Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

1. Just to be different. And because I can't think of a situation where doing this would be better than just blocking the known disruptive accounts. Perhaps very rarely, against a very sophisticated multi-IP-address multi-sleeper-account attack, but not as a matter of course. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   "only if the situations are being caused by autoconfirmed users and blocking them is an ineffective solution" Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   If blocking them alone is not helping, contact a Checkuser. A concerted autocon-buster attack on an article is almost always sockpuppetry. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. I oppose the use of protected changes in principle because they are too complicated and result in too little benefit when used in addition to the conventional protection system. This applies also to this proposal to introduce rules for an additional flavor of protected changes.  Sandstein  11:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   "consensus to allow use of PC2 has been achieved" Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   It hasn't. Look at the page for yourself, and discover that more people !voted against PC2 than for. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Now you're just lying. 148 supported it and 89 opposed. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, I must have miscounted. I apologize. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, well.

   Comments matter more than just votes. --George Ho (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   That's true when some comments are policy-based and some are not. Was this the case here? - Ypnypn (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   how are they complicated? i mean, really, there are charts that explian permissions basis quite well. seriously, it's no more complicated than learning wiki markup. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose.
   WP:ANYONECANEDIT. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Oh yeah, very nice. A group of backyard friends decide to vandalize using their IP. We allow them and award them a barnstar, "

   WP:ANYONECANEDIT" as oppose on a protection policy RfC makes no sense. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Just because protection is sometimes necessary doesn't mean we should greatly expand its frequency and intensity. - Ypnypn (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   That's another issue. But, saying

   WP:ANYONECANEDIT in this case is obviously invalid. There are more adverse types of vandalism these days so to combat them, it's perfectly safe to implement more. 5 types of protection should be perfectly easy to handle on articles. And we aren't increasing its intensity, we have nothing higher (and thus nothing more intense) than full protection on articles. What you may also be saying is more protected articles will be there. Page protection is always used sparingly. Never, without any reason. We wouldn't have needed sysops for PP-ing then. We are increasing the types so that full protection isn't used uselessly where other methods could be productive. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 16:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   No, it is the issue. This type of protection is really likely (IMO) to lead to a much more protected encyclopedia. Evidence: Other language wikipedias have gone that way and there have been editors who have made their desire to greatly expland the use of PC2 clear. (All BLPs etc.) Hobit (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey, you read only the first line, did you? For example, there was also more such as And we aren't increasing its intensity, we have nothing higher (and thus nothing more intense) than full protection on articles. What you may also be saying is more protected articles will be there. Page protection is always used sparingly. Never, without any reason. We wouldn't have needed sysops for PP-ing then. We are increasing the types so that full protection isn't used uselessly where other methods could be productive. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 07:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe you can answer a question I've had for a while: Can you give an example of a page and a time when PC2 would have been the best situation? Ozob (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The Biggest Loser Germany would be one. It could do well with PC2 where a reviewer (i.e. a bit experienced user) can add refs or review previous changes and stuff and they are obviously trusted by the admins, so safe edits can be allowed. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   All I know about this is what's in the article history, but it looks like a couple of IP editors took it upon themselves to add some tables of questionable value in the article; it doesn't seem (at first glance at least) to be vandalism so much as a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Given that it seems to happen whenever the article is not semi-protected, it makes sense to keep the article under long term semi-protection. But—and maybe I'm just missing something here—when was the article ever vandalized by an autoconfirmed user? It looks to me like all the problematic edits have come from IP users. The last round of semi-protection expired 10 June 2013, and on 11 June 2013 a bot removed the semi-protection template. The article had no edits for two months, but suddenly on 16 August 2013 it was placed under full protection. Why? It seems to me that the article should be unprotected. What am I missing? Ozob (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   That's for the protecting admin to deal with. It was my job to just give an example. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 07:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Then I'm going to say that there's no reason to use PC2 on that page. There are still no use cases for PC2. Ozob (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi. You should not ask for examples for PC2 and then dismiss them on your own stating there are no use cases for PC2. That last bit is your own opinion, not a fact. There are editors here who consider that valid examples for PC2 have been provided. Everyone is free to make their judgements regarding validity of PC2 usage on that article.

   talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I am only dismissing incorrect examples. The Biggest Loser Germany is one, for the reasons I stated above. In fact, every example anyone has put to me has been wrong in some way; PC2 has been the wrong solution every time. I have analyzed several of these examples in detail, both here and on the talk page, and I would not be so confident with my claim if I had not done so. As it is, I stand by it: There are still no use cases for PC2. Ozob (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. The statement that there is agreement to use if there is wide consensus on conditions was a clever way of bypassing the fact that there was not actual consensus to use, because there was no evidence thee would ever be the necessary wide consensus on the set of conditions then or now, that would ever satisfy those of us who think there is no need for it at all, and the condition should be never. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. I continue to oppose the use of PC2 for the simple reason that the set of circumstances that might actually warrant it are vanishingly rare. Multiple autoconfirmed users vandalizing the same article at the same time? Blocking them all somehow won't stop them because they have a massive army of autoconfirmed socks? Sure, yeah, possible that this may happen once or twice a year. That is not sufficient cause to add this somehwat confusing tool to an already cluttered array of protection options.
   talk) 04:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Weak oppose in favor of proposal 2. I feel that PC2 should only be a last resort, if full protection is the only other thing capable of stopping the disruption. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - Not all autoconfirmed users behave in the same manner as some/many unregistered or new editors. Of course, this proposal should have been limited to BLP violations, but at least another proposal is better. --George Ho (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Proponents of the proposal have failed to demonstrate that PC2 is needed or that it would work. PC2 relies on the nearly meaningless distinction between editors who hold the reviewer permission and editors who don't. We should be trying to build a more unified community here, not adding additional tiers to the already-complex hierarchy of who can edit what. Rivertorch (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose I think PC2 is a useful tool, but this is too broad.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose although I think that (as Beeblebrox says) this is an "almost never" set of circumstances. Support Proposal 0 (or 4) instead, as "anyone can edit" is more important by far than "very little vandalism". —Kusma (t·c) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    talk) 04:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    TheOriginalSoni, apparently you misunderstood me. My apologies for being unclear. My point was that the goal to allow anyone to edit is more important than the goal to minimize vandalism. Page protection is sometimes necessary, but should also be used sparingly. Against harmless vandalism (like replacing pages with "KUSMA IS A WANKER"), I don't think PC2 is needed, reverting and blocking work. Against really nasty vandalism (like replacing a 1.68 with a 1.86 in a science or medicine article), I am not convinced that it will be efficient (unless it is used on every page, which is a terrible idea). —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    That is not true. First and foremost, we are an encyclopedia and getting the content correct (and reverting vandalism) is significantly more important than allowing vandals a free hand against articles. Once again, we are not talking about the harmless or the other kind of vandalism that you mention. It's the articles recieving high levels of vandalism which ought to be PC2ed than a full protection (Since semi doesn't work against autoconfirmed vandals)

    talk) 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    If you're dealing with autoconfirmed vandals,

    you need to contact an admin and open an SPI. End of story. Autoconfirmed vandals are pretty much never the "drive-by" variety. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    SPI by itself will not solve the problem when we're dealing with autoconfirmed vandals. An appropriate protection level is also required to complement the same so the article is not attacked further. Hence the need for a protection level higher than semi-protection and lower than full.

    talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Have you been paying attention to what anyone has been saying? As an ex-admin, I have some idea of what I'm talking about, and I can say truthfully that there is no such thing as a drive-by autoconfirmed vandal or a spree of such; pretty much all of them are sockpuppets from established vandals, and it's an escalation when their normal targets are semi'd. Protection is only appropriate in conjunction if there's off-wiki coordination, and in almost all those cases it's unregistered users/new accounts joining the autoconfirmed vandal. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give an example of an article where SPI failed and PC2 would have worked? Ozob (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose all attempts to expand the use of Pending Changes.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose as slippery slope (!WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE) to top down control of content rather than relying on WP:5. If mere editors don't get to exercise their muscles on the cases where this proposal would apply, then the encyclopedia is weakened, not strengthened. - Neonorange (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose far too broad. PC2 is much more restrictive than PC1, more like full protection than semi-protection. We shouldn't be closing off articles this freely. Hut 8.5 12:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Too board. If auto-confirmed users are causing problem, the solution is not to sweep it under the rug with PC2, but to do with the issue with the editors involved directly. PaleAqua (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. oppose any use of PsC. This is a solution in search of a problem and will _cause_ more problems than it will solve (long queues, leaving "anyone can edit") Hobit (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose – PC2 is simply too restrictive. It would add substantially more work to reviewers. Spencer.mccormick (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. Where is the use case for this? In the previous RfC, I asked, even badgered, supporters to give me an example of even one article and one time where PC2 would have been the right solution. They had nothing! There are no use cases for PC2. I invite supporters to show me even one page covered by this proposal where PC2 would be the right solution. Ozob (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. oppose as per Hobit, Ozob, PaleAqua and others above. Either too restrictive or fails to solve the actual problem. Not a good idea. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose There are cases where this would be useful, but those cases can obtain PC2 via consensus at WP:ANI* or the new board proposed at Option 5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. It seems to me that there are two situations where this proposal might offer something that proposal 2 doesn't: (1) if the community is opposed to a block; (2) if there are a lot of autoconfirmed accounts involved. Neither of those would be provide enough justification for using PC2. So I'm opposed on the basis that proposal 2 is neater. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose I think PC1 does the job that's needed already and think PC2 is a solution looking for a problem that's just going to add one more layer of bureaucracy. Some people need to spend a little more time outdoors. BcRIPster (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. Too involved. Struggling to understand why blocking the culprits would not be an effective solution. SpinningSpark 23:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose PC2 is far more powerful than PC1, ergo it needs a higher use threshold. Also still garbage due to being implemented by developer fiat. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose Who are these administrators to whom you're giving all this power and authority? This undermines the whole concept behind Wikipedia. Nimptsch3 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    talk) 04:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    The OriginalSoni

