Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Pending changes‎ | Request for Comment 2012

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.175.53.239 (talk) at 22:42, 8 April 2012 (→‎Position #2: S). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Position #2

Click "show" to view the draft policy
Pending changes protection (level 1)
Pending changes protection (level 1)
  • When a page with Pending Changes (PC) protection is edited by an unregistered user or new user, that edit and all following edits by any user are not included in the article displayed to the general public (that is, for readers who are not logged in), until the edits are approved by someone with the "reviewer" user right. PC protection is intended to quash inappropriate editing while allowing good faith users to submit their edits for review.
  • Reviewers are users with a similar level of trust to rollbackers (including all administrators) and the right can be granted and removed by any administrator. Reviewer rights are granted upon request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia. Reading the reviewing guideline, where the reviewing process and expectations for a reviewer are detailed, is recommended.
  • Pending changes should be used on pages where the disruption to good-faith editing caused by existing protection tools would be disproportionate to the problem the protection seeks to resolve. Suitable issues for pending changes protection include persistent:
Vandalism;
Re-insertion of rumor, error, and NPOV/V/OR violations;
Edit warring by large groups of unregistered users;
Disruption by users on highly variable IPs.
  • These standards are to be interpreted more liberally on biographies of living persons, or in any situation involving content related to living persons. As with other forms of protection, PC protection should not be used preemptively.
  • As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption.
  • Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage.

Click here to edit this section

users who endorse this position
  1. During and after the trial, PC was shown to be an extremely helpful tool for combatting bad-faith edits while still allowing easy submission of good-faith edits. We shouldn't let the various problems with the trial prejudice us against the tool itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Long overdue; get it right this time. (I would have been first but it was protected (or something like that)). Alarbus (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PC worked good during and after the trial and it would be a shame to let a useful thing dry up and blow away in the wind. Simply put PC is perfect in allowing good faith edits while combating bad faith edits.--Dcheagle 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although it just adds one more level of complexity to Wikipedia, I think it will be very helpful and sounds good to me. Jesse V. (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PC, especially on BLPs to prevent defamation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Beeblebrox, essentially. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I had experience with flagged revisions in Russian Wikipedia for about three years, and I obviously have experience with NPP here (I always patrol NPP from the back of the list, trying to find smth out in the oldest articles). I think there are obvious problems with the new page patrol: (1) the backlog is only 30 days long. It is not currently a problem, since the backlog in practice is never longer than a week, but potentially it is a problem. (2) one can only patrol new articles, never old articles and never the same article twice. If you start thinking about it, this is actually a serious restriction. Basically, patrolling an article is a way to state it is actually ok. However, the article may be ok at some point and become not ok at a different point, for instance, after being vandalized or after copyrighted material has been introduced or whatever; conversely, an article which initially was not ok can become ok after references and categories have been added. The logical extension is flagged revisions, which is patrolling (potentially) not just an article once but every revision so that one knows that the article is ok at some given point (even if it was not ok before and may become not ok in the future). I am convinced that flagged revisions is what we will ultimately come to, since it is just a logical and convenient extension of the patrol idea. However, it is not what we are discussing now, and not what can be realistically speaking implemented now. I believe pending changes is a step in the right direction (though an incomplete one) and I certainly endorse implementation of pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Reaper Eternal, with the additional comment that we need a community commitment to use PC in order to signal the developers that their efforts to improve PC will not be wasted. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Beeblebrox and Dcheagle. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support, with the understanding that re-interpreting or changing the policy to something radically different than what we are voting for here requires a new consensus --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've been championing some form of this process since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. To paraphrase Shimon Peres (and others), an imperfect PC is better than a perfect editing war. Grika Ⓣ 19:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. As I expect problem edits to get worse, all options should stay open --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support; seems like a perfect mid-way point between page protection and open editing. It will help IPs Be bold and fix our mistakes, even on controversial pages. Achowat (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I don't have any experience with pending changes, but the proposed idea seems reasonable. --Karl.brown (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Blurpeace 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pending changes works. It allows users who might not otherwise be able to edit with a means to contribute, while allowing us to screen out unhelpful edits before readers can see them. I understand the frustration with the way the trial ended (or rather didn't end), but by ending its use over those issues, we are cutting our nose off to spite our face. As a community, we should welcome with open arms anything that offers a solution to our problems of vandalism without totally shutting out new and unregistered editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Beeblebrox and HJ Mitchell. Geoff Who, me? 20:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. A supporter of option 1 commented that, in their experience, the editor time used rejecting unwanted edits outweighed the benefit that a small number of useful edits could be waved through. That's different from my experience, where the balance was the other way. Obviously, it may vary depending on the article. But I think the answer to that is make sure, as best we can, that both PC and SP are used where they are most appropriate, and for admins to be flexible in upgrading from PC in cases where editors are experiencing genuine difficulty in administering it. Oh, and the process of removing PC from anyone who abuses it should be efficient and not held back by sentiment. FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Unconditionally support. Yeah, it could use some tweaking, but implement it, then work out the remaining bugs. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per HJ Mitchell. The minor problems encountered in the trial did not demonstrate the unworkability of the system; instead they demonstrated that it basically did work. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Morten Haan (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I do have some concerns, but not enough to put me among the supporters of #3. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support ~FeedintmParley 21:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Noting that it will only work if pending changes are rapidly accepted or rejected and hence a large and willing community of reviewers is needed. I am experienced with FlaggedRevs on another project and the most common cause of alienation of new good f aith editors is the perceived lack of trust that a "pending changes" system creates. QU TalkQu 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. "As with other forms of protection" says almost everything we need to know. It's not some incredibly arcane process. We should use it in ways that are consistent with how the English Wikipedia does everything else. We can flesh out the details later. (I'd particularly like to see it replace indefinite semi-protection on some lower-traffic pages (to be chosen case-by-case, using our best judgment, etc.), since the data from the last round indicated that this was a particularly functional use.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. PC is much more open to editing than the alternatives like semiprotection. I don't understand why we ever stopped using PC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. --Teukros (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Edit requests will be easier to handle in this system. →Στc. 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - there are too many problems with vandalism on Wiki, and the existing options are poor, especially for the less active pages. Obviously to be used in moderation. Rwessel (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support-- While it has been pointed out that this tool could be considered against the spirit of the project, I would like to note that it would stop IP vandals from rushing rapidly through high profile pages and vandalizing them. It strikes me as a sensible thing to implement on high profile pages. And it is hardly a barrier to editing. Edits will still be made, pending approval, and if that is really that annoying to honest editors, they can register. --Pstanton (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Vital and basic, especially for BLPs. JN466 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Pending changes are a much better alternative to semi-protection, since semi-protection is overkill and pending changes also help keep many problematic articles clean. They worked perfectly last trial. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Endorse the proposal. PC is useful especially in BLPs. Suraj T 04:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. We lose credibility in the eyes of our readership when vandalism is present. This is one way to attempt to address vandalism and while not perfect we need to add to add it to the others. I would support its use on many of the articles that are currently under my watch and semi protected.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. A great help against vandalism and on controversial pages. Night of the Big Wind talk 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: I think the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages, as long as it doesn't end up getting applied to far too many articles Pesky (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. My76Strat (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. This is a useful weapon against vandalism ϢereSpielChequers 05:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per above.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Ariconte (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Pending changes is a useful tool that should be available to administrators. The proposed policy is an adequate working draft.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
