-scale use of PC will require enormous support by reviewers. Jimbo can't force the reviewers to do anything and without reviewer support, PC is worse than semi-protection. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. We're volunteers, not employees.--Obsidi♠nSoul 07:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Jimbo will not be here using this tool on a day to day bases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Admins will only use it if it works and editors support its application. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. --rgpk (comment) 15:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. -- Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. --Warfieldian (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. - All these questions about Jimmy are complete red herrings - Jimmy has said himself it is up to the community but he himself supports it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. I completely agree with Off2riorob. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Yoenit (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Fairly obvious, unless Jimbo wants to work RFPP himself a few hours a day. Courcelles 09:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. What Courcelles said. bobrayner (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. WP is supposed to be collective, not a dictatorship. Mokele (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Hasteur (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Peter 22:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Reyk YO! 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Communism, and not the Stalinist kind. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Slon02 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Jebus989✰ 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. Things can change but not presently. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. SpinningSpark 18:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. Jimbo's benevolent dictatorial powers have long since lapsed. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. mabdul 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Obviously. The same can be said about any aspect of the project right down to articles! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. SoWhy 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. Obviously, we are the community. But good luck getting admin consensus to do or not do anything. Not worth a civil war.Ocaasi (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. —mc10 (t/c) 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. Indeed the whole point of this entire process is to make the communities voice heard on this, and it has been made clear that the Foundation will respect a decision to either leave it on or remove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  45.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. Agree with headline, without accusing any individual of trying to impose PC against consensus. Certes (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  47. Kinda sorta agree, mostly because I don't think that he would push the issue if opposition was much stronger than support. ThemFromSpace 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  48. Jimbo issued this as a support, but not an edict, and lower down in the discussion he clearly stated that he would defer to future consensus. So there's not even a "despite" Jimbo's decision. He only decided to extend the trial. I disagree with that decision, but he was unequivocally not stating that his decision was that PC is permanent and a fact of life. Even if it were, the community has, over time, developed a much more significant role, including at times (as with the Commons debacle) the right to overrule Jimbo's decisions. The "God-King" days are long over. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  49. I wouldn't even use the word "decision." - Nellis 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC can delay or prevent constructive edits

including correction of factual errors to BLPs.

users who endorse this view
  1. Rivertorch (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. True, strictly speaking, but I don't really think this is a major reason to criticize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. The length of time between writing and acceptance should really be studied further. Again, how is de.wiki faring?--Obsidi♠nSoul 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. --rgpk (comment) 15:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. True, but as trypofish says this is a relatively minor issue. It delays edits in general, constructive edits among them. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Clearly, but semi protection would be worse. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Duh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. This is fairly obvious, but it is still better than semi-protection. Slon02 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Duh. This is a no-brainer. Reyk YO! 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Well yeah, duh. But it's better that than have vandalism or libel added isn't it?--5 albert square (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. SpinningSpark 18:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. In the same way that PC denies instant gratification to vandals who want to see their profanities immediately visible to thousands, so it would make a new editor think "What's the point?", and not get the buzz that I'm sure each of us must have felt the first time we clicked "Save page". It shows an explicit lack of trust in new editors and doesn't reward them for dipping their toe in the water. Brammers (talk/c) 09:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Compare it to Britannica - they have got a website now that you can contribute to. By editing it and then sending it to them for review. I don't think it's very effective and I'm pretty sure that many people, even if they find said page, won't help improving it. Wikipedia has prided itself for a long time on being something radically different than other encyclopedias in terms of who creates its content and now we want to adopt a system that they use? Regards SoWhy 09:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  20.  Sandstein  19:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. —mc10 (t/c) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Yes, very true. See my anecdote about spamfighting on de.wiki above. ThemFromSpace 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Shouldn't be "can", but "does", and shouldn't just be "delay", but "prevent"—if I were told as a new editor intending to contribute constructively that my edits were to be submitted to a moderation queue, I'd be likely to walk away in disgust. The whole point of Wikipedia is "You can edit this page, right now, and as soon as you save your edit, you can actually see it. Look at that! You just made this article better, and when you read through it again, you can see YOUR WORK!" If we're not going to allow very new users to edit a page, we should be honest about that—"Sorry, but due to $REASON_WHY, editing to this page is disabled." At least that's honest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. If rewiewer are smart enough to accept costructive edit, PC cannot prevent them Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC will evolve, and should logically end up better as a result

Simple statement of fact.

users who endorse this view
  1. Collect (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Herostratus (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. --joe deckertalk to me 01:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Everything can be improved. Even the name, for starters? W Nowicki (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Agreed. I think it's useful at the moment but there's some room for improvement (in process, rather than in technology). bobrayner (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Especially since the devs have said outright that the community's mixed reaction to it and lack of clear direction has caused them to not prioritize improvements to PC... Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Refinement and evolution are unavoidable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Well, it can logically become worse as well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Yep, even if the devs didn't improve it our selection of appropriate articles to use it on should improve. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Yes--5 albert square (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. I have some level of confidence in the devs' competence. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Necessity is the mother of invention. --nn123645 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. This is the way of the Wiki, young jedi. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Johnfos (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Worth exploring. Could be important. Keep the 'beta (or 'alpha) tag on it and let it ride. Ocaasi (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Polyamorph (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. —mc10 (t/c) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Mojoworker (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that PC will improve over time