    I understand, but I'm not a fan of extending/expanding this system. I was on Wikipedia for a good while editing personal interest articles (under a different username), and I don't remember there being publicity about a vote. I was never asked to vote...? And who nominates the admins? Other admins? There are 119k active registered users and 1,400 admins. I do oppose further centralizing control of Wikipedia. It's reportedly skewed in all sorts of ways as it is (cursory treatment of issues concerning women and biographies of women, extensive articles about video games and stubs about things like NATO, etc.). If this system has been in place since 2005, then I wouldn't expect more of the same to be of benefit.

    talk) 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

25. Oppose. I haven't seen any situation described here where these issues being caused by autoconfirmed users wouldn't be more effectively handled by blocking those users, and implementing temporary full protection if there are multiple accounts involved. Implementing PC2 in these multiple-disruptive-account situations would just waste reviewers' time, as Jackmcbarn pointed out below in the proposal 1 discussion section. We're talking about three ways in which users can be very serious problems; I think admins have a duty to deal with them as quickly as possible. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose - Confirmed editors should never be forbidden from editing live. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    talk) 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I'm opposed to that as well, see my comments below. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

27. Strong oppose per DGG, Hobit, Ozob, and Sandstein. The right of anyone to freely contribute is fundamental to our project's principles and essential to its mission. As such, there must be an extraordinarily compelling affirmative case for us to justify in any way encroaching upon that ideal.   — C M B J   12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Once again, your statement is inconsistent with our protection structure in total, not just PC2.

    talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I believe his claim is that all forms of page protection need strong justification and (implicitly) that PC2 does not have a strong justification; he is not saying that all page protection is against Wikipedia's ideals, only that PC2 is. Ozob (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, I'll just wait for

    talk) 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Ozob is correct in discerning my position. I recognize that a compelling rationale exists for conventional page protection whereas I have seen no such affirmative case made for this proposal, which, due to its nature, necessitates a particularly strong one in my view. I would also like to point out (as did Neonorange) that conventional protection schemes are commonly viewed by administrators and contributors as a "nuclear option" and this shared perception of severity generally precludes their abuse in practice. Further, there is little value in comparing PC1 with PC2 because the former, which I opposed, aggrieves a small minority within the community while the latter would affect the vast majority of contributors.   — C M B J   06:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28. Oppose  Dislike What about autoconfirmed editors with reviewer privileges who abuse the tool? There are 6000+ reviewers in this community, and although a majority of them can be trusted, but there needs to be specific set of laws laid down for handling those who abuse the privilege. This proposal is flawed, and if accepted, needs to be reworded to make much more sense from it. Don't like the idea in general. Ethically ^(Yours) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose - Autoconfirmed editors need no restrictions.
    (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Oppose in favor of "Proposal 0" below.
    Wha? 07:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Oppose - Since I am not a reviewer, and did not get into the line where reviewer status was passed out like "Halloween Candy" as stated by someone below, I don't want to be blocked out by someone on a power trip. Group29 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. PC2 is functionally equivalent to full-prot and
    WP:ERQ is more visible (no edit button!) is again an advantage: it means that protection is not slipping in under the radar. PC1 is bad enough, and is mis-used in exactly the fashion described. PC2 is right out. p.s. Also, agree with Group29 (and Kww) that WP:REVIEWER status is rare nowadays: significantly less than 10k people, out of the 125k who edited this past month. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Oppose As in many times before the "benefit" we gain from PC2 is to be weighed against our current options and the difficulty the reviewers will have with the toolset. As I recall, WMF wasn't going to invest any time in making the tool easier to use until en.WP started using it and en.WP wasn't going to use the tool until WMF improved tool use. I challenge the foregone conclusion that PC2 is authorized and say explicitly For the perceived benefits of PC2, the amount of pain we will suffer through is not a beneficial trade. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - If individual autoconfirmed users are causing a problem so severe that protection of any type is required, the solution is blocking or topic/page banning, not forcing every user's edits to jump through hoops. Risker (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Proposal 1)

Discussion (Proposal 1)