  44. Support. HJ Mitchell has come closest to my sentiments here. It would be a mistake to throw out a very useful "baby" with the "bathwater" of the messy trial ending. PC would be enormously valuable in BLPs, and as someone said above, is almost like a kind of enhanced {{edit-protected}} in many ways. I'll say this, though - the success or failure of PC will depend in large part on the quality of the reviewers, and that selection process was far too "loose" last time - perhaps partly because it was a trial. Begoon talk 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Pending changes simply takes what we already have in the form of protected and semi-protected pages (and the {{editprotected}} and {{edit semi-protected}} templates) but makes it user-friendly. Currently, if you want to edit a semi-pp'd page, you can't. Being able to have semi-pp with pending changes for non-confirmed users just provides a more user-friendly anyone-can-edit implementation of requiring people to go and leave a message on a talk page with a special magical template, and waiting for a user or admin to come and update the article based on their often vague instructions. PC makes it a better experience for the editor, and reduces the workload on confirmed users and on admins. Seriously, there's nothing to worry about, let's get on with it. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support--Aervanath (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support – A useful extra tool against disruption: given time to bed in I think it will become so widely adopted we'll wonder how we coped without it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support – Let's work out the bugs and reinstate it. – Confession0791 talk 14:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Its a highly useful tool against vandalism. Its a much user friendly system then the current one of semi and full protected pages. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email</small> 16:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per HJ Mitchell and the fact that this is to be one more tool in a set that includes the various types of page protection, rollback, etc, all designed to help combat vandalism. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. This is a step towards a wider introduction in order to control malicious content more flexibly. It also will help against self-promoters, allowing established editors in good standing to contribute and sockpuppetters to be blocked. There are plenty of long established editors who get caught by full-protection because they don't want to get involved in the politics of becoming admins. A lot of these editors are better able to make good content decisions than the typical admin in it for the powergaming.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support with the caveat that the policy must state that semi-protection is preferable to PC on very heavily edited articles such as current event articles. Problems with edit conflicts on such articles are massively exacerbated by PC, whereas there are by definition numerous editors working on such articles who are able to revert vandalism within moments. PC has no benefit and big disadvantages in such situations and I'd like to see its use on such articles explicitly discouraged. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Having read right through the opinions expressed here, I sense that, behind the problems of detail, there lies a "philosophical" concern: those who reject PC want to maintain a free and open community which values the participation of all and sundry while those who support it want to protect the quality of the product even if it means a certain reduction in freedom and openness. For my part, I am on the side of quality, since lack of quality will in the long-run mean people sense the project is not worthwhile and therefore stop participating. On exploring the site, I have come across concerns about the lack of knowledgeable editors, burnt-out and people who simply stop participating. This seems a reasonable way of encouraging editors to stay by reducing the hassle. The one caveat I would make is that PC should be seen as an on-going process open to fine-tuning in the future. Perhaps it may turn out to be unsuitable for some articles with intensive editorial interventions, but I suspect there are many where it would make editing easier and allow us to concentrate on improving the article in question.Jpacobb (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support A very effective tool, based on my use of it during the test, especially for WP:BLPs. First Light (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Badly needed and desirable. I also think that this will reduce complexity rather than increase it - the main alternative now is semi-protection and the process for that is much more involved both for applying it (request have to be made, administrators have to get involved), and for new accounts trying to make legitimate edits (now they have to a request post to the talk page, which then may or may not be seen and reviewed) - PC would just streamline the (beneficial) idea behind this process and make it easier to work with.VolunteerMarek 23:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support – You can't have freedom without accepting some responsibilities. Unfortunately, too many people desire freedom without responsibility. Revising articles, especially BPL's, create real-world consequences. Editing BLP's irresponsibly actually makes the subject of the biography less free since the subject would become affected