It is not a "simple statement of fact" that PC will improve over time.

users who endorse this view
  1. I added this section because there appears to be both a presumption that the above section is totally obvious and no competing section to endorse. There is no reason to believe any service will improve over time. We already have the foundation removing developer support unless the community plays ball, if in the future PC is not widely adopted will we still enjoy developer support? As the review queue grows longer, will the service grow better? What other services or features of wikipedia improve monotonically? PC may be better 5 years from now. It may be worse. It may be the same. It is not at all a "simple statement of fact". Protonk (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. I take it on good faith that the developers will be able to improve it, but I also take it on good faith that they have said that they will not devote resources to it unless the community commits to it for the long term. Thus a Catch-22: can we be confident that it will really improve, based on the version we have now, which has numerous flaws? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Any piece of software which on its face forces a foundation issue by its very nature will not get better. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 23:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Cptnono (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Something that was a bad idea from the get-go cannot be improved no matter how much time, because at its root, it is still a bad idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Statement of fact: There is no reason to believe that PC will improve over time. - Grimsooth (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. The point of a trial is to determine if something works properly right now as it is. If it doesn't, you roll it back and try again after you make your refinements. It nowhere nearly works properly or intuitively now. Roll it back, and if you can come up with something better, we'll examine that then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers need to know whether they can be held liable for approving an edit

Until they do, how can we say that reviewers only check edits for obvious vandalism? How can reviewers safely approve any controversial edit, when the IP could have set them up with a faked online source, knowing that his own botnet account is impervious to lawyers? Until reviewers know their risks, how can they be asked to participate at all?

users who endorse this view
  1. Wnt (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Otherwise, who will dare? Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. William Avery (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Very true. I reject all unsourced, poorly sourced, or improperly sourced BLP edits for exactly this reason. Ronk01 talk 03:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. This is a very important question that needs an answer from the WMF's legal department, if for no other reason than reassurance. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Conflicting opinions have been offered. Why can't we get a straight answer on this? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Editors should opt out of reviewing if they don't know where they stand. The same applies to publishing any edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. If libel is half the concern some are making it out to be, then yes. Rivertorch (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. A valid concern. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. --rgpk (comment) 15:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. This could certainly use some clarification. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Absolutely -- Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. You are all responsible for everything you add or do here, you will have a degree of mitigation if the addition was not your idea but you only reviewed it and accepted it - this issue has little relevance in fact as all libelous or defamation is clearly easily and immediately rejected - of course if you accept libelous or defaming content you will have your degree of responsibility for doing that. I wouldn't recommend any user to accept a controversial addition without an in depth review, and why would anyone do that anyway, revert - weakly cited controversial content, please discuss on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Yes. Protonk (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Reviewers should be as accountable for their actions as they are for any other edit on wikipedia; bearing in mind that we're all human and everybody makes mistakes sometimes (particularly if a user interface is a bit clunky). There's no need for overseers with whips, but we should acknowledge that people can get in trouble for a pattern of unhelpful reviewing (whether it's discarding good edits or accepting bad ones). I think the concern about an IP using a faked source is a red herring, since any good-faith editor could be expected to take such edits at face value, regardless of the page's protection status - it's a reliable source problem, not a page protection problem. bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Reyk YO! 23:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Not a big problem, IMO, but clarification please. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Slon02 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Tideflat (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. This is a very valid point. Approving an edit needs clarification. Even uncontroversial edits could turn out to be Copyright violations. Such things has made me hesitate of approving edits on occasions, especially the very first approaval which could be considered to be approving the whole documents contents. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. SpinningSpark 18:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Clear-cut policy in this area is definitely needed. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Just like every other tool, gadget, script, and privilege- the editor is ALWAYS fully responsible for their contributions. Legal liability is usually set to the reasonable man standard, so I see no problems for editors acting in good faith. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. A valid concern. More than 50 people (at this time) above explained their support for PC based on the fact that it might serve to limit legal problems for Wikipedia but that would mean that the burden of deciding what is "legal" is placed upon those reviewing edits. In fact, if anything, PC will increase the risk of such lawsuits or bad publicity if problematic material appears on the site despite review. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  37. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. Truth. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. Good to see I'm not the only paranoid person here. The really bad news is that WMF will not give an assurance (that would open up their liability), and we cannot rely on an assurance, even if one were given. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. Clearly. Aaron Schulz 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. —mc10 (t/c) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  43. I agree this is an important point. The Foundation lawyers are probably the only ones who can answer it though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  44.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. Certes (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  46. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The duties of a reviewer are unclear

It is unclear what reviewers are expected to do about problematic edits that do not meet the definition of vandalism or violate WP:BLP.

users who endorse this view
  1. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Obsidi♠nSoul 07:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. I see this as a big problem with PC. Maybe the problematic edit is actually stealth vandalism. Maybe not... but do you really want to approve it? That may lead people to conclude there is nothing wrong. Yaris678 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Wnt (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Definitely. IMO, we can potentially utilize PC to reject unsourced additions of any kind, malicious or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Slon02 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Minimac (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Yeah. Reyk YO! 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Absolutely. Currently there are plans for third phase of this discussion that should address this concern. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Cptnono (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Reach Out to the Truth 17:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. SpinningSpark 18:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Clear-cut policy in this area is definitely needed. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. --nn123645 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Guidance needed. Not too strict though; it's not worth balkanizing over individual reviews. Ocaasi (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. True. ThemFromSpace 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Indeed. Does a reviewer approve all good-faith edits, or must the reviewer check the accuracy of all edits as well? - Nellis 15:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC will drive away the good and keep the bad