• It is already in use this way anyway. See Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2). Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time you wrote the above, that category contained, in addition to the test pages, an article and a redirect that were put under PC2 protection against policy. I brought this up and an administrator removed the PC2 from both (the redirect is now fully protected and the page is semi-protected). The remaining page was put under PC2 under a WMF office action by the head of the WMF legal team. WMF office actions are not subject to community approval or Wikipedia policies. This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to WhatamIdoing, this should not be used in case of an edit war. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. PC2 is a poor choice for stopping an edit war, since it would just waste reviewers' time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their job would just be to let through edits that don't continue the war, thus enabling continued improvement of other parts of the article. Doesn't sound any more onerous than the task of letting through edits that are not vandalism, or that are not BLP or copyright violations. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not how PC works. You can only accept a revision if you accept or revert everything that came before it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are reviewing one edit at a time—which is plausible, since I don't remember the last time I saw Special:PendingChanges with pages more than an hour or so old—then in practice, that is exactly how it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If an edit war is going on and other editors are adding useful information at the same time, then there wouldn't be only one edit at a time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Depends on the situation. I've seen edit wars that involve two editors reverting each other only once a day. That would allow 22 other hours for people to get work done. Also, you could accept all and remove the edit warring, or refuse all and restore the good edits separately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• With respect to cases where this proposal would apply but the one below, allowing PC2 as an alternative to full, does not, I'm inclined to add this at a later date, but not initially. With respect to cases where the proposal below, allowing PC2 as an alternative to full, applies, I've already indicated my support below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• These options are being presented unnecessarily as a binary. PC2 is good for opening otherwise fully-protected pages. PC2 is also a good measure when PC1 fails (vandalism from autoconfirmed users). I support PC2 as an alternative to full protection when PC1 would be insufficient. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalism from autoconfirmed users can be resolved by blocking the user(s) and, when necessary, getting a Checkuser involved - largely because vandalising a semiprotected article/PC1 target to dodge reviewers is in and of itself a massive red flag that you're dealing with a sockpuppet specifically for the purpose. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • (Ignoring alternatives to support and appose for a moment) It is binary... but it is a two-digit binary. You can support both, oppose both, support one and not the other... Yaris678 (talk)
• In response to W. P. Uzer. The case you mention as "perhaps very rarely ... not as a matter of course". Is exactly the sort of case we are talking about using PC2 in. I don't think any one is thinking of using PC2 as a matter of course. (If someone does want to use PC2 as a matter of course, please speak up now!) Yaris678 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• talk) 14:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Re Hut 8.5, I don't find it an issue that PC2 is too much like full protection. It's clearly less restrictive than full protection is, and in cases where autoconfirmed users are causing disruption, the only alternative to it is full protection (which is how a lot of articles end up now). Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both PC2 and full protection prevent anyone who is not a member of a certain restrictive usergroup from editing pages. Anyone who is not a member of that usergroup can only suggest changes. Admittedly we have more reviewers than admins and the mechanism for suggesting edits is better with PC2, but the types belong in the same category and should be treated similarly. I don't have a problem with PC2 being used as an alternative to full protection, as you can see from my comment below. On the other hand the protection policy currently treats PC1 as an alternative to semi-protection, so saying that PC2 can be used in the same areas as PC1 is likely to lead to PC2 being used as an alternative to semi-protection.
• Incidentally it is not true that there are lots of full protected articles. Filtering to exclude things like redirects the list looks like this. There aren't many, and most of those are protected due to edit wars where this proposal would not apply (and where PC2 would be useless). Hut 8.5 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And, as mentioned below, there are only three indefinitely fully-protected articles (all of which have very good reasons for the full-protection) and 24 long-term fully protected articles. "Lot of articles" this ain't; I suggest you quit with the FUD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

PC2 should be an option for pages that qualify for and might otherwise be fully protected instead, e.g., to deal with certain vandalizing sockpuppeteers without locking everyone out completely and

