User talk:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox4

Q1

Pending changes is a newer, better form of protection than Semi protection. IPs and Newbies can still edit, but a member of the community who understands sourcing will approve or revert that edit. That relies on the pending changes reviewer right only being given to Wikipedians who understand the difference between a good edit and a bad one. That's a different test than for rollbackers - they just have to know the difference between vandalism and non vandalism. So I don't see a case for removing the right, not unless we have to remove pending changes because the code can't be supported, fixed, maintained or rewritten. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: That relies on the pending changes reviewer right only being given to Wikipedians who understand the difference between a good edit and a bad one. Isn't the same true for approving semi-protected edit requests, which are made on the talk page? But any confirmed editor can approve/deny those. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said of pending changes "IPs and Newbies can still edit", yes there will be some edit requests on talkpages of semi protected articles, but that doesn't strike me as a significant alternative to being able to edit. OK any confirmed editor can action such an edit request, but are there enough such requests for that to be a meaningful issue? ϢereSpielChequers 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd very weakly support removing PC in its current form, although for different reasons than those proposed here. I think it adds an extra layer of complexity and can be quite confusing for new editors as there isn't an obvious consistency regarding when PC is applied, so the 'edit' button behaves unpredicatably. Plus, once editors become aware of its existence they tend to get quite confused—for technical reasons it can't be used on high-traffic pages, so it doesn't get used on things like contentious BLPs which is where editors intuitively expect it to be applied. If we were using it widely and consistently I'd support keeping it, but it's used so rarely I can't really justify maintaining the whole parallel enforcement mechanism, the increasingly rickety technical infrastructure, and the confusion it causes for casual and new editors. ‑ Iridescent 04:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Q2

Should Pending changes use be deprecated? Only if we are told/decide that Pending changes is going to be withdrawn in the near future. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What WSC said. I'd support shutting down PC, but if we're going to keep it it should still be available to use. It would make no sense for two similar pages, in similar situations, to be treated differently, and editors of those pages would quite rightly be confused and upset. ‑ Iridescent 04:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Q3

Should Pending changes be undeployed. No, it is useful and much better than semi protection, especially for articles that are vandalism targets but which do get some good edits from IPs and Newbies. If the software can be maintained or replaced it is better for Wikipedia to do so than to remove it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As with my answer to Q1, I'd support dismantling the whole PC infrastructure. It has its uses, but I think the costs outweigh the benefits. ‑ Iridescent 04:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)