by forces (i.e. the irresponsible revisions) outside of his or her control. Freedom without responsibility is actually freedom at the expense of others. This means that we're unfortunately playing a zero-sum game, which means that we need to strike the right balance between the freedom of Wikipedia contributors and the freedom of subjects of biographies (i.e. we need to compromise some of our own freedom so that it doesn't come at the expense of others). Human society has been playing this zero-sum game for a long time. Human society decided to create governments that could outlaw thievery even though it came at the cost of some of their freedoms because they felt that governments were a necessary evil. I believe that Pending Changes is our necessary evil. My experience with Pending Changes has been a pleasant one. I didn't have any problems with the interface. MuZemike has also made an interesting observation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. The question of the essential nature of our project should be kept in mind and considered carefully, but I think that PC does not represent a phase change in our philosophy. Even with PC, the ability of anyone in the world to contribute to our database is vastly greater than almost anywhere else (and a huge step up from the dark days before the internet). I think that we are not on a slippery slope to exclusivity here, any more than PixieBot represents a threat to the Guild of Copyeditors. We serve two masters - openness and accuracy; the value to the larger community of readers, to my thinking, outweighs the other concerns. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Sensible to many ends. – sgeureka t•c 07:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --Dlrohrer2003 08:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. I opposed before and reconsidered because of this: the fact that changes will not be visible until reviewed might quench motivation to vandalize. Materialscientist (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - I am most concerned with the status of BLPs on this project, and this tool can be effective protection those lightly watched articles that have been shown to suffer from subtle vandalism. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support full pending changes, without any conditions of its use - I support adding pending changes to prevent ip vandalism, if somone is serious about editing on wikipedia, they would make an account. When i say full pending changes, i mean it should be on all pages and not just added to a page like how "page protection" is added to a page i.e on request. thats useless, not revolutionary to take the site forward and wont help much--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Pol430 talk to me 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support per HJ Mitchell. Also, I admit to having been a little concerned about the potential consequences of being too liberal in applying pending changes - we don't want to end up with a situation where our reviewers are spread too thinly. However, the draft policy seems good, and if the protection is applied sensibly I don't think this would be a problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I dont have problem with a hierarchy of editors as long as positions are based on merit and all have the opportunity to earn higher positions. There are too many important articles which are a mess, not only because of vandalism, but with "too many cooks" all wanting to add something to a popular article. One good example of this is Mexico City. Ive been asked to work on it but I refuse because I know any work I do on it will revert one way or another back to the mess we have now.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. While I do have a problem with the fact that a page that is protected by PC can not be edited by certain users and that could - potentially - drive away those users that may have the potential to be great editors down the road, I believe that Pending Changes works and support this position per HJ Mitchell. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per HJ. Hot StopUTC 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per Beeblebrox and HJ Mitchell. Haseo9999 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can damage, undermine, or subvert. It is heartening to see, with the healing passage of time, a greater understanding of Wikipedia's principles, and corresponding support for a flexible tool to help realise Wikipedia's goals. Geometry guy 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - a reasonable extra tool to combat improper editing. An experience with semi-protection shows that the admins were cautious and gradual with the introduction of a new edit restriction. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support with two caveats: First, and obviously, this should be used sparingly. Second, policy should contain a provision to address a backlog overflow. Automatically approve the edits if they are more than twenty-one days old, perhaps? I see PC to be eminently more practical that the current tiers of protection, as it allows a decent barrier to vandalism and BF edits with less time investment from administrators and far less disruption to regular users, as editing for them will be much easier than under page protection currently. It will get out of hand if it is used too often, though, so standard expiration times should be established. CittàDolente (per me si va) 00:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - I didn't see how it was ineffective earlier.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support It's not a panacea, but it will be a useful tool in many places. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per HJ Mitchell. —Bruce1eetalk 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, useful tool. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Useful tool, good policy-draft Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support as a useful option that will help improve the quality of the project. As Wikipedia matures, we have to be willing to consider new options to reflect the changing nature of the site. The PC option allows us to better protect the quality of what has become a widely used resource that many readers depend upon while still allowing for input from all. --Ckatzchatspy 10:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - I've always felt that the good things about this far outweigh any disadvantages. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - A good policy draft to work with, as I think the tool does have a place on the English Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 11:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I believe that it will reduce the amount of vandalism (vandals want their vandalism to be seen, after all) and its visibility, while allowing newcomers to edit positively on the same articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I wholeheartedly agree with HJ. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support  Badgernet  ₪  14:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Terminator92 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support-While it does, obviously, need to be used sparingly, PC is an excellent tool and offers a less disruptive alternative to other forms of protection.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Essentially per Hj. A really valuable tool. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - years of usage in German and Russian wikis demonstrate the lack of fatal flaws in the idea, as well as long term quality improvement potential. --illythr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Absolutely. About time. 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Absolutely Support Does the content of Wikipedia have "value"? Yes, else why are we spending time editing it and reverting vandals. If it has value, it is worth "safeguarding". This is an essential step towards the "safeguarding of Wiki-assets" created through the efforts of hundreds of thousands of editors. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support (though hoping "liberally" wrt BLPs is not misunderstood - I take it to mean edits are more thoroughly vetted on BLPs under PC) Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. It's not an unreasonable bar to legitimate editing, and anything that stops/slows vandalism (and hence my need to revert it) is only a good thing, especially on those "magnet" articles that seem to just attract such vandalism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. This is probably the best idea I've ever heard, and keeping bad edits from reaching anyone other than the capable editors of Wikipedia is a common sense sort of thing. Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support--Phospheros (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Yasht101 :) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strong support especially for BLPs, but also for other articles subject to attacks. We've discussed this ad nauseam - no one thinks it is the perfect solution, but the problem continues to mar the encyclopedia while we talk and talk. It worked well enough in the trial - we can fix problems as we go. Let's just do it already. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. support i have seen too many semi obscure articles suffer from terrible POV / BLP issues. With the incredible number of very obscure articles that never see regular review by experienced editors, I cannot imagine how many awful items are out there on the top search engine result. this is a good first step to combat those problems. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strongest support I have been using this feature @ a testing wiki website, and found it very helpful. This is one of the best tools. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Without a doubt Pending changes works, it reduces vandalism and allows good edits through. It's also a visible entry for non-SPA editors to get into Wikipedia (getting reviewer right was one of the largest factors in getting me into wikipedia). It's a massive positive to the encyclopedia, and should be used. WormTT · (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Well overdue, to my mind, and the policy seems to cover all the necessary caveats and other requirements in order for this to be used properly. Anaxial (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Same as last time. Doc talk 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Not perfect, but better than the existing semi-protection, which stone-walls new IP editors. LouScheffer (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Neutron (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support As one of the more active admins (off and on) at RfPP, I came across many occasions when pending changes would have been by far the best option, but after the decision to quit using it, I would more often than not simply use long term semiprotection instead. Pending changes is a useful addition to the none/semi/full system we have been using. AlexiusHoratius 16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I echo AlexiusHoratius's view on the matter and think pending changes is an excellent addition to the existing methods of protection. Sure, there may be a few kinks that need to be worked out, but I don't see that there's any reason not to implement pending changes. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I can definitely see how this can be a useful tool to combat vandalism before it hits the books. I looked over a lot of the opposing arguments and while many have merit I think the over all effect would be positive, especially on pseudoscience pages that are constantly bombarded by SPAs looking to promote their pet cancer "cure" or perpetual motion machine. In response to one particular argument, namely that this would fundamentally change WP, I would say that there's no problem with changing WP - fundamentally or otherwise - if the consequences are an overall positive, which I think this tool will be. SÆdontalk 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. demize (t · c) 21:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Makes sense. MBisanz talk 21:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. This option seems reasonable to me. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - As a very limited anti-vandalism tool only. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support while initially not too keen on this, after seeing its use with little-watched BLP articles, I see the necessity Skier Dude (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support varying levels of protection. The German WP can take days to approve pending changes on lesser trafficked pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - it works well when used properly, and if it doesn't work on a particular page it can be removed or replaced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Increasing the levels of protection will possibly even diminish the need for semi- and espacially fully-protected pages. JHSnl (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  120. This seems to be a good idea. Allowing PC protection on some articles should help reduce vandalism and the like while allowing users to still edit these pages, which can only be a good thing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support as long bar for becoming a reviewer is low and Reviewers should themselves be reviewed before their edits can be made visible.War (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I believe that, in particular, PC2 has a rare but important place in the protection toolbox for infrequently-edited biographies subject to sustained insertion of attacks. In many such cases, the confirmed vs. non-confirmed bar of SP and PC1 isn't helpful, but FP can be overkill. PC2 seems a superior alternative to FP in these cases. I don't believe that PC1/PC2 make a lot of sense on very frequently-edited articles, though, nor am I ready to support applying PC to most articles we wouldn't consider protection on today using some other mechanism. --joe deckertalk to me 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I am not quite understanding how introducing PC would invalidate the catchphrase "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" when SP and FP already exist. Such measures are as necessary to implement as blocking misbehaving users are. I was not around when PC underwent its trial, but I do not see how pending changes could be so backlogged if it is a tool used sparingly and the "reviewer" right isn't very difficult to obtain. I have come across plenty of articles in which there were as many anonymous IP users contributing constructively as there were contributing vandalism, so I believe PC would be a better option than SP because SP would deter those editors who were making constructive edits. Sure they could make a request on the talk page, but I would like to know what percent of requests are 1. requested in the proper format, 2. understandable, and 3. actually carried out. An anonymous IP user is much more likely to correct a typo on a PC page than going through the trouble of making a request on the talk page (and if the user doesn't know much about Wikipedia, chances are they do not know such a feature exists to begin with). As a newcomer, I believe it is important to expand Wikipedia's features in order to keep up with the growing community and increasing amount of information. Yes implementing more features/tools requires more knowledge, but Wikipedia is already very complex and personally I don't find the idea of PC to be very complicated. – Jonadin(talk) @ 23:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Themeparkgc  Talk  23:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. The original trial showed that the process improved Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Bentogoa (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support No system is 100% perfect and problems and flaws can come at any point of time. The main thing is to discuss and correct those things as they come up. Pending Changes is very useful tool and will help build the project and encyclopedia more better. This (Pending Changes) tool is also used on many other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation and has proved useful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support TBloemink talk 14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - yes, yes, yes yes yes yes. Such a simple solution. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support I wasn't around during the trial period, but this makes perfect since. It would allow anons to edit while reducing the load on the anti-vandal team. Very good idea. --Nathan2055talk - review 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Josh Parris 11:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  132. I've been following the PC debate somewhat, but this is the first time I comment about it. I see two problems: 1) it creates more work; 2) admins and reviewers can let edits pass while others disagree, instigating conflicts. I believe these issues can be compensated when PCP is... 1) ...used sparingly, only for high-risk articles; 2) ...not applied during content disputes; 3) ...used with at least one reviewer watchlisting the page, preventing PC backlogs on Wikipedia.