1. I expect this to be rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Technical 13 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. I don't think that there would be much difference in practice between this proposal and the first proposal anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support.
   t • c) 04:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Support as common sense: If an article qualifies for a given protection level, common sense says it also qualifies for any lesser-included level of protection appropriate for that type of page (i.e. articles do NOT qualify for template-protection). It's the "administrator's good judgment" to decide which of the qualified-for levels of protection - including "no protection" - is most appropriate in a given circumstance. (note: I support assuming that this proposal does not mean this is the only way a page can get PC2 protection - that is, someone may come up with a proposal for situations that currently warrant semi-protection or PC1-protection and the community decides it's a good idea) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support – First choice, but proposal 1 is also OK with me. The less restriction on confirmed editors, the better – and we already have too few admins. Mojoworker (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Cheers AKS 08:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Rschen7754 08:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. I suppose so, but as the first commenter says, this situation is going to be rather rare - I don't remember ever seeing a page fully protected due to vandalism, it's generally due to edit warring. In fact, why not allow PC2 in case of edit warring? The reviewers could filter out all edits that continue the edit war, while letting through those that have nothing to do with the dispute. (I mean, of course, only in situations where full protection would otherwise have been appropriate.) It could also be used for those templates and other VIP pages that are currently fully protected. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I agree with Mr. Stradivarius that this will be essentially the same as #1 in practice. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Again agreeing with Mr. Stradivarius. Jed 20012 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support -happy5214 02:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. — Cirt (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Better to allow as many people to edit as possible without compromising the integrity of the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Weak) Support - Until there is another stronger proposal, this is the best as far as I see. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC) You know what? After some thought, I must change sides. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support This is a better solution to full protection in these cases but agree with W. P. Uzer that edit warring is another good example of where this would be effective.Blethering Scot 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - While rare as it may be, this would be a nice alternative to full protection in certain given circumstances. Reviewers are expected to be knowledgeable Wikipedians and could help reduce admin duties for edits on some fully-protected pages like this. Full protection may still be warranted over PC2 in some circumstances, but PC2 could be interpreted as a less-restrictive form of full protection that will allow reviewers to assist in approving specific edits instead of making it an admin-only function. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. • Astynax ^talk 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. ALH (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Both this and the criteria outlined in proposal 1 will likely be rare, but the option should be on the table as an alternative to full protection. Novusuna ^talk 23:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support because the bad acts of a few disputants, or a single persistent individual, should not hamper the ability of others to contribute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support —
    ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 04:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support - this seems a useful alternative to full protection that would be less disruptive to the encyclopaedia. I prefer this phrasing, but, as others have said, the difference between this and #1 is minimal. Anaxial (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support this would make articles more open rather than less. I don't see it as being used very often because pending changes isn't effective at excluding edits which are not clearly disruptive to an uninvolved reviewer, but it might be useful in a few cases of extreme vandalism. Hut 8.5 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Full page protection alternative --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 03:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support ///EuroCarGT 03:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    second choice to proposal 4, which I greatly prefer. At least ideally would keep the use of this down to something reasonable and make things easier to edit, not harder. Still has problems (queues not taken care of and likelyhood of expanding beyond these bounds is massive). Hobit (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Eh. After some thought, this is a bad idea simply because we are talking about so few articles that adding this complex of an interface is more harmful than could ever be helpful. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28. Support Nick Levine (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Conditional Support as per Hobit, I support this if and only if Proposal 4 (which i greatly prefer) is not adopted, as this is the most restrictive version. DES ^(talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, using PC2 instead of full protection is a good step forward. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Formerip (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support So that more people can edit. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support
    talk!) 04:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support This equals full protection minus the inconvenience to good-faith editors. —Ed Cormany (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. MER-C 05:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - Jr8825 • Talk 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Phil2011.13 1:51 16 January 2014 (UTC)
38. Support Another way to establish a measured response to problems. Evensteven (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Dan653 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support It's good to have an intermediate level of protection, and this describes a reasonable time to use it.DavidHobby (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 06:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Pastaguy12 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support --buffbills7701 00:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong Support Isn't this what pending changes was originally supposed to do? Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Nicely provides a more graded response than full protection. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per above. Go Phightins! 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support—
    John Cline (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
50. Support a useful addition Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support a good tool for rare cases --agr (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support: Given the workload of admins, I like the idea of allowing editors trusted with reviewer rights to answer editrequests on articles that might otherwise have to be considered for full protection. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support This might do, since it actually related to article protection.Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Terminator92 ^(talk) 20:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
55. Qualified support. As one of the (probably few) people who has edited a PC2-protected page (
    DMCA
    request) I think PC2 is indeed preferable to full protection in cases that don't involve bona-fide content disputes, though I would like to make some additional observations:
    • The set of reviewers probably needs to be reset and a procedure for granting this bit developed
    • Wikipedia:Edit filter should be considered first if the pattern of abuse is predictable enough for that mechanism to deal with it.
    • The policy wording should drop “and letting the socks "win" a big badge of disruption” as unnecessary. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support – Complements proposal one. I see PC as better alternative to full protection in some situations, as it allows more people to continue editing, so there is less disruption.
    CT Cooper · talk 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
57. Support Richard Harvey (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - People complaining about a lack of use cases elsewhere here seem to have missed that this proposal specifically highlights a clear use case (and there are specific examples on the talk page). I think this makes a lot of sense; yes it may be rarely used, but it sounds like a good tool to have. Also, given that we now have reviewers at all, this makes them more useful to lighten burden on admins. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - Although I can only see this begin used in very rare, select occasions, when it is used it would be highly effective. For that reason, I pledge my support. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 04:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - All has been said above, good complement instead of full protection of pages. QED237 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Per others and my stance on Proposal 1.
    talk) 11:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
62. Strong support per my reasoning in the preceding RfC.
    talk) 20:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. I would support adding socking (only if by autoconfirmed users and blocking them is an ineffective solution) to Proposal 1 (although I think such situations would rarely get past
   WP:DENY? That's unconvincing. A full-protected page cannot be edited by socks (unless those socks are admins!). That's pretty deny-ing. I'm also mindful of the fact that the reviewer flag has been given out carelessly. I'd prefer to be precise about where to use PC2, to start, and we can always expand its use in the future if consensus goes that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I oppose this all the more, because Proposal 12 would accomplish something very similar, but do it much better. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. . Oppose It is an additional complication that we aren ot prepared to handle. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. For the exact same reason as I oppose the first proposal.
   talk) 04:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Oppose per my reasons outlined in opposition to Proposal 1. Rivertorch (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Beeblebrox. I also don't see why
   WP:DENY should play a big role here. —Kusma (t·c) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Oppose all attempts to expand the use of Pending Changes.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose as slippery slope (!WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE) to top down control of content rather than relying on WP:5. If mere editors don't get to exercise their muscles on the cases where this proposal would apply, then the encyclopedia is weakened, not strengthened. - Neonorange (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Neonorange, this proposal does quite the opposite of what you are trying to prevent. In cases where nobody could have edited a page, everybody can now. This makes Wikipedia "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit" even more. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Ramaksoud2000, I oppose any of the proposed implementations of PC2 (how many proposals are we up to now? 9? 10?) that ignore the foundation of Wikipedia. At least full protection, the nuclear option, is seen as so extreme that it is very rarely used. PC2 is the Wikipedia equivalent of nuclear proliferation... PC2 may be tactical in comparison to full protection, but that's the slippery slope. I had experience in Usenet (.alt) that, to a certain extent, form my views of Wikipedia: it is possible for editors to work things out without so much bureaucracy. Restrictions like the 1 revert rule and semi-protection are mainly behavior nudges; full protection is, effectively, a content bomb. - Neonorange (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose The critiea needs to be tightened. The fact that socks might think they "won" in certain cases is only tangential to the issue which is making a good encyclopedia. PaleAqua (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Especially given how few articles are under full protection ( as pointed out by davidwr below ) this seems like it is going to be either a fancy bikeshed for just a very small number of pages and the chance to slide down the slope to protecting a larger number of pages. I've also worried that PC2 might slow down facing the problems that would result in a page being full protected. The big benefit of full protection to me is the cooling down time in heated discussions. Not sure what PC2 buys over that. PaleAqua (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. This is too vague; what happens if the criteria for page protection change? And, why should "letting the vandals win" be a criterion for whether or not a page gets PC2? Ozob (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. Sockpuppets are often not confirmed accounts, and where they are, they can be blocked fairly quickly. SpinningSpark 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Overkill for dealing with sockpuppets, and semi-protection is a far better honeypot for them than any iteration of Fragged Revisions or full-protection since autoconfirmation-buster accounts tend to expose themselves by editing a semi'd page. This would just mask the problem. You can't polish a turd and have it be meaningful. (tl;dr: You don't use long-term full protection in articlespace for sockpuppets; you thus shouldn't use the PC equivalent for socks.)—Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - This proposal is way too simple and too complicated. Not to mention too incomprehensible. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me for asking but what does your above rationale mean? It's a contradictory statement.

