Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
Closed as no consensus. RfC open for 1 month and six days already. Insufficient participation to establish a consensus. Recommend implementing the suggestions made by KrakatoaKatie and starting again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to re-open the PC2, as the last PC discussion was held in 2012. And the PC2 discussion in 2014 ended as no consensus. 333-blue11:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can edit Changes are only visible to logged-in users until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator.[δ]
Can edit Changes are visible to everyone if there aren't any unreviewed pending changes. Otherwise, they are only visible to logged-in users until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator.[δ]
Can edit If there are any unreviewed pending changes, the administrators will be required to review them before they can edit the page.[δ]
Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
^ abcHowever, if any unregistered or registered editor reverts all unreviewed pending changes back to the latest accepted version, that revision is automatically accepted and pending changes reviewers and administrators aren't prompted or notified.
^Only noncontroversial changes or requested changes following an achieved consensus should be performed.
^Cascade protection extends to all pages that are transcluded onto the protected page, unless the transcluded page is at the same protection level or higher. Cascade protection can only be applied to pages that are fully or office-protected because otherwise it creates a workflow flaw.
^The interface protection level is automatically set by the MediaWiki software to a specific set of pages, such as pages in the MediaWiki namespace, system-wide CSS and JavaScript pages, and personal CSS and JavaScript pages of other users. It is not a protection level that an administrator can manually apply to any page, nor is it a protection level that can be modified on pages currently under interface protection. Because of this, administrators also cannot cascade-protect pages that are Interface-protected.
^ abUnder the default no protection, unregistered and newly registered users can still create talk pages in all namespaces and draft articles in the Draft namespace. For these namespaces, it would therefore be possible for this protection to only apply to unregistered and newly registered users.
^This form of protection is often also called "salting".
Some articles may vandalize by autoconfirmed users, and anonymous editors keep undoing their vandals, just in case if this happens. 333-blue12:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would only use this instead of full protection or user blocking if an article had continuous vandalism by autoconfirmed users, but that same article had lots of useful edits from autoconfirmed users too. Peter SamFan20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@333-blue: You need to be very specific here. In the last RFC, there were three proposals that had consensus. Are you asking for comment on whether those proposals should be now implemented? Are you asking for different criteria to be used? You have to spell it out, because vagueness kills RFCs like kryptonite and it makes closing them next to impossible. I also suggest that, after your proposal has been refined, that you list it at WP:CENTRAL, as this is a major policy change that needs wide input. Katietalk17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
