Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Pending changes
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elemented9 (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 23 May 2013 (→Support PC/2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The pending changes page protection level currently has two sub-levels of protection: PC/1 and PC/2. PC/1 is the level that is ubiquitously used when the decision to use PC on an article is made by an administrator. It allows all edits by confirmed/autoconfirmed users to instantly appear on a page if all previous edits have been accepted, effectively becoming the "latest accepted revision" that is displayed to everyone. However, if either an IP address or new user wishes to edit an article with this protection level, then their edits and any future edits are submitted and withheld from the general public until they become reviewed by a user with the "reviewer" permission. Logged-in users will always see the most recent edit.

PC/2, the second level, requires all edits—except those by reviewers and administrators—to a page protected by it to be reviewed. This level was created and made functional alongside PC/1; however, an RfC from the time of its implementation on the merits of its use was closed as "no consensus". The protection level is, for all practical purposes, defunct. When the RfC ended, it was determined that a new RfC should be held in 3–6 months from its closure (in September 2012) to reassess its merits after PC/1 had been given a trial run, so that the community would be better able to determine whether or not to endorse any use of PC/2.

A table summarizing the editing abilities of various permission groups (if PC/2 were to be enabled) appears below:

Table of Pending Changes Level One and Level Two
Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels
  Unregistered or newly registered Confirmed or autoconfirmed Extended confirmed Template editor  ★ Admin Interface admin Appropriate for
(See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection Normal editing The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes All users can edit
Edits by unregistered or newly registered editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not. 		Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi Cannot edit Normal editing Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed Cannot edit Normal editing Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template Cannot edit Normal editing High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full Cannot edit Can edit♦ Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
Interface Cannot edit Normal editing Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects fundamental to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
★  The table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
♦  Administrators are only authorized to perform non-controversial edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page.
Other modes of protection:

Please indicate your support for or opposition to PC/2. Any replies to voters or longer rationales should go in the "Discussion" section. 05:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This RfC deals with accepting or rejecting any use of PC/2. If general support is found (including conditional support), a separate RfC will be opened after closure dealing with criteria for use, methods of implementation, and other stipulations.

Support PC/2

  1. Support for a limited set of use cases. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What use cases do you propose? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Top of the discussion section, as the proposer requested. By the way, I've replied to your reply there, I believe you've misunderstood what I said. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood fine, Joe. You are proposing to penalize the entire editing community and the article itself instead of addressing the behavioural problems of a few editors; that's really how it parses. (Ohhh, autoconfirmed editors are misbehaving on this article! Instead of dealing with the individual human beings that are behaving badly, let's use this fancy technical solution that creates tons of work for other editors and still allows all kinds of nonsense to go in the page history.) I know technical solutions are easy and people are hard. Still, it's the people who are the problem, not the article. Risker (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My proposal: I do not imagine PC2 should be used very frequently. Therefore I suggest the following approach: Create a subsection of WP:RFPP dedicated to PC2 requests. One can put in a request for a page to be PC2-protected, after which a discussion will take place. If consensus is reached, then the page will be PC2-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as RfC creator (full disclosure). PC/1 has proven that it can be implemented consistently and well. PC/2 would provide a nice gradient of protection from SP to FP, and cover cases of sockpuppetry, etc. for which PC1/SP is insufficient and FP is overkill. Deadbeef 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How does preventing a fraction of regular editors (i.e., those without review permissions) from editing directly into the article make the likelihood of problem editing decrease? Where does the sockpuppetry theory come in? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per User:Deadbeef. Rami R 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support in limited use cases. PC2 has been seen to be useful in cases of autoconfirmed puppetry, such as the one Joe explains below. I cannot really see any other reason why it would be needed in article space, although I am open to being persuaded. I tend to like King of Hearts' idea of requiring consensus for PC2 requests. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support with the caveat that in some appropriate place there be a notice for administrators that they should consciously dismiss semi and PC1 as alternatives before imposing it. If King of Hearts's idea is used, editors requesting PC2 should be instructed to explain why they seek it instead of one of the others. -Rrius (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as an alternative to full protection in extreme cases of socking. --Rschen7754 08:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that only vandalism and BLP violations are supposed to be rejected for PC, why do you think this will affect socking edits? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of socking is to conduct vandalism and BLP violations. --Rschen7754 20:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's have some examples. Risker (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just go down the SPI list and I'm sure you'll find a whole bunch. --Rschen7754 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to side with Risker on this point, although I generally favor PC/2. I found PC/1 to actually promote socking problems relative to semi-protection: instead of preventing the sock from editing, it put the sock's edits into a forum where people evaluated the quality of the edit. It was impossible to get people to consider that a good edit should be rejected because it was being made by a sock. I don't think PC/2 is any different in that regard: if the goal is to discourage socks, an actual protection mechanism needs to be applied. PC/2 in conjunction with semi-protection could possibly be effective, but not PC/2 by itself.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Deadbeef, and endorse Rrius' comment as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Partial Support per Deadbeef, King of Hearts and Rrius above. I was and still am a vehement opponent of using flagged revisions liberally because I think every editor should be able to contribute equally; this philosophy is also the reason I can support this proposal though because as has been pointed out above, PC/2 would actually allow users to edit in cases in which they currently wouldn't be able to because of FP. That said, usage of PC/2 has to be limited to only cases where FP would be applicable otherwise. Regards SoWhy 08:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- Ariconte (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (edit conflict) Support, but user right-giving admins should be more careful when giving the reviewer flag. It should be treated the same way as the rollback flag. I have encountered some reviewers who accept/decline changes seemingly without even knowing what they are doing, so if PC/2 was to pass, the reviewer flag has got to be given as much importance as the rollback flag. smtchahal(talk) 09:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the criteria for rejection of edits is that they are vandalism or BLP violations, can you give examples of where reviewers permitted such edits?Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. This is a sensible extension to the earlier trial, and result in our reduced reliance on full protection (which is a very subversive, damaging condition to impose on any wiki page). AGK [•] 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection means that there are lots of eyes on an article. Why is making people think that they're editing an article, only to discover that their changes have not been published publicly, less subversive? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: That answer really ought to have been obvious. On one hand, changes are merely delayed by a few minutes pending approval by a reviewer (sensible enough - for most people making their first edit to Wikipedia, the surprise seems to be at the fact their changes weren't subject to review). On the other hand, a page is completely locked to all editing (aside from edits made through a confusing process on the talk page). It is obvious which one is less damaging and more desirable. AGK [•] 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support in full accord with AGK's comment above. PC is proving its worth and I support it, and this extension without equivocation. My76Strat (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Deadbeef and Rrius Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per AGK. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as per Joe Decker. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - better and more flexible than full protection.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per Deadbeef. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. (edit conflict) Support - Although it will not be used too frequently, but it is beneficial and very useful on pages where there are all edits from IPs are vandalism and some autoconfirmed accounts vandalise too (or at risk from vandalism from autoconfirmed accounts), but yet there are still many good-faith accounts who edit the page. And of course, it is better than full protection, as mentioned above by User:FutureTrillionaire.
    Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "not used too frequently" argument has been made with respect to PC1 as well, but it is now on over 600 articles, most of them indefinitely, and every time I have checked the "edits awaiting review" backlog, at least 1% of articles have edits waiting, usually for more than an hour, and sometimes for several hours. Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Deadbeef. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - The wiki needs this in extreme cases mentioned above. TCN7JM 16:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What extreme cases are you talking about? Are there many articles where autoconfirmed editors without reviewer permissions have been vandalizing articles or inserting BLP violations that are not addressed by action directly against the editor? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support after an article-specific discussion, as alternative to stronger protection, OR after there is a at least one community-approved criteria. See discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Cautious support from a long-time PC skeptic. We've had Level 1 for a while, and I've been pleased to see that it works better than I had expected. My caution comes from (1) the fact that we don't really have a clear plan about where to use Level 2, and where not to use it, and (2) the fact that the reviewer flag has been given out too carelessly, and we will not be able to depend on every reviewer to use Level 2 properly. That said, I'm increasingly optimistic that we can (1) figure out proper use over time, and (2) solve problems with individual reviewers one-by-one. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support PC-2 (combined with semi-protection) for high-use templates that would otherwise need full protection, and on a limited basis for articles that experience persistent vandalism from auto-confirmed users where semi-protection isn't enough and full-protection is too much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per User:Deadbeef. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per my comments in past discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as a way of reducing the use of full protection. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example of articles under full protection now that would benefit from PC2? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per deadbeef.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Seems to create more options but still within a clear hierarchy of protection levels that avoids confusion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Might be very helpful sometimes (eg. autoconfirmed puppetry, autoconfirmed/inexperienced editor's edit warring) --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Deadbeef. ---Someko1999 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Just because its use would be rare doesn't mean it shouldn't be used at all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I believe it would be quite useful and there are some great statements above that represent my stance on the matter. — -dainomite   01:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support for templates only. Otherwise, strong oppose. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I believe it would be useful for some WP:BLPs and templates. Canuck89 (converse with me) 02:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
    Can you please give some examples of BLPs that are suffering from problem edits from autoconfirmed editors without reviewer permissions, that should not be addressed by direct action for the involved editors? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. LlamaAl (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Long overdue buffer between full and semi; would also reduce the need for the full and thus allow more editors to contribute during disputes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Under the condition that it is never used when PC1 would suffice. Otherwise, we may find ourselves creating a backlog, and we don't need any more of those. As long as that does not happen, this would serve as a good protection level that's somewhere between semi-protected and fully protected. Sophus Bie (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support the ability to use PC2+semi in lieu of full protections for repeatedly and egregiously attacked BLPs, that would be justification enough. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we not just block editors who repeatedly and egregiously attack BLPs? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - So obviously needed as a bridge between silver and goldlocking. PC1 I would argue has fewer merits than PC2, and I think the toolkit for protection is not complete until FlaggedRevs is used to it's bread and butter; that is, using the PC2 component (with or without PC1 at all). -TIM(Contact)/(Contribs) 07:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Or else, what's the point of having a reviewer permission flag where he can't revoke edits? And also per Deadbeef. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Broadly speaking PC2 has it's uses and I feel the community should have the option of using it if required. Pol430 talk to me 10:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What are its uses? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I support the continued use of PC/2. There should NOT be a need for consensus those involved make the decision as they review the initial request for protection. The fact that they can protect a page means they've shown clarity of judgment and I stand behind that majority.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 10:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Let's move on to the real question: when to use PC/2?--agr (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support PC2, though if it actually happens the reviewer right should become a little bit more of a big deal. Ignatzmice•talk 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per User:Deadbeef. Thomas.W (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support so long as "infrequently" is honored. I'd like to see another RfC if the roster of articles with PC2 protection exceeds X. I'd suggest X= one half of the number of articles carrying PC1 protection. David in DC (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a huge number of articles. As I write, there are 21 fully protected articles (not including redirects). There are approximately 620 PC1-protected pages. You are proposing increasing the number of articles at high protection 15-fold. Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd propose a different way of limiting this. First, I think PC (1 or 2) can only make sense with low-edit-volume articles, because the review mechanism bites. So make a specific, quantifiable limit for that. 5 edits/day, or something. (This would exclude some of the articles PC1 has been applied to, and I'm okay with that.) Second, PC2 should only be used in my view where there's a long-term pattern of trouble. This too can be quantified. "N signficant, unambiguously bad (BLP/VAND) edits by different autoconfirmed editors/socks continuing over a period exceeding K months", or what have you. Alternatively, or in addition, the "discussion" requirement for any PC2 usage King of Hearts proposed would also be a good way of keeping this very limited in scope. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but Joe. That is not what is being "voted" about here. It's whether or not we'll allow use of this tool, without limits. Unfortunately, instead of figuring out how we would use it, we're going to permit use of it and then figure out how to use it. We know that access to a tool without clear rules as to its uses means that the tool will be used however the administrator sees fit, whether or not there's any kind of consensus for that use. We've seen it repeatedly over the years. We should be mature enough as a project to figure this out. As it is, PC1 is applied almost universally to high-edit articles, not low-edit articles, so your "quantification" is being roundly ignored or not considered. Risker (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    About 1/2 to 1 day after this RFC opened, new language was added at the top in response to concerns about when this would be used. The new language says

    Note: This RfC deals with accepting or rejecting any use of PC/2. If general support is found (including conditional support), a separate RfC will be opened after closure dealing with criteria for use, methods of implementation, and other stipulations.

