Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 3
Position #3
Pending changes should be kept in the long term, but the draft policy is insufficient and/or out of step with what the community wants from the tool. Pending changes should not be rejected entirely but should remain unused until such time as there is a more complete policy in place that has been explicitly approved by the community.
Click here to edit this section
- users who endorse this position
- I would like the draft policy to address: (1) the responsibilities of reviewers, more clearly, (2) the status of users who were previously given the reviewer right, and (3) the kinds of development improvements that will be requested of the developers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Tryptofish. I have not minded giving out a useless reviewer right. Now it is about to become meaningful. The policy should address this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but think it should only be used exceptionally. I'm worried about a huge backlog, and the drama that could ensue when a reviewer decides that an otherwise good-faith edit is rejected. It'll happen, and I fear it'll be hard to tell whether a reviewer was acting maliciously. Furthermore, new editors may perceive a chilling effect when they make a good-faith edit that's at odds with a reviewer's idea of a good-faith edit. I'm not sure if the ensuing drama from this technology will be less than the drama it solves. All in all, I just think there needs to be a whole lot more documentation on what's expected from a reviewer, and what's expected from an admin who has the option of choosing between prot and pending changes. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- We need further information on exactly how frequent the reviewer right will be. We also need a discussion of that PC-protected-level-1 pages will apparently be effectively blocked from (auto)confirmed user (without reviewer) editing so long as an edit remains in the reviewer queue. (This gives rather a motivation for committing vandalism - including not only "regular" vandalism but, say, highly POV material - as an autoconfirmed user, then putting in an edit (vandalism or innocent) as an IP address, to block any non-reviewer from fixing the vandalism.) How much the latter will matter will depend directly on how common the reviewer right will be. (I might favor PC if only the second level were used, as an alternative to full protection.) Allens (talk | contribs) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)