    talk) 14:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

13. Oppose: Using
    WP:SPI and very likely post warnings all over the sockmasters' pages anyway. Unless you're saying "apply PC2 and let the socks be" which I also oppose. Furthermore, as other eds have noted, this reads like "any page that qualifies for full protection qualifies for PC2 also" which is far too broad. Ivanvector (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Oppose - Confirmed editors should never be forbidden from editing live. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per Ozob and Ivanvector. The minuscule potential for benefit is far outweighed by potential for harm in multiple capacities.   — C M B J   12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. I oppose the use of protected changes in principle because they are too complicated and result in too little benefit when used in addition to the conventional protection system. This applies also to this proposal to introduce rules for an additional flavor of protected changes. Semiprotection should suffice in almost all of these cases.  Sandstein  15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose in favor of "Proposal 0" below.
    Wha? 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Oppose Extremely vague and completely unnecessary. It makes editing top-down, per Neonorange, and goes against all principles of Wikipedia. I've seen far too much abuse of PC on foreign language Wikipedias to ever advocate it for any case. Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Tal Brenev (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Making my opposition explicit.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose As in many times before the "benefit" we gain from PC2 is to be weighed against our current options and the difficulty the reviewers will have with the toolset. As I recall, WMF wasn't going to invest any time in making the tool easier to use until en.WP started using it and en.WP wasn't going to use the tool until WMF improved tool use. I challenge the foregone conclusion that PC2 is authorized and say explicitly For the perceived benefits of PC2, the amount of pain we will suffer through is not a beneficial trade. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. Pending Changes is applied to control seriously problematic content. If the content of the edit meets the necessary standards, it is to be approved. There is no possible way for all reviewers to know who may or may not be socking on an article; in fact, non-reviewer regular editors of an article are far more likely to recognize it than reviewers who are not familiar with the article. This would actually make getting rid of sock edits on articles *more* difficult. Risker (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. oppose just to be extra bonus clear. As I've noted before, there is at best an extremely small number of cases where we use Full Protection anyways. This wouldn't help in a significant way. Further, pending changes in general has a lot of cost associated with it (can't make live edits until review is done, difficulty in dealing with lots of pending changes, some good and some bad, etc.). Finally, I very much worry that we'll see PC2 used more broadly than FP even if policy says otherwise. We've already had admins using PC2 when it has no consensus at all. Once it has a foot in the door, I expect things will get worse. So nearly no benifit and a large cost (even if everyone behaves). Clearly a bad idea. Hobit (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Proposal 2)

Discussion (Proposal 2)