    Even though this language could have been worded better, I WP:AGF and assume that this means that any particular use of this tool will be put off until there is a consensus for that particular use, as arrived at in a future RFC. As a side-note, if, hypothetically, there was a clear consensus in this RFC for PC2 in a particular situation, then that situation might be deemed "approved for RFC2 use" even without a future RFC. But I don't see that happening. What I DO see forming is a consensus that there are some possible uses that have a consensus among those who mention those particular uses but not near enough support to go forward without a new RFC. Hypothetically, this RFC could close as "pass" but the future RFCs that actually allow PC2 to be used in particular circumstances may get bogged down in Wiki-bureacracy and either close as "no consensus" or languish until they are deemed "abandoned" and closed as "no consensus." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support as an interim solution until a rethink of article protection with an aim to producing a set of simpler, more consistent, more effective and less intrusive anti-vandalism and anti-warring tools (including abuse and dispute resolution). • Astynax talk 17:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support as an alternative to full protection. Teammm talk
    email     18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support for infrequent use on articles and perhaps somewhat more frequent use on templates. I'd rather see some templates under PC2 than under full protection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Andreas JN466 21:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support PC2 worked very well with the article Justin Bieber. At its time vandalism was so persistent the only option was to full-protect it (December 4, 2010). Although its usage won't be constat it is a good option when semi-protection against socks and vandals is not effective, and full-protection is excessive. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realise that every one of those edits (which included both grossly offensive, libelous, and disruptive edits) would all remain in the page history, and be accessible by anyone who clicked on them, absent the very same deletion and suppression that had to be carried out regardless? How is this of benefit? Risker (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per King of Hearts' suggestion. Go Phightins! 23:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Many articles, particularly on contentious topics, are not amenable to rapid-fire editing, which clearly would destroy this. I could also imaging PC2 being used to improve articles about non-contentious subjects in the natural sciences, where editors often simply add new information to the lede and ignore the underlying structure of the article. We could eliminate biennial rewrites of various natural-sciences articles (such as cosmic ray or circumstellar habitable zone) if new information could be added in a controlled, collaborative fashion. Wer900 • talk 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. Protection is used to prevent exceptionally high levels of vandalism to articles we know are and will continue receiving it, not to restrict editing to those editors we consider worthy. The goal is to have as few pages protected as possible, and those that are should have as low-level protection as possible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, preferable with limited use rather than having no go between between PC1 and Full Protection. I understand the concerns of those who oppose this proposal, but as temporary semi protection and PC1 are the only steps before full protection level, having a middle protection level is useful.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. An intermediate level is useful.DavidHobby (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per Deadbeef and AGK. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Conditional support. I support PC/2 only when applied to limited situations where the only other option is full protection, otherwise I'm against it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - it seems silly to have a tool at our disposal and refuse to use it. It may be that we don't need to use it often, but to refuse to ever include it in our virtual toolkit makes no sense to me. WaggersTALK 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per Rrius and King Of Hearts. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Definitely. Good for situations when PC1 isn't working because of sockpuppetry; better to let the reviewers edit it than nobody at all except admins. What is User:Ozob thinking with his oppose? Asking for examples where it's worked when we've never approved it? The opposers are talking about the gatekeeper problem, but PC2 will lower the barrier to editing pages where PC1 hasn't worked. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I think that PC2 should be used infrequently. However, it may have its uses in articles that need more protection than semi-protection but are "editable" by users. Lukus 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  67. Support --Phospheros (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Conditional Support Protection should cascade from semi-pc1-pc2-full protection.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support A reasonable addition to our quality control toolkit, as Waggers says, it seems silly to have a tool and refuse to use it. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support; looks like a useful tool. Maybe not the most frequently-used tool, but it would be helpful to have one more in the toolbox. I would be happy for future discussions to fine-tune expectations of which-tool-we-use-for-which-problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Unlike PC1, which serves no useful purpose whatsoever, PC2 actually can be used to do useful things. There's a demand for a level of protection below full protection.—Kww(talk) 06:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Intothatdarkness 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support broad use of the tool, especially for BLPs. --B (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support on a selective per article basis, where semi or PC1 where that is too little, but full is to much. Dan653 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support in very limited cases. Otherwise Wikipedia will cease to be free to edit ~ Anastasia (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Yes. I think PC2 will eventually find a place on Wikipedia. Some interesting ideas have been proposed already. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support As a viable alternative to full protection. AIRcorn (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, but require strong consensus (either on AN or an RFPP subpage), and only in cases where full protection would be the only reasonable alternative. I'd encourage people to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets, which has some very interesting arguments on both sides of the aisle. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I was unsure at first and then came across a case where just this level of protection would be needed. On WT:WPM we have a problem with a particularly persistant sockpuppeter, who is quite prepared to create sleeper accounts with autoconfirmed status and then use the page to hound a user. This level of protection would make it posible to deny visability to the sockpuppeter but leave the page in functional state.--Salix (talk): 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I could definitely see this becoming useful on BLPs. Full- and semi-protection lumps anonymous, well-meaning editors in with the vandals. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Could be quite useful to have this in place. I'm in favour of the idea.