Determined vandals will just create accounts and get auto-confirmed, which will make detecting vandalism harder than it is today.

users who endorse this view
  1. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. The really crafty vandals will register, bide their time, and then strike . Rivertorch (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. The crafty already are. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. They have already...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PC will keep the good and drive away the bad

When the instant gratification is gone, many vandals won't go through the effort to create an account, rack up enough edits so that when they start vandalizing they get banned immediately. The more work it is for vandals to vandalize, the less vandalism. At the same time, when you have a constructive edit and you are not running into red tape, you might be far more inclined to stay.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yes, but I still wouldn't want to see it applied to all articles, as some wikis do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Number of editors should not be the goal; quality more important than quantity. W Nowicki (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. - to a certain extent, yes. Dedicated vandals (and there are a few) will always find a way to get through. Dealing with these is a matter of getting the 'cost' of autoconfirmed/autoreviewed editing up, as PC tends to do - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Agreed, broadly speaking. bobrayner (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. More true than the inverse. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Few vandals are truly dedicated to their craft ...comments? ~BFizz 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Slon02 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. --5 albert square (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Ttguy (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. I smell logic! upstateNYer 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Absolutely --KorruskiTalk 16:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Cliff (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. It could definitely work, with improvement. Not really relevant though unless PC is on many articles. Ocaasi (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Polyamorph (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. —mc10 (t/c) 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Mojoworker (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Hopefully Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC means fewer actual editors

and many more edit-proposers. Putting a proposal into PC limbo no more constitutes editing an article than making a request on a semi-protected page does.

users who endorse this view
  1. Rivertorch (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. I would argue it means fewer actual editors for another reason, but the gist of it still holds true. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 09:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Editing articles would now feel like having to pass through an inquisitorial board of one every time. It should be noted though that this only applies if PC is implemented with the same scope as the other wikis.--Obsidi♠nSoul 09:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Sure...but this is rolled into the magical claims for PC. PC will improve editing access if used to replace semi (and there is some new group of editors willing to sift through the edits), but it will prevent libel because currently unprotected articles are going to be "protected". Both claims can be true insofar as they are not mutually exclusive but the impacts of both cut against each other. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Single biggest problem All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. labour intensive +++ Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Agreed. It's not "anyone can edit" but "anyone can request changes to be made" - the same effect as if we simply semi-protected all articles (an idea which probably most people (on both sides) would reject as absurd). Regards SoWhy 08:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Yes. Jane (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  10.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. It's like making an edit request on a talk page, except that it slows down article load time, often creates confusion as to how to deal with it, but nevertheless leaves problematic edits, including BLP violations, visible to thousands of logged-in readers. Worst of all worlds. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. - Nellis 15:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC means more actual editors

PC means that we can reduce the workload once vandals get the picture that their "Johnny the Nerd is gay" crap does not show up. Good willing editors that are not running into the red tape anymore quickly will be added to the reviewers, adding more people to the pool of actual editors.

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. - Alison ❤ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. I think this is a good point. bobrayner (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. As we lose the necessity for revert-happy RC patrolling and become less appealing for "Johnny the Nerd" folks, I do think that we will improve our treatment of new, constructive editors (many of whom we currently mistreat). AGK [•] 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should be integrated with external reviewing tools

The PC review process should be integrated with current reviewing tools such as WP:Huggle and WP:STiki for easy of use and efficiency.

users who endorse this view
  1. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. This would be one way of solving the horrible interface problems we have at the moment. To my mind, the main benefit to be gained is the use of a proper quing system (as per STiki) as opposed to the current system, which is open to "review clash". Yaris678 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. CBNG, Huggle and Stiki. Together with pending changes could be very powerful. Require rollback and issue reviewer with rollback. Done. Ocaasi (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should not be integrated with external reviewing tools

The PC review process should not be integrated with current reviewing tools such as WP:Huggle and WP:STiki because many edits requiring PC review are complex in nature and require more fact-checking and vetting than simple vandalism patrol.

users who endorse this view
  1. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Bugglers already have issues with reverting vandalism because they're more interested in RPM than the content they're reverting; PC would drastically exacerbate those problems if merged. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should be applied on an edit by edit basis

PC should not be indiscriminately applied to all edits for an article. Only high risk edits should be flagged as requiring manual review before being made publicly viewable. Risk determination may be performed by the WP:Edit filter or bots such as User:ClueBot NG. The risk tolerance threshold may be set lower for WP:BLPs than for other articles.

users who endorse this view
  1. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. I think this would address a lot of the concerns people have. Yaris678 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yes, if in the future risky edits(not just edits on risky articles) where put into a PC queue could have some benefits. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. This would require a major rework in the software, but would be a nice capability to have. --nn123645 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Very interesting. In a year or two we will have a database/algorithm with as good initial judgment as most editors. We should not waste it. Ocaasi (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit filter should not offer second chances