• I don't really buy the example given in this proposal as distinct from the first proposal, but if this proposal is that PC2 can be used in place of full protection, I note that there was some success during the trials with using PC2 on otherwise fully protected pages such as Wikipedia:Contact us. I am generally supportive of such reductions in protection as well as escalations in protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is much better than the first proposal, but I'm not yet in support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In reply to Kusma, the goal of some sockpuppeteers is to cause disruption by forcing pages to be fully protected. By letting legitimate edits happen, we deny them that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You also give other vandals targets. Do I need to utter the words "

  harass any editor or administrator taking action against them. Reviewers are no exception to this.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• To everyone opposing this proposal, what makes PC2 so bad that it's worse than full protection? Clearly, it's easier to edit a PC2 page than a fully protected page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back as someone who opposes this proposal, and seeing what I consider to be way too many unexplained "support" !votes, I'll take a stab at answering that. First of all, I think the language about "badge of honor" and so forth isn't really suitable for policy. Second, as noted just below, it isn't like there are a lot of pages where we have full protection and would need to do this. Thirdly, I think the existing language gives administrators inadequate guidance about when, and when not, to use PC2 instead of full protection, other than when the administrator somehow thinks that it's a "good idea" to deal with socks or other disruptive users. The fact is, that such disruptive users are dealt with just fine by full protection (and perhaps by being blocked). I don't accept for a second the claim that protecting the page and making editors actually go to the talk page to propose an edit (oh, the horror!) in any way is a "win" for the socks. On the other hand, being able to keep making bad edits, and make other editors have to take the time to review those edits before rejecting them and being able to move on to the next edit, is handing the trolls a tool that they will learn to love. Remember, it takes a conscientious reviewer some amount of time to review an edit. People who want to disrupt will learn to capitalize on that, and this proposal will hand them the ability to do it over and over and over again. Full protect, and it takes that away from them instantly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't realize just how few pages are fully-protected. As of a few minutes ago, less than 40 pages in the "article" namespace larger than 700 bytes were fully-protected (700 bytes filters out redirects, softredirects, and other "this is not really an article" pages). About half will have their current protection expire in less than 30 days. Given the low numbers, I'm starting to understand those who oppose PC2 on
  WP:CREEP or being one more step away from the ideal of being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (don't kid yourself though, the day the first article was placed under any kind of protection was the day Wikipedia stopped being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - if it ever really was that to begin with). Nonetheless, I'm staying supportive for Proposal 2, in the hopes that the number of pages that wind up being fully-protected in the future is lower with the PC2 option than without. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The usual cause of full-protection is high-speed edit-warring - not vandalism, because autoconfirmed vandals are never drive-by vandals by autoconfirmation's very nature. PC is known to be problematic on pages with a high volume of edits (remember that the trial initially included George W. Bush and Barack Obama, both of which overwhelmed reviewers so much PC was removed from both), so PC2 on such pages is more harmful then helpful. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I too love the idea of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but that's because I would want it to be "the encyclopedia anyone would want to edit". I think we sometimes have to face unpleasant facts: good things can be attacked. Some protective response is required: no option. I agree by all means that we should always keep an eye on policies like

  WP:CREEP, because the best protection is a measured protection. We need to keep a balance going the best way we can. Evensteven (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I wish you would speak English. "Letting the socks 'win' a big badge of disruption"? It took me 3 tries to realize "socks" referred to sock puppeteers. Maybe it would be better to be more clear about the proposal and provide more detail so editors who aren't so deeply involved in Wikipedia (but are equally valued members of the community) can participate in the discussion.
• Re NaBUru38 This doesn't prevent confirmed users from editing. In fact, it does the opposite, allowing confirmed users to edit where they would otherwise be unable to. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This doesn't prevent confirmed users from editing." - But it does prevent confirmed users from editing live, and I opoose that restriction. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But so does full protection. Why is full protection okay and this not? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because FP prevents everyone but admins from editing, and admins making unilateral edits on fully-protected articles risk losing their tools without a very good reason for making the change. PC prevents the edits from going live without bribing CRASH, and too much PC equals an intractable backlog which prevents edits that have been successfully made from showing up for long periods of time, something which EVERYONE AGAINST PC IN GENERAL HAS REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP TO CRICKETS. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Davidwr asked me "Is there any reason why an article should ever be fully protected?" My answer is: I can't find any. If I did, then I would think again about my opposition to PC2.

If an article has continuous problems by registered users, then the answer should be blocking the involved users or something like that, not blocking the article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3 (closed)

