User:Morgankevinj/PC Review Recommend Phase

__NOINDEX__

Question one
Pending Changes was instituted on a trial basis. Although pending changes is still in use, that trial period has been over for some time now. The purpose of these recent discussions and processes has basically been to decide the primary issue: Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely? For purposes of this question please limit your response to this one issue. Questions related to the details on how it should be deployed if kept will follow. Please feel free to explain your position in as much detail as needed. (Note that even if you answer that it should be turned off you are still free to answer the remaining questions as you see fit.)


 * Answer: I believe that pending changes should continue to be used on Wikipedia.

Question two
The exact purpose of pending changes protection has never been clearly defined. Should it be used only to prevent edits that meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism? If not, what other types of problematic edits may be rejected? Does it make a difference if the edit contains claims about a living person?


 * Answer: I believe that pending changes should be used mostly to prevent vandalism but if an edit adds uncited information that might be controversial it should be used to revert that edit.

Question five
Generally, when should pending changes be used? Should it be considered in accordance with the existing protection policy on the same basis as semi protection, or should the bar for PC be higher or lower than that used for semi-protection? Please be as specific as possible.


 * Answer: The bar for pending changes should at least be the same for semi-protection. Unless there is a history of vandalism the article should not be protected.

Question six
Biographies of living persons are among the most heavily vandalized articles on Wikipedia. There is a general consensus that protecting them is a top priority due to the possibility of libel and real harm to real persons. Some have proposed that PC be used more liberally on BLPs or even suggested that pending changes protection should be added to all BLP articles. Should the standards for using PC be lower on BLP articles? What should the standards be for articles wherein the primary topic is not biographical but there is still content related to living persons? Should we automatically add it to all BLPs?


 * Answer: Unless there is a history of vandalism the article should not be protected. If an edit adds uncited information that might be controversial it should be used to revert that edit.

Question seven
During the trial period pending changes was added on an indefinite basis to many articles. Should pending changes be added indefinitely by default, be subject to the same restrictions as other forms of protection, or have some new criterion for determining length of protection? If so what should that criterion be?


 * Answer: Indefinite protection should be used only in rare cases.

Question eight
In the second phase, many users indicated that they believed that the standards for granting reviewer user right were too low, while others felt that being easy to acquire was a positive trait. What standards should be used to grant the reviewer right? What standards should be used to justify revoking it?


 * Answer: A user should know how to recognize vandalism and understand the policies on BLPs.