User:Seraphimblade/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 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:


 * For most of my answers here, I'll be providing a full rationale, followed by a final paragraph of a sentence or two's worth of short summary. Those who just want to see what the position is, skip to the end of each one. If you want to know why, read the whole thing. The first answer follows:
 * Currently, PC's scope is too ill-defined, its interface is too clunky and buggy, and changes languish for hours in many cases. I also do not believe that this type of setup is honest or transparent. Our ideal state should be living up to "You can edit this page" as widely and as often as possible. That means we should always use protection as a reaction to actual problems, not proactively in anticipation that a problem may someday occur. *Occasionally, however, problems will occur (an edit war, high levels of vandalism, or the like). In this case, we should be honest&mdash;"Unfortunately, you can't edit this page right now. You can ask someone to approve an edit for you." Pending changes makes it look like you edited, when really you're just using a non-obvious version of editsemiprotected. I also believe that since to some people, PC "looks" nicer than semiprotection, they want to use it far more widely than semiprotection. I've even seen suggestions of using it on all BLPs&mdash;and that being a serious suggestion. We should not in any way whatsoever be looking to bring in a tool that there would be a temptation to use "just in case".
 * Finally, there was no consensus to continue the pending changes trial the first time around. Its use should have been discontinued then&mdash;a lack of consensus to make a change means we default to the status quo, even if a simple majority supports it. A simple majority is nowhere near enough to delete an article or promote an administrator, and those are far less radical changes than a sitewide change that some are suggesting using on thousands to hundreds of thousands of articles. That would require unequivocal, extremely strong consensus, not a slight advantage in a head count. It should've been shut down the first time it failed to achieve consensus. If an improved version comes around in the future, we could always look at trialing it again.
 * To summarize, pending changes presents too much of a temptation for "ahead of time" use, is as restrictive as semiprotection but less transparent, lacks the manpower to approve edits for even its limited current run in a reasonable amount of time, and already does not enjoy consensus to continue. For these reasons, it should be shut down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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:


 * My answer here is only in case there forms a clear consensus to implement PC. I am still against its implementation at all.
 * PC should only be used to revert clearly problematic edits, i.e., obvious vandalism (off-topic profanity or remarks, etc.), or clearly negative and unsourced material about a living person. Effectively, its use should be constrained to the same areas where rollback would be appropriate. Borderline edits should be handled through the normal editing process.
 * Also as rollback, editors who misidentify edits as vandalism when they are not should be counseled to carefully review the definition of vandalism. Those who cannot or will not improve should quickly lose the reviewer right.
 * To summarize: Rejection of a pending change is only acceptable where the use of rollback would be acceptable. Other changes should be accepted and, if necessary, dealt with via the normal editing process. Poor reviewers should lose the reviewer right. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Question three
Many users have expressed the view that pending changes is 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:


 * As above, my answer here is only in case of implementation, and does not change my opposition to implementation (even if all of these changes were made).
 * We really would need "visible" rather than "accepted". Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the dev team wants to reopen that. "Accepted" denotes approval of content, not just a quick review for blatant vandalism.
 * It should contain a clear, unambiguous notice that the user has to click through for the user whose edits will be moderated&mdash;"Your edits will not immediately appear on this page, and will need to be reviewed by an experienced editor before being made visible. Would you like to submit an edit for review?" That would do two things: Improve transparency to the "moderated" user, and discourage those who want to make a poor edit from even putting one in the queue.
 * Batch rejection of all edits a given user has made to PC protected pages that are still pending. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out that they can flood the queue. This would possibly be restricted to admins only.
 * Strong encouragement for editors rejecting a PC change to provide feedback to the editor who made it.
 * Clear and unambiguous statement of what type of edits should be accepted and what type of edits rejected.
 * Clear statements from WMF legal counsel as to an opinion on whether reviewers would take liability for edits they approve, if the reviewer was acting in good faith. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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:


 * In order of the questions asked:
 * Of course it will drive away new contributors. Seeing "You can edit this page", and then getting "Well not REALLY! You can only put an edit into the moderation queue!" would be infuriating to editors who were just excited about making their first contribution. They would also probably be upset if their edit just didn't show up, and they don't know why.
 * It is the exact same barrier as semiprotection, as it requires affected users to get another user to approve their edit. Whether that's done through editsemiprotected or PC is window dressing&mdash;at its core, it says "You may NOT edit this page (though you can ask someone else to on your behalf). "
 * If it is kept, it should be used no more commonly and no more proactively than semiprotection. We do not proactively protect articles. We might reactively protect them, if we already know someone's trying to cause a problem there, or the page is attracting a lot of vandalism for some reason (a Colbert stunt, etc.). It should rarely if ever be used indefinitely (much like protection), and should be used as sparingly as possible.
 * Summary: Yes, it'll drive away contributors. Yes, it's as restrictive as semiprotection. And for that reason, we shouldn't use it any more often than semiprotection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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 same as semiprotection, if not higher (since PC protection is not as transparent and obvious as semiprotection is). As above, still oppose leaving it on at all, just commenting in case consensus goes otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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:


 * Where is the data showing that BLPs are "the most heavily vandalized", first of all? Going to put a fact tag on that one. But even if it turns out to be true, it makes little difference. That may mean more BLPs wind up with PC turned on, just like right now it would mean more wind up semi'd&mdash;if they're the most likely articles for problems to arise at, they'll more frequently wind up protected. But the threshold should remain unchanged. And no, we should never proactively add protection of any kind.
 * Summary: [citation needed] for the "most vandalized" bit. No proactive protection, no lower threshold. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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:

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.