This issue is directly related to PC because the edit filter has the potential to greatly reduce the number of edits that require manual review. When an edit triggers an WP:Edit filter discard rule, the user should just be told that their change requires review. Allowing vandals to fine-tune their attempts only results in more edits that must later be manually rejected through PC or other means. The current system gives immediate feedback to gross violators in the form of an edit filter rejection, while good faith editors who leave out sources for negative information have their edit disappear into a black hole.

users who endorse this view
  1. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Allen4names 08:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yep. The current configuration of the edit filter is so perverse it could be considered vandal-baiting. Yaris678 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. This makes a lot of sense. I'm suprised it hasn't been done already. --nn123645 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. With the caveat that this has the potential to render some filters (particularly those involving subtler or blatant vandalism) useless or redundant and the fact that only dedicated vandals or sheep tend to prod the filter; everyone else gets frustrated and instead trolls the false-positive report page instead. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Great. Ocaasi (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Sounds like a reasonable countermeasure. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to analyse the data rather than relying on conjecture

Pending changes has been in effect for over 8 months. To date nobody has done an in depth analysis of the results and how it has or hasn't affected the the pages it has been applied to. Rather than throw darts at the board guessing about what the results of Pending Changes on articles are we should instead find out what happened through statistical analysis and the scientific method. Specifically this analysis should try to focus on answering the questions raised above:

  • What is the effect of pending changes on new and anonymous editor contributions?
  • Does Pending Changes create a greater deterant vandalism?
  • Has pending changes changed the long term contributor base to articles?
  • Is there any statistically significant change in more expirenced user behaviour (i.e. reviewer) correlated to pending changes that may suggest a causal link?
users who endorse this view
  1. --nn123645 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. --We don't allow conjecture in articles, why would we accept it in making policy? JimCubb (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Our policy decisions should be based on more evidence and less guesswork.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Yup. Anecdotal evidence and incomplete data should not be used to justify momentous changes to the way Wikipedia works. Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely, many of the questions above can be answered. As such, our personal opinions are pointless. Cliff (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Yes. Jane (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope

BLPs only

Pending changes should be applied only to biographies of living persons where a pattern of disruption is evident.

users who endorse this view
  1. This one yes. Definitely not the one below it. PC should never ever have that kind of scope. We're talking what, a million pages? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Mokele (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. Applying it to too many articles results in low quality reviews, and everything bar obvious vandalism getting through.--Scott Mac 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. liberally. I'd also add high risk BLPs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Agree. PC can be dangerous and a waste of everyone's time if overused, but as a level of protection that can be put on BLPs with a history of vandalism, that's a good idea. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  7.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

All BLPs

Pending changes should be applied to all biographies of living persons.

users who endorse this view
  1. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Collect (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Mono (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. If only we could include the changes creating BLPs (but how?). --joe deckertalk to me 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Good God almighty, yes. --B (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Absolutley 100% yes. Pol430 talk to me 12:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Goes without saying - Alison ❤ 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. -- Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Regretfully necessary. AGK [•] 18:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. --5 albert square (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. I reluctantly agree. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Yes, for at least a trial. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Sounds good to me. Captain panda 18:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Absolutely! JimCubb (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Mmhmm. upstateNYer 04:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Unless there is a better way to monitor BLPs, PC works the best. —mc10 (t/c) 04:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. RxS (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Low impact version of semi-protection

Because it delays but does not altogether prevent editing from unconfirmed users, pending changes should be used in the same basic manner as semi-protection.

user who endorse this view
  1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Totally Tideflat (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Polyamorph (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Agree completely Ng.j (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Agree: this proposal is about protection methods, not about protecting more pages. Certes (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberal use of PC

Because it still allows users to submit edits PC should be used on any article with a history of vandalism.

users who endorse this view
  1. Yes! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Collect (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. I prefer stipulations "upon request" "no autonomic inclusion" My76Strat 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Psu256 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Make that a "significant history of vandalism" and add a good dose of "admin's judgment", but yes: PC is a valuable alternative to User:Lar/Liberal Semi. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Mr.Z-man 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. B (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. per WhatamIdoing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. I prefer stipulations "upon request" "no autonomic inclusion". On request at the WP:RFPP, with an acceptable reason as per all other forms of protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. --Warfieldian (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Although a guideline should be developed, e.g. 25% of non-reverted edits etc. W Nowicki (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. - Alison ❤ 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Bejinhan talks 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. I would be wary of mandating PC across broad group of articles without a very strong reason that covers the whole group; I think PC should be used wherever we think it's the best tool for the job. That should usually be decided on an article-by-article basis. bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Rami R 14:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Article-by-article basis, per Bobrayner. AGK [•] 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Concur per Bobrayner. Geoff Who, me? 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Slon02 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. In my personal capacity as an editor and administrator, and not as a representative of WMF. - Philippe 02:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. --5 albert square (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Captain panda 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Think of it this way: when we inevitably get asked by students working in the public policy program, 'how do I know my article doesn't get screwed with?', what's our answer? Trust humanity? Generally speaking, I like that. Practically speaking it doesn't work here. upstateNYer 04:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. --KorruskiTalk 16:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. —mc10 (t/c) 04:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC permanent on all articles

PC should be applied permanently to all articles

users who endorse this view
  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Mono (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. B (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Perhaps not immediately but as a goal. JimCubb (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PC applied sparingly

PC should be sparingly applied to articles as necessary due to the potential for severe backlogs.