Oppose PC/2

  1. I might be convinenced if point 2 by ♦ ♣ ♠ was emphatically enforced. That way a controlling mechanism is in place because reviewers and administrators need oversight. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't oppose this in principle, but before introducing it, I think we need some ground rules in place - i.e. resolution of the question of how cautious administrators (and in this case, reviewers also) need to be when editing through protection. This issue is currently the subject of an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, and any consensus seems as yet to be a long way away. Victor Yus (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let's not start using it before having proper rules in place about how it should be used. RayTalk 12:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am not completely opposed to the use of PC2, and I would be prepared to support it in very limited circumstances (as an alternative to full protection). However I would like to see rules about when it can be used laid down before I can consider supporting its introduction. This RfC is basically asking me to sign a blank cheque. Hut 8.5 12:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think this would be very useful, and it would just confuse matters even more. (More bureaucracy) Every editor should be able to contribute equally; do we need "Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection"? Help:Watching pages. I would be prepared to support it in very limited circumstances. One use case, which is rare but "high-value" for PC2 is situations in which a rarely-edited (and rarely-watched) BLP is the target of vandalism by (different) auto confirmed editors over an extended period of time with easily-recognizable and "bad" vandalism/BLP vios. Let’s not start using it before having proper rules in place about how it should be used. However I would like to see rules about when it can be used lay down before I can consider supporting its introduction. KhabarNegar (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose any additional layer of permission complexity. Wikipedia is too damn complicated already.  Sandstein  13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as before—further stratification of editors, a real risk that it would be abused in content disputes (especially on matters such as whether adding something constitutes a policy violation), too narrow a use case to justify the potential for abuse. wctaiwan (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seems I had a lot to say against this on a similar RfC a couple months back but couldn't find my comments in RfC links listed in proposal, or my past contributions. Anyway, if I was in charge of who gets to edit, I'd be all for it and put my buddies on a bunch of articles where I'd nix a bunch of other editors.... ooops, that's why I still don't like the idea. I don't tend to "get in charge" of things (and actually have conscience when do), but some other people do...and don't... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Would create more bureaucracy and complexity that isn't needed. I also don't see any clear guidelines on how this new protection level would actually be utilized. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose the creeping implementation of flagged revisions in disguise, as always.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opposed Creates yet more castes of editors which is only to detriment of Wikipedia. Dalliance (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The number of situations where PC2 is preferrable to the other tools in the suite of protection options is so rare that it is difficiult to see any benefit to adding yet another layer of complexity. We just don't need this option, it will confuse rather than help. Semi, full, and PC1 are sufficient to deal with the vast majority of situatons where protrection is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Much too complicated, and no compelling necessity has been shown. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Are we just going to have RfCs every 6 months about enabling it until it finally passes? The people above me summed up the arguments against rather well, as had the people in all the previous RfCs. Legoktm (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose as unnecessarily complex and contributing to further bureaucracy and divides among users with different sets of tools and permissions. Further, I remain opposed until additional information about the use of PC1 is provided so we can hold a discussion focused on new empirical data instead of rehashing the same arguments as before. Otherwise we risk ramming this proposal through entirely because opponents become tired of restating their opposition through repeated discussions (as stated immediately above by Legoktm). ElKevbo (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above opinions; too complex and an additional layer of bureaucracy. LT90001 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - I dislike PC1 as it stands, and fail to see the point of it. PC2 would be yet more complexity, yet more bureaucracy, and yet more of a pain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per WP:CREEP --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose First, PC1 isn't working correctly yet. It can't be used on user talk pages where it would actually be useful and is easily workaround-able. All it encourages people to do is to create a bogus account, make ten edits, and then wait four days. So, the article gets four days of protection from an IP at best assuming that the person making the edits wasn't on the cusp of picking up autoconfirmed anyways. Fix those issues and come back in three to six months (this RfC was way too soon after last months discussion on it). Technical 13 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But doesn't this proposal fix the issue of people making bogus accounts and getting them autoconfirmed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose in principle. I find this an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Not that it hurts anything, but just redundant. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose as a pointless layer of bother. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose It may lead to some sort of monopoly and gatekeepers which makes it difficult for different users to contribute. --sicaspi (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I simply don't trust that it will be used in an appropriate manner. Unless King of Hearts' suggestion becomes built into policy, and even if that does happen, I expect it to be something that will be abused with regularity. Also, if we're dealing with problematic autoconfirmed users, I would advocate blocks before I would advocate for shutting down pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I've had lots of experience with this level of PendingChanges, in my work on MediaWiki.org where is enabled and I have reviewer rights. The reviewing system is way too clunky to properly deal with this type of use of PC, and it is deeply annoying to deal with (as a new registered editor and a reviewer). I find that the only solution is to hand out the reviewer right like candy, which is a huge waste of our time. Steven Walling • talk 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Limited usefulness, no rules, added bureaucracy? I'm behind anything that helps with B:LP vandalism, really. But as it stands, this doesn't look like a tool for the job. It feels more like one of those corrals put in front of the popular rides at an amusement park to manage the long lines - they don't actually DO anything to help. EBY (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Even though I am a reviewer myself, the reviewer permission is handed out too liberally to give users the same level of trust that would normally be given onto admins. Even though I can definetely see how it can be useful and a big improvement, the system has been flawed from the beginning. Anyone can submit a protected page request. Also, see Amory's comment below. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Pretty much per everyone else. Potential gatekeeper problem is a biggy. Also, not clear it solves any problems, while it clearly will create some. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. The RfC does not provide—indeed it makes no attempt to provide—justification or context for why PC2 is supposed to be helpful. Can anyone give an example of a page where PC2 would succeed but PC1, semi-protection, and full protection are all inadequate? And not a hypothetical example! I mean a real example, an actual page that you would have used PC2 on! That would at least convince me to take this proposal seriously; right now it appears only to increase bloat and bureaucracy. Ozob (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. This is still going on? I thought we killed this last year... I oppose any form of flagged revisions or pending changes due to the unnecessary redundancy generated by it – people are already using recent changes to tackle vandalism, and the only thing this does is make EVERY SINGLE EDIT prone to revision. It's mindblowingly inefficient and taxing on already strained manpower. PC/2 doesn't change my mind. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose bureaucratic creep per KhabarNegar and S Marshall. Just putting it through partially and over time doesn't make it any more acceptable than swallowing the whole Flagged Revisions thing in one gulp. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose - The right of anyone to freely contribute is fundamental to our project's principles and essential to its goals; the case being made for encroaching upon or potentially compromising that model is uncompelling by any means, and certainly by way of comparison.   — C M B J   11:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose The last RfC for PC was closed with the predicate that in 3 to 6 months (after usage of PC1) there would be analysis of what we've learned from the PC1 trial. No concrete evidence proving that PC1 has helped us (that I have found). Asking the same question over and over fishing for a different response violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:FORUMSHOP and this RfC should be archived as a demonstration of how not to change consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose No evident value add, extra bureaucracy and complexity. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak oppose. I do not see any immediate benefits from PC2 - indeed, even as supporters notice, it could be only switched on in extremely rare cases. I do not see how it provides the transition to FR, of which I am a big fan, either. The idea of FR is that everybody can edit. On the other hand, I see downsides: unnecessary increasing of complexity, and for some of the editors it means discrimination, which would create bad publicity.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Per Risker's quite excellent comments. PC1 and PC2 imply different requirements for the reviewer userright. If it's low (like now) to allow for effective PC1 then it is too free to be useful for PC2, and if it is kept high for PC2 it then becomes too tightly regulated for PC1 to function smoothly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Adds more complexity without any evidence that this is not just a theoritical or very marginal edge case (in which case full protection will suffice on grounds of simplicity). Aaron Schulz 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. On the one hand, replacing more instances of protection with PC might help draw in new editors. On the other hand, increasing the amount of edits to review will distract current editors from doing work that actually matters. I find it very hard to believe that the productivity gained will overcome the productivity lost. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Reviewing should be seldom used in a project like Wikipedia. Maxatl (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. I've seen this used on Russian Wikipedia where articles get left in limbo - people have updated them but no-one has ever approved so they remain visibly outdated, stuck. Secretlondon (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. One layer of 'awaiting review' is enough thick paste to weigh down the process of editing on Wikipedia. I see no evidence of need to paint on another coat. Fylbecatulous talk 15:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Either it is used little (then it is useless clutter) or it will be used a lot (then it will be a rather anti-wiki frustrating experience for people who need to wait for their edits to be reviewed). Open wikis seem to do a lot better than sites where edits only go live after reviews (in theory, it might be the other way around, but in practice, openness wins). —Kusma (t·c) 08:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Oppose. This is far too complicated: it is just an additional layer of bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --WjI-kop (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose on principle. This is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 15:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about PC/2

  • One use case, which is rare but "high-value" for PC2 is situations in which a rarely-edited (and rarely-watched) BLP is the target of vandalism by (different) autoconfirmed editors over an extended period of time with easily-recognizable and "bad" vandalism/BLP vios. (No protection, SP, PC1 don't prevent the high-damage edits, FP is overkill.) --j⚛e deckertalk 06:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I'm not ruling out other use cases, but this is a use case I've had a use for at least twice, and have thought about. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a use case for PC1 or semi-protection, not PC2. Risker (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part where I said "by autoconfirmed editors". The only option for this case right now that's effective is indefinite FP. There are cases of grudges out there that people are willing to create accounts, make 20 edits, and then add BLP crap just to get their revenge. When this intersects low-edit low-visibility BLPs, it can be a rare but real problem. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the use case for blocking and topic-banning people. What if one or more of those editors have reviewer permission? Are you going to strip them of reviewer permission because they were editing badly on one article? If you're going to do that, then go all the way and restrict them from editing in areas where they're creating problems. Penalizing the rest of the editing community (and the article itself) because of the actions of a couple of editors shows a lack of fortitude and an unwillingness to address the actual problems. Risker (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that every person in favor of even a trial of PC2, for any purpose, is demonstrating a lack of fortitude and an unwillingness to address the actual problems? - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, PC2 isn't actually useful, except to allow autoconfirmed editors to vandalize or make BLP violations that remain in the page history but might not be publicly viewable. Risker (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to This, that and the other: How is that more bureaucracy, though? I wouldn't call that creating a new noticeboard, rather putting a protection request where it rightfully belongs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was actually a discussion at AN some months ago about PC2 that wound up being moved to a sub-page but never closed. It saw opposition due to its ad-hoc nature, but people here may want to review it. See here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't close a discussion on PC Level 2 because I've said a lot of things in opposition and support, but I do want to participate in the close on the limited question of the relevance of this tool to helping with the problem of the declining numbers of new admins, a problem I've been focused on for several years. Any real tool is relevant to the question, in theory, and I'm hoping to see opinions on both sides. As always, if anyone has a problem with this, please say so. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I remain in opposition, I echo the opinion of others that much this depends on the criteria for applying PC2. Is there some sort of general agreement among people who support the mechanism? Are we just going to let the admins exercise their judgement? Or is there going to be another RfC on that before it goes into effect? wctaiwan (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a listed criteria you are basically asking us to sign a blank check. For this reason my support is conditional: Until a specific community-supported criteria is developed, this should only be used on a case-by-cases basis after a community discussion. A formal, WP:AFD-type discussion would clearly meet my criteria but a well-done, announced-by-hatnote, article-talk-page-based discussion where all regular editors of the article had a voice and where the decision was arrived at in a fair manner would also be fine. I am also okay with this level of protection being used when a higher-level of protection would be non-controversially appropriate (under the principle of "if you can, without controversy, take strong action, you should have the freedom to consider taking less strong action"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with PC/1, editors with reviewer rights need tools to make it easy ("one-button" of practical) to
    1. quickly see all pending changes, both while reading and editing,
    2. with respect to non-conflicting edits, accept some without accepting others,
    3. make an edit without accepting non-conflicting edits, and
    4. make an edit that is dependent on an edit they don't want to either reject or accept and have their edit be treated as a "pending edit" (i.e. temporarily "demote" themselves for a single edit).
    davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems pretty clear to me from all three sections—support, oppose and discussion—that a sizable contingent of editors want a decision on how PC2 would be used to precede its implementation, so why aren't we having that discussion first? I'm not sure if the proper course is to move to suspend this discussion until we achieve consensus on how it would be used, but we need to do something like that. It is clearly not good enough to try to just pick that out of the discussion when many people supporting and opposing the proposal seem to be saying about the same thing. From my skim of those opposed, a lot of them would flip if we had the purpose question answered. If nothing else, they would feel better able to answer the question, as would a lot of us who went with "support". -Rrius (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I think a good idea is to close the vote right now with the knowledge that most people support some form of PC2, but are not sure on its implementation. Then we can draft out a proposal via discussion, and then vote on a final version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I think that "the knowledge that most people support some form of PC2" is exactly what we don't have. What we know is that six months ago, the community found no consensus to implement it without a detailed proposal with clear rules for when PC/2 was to be used. That conclusion from a recent, well-attended RFC must carry weight here. Otherwise, there's a risk that we'll simply be asked almost, but not quite, exactly the same question again and again until the community agrees, at which point all RFCs on the subject will stop forever. (Which is, actually, an accurate description of the entire history of Flagged Revisions on en.wiki). The previous conclusion must be weighted in the close.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm saying is that there is a preliminary, non-binding consensus. A specific proposal should now be made, and the final, binding vote can be on that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about "reviewers" being able to protect pages with PC? This idea could be implemented. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this proposal. The reviewer user right requires no community scrutiny to obtain. I don't think we can assume the community trusts reviewers' judgment when it comes to deciding whether to protect an article. wctaiwan (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what about their judgment as to whether or not a change should be made to the article? Wikipedia talk:Protection policy shows that a lot of people have strong misgivings about even administrators being allowed to exercise such judgment (in the case of fully protected pages). Why should an even "lower caste" of editors be given this right (in the case of what would be a certain subset of those pages)? Victor Yus (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between trusting someone to be able to decide whether an edit violates policies after a page has been protected with PC, and trusting them to be able to decide whether the edits being made to a page justify PC being applied. I don't particularly like even PC/1, but the proposal here has a much greater potential to be damaging. wctaiwan (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If someone would like to close this RfC, let me know. I have a new discussion-based RfC set up and ready to publish, but I need a heads-up for when this one is about to close so I can coordinate creating it. Deadbeef 10:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (although I might not be available to execute it until later today, perhaps 17:00 (UTC)) Deadbeef 10:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a heads-up: sometimes it takes weeks to get closers for PC-related and RfA-related RfCs, although I suppose if the vote is lopsided it will probably be easier. If you're not finding closers, we'll figure out what to do then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused how this is already back up on the chopping block as it was just discussed last month here. I think this is way too soon to bring it back up, it feels like this idea is being pushed on the editors and I think that this RfC should be withdrawn for a couple more months until at least three months has gone by. If not withdrawn, then it should probably be closed as WP:SNOW since it just failed last month 44 opposed to 30 support. Technical 13 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed myself in support, with a caveat: "Support so long as "infrequently" is honored. I'd like to see another RfC if the roster of articles with PC2 protection exceeds X. I'd suggest X= one half of the number of articles carrying PC1 protection." Please note: my proposed X is not definitive. If others wanted a different value for my proposed X, I'd be cool with that. My goal is to help provide a metric for "infrequently" and more discussion if that metric is exceeded. David in DC (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Technical 13: (Oppose #19): Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the entire distinction between PC1 and PC2? There's no way to change that unless you create another userright, "super-autoconfirmed" or something, with, say, two weeks and fifty edits. I fail to see how it's something that PC1 is doing wrong. Ignatzmice•talk 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need several questions answered before this can have a serious RFC.
