User:Od Mishehu/PC Review Recommend Phase

How you can help
Please take your time and read through the concerns below. For each item, you are invited to offer a proposal that addresses the concern. Where possible, you are encouraged to provide examples, references, diffs and so on in order to support your viewpoint. There isn't a limit on the scope of your proposals; the sky is the limit, here. Most importantly, Answer as few or as many questions as you wish. All responses are evaluated, so any information you provide is helpful.

Once you've provided your responses, please encourage other editors to take part in the review. We stress that editors who didn't participate in the previous phases are encouraged to participate now - more responses will improve the quality of research, as well as increasing the likelihood of producing meaningful results. Once again, thank you for taking part!

Question one
Pending changes was activated on a trial basis. Although that trial has been over for some time pending changes continues to be used. Should we keep pending changes in use and continue discussing how it is to be used, remove it from all articles until there is a consensus based policy in place, or reject it entirely? (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: PC should be kept on, and used on pages based on the most recent conensus established at any given tme. (Note that this can change should some one succeed in ammending it).

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: It should be used for any situation where we've been using semi protection prior to PC being an option.

Question three
Many users have expressed the view that pending changes is confusing or difficult to use. Have you found the current interface to be confusing or difficult to use? What improvements would you like to see to the interface? How could it be made more user-friendly? Please try to be constructive and specific rather than general, and feel free to read or edit the list of feature ideas on mediawiki.org.


 * Answer:

Question four
Users have expressed a concern that Pending Changes can discourage or even drive away inexperienced users or users who do not wish to register an account. Other users expressed the view that PC was less of a barrier than semi-protection and may encourage new users. Do you believe pending changes will prevent new users from contributing? Do you believe it to be more or less of a barrier than semi-protection? If it is kept, how do we balance this concern with the concern of preventing vandalism to Wikipedia?


 * Answer: I believe that it's less of a barrier than semi-protection (anyone can still edit the article), but it's still a barier. However, we need to put up such "barrier"s, because anything to reduce the amount of vandalism is a barrier.

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: It should be used in line with the current protection policy, and be considered a kind of protection. The bar should probably be a bit lower than standard semi-protection (this is less of a barrier for new users), but not much. This should also, in general, be used as an intermediate step in removing semi-protection from pages which have been SPed for a long time.

Question six
There is a general consensus that protecting biographies of living persons and other articles that contain information about living persons 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:Just like the standard for semi-protection is lower on BLPs, so should PC. I think that applying PC to all BLPs is going too far - where there is no problem, no need to add this extra barrier.

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:PC should be applied in a similar manner to semi-protection - just ike we only SP a page if sgort to medium range protection isn't enough, we should apply the same ideas to PC.

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:

Question nine
What specifically should be expected of reviewers? If they reject an edit, should they inform the user why the edit was rejected if the reason was something other than obvious vandalism? Should this notification be just in the edit summary, or should it be on the article talk page or the user's talk page?


 * Answer:

Question ten
Are we done yet? That is, do you feel the results of this questionnaire combined with the previous discussions at the RFC and elsewhere are sufficient to determine a consensus? If not, what should be done next? Should there be a poll, a more specific policy proposal, another RFC, or some other option that has not yet been tried?


 * Answer:

Comment section
This section is for any further comments, suggestions, criticisms, or anything else you would like to say about either pending changes or this process that was not covered by the above questions.