users who endorse this view
  1. If we're going to be using it, we need to be cognizant of the attention span of the average reviewer. Not everyone is going to mull over a problem; most are just going to let it sit as "someone else's problem". —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Even before you run out of reviewers, the reviewers' efforts are taken away from other functions. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yes I would be conservative for now. (Incidentally, it appears that they have implemented PC for all articles over at the Russian Wikipedia - we should keep an eye on how that works for them and other 'pedia's that have done this.) Herostratus (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. For now. Revcasy (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Materialscientist (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Should only be used when needed. Using it unnecessarily increases workload for reviewers for no reason. —SW— chat 04:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Only if this means it's no more widespread than semi-protection. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Geoff Who, me? 19:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Actually, it has nothing to do with backlogs. The problem with over-use will be too many reviewers and low quality reviews, meaning bad BLP stuff that isn't obvious getting through.--Scott Mac 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. How sparingly? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Logan Talk Contributions 05:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. –Henning Makholm (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Reach Out to the Truth 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. But not restricted to BLPs (I wouldn't be surprised if there were more BLP violations in Category:Schools than Category:Biography.)69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Cliff (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. For now. Start with a BLP trial and a MED trial. Get some data. Use occasionally elsewhere. < 5000 total. Ocaasi (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. I agree that it should be used sparingly, especially at first, and also it seems like part of the policy should be to apply or remove PC based upon whether the reviewer-flagged editors watchlisting an article show a willingness and habit of processing the backlog in a timely fashion. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  27.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Without support from automated tools, we can't handle the reviewing load from widespread deployment. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite not the default position

During the trial and beyond pending changes was often applied indefinitely. This is not the default setting for any other form of protection and PC should be subject to the same standards for length as other types of protection.

users who endorse this position
  1. And in fact it shouldn't even be an option. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Indefinite should be an option, but not the default. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. That was only because the articles in the trial were previously indefinitely semi-protected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. imo all protections should occasionally be allowed to lapse to allow for the possibility that it is no longer required. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Except on BLPs - Alison ❤ 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Except on BLPs, yeah. --joe deckertalk to me 02:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Default should be significantly longer than the norm for semi- and full protection, but shouldn't necessarily be indefinite unless it needs to be. —SW— converse 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. I don't think indefinite should be the default, but it should be an option (much as it's an option with semiprotection) where it appears likely that the article will continue to attract unhelpful/vandal edits over the long term. bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Duration should be governed by the same rules as semi. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. With the exception of BLPs. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. I do not think BLPs should be an exception. The length should be determined on a case-by-case basis. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Slon02 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Definitely should not be the default setting. VikÞor | Talk 03:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Cliff (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Not during any provisional period. Ocaasi (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  22.  Sandstein  19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Although it may not be bound by the exact same restrictions as semi, it should not always or even often be applied indefinitely. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  24.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Agree: this proposal is about protection methods, not about protecting for longer. Certes (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. PC isn't practical on current event articles that get a large number of changes and are closely watched. After things die down, PC might be appropriate in some cases to guard against vandalism. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Not a fan of indefinite protection of any sort to any article. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Pending changes, in common with semi-protection, is contrary to the ideal that any user should be permitted to edit any article: as such, if it is to be used at all it should be used minimally and only when some form of protection is absolutely necessary. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism only

Edits should only be rejected by reviewers if they meet the definition of vandalism. Any other edits should be treated as normal.

users who endorse this view
  1. But other edits can be accepted, and then reverted in the normal way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC) And I agree with Reaper Eternal's point (#3) about BLPs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yes, if reviewers can fix good faith edits themselves do so, but broken good faith edits should not be treated like vandalism.--Obsidi♠nSoul 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yes, but BLP violations such as unsourced negative content are also rejected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. If used at all. (this shows that it is confusing since that was the original intent, wasn't it?) Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yes, just like Rollback, is should be used for vandalism and BLP violations only. Other edits can be conventionally reverted if needed. However, reviewers need to ensure that they do not approve subtle vandalism. Ronk01 talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Definitely. Revcasy (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Yes, although edits patrolled can and should be reverted by normal means if they are inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 04:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Any edit violative on its face of WP:BLP

As WP:BLP states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed from biographies of living people, it makes sense not to have it part of a BLP in the first place if it can be avoided. Such material is not vandalism but should also be considered by reviewers.

users who endorse this view
  1. Collect (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Vandalism + serious BLP violations seems like the appropriate standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Duh. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Herostratus (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yes, unsourced negative BLP statements should be included. --joe deckertalk to me 01:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. If, by this, you mean that reviewers should remove statements that violate BLP, that's kinda the whole point, right? --B (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Yeah, Vandalism + serious violations of biographic material of living persons (schools and teachers, list of serial killers and notables too) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Revert, source, or edit as you usually would. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Revert, source, or edit as you usually would. - Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Vandalism, BLP vios, copyvio. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Reject BLP vios and vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. All BLP violations and all simple vandalism should be rejected - Alison ❤ 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. If you would revert it when the articles wasn't PC protected, then why not revert it while it is PC protected? —SW— gossip 04:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Bejinhan talks 10:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Use the same reasoning that you would if PC weren't in place on that article: If the edit is outright vandalism or some other policy violation, get rid of it. If it's potentially good but flawed, try to fix it if possible. However, we can't legislate for every possible case. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. I'll clarify, because I know some bright spark will take this entire section out of context. I DO NOT support immediate, 100% rollout to all BLPs. That may be a legitimate long-term objective, but we should not walk before we can crawl. However, I DO think that where a BLP is protected, reviewers should be obliged to apply BLP policy. Otherwise, there is little advantage to PC over existing anti-vandalism measures. —WFC— 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. --Scott Mac 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Per Alison. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Mhm. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Well yeah, duh.--5 albert square (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. There's little point using it on BLPs otherwise. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Don't forget WP:CV too. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Captain panda 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Cliff (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Required by policy. Ocaasi (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. —mc10 (t/c) 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  32.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Other problematic edits