    1. How is the review flag given out or revoked? At the moment a simple request will get it for many. Will involved admins be able to revoke if there are no BLP issues/edit warring. Will admins be changing this right on whims.
    2. What edits can be made through protection. Is it only edits that have consensus, or any edits similar to current edits of semi-protection.
    3. When will it be used? Instead of full, or a replacement for semi.
    4. Who will be able to set this protection? Any admin, or one who is uninvolved? Will we see admins applying protection, then making changes against consensus?Martin451 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction of this RfC states that the previous RfC indicated that "a new RfC should be held in 3–6 months from its closure (in September 2012) to reassess its merits after PC/1 had been given a trial run, so that the community would be better able to determine whether or not to endorse any use of PC/2." Presumably the idea wasn't to merely hold the same discussion over again but to hold a new discussion informed by our experiences with PC/1. So where are the data from our months of PC/1 use? Where is the informed discussion by editors who have developed experience using this new tool? ElKevbo (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I oppose PC2, it amuses me to see how many other opposers seem to believe that we either already decided not to use PC at all or that this would mean the end of PC. there seem to be some similar misunderstandings among some of the supporters as well.
Anyway, I do think the lack of any clarity as to what PC2 would actually be for is a big part of the problem here. I've never understood what the advantages of PC2 are and this RFC makes no attempt to clarify that. The only situation where it seems preferable is in cases of disruption by multiple autoconfirmed socks. But then, we would just block those socks, so not really even then. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was even used for that. I've gone to SPI with clear cases of same sock on same article with several clear indications it was same person and was told I was on a fishing expedition. So with that kind of bias by admins, one can see why some of us distrust it more when unknown editors with unknown agendas are given the right to bar long-term users from editing articles. In the Israel-Palestine area there are so many socks, all they have to do is flood an article with socks, get PC/2 going and keep out the edits they don't like. One of several areas where highly partisan and probably paid socks are rampant and looking to corrupt the system. (Dang, I wish I could find the last RfC this year where I wrote something quite stirring about such a recent experience regarding some pending pages - or maybe it was page protection?) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"all they have to do is ... and keep out the edits they don't like." That kinda assumes that a reviewer won't lose if they try to POV push through their reviews. I think this is unlikely. Firstly, there are many other reviewers out there so the POV reviewer has to be very dedicated to make sure they are the one that does the reviewing. This is possible but consider the second point: It will start to become obvious fairly quickly if a reviewer is pushing a POV with their reviews. In the ultimate, the reviewer can loose the reviewer right or even be blocked. The reviewer can't then just start again with a new reviewer account. This is a big contrast to perpetual creation of sock auto-confirmed accounts. Yaris678 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One can hope; but there has been at least one aggressive and a couple more passive admins who I know who have pushed their POVs and only massive intervention(s) have stopped it. Hopefully there will be a clear and easy process for dealing with those who abuse it. But I'm not holding my breath so still oppose. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout PC2 can only be used with semi protection if needed, since in between semi and pc-with-semi it seems to take a step back by allowing IPs/new users to edit. It's not sequential, which doesn't make sense. Or maybe it could go PC1, PC2, Semi, Semi-with-PC2, then full. Dan653 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If PC2 is implemented, then the majority of users need to be given the flag, it should be the de-facto standard. Anyone who has been editing for longer than say a year, with at least 1000 good edits or a few good articles should more or less get it by default, unless they have been involved in editwarring, BLP issues etc.Martin451 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2013&oldid=556358985"