    I'm not completely sure, but still, I support. – theFace 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support' I think admins should have the power to approve or disapprove of all edits. There should be a comments box during editing to send messages to admins. Once your edit has been approved or disapproved you should recieve a notification of which admin a/d it. This will create more work and I think there should be a special type of admin especially for a/d articles. When you are notified of you edit being a/d, you should recieve a message from the admin. this feature should also have a way for you to defend your edit post a/d. More admins should be acquired and trained. Thepoodlechef (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support as a anti vandalism tool --Stefan talk 02:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. MER-C 05:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - as one of the users who questioned the prior RfC, I believe that pending changes already had a greater proportion of community approval when it was discontinued. I had personal experience with the tool on System of a Down, where constant genre "trolling" by IPs disrupts the article and leads to its inevitable indefinite semi-protection. Pending changes is a far less disruptive filter by which we can improve the quality of the encyclopedia without hindrance to the fundamental policy of Wikipedia being available for everyone to edit. It would be a disservice to not welcome this amazing anti-vandalism tool with open arms, as HJ Mitchell put it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support as it can help to reduce the number of protected pages; the only negative effect is confusion when an editor finds a different version when starting to edit. −Woodstone (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, especially as an anti-vandalism tool, but the #2 position statement describes my thoughts exactly :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - Flawed (like almost everything) but helpful. Cresix (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - Yes. Twozenhauer (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong Support Puffin Let's talk! 16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Yes please. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Indubitably. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Agree. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - It is a powerful tool that will serve a clear function. Limiting its use is always possible, but throwing it away would be foolish. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Absolutely! It's well past time - Alison ❤ 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support – In de.wikipedia it is an indispensable tool for fighting vandalism. --Leyo 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support It works fine in de-wp and it appears to be very useful for BLP articles. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  151. --Thogo 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) As long as there is so little vandal fighting on enwiki that even years-old vandalism keeps undetected, it is an absolutely necessary tool to keep pages clean of crap for the readers. Example: undetected for more than two weeks[reply]
  152. ☮Soap☮ 03:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support - I endorse this position. AGK [•] 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support, PC proved its usefulness. vvvt 16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support, good start... expanding it to all articles as on dewiki would be a good thing (in the far? future) - Hoo man (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support as one of those who believes that the trial period was less-than-brilliantly managed yet who has since come to appreciate the value of this feature. Application should reflect that of semi-protection. SuperMarioMan 22:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - I was never a reviewer when it was alive, but I have seen the pending changes trial go forward, and I thought it was a good idea at the time. In fact, I thought it was still alive until I picked up Wikipedia back in December. I have read the draft policy and agree with it. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support PC has shown effectiveness. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support useful tool - Youreallycan 17:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support --John (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support PC has proven itself capable of significantly reducing the volume of problematic edits while still allowing anonymous editors to submit changes. --Allen3 talk 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Useful tool with the right policy. William Avery (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support - Very useful, especially for BLPs and related articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support I am confused by the arguments against, stating that PC hinders an anonymous user's ability to make direct edits to the encyclopedia, when in fact it does exactly the opposite, when compared to protection/semi-protection. I like PC from both an anon and a reviewer's perspective. --SubSeven (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Endorse the draft. I've witnessed the usability of pending changes. And, as asserted above by many users, we should welcome anything that helps us to keep away vandalism. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support I believe PC is a useful tool, which alongside our current processes of PP, reverting and blocking could help to both open articles for editing by anonymous users without damaging the reliability of our content, and limit the amount of effort regular editors need to exert to maintain reliability while making proposed changes (clearing out the ESp queue, etc). More tools are better, and this one has a great purpose.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - overdue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support, especially considering BLPs: better to review than to rollback. --Mark91it's my world 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support - PC was a useful tool in certain specific circumstances when we had it, and I believe the community is competent enough to use it appropriately. There are potential issues with the impact of pending changes on new-user interactions, but as it is unlikely it will ever be applied to a very large number of articles, hopefully this can be mitigated. Shimgray | talk | 22:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support useful tool for discouraging vandalism, and concomitantly make editing more attractive to serious users tired and frustrated to see their work being constantly vandalised. Works well on other Wikipedias, and should be the way forward for improving encyclopaedic quality. --ELEKHHT 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support It's a useful tool, especially for BLP articles. -Jhortman (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support, a useful tool.--wdwd (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Bmusician 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  175. An excellent tool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support While I was not active in Wikipedia at the time of the Pending Changes trial i feel that it will be an excellent tool in combating vandalism while still allowing new and unregistered users to make good faith edits to protected pages.Andrew Kurish (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. It worked. There were problems, but we need to close down editing a bit. When the visual editor comes out, we will need this. theMONO 16:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support I wasn't a user when this was in beta, and I'm still not autoconfirmed yet, but I've been around Wikia a lot, and this sounds like a good idea. I know I could put it to use on the wikis I'm admin on. --Brovie (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Baseball Watcher 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support I think this sounds nice, but why not use it as a replacement for semi-protection? Zaminamina (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  181. 71.175.53.239 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Option_2&oldid=486332289"