Reviewers may use PC in the same manner as rollback or simple reversion to undo any type of problematic edit. If it was not simple vandalism they should attempt to discuss the issue with the user who posted it, either on their own page or the article's talk page.

users who endorse this view
  1. Whether you hit reject change or undo, you have the opportunity to leave an edit summary. It counts as a revert for 3RR. I see no real reason why you shouldn't hit the button, as long as you use an edit summary for things other than vandalism. --B (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. If reverting at least use an edit summary. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Agree - if it needs reverting for another reason (especially if unsourced claims) then why make the reviewer need an extra step? Psu256 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. If you would revert the edit when the article wasn't protected, then you should revert it while the article is protected. —SW— gab 04:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yes, really. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Yes, as long as reviewers' responsibilities are clear. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Explaining in the edit summary should count too. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Provided a reason is offered when not obvious vandalism. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Can, not must. Ocaasi (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. We will need to emphasize that an explanation, at the very least in the edit summary should always be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is the same as semi-protection in scope

PC is an alternative to semi-protection, as such it should only be used in cases where using semi-protection would also be acceptable.

users who endorse this view
  1. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (I'm going by the text, not the heading)
  2. Ntsimp (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Litmus test. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. - Nellis 15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is not an alternative to semi-protection

PC is fundamentally different from semi-protection, and should not be used in the exact same scope. Because it is applied on a different basis and has a different effect, it cannot be perfectly compared with semi-protection.

users who endorse this view
  1. Kingpin13 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yes, since PC cannot deal with many of the situations that semi does (i.e. frequent vandalism and/or high anon vandalism to good edit ratios). It has uses though, like BLPs (I would advocate for eventual total rollout to all BLPs). Ronk01 talk 03:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. PC isn't an alternative for any other antivandalism scheme. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as an antivandalism scheme because the potential for its abuse is too massive. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Heavy vandalism targets are still too much for PC. --B (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. not always suitable for frequently edited articles. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Particularly agreeing with B and zzuuzz. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. As per Moonriddengirls comment - Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. - Alison ❤ 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. If course it is not the same, otherwise we would have invented the wheel twice. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. If it was the same as semi-protection, then there would be no need for a distinction between the two. See the table at the top of the page as proof that it is not the same as semi-protection. —SW— yak 04:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Because PC has a different interface, is used differently, and affects different editors, it is certainly a different tool to SP and might get applied to different articles. However, I think it belongs in the toolbox next to SP; we could decide on an article by article basis which is the best tool for the job. (Full protection, deletion &c are also in the toolbox, for the really tough cases). bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Rami R 14:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. intuitively obvious - but of not much importance in the discussion Collect (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Similar, not exact. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. I'd say that semi-protection needs to remain for use in some cases, but indefinite semi-protection can mostly be replaced by PC. Slon02 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Logan Talk Contributions 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Minimac (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Yes, PC would do no good in highly-vandalized articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. The two should co-exist and have different articles they are best suited to. A rarley edited or watched BLP should be put into PC because any passing IP could put damaging info and no one might notice. On the other hand a highly edited, highly watched BLP's like Barack Obama have to use semi/fully-protection because PC would likely create a backlog of dubious libelious claims/vandalism that would grind approval to a halt. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Generally speaking, semi protection is for where anon edits are clearly a net-negative. PC is for where anon edits are considered to be a net positive, but unconstructive edits still cause problems. —WFC— 21:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. semi much better if there aren't constructive edits from IPs a-comin' Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Reach Out to the Truth 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Pending changes seems to be for people who are afraid to get something semi-protected when it really should be semi-protected. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. Captain panda 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. upstateNYer 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. Use PC when almost all of the vandalism is from IPs. Use Semi when almost all of the constructive edits are from registered users. These overlap, but are not equivalent. 69.221.173.198 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. Different strokes, yup. Ocaasi (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. —mc10 (t/c) 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should often be used with article probation

WP:Article probation places problematic articles under special scrutiny for bad behavior. Because reviewing edits takes tangible effort, we should try to reduce the effort needed by warning editors with this mechanism. And when reviewers do find editors behaving badly, it allows them to get something done about it.

users who endorse this view
  1. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Why not? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Not sure what the actual effect would be but we can certainly try it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Applying to articles on article probation, particularly if problematic editors were not given the option of approving pending changes, would decrease the amount of problems on such articles, and I think would be likely to decrease the number of attempts to problematically change such articles as well. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Its a nice principle. In practise, this specific suggestion could only work if none of those involved were reviewers or admins. —WFC— 01:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should be used as an intermediate stage when unprotecting any indef-semi pages

When considering unprotection for any page which has indef semi protection, PC should be used as an intermediate step. That way, if it turns out thaty it's not yet time to end the semi-protection, the result ofd the vandalsim/libel will be redueced by PC.

users who endorse this view
  1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. I think this is a good use, although I don't think it should be required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. not a bad idea actually...good litmus test. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. – R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Having a fairly clearly defined procedure for how to lift protection is a good idea, and I agree with Casliber that it would be a good litmus test. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should not be applied to any articles

Pending changes should not be used anywhere, for any type of article, reverting to the status quo prior to the implementation of the pending changes trial.

users who endorse this view
  1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Not necessarily true forever. True now, pending a rigorous analysis of PC's effectiveness and clear consensus to employ it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Reyk YO! 06:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Well, sort of. It needs to be improved, and without improvements, it just isn't worth it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 09:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Agreed.☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻
  7. C628 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Thoroughly confusing, bitey and unwieldily hyper-bureaucratic system that provides no clear advantage over standard semiprotection.  Sandstein  19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  9.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should be applied to articles

The criteria under which pending changes should be used will be determined through this RfC. Subject to those criteria, we should continue to use it.

users who endorse this view
  1. —WFC— 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Mmhmm. upstateNYer 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Cliff (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Ocaasi (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. —mc10 (t/c) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Mojoworker (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What the feature is NOT for

PC is not for giving anyone an upper hand in edit wars

Whatever PC is for policy-wise, its purpose is not to give any editors an upper hand in edit wars.

users who endorse this view
  1. I created this subsection of the RfC. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Obviously, but the nature of the general Wikipedia editor corps means this will be blatantly ignored. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. I have, unfortunately, seen it used in just this way (although only on one article) :¬( Chaosdruid (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. This kind of goes without saying. No form of protection should ever be used to give any party an advantage in a dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. PC editors should only reject edits which clearly and definitely run afoul of WP:BLP (meaning unsourced contentious material) or are simple vandalism ("Joe is a big fat" etc.) on any article which they have made more than trivial edits - if there is any chance the edit whould be used, the editor should leave it to someone else to decide. This is a tad more stringent than the above statement, in fact. Collect (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Well, yes, although I think it would be difficult to develop an exhaustive list of all the things it should not be used for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Yes. Clearly not for content disputes. Also not for harming children or anything else WP:BEANS Ocaasi (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. —mc10 (t/c) 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC is not for preventing most good-faith edits

Whatever PC is for policy-wise, its purpose is not to prevent most kinds of good-faith edits, which should be reverted as usual after approval or handled through other Wikipedia editing processes.

users who endorse this view
  1. I created this subsection of the RfC; to convey what I mean, I also think that there ought to be an explicit message to reviewers (maybe there already is? I've only approved something a couple of times, don't remember) saying something like "By approving this change, you are not endorsing or agreeing with it, you are only saying that your best guess is that it's not (... a phrase meaning something like 'a bad faith edit or an edit creating illegal-under-the-jurisdiction(s)-governing-Wikipedia content')." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Obviously, but the nature of the general Wikipedia editor corps means this will be blatantly ignored. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Yes, this was always the original intent, and it's a failing that this hasn't been made absolutely clear. If one disagrees with a good faith edit, approve it, and then revert it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PC should never be applied to talk pages

For users who aren't banned or otherwise restricted from editing talk pages, a user's talk page comments should never require approval by another user. This includes talk page edits that are vandalizing or otherwise abusive, which should be handled through other extant Wikipedia processes such as reverting the change or banning the user.

users who endorse this view
  1. I created this subsection of the RfC. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Obviously, but the nature of the general Wikipedia editor corps means this will be blatantly ignored. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Corvus coronoides talk 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. I would say almost never. Occasionally we have to semi talk pages, I think PC would be preferable in those very rare cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Semi-protect if really needed, never have reviewers decide what is or isn't proper talk contributions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ending the Pending Changes Debate

A final Decision needs to be made soon

The issue of pending changes has been Debated since May 2007. First Implemented in limited test run in 2010 and has been available in a limited capacity since the end of the trial. Given the 2007-10 discussions and the 2010 trial, we now have enough information from the trial to make a final decision soon.

users who endorse this view
  1. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Of course a final decision needs to be made. That is the exact point of this RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. There are WP:No binding decisions, but yes: At some point, we need to stop talking and make a decision. We will never have 100% agreement about Pending changes (we don't even have 100% agreement on Full protection or Semi-protection, despite their use for years now), but now is the time for a decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Sooner rather than later. And in any case I wouldn't be surprised if the losing side files an ArbCom case alleging wrongdoing - both can make a strong case that the other side acted in bad faith. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Again, a frustrating mismatch between section heading and description. The discussion has dragged on long enough, yes. Do we have enough information on the impact and efficacy of PC? No, because we never had a true trial. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. No, a final decision should have been made six months ago. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Bped1985 (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. I agree completely with Fetchcomms, especially the six months part. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. The sooner the better, 2 years ago would be fine. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. For once, I think we are in agreement! (And sadly, I think Jeremy will be correct.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. I think that it's necessary to at least clarify what should happening in the future. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. It is impossible to move forward with the specifics, until consensus has been established on whether PC is staying for good or going for good. If there is consensus to permanently enable PC, we can then move on to the specifics, in the knowledge that it is definitely here. If there is consensus to get rid, it would at least bring a close to this long-running saga. —WFC— 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Time to officially end this failed experiment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. I think use of the feature is in a state of flux that it would be good to nail down one way or the other, even if just for a further trial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. --5 albert square (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. SpinningSpark 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Can't leave things in perpetual limbo. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. WTF? Let RIP PC... In German Wikipedia it is also not a good system... mabdul 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. On pending changes, kill it with fire. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Reyk YO! 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. A decision needs to be made, certainly. But several of the above comments appear to be prejudging it. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Yoenit (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  29. --joe deckertalk to me 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  30. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  31. fish or cut bait already! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  32. upstateNYer 04:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  33. Amen. One way or the other, it has been time to reach a decision. The status quo is unmaintainable, either we have a consensus to continue this feature, or we turn it off. We can't keep discussing this ad infinitum. Courcelles 17:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  34. While voting isn't necessarily evil, taking a common sense statement and putting it up for a vote probably is. Swarm X 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  35. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  36. Casliber makes good points above - if nothing else, a further trial is called for. We might be able to address some more difficulties which I expect to encounter if we see how it works in application. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  37.  Sandstein  19:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  38. —mc10 (t/c) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  40. FASTILY (TALK) 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  41. As long as it is not too short a period and subject to the last statement at the bottom of the page Chaosdruid (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  42. That is, was, and will continue to be the primary goal of this process. I have done and will continue to do everything I can to move us toward a decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  43.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  44. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  45. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Final vote should be tacked to the next Arbcom election

With all the argument weighed a comprehensive policy proposal containing at least:

  • How and When pending changes can be used on a page
  • Qualifications to be a reviewer
  • Instructions for and Responsibilities of the Reviewers

This proposed Policy should be tacked on to the next Arbcom election in December 2011. The proposal will need a clear supermajority of of 2/3 (66%) of the vote to be implemented.

users who endorse this view
  1. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A final decision will be made in the future

Unless I've missed something, we are not being inundated with libelous, BLP violating, and generally unsound edits. The house is not on fire, no emergency measures are needed. Several statements/proposals above leave many process and implementation questions still in the air. As such moving the debate to a final closure is highly inappropriate and the pathway to reaching a community consensus that we do not want PC.

users who endorse this view
  1. Hasteur (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Minus support for not wanting implmentation of Pending Changes (I do want it to be implemented). --nn123645 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Agree. I don't think that the paragraph above supports ending PC, but rather says the request for immediate action might led that way because of all the conjecture above. Cliff (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. More talk is better. How can wikipedia be held responsible for unsound edits, it's basically a really cool version of comment threading on a blog. On the threads that I follow problematic entries are (on average) corrected within a few hours and often within 10 minutes. If CNN, AOL, and Blogspot can't be held responsible for their users comments there's no reason to believe Wikipedia ought to be, especially since other users are quite diligent in removing them as soon as they are brought to our attention (which is the current legal precident). No matter how reliable and reputable this ragtag enterprise has become (and I say that with love) it's still a webpage anyone with a computer can edit. - Grimsooth (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Provided development happens. Ocaasi (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. There is no deadline... or at least we are in no position to set one at the moment. Let's take our time and get it right. Yaris678 (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. The sooner the better, but we must wait for consensus (or a clear indication that consensus is impossible). Certes (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Recommend a larger, extended review of PC

Current statistics offer no information about how PC compares to semi-protection etc. Much of the debate surrounding PC seems to be conjecture surrounding this point. Extending the review and applying PC to a carefully chosen representative sample of articles may allow for meaningful, comparative statistical analysis.

users who endorse this view
  1. Cliff (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Acknowledging that, if the content is insufficient, this may only be possible through a temporary restoration of PC for analysis purposes to ensure the sampling is significant enough to be useful for these purposes. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Confused?

So am I. This request for comment project page has become WAY too cluttered. Too many subjects to lend opinions to (approx. 50!). The page ITSELF turns me off to a point where I'm not going to help with my opinion at the moment. Is anyone else with me? -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary so far

1. PC helps in the fight against vandalism on BLPs, and on preventing improper additions to BLPs. 2. Semi-protection helps prevent IP vandalism to BLPs. 3. If reviewers are opening themselves to legal liability for accepting improper edits, it would be nice to know it. This is likely answerable by WMF in any case. 4. We do not have statistics on how many edits were accepted and rejected in the trial, nor how many of them would have been rapidly caught without pending changes in effect. 5. Without ongoing usage, it is unlikely that the software will get appreciably improved, as feedback on the software will cease. 6. Arguments about it being difficult to use will not be addressed without it being in active development. 7. A substantial number of editors suggest that removing some portion of IP editors' ability to directly edit articles is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia as originally intended.

Does this fairly represent the last few hundred thousand words on the topic? Collect (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good representation! The summary was a good idea. NOW I get all the hub-bub :-) -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Collect Fairly represent? No. At the very least, you've left out that it's confusing and slow and shouldn't be implemented without consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

appended from archive - as the person starting this new page saw fit to essentially remove it from view immediately after others replied to it) I feel this section will be of substantial value in explaining what the issues are. Note further that the issue about "being difficult to use" was, indeed, in the summary. Again - does this fairly represent the preceding few hundred thousand words? I fear, by the way, that this "new page" will, if anything, prove as confusing or more confusing in settling any issues than the preceding pages were. IMHO. Collect (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_2&oldid=1160938761"