• Pending changes level 2 may be applied in the case of continued vandalism, BLP violations or sockpuppetry by autoconfirmed accounts, where blocking has proved ineffective and full protection is the only other option. Should not be used for copyvios as these are still viewable in page history.
• Pending changes level 2 should never be used in a content dispute or possible content dispute. If one develops on a PC2 protected page the PC2 protection should be immediately lifted, and all edits accepted, except those which meet the criteria for editing through full protection.
• Pending changes level 2 may be used in other circumstances with a consensus on
  discretionary sanction at admin discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. First off, this entire RFC is based on a faulty assumption, that PC2 *should* be turned on, and the only issue left to discuss is the conditions on which it can be used. That is not what the last RFC said. This is a terrible idea that forces every edit to go through pending changes. There has been no evidence that PC2 is ever needed, and in the cases I have found where it has been used, it did not resolve the problems it was intended to fix: edits that should have been accepted were not being accepted without reason, or alternately every edit from an autoconfirmed editor (and most from non-autoconfirmed editors) was being accepted. This software is not being well-maintained or upgraded, it does not integrate properly with VisualEditor. Risker (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. PC2 is simply not a useful tool and even after lots and lots of discussion (what, like five years now? six?) there has never been a strong consensus for it's use. It's confusing, poorly understood, and of extremely limited use. Frankly I have never seen a situation where it seemed to work better than the other protection options.
   talk) 04:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. This RfC is heavy on assumption and so light on substantiation that the gentlest breeze might send it scuttling away. No evidence has been provided to show a need for PC2 (never mind a pressing need—any need at all). No evidence has been provided to suggest that editors possessing the reviewer flag are more capable than any other established editors of assessing pending edits. In fact, this RfC bears no evidence of anything at all—except perhaps a faulty reading of the previous RfC and a reckless willingness to rush forward with technological "solutions" to "problems" that haven't even been shown to exist, let alone been proven intractable. In short, no evidence has been provided to suggest that permitting use of PC2 would be a net positive for the encyclopedia or the project. Rivertorch (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's not a big issue for me anymore, but I find everything that Risker, Beeblebrox, and Rivertorch said here to be quite convincing. In the event that PC2 is implemented, I would like the criteria for its use to be narrowly defined until experience shows broader implementation would be a net positive. And I continue to be concerned that a significant number of users were made reviewers without adequate scrutiny. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Even if this proposal does not gain consensus, I think PC should be used as rarely as possible. Ideally, never. If it is widely used, it will change Wikipedia into no longer being a wiki (bad), if its use is very rare, it will be confusing a lot of people for quite a while. Against vandalism, I think the current tools suffice. PC2 can't protect against edit wars without turning Wikipedia into a two-class society (with the associated unnecessary "who reviews the reviewers" problems). Full protection is much cleaner for these issues. —Kusma (t·c) 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Risker. There is no previous consensus on this issue and no clear need or application that won't cause more problems than it will solve. It's basically a (problematic) solution in search of a problem. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Support: Struck per support and discussion for proposal 12, though I stand by my comments here and opposition to the earlier proposals.

   red tape that many quality editors are just going to give up and go away. We don't want that. It's easy to revert vandalism, to identify and educate new users who don't understand the rules, and smite those who are just here to cause trouble. Problematic articles can be dealt with through protection and requested edits. We want to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and PC2 takes us a very large step in the opposite direction. Ivanvector (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. Support the non-use of Pending Changes. Would support more clarifications, by which I really mean restrictions, on the use of PC1.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support no nukes option: I'm a new editor; I spend an order of magnitude more time on learning how Wikipedia works than on making edits, and my average edit takes me about 20 minutes - the Pending Changes level 2 proposals make me wonder if the learning effort is worth it - Neonorange (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support This continues to be a poor solution to the actual problem. What we need is the ability to protect articles against specific editors and IP ranges (where the IP range blocks are effective against logged-in editors). PC2 is a poor implementation of that.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. PC2 seems to have too many problems. James500 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support The system was shown to be flawed in the trial, and my experiences with editors that have the 'reviewer' bit have not given me any confidence that its implementation would solve anything. What it would do is take the ability from normal editors, such members of a wikiproject, to correct basic errors in an article. Edgepedia (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Most aims of protected changes can be achieved by normal (semi-)protection without making Wikipedia even more bureaucratic and complicated.  Sandstein  17:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per Risker. Ozob (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per Risker. I see no evidence cited to prove or even strongly indicate that PC2 is an improvemetn over metods now in use for any situation. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support No critical problem has yet been presented which this would solve better than current methods of discussing changes on the article talk page. Rather, it would be a step backwards in dealing with edit warring, because of the increased confusion that would result. Even PC1 is confusing, and having yet another process would compound it. (It is, in my opinion so confusing at least to me that I will not work as an editor or admin on anything under PC1, because of the problems of knowing exactly what I might be accepting inadvertently. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. So far, I have not heard described a scenario where I would want to use PC2 rather than some other sanction. Against that, I may wish to edit a page, but if I do I may be forced to decide whether to accept the existing pending changes. SpinningSpark 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Partial Support ( was support was opposed. I do support 14 and 12 ) Given how few articles ( see davidwr comment in the discussion of proposal 2 ) are currently fully protected... PC2 just seems like a solution without a problem. Even given that there might be more space between articles under PC-1/Semi and those needing full protection, I don't think it's enough for PC2. The more I think about it, I'd also rather see proper branching draft supports than PC-2 for other use cases. PaleAqua (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support unless safeguards are put in place to prevent scope creep. If PC is implemented as a replacement for full-protection, there is a danger that PC2-protection will not be seen as such a big step, leading to over-liberal use. --W. D. Graham 18:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Society has Wiki- knowledge. They know how current policy works. Changing it won't stop anyone but take away anonymous editors.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support as an unnecessary complication that will further stratify and divide editors without doing much to solve any problems. As always, I am open to changing my opinion if new evidence is presented; much of my !vote is based on the paucity of evidence provided in support of this tool. ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support It just seams to be overcomplicating the whole protection system, when its actual use would be very limited. Isaac Oscar (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support as this RfC is otherwise a loaded question which automatically assumes PC2 is a given, despite the fact that nobody has come up with a legitimate use case other forms of protection (whether hardlock or CRASHlock) would prove just as effective if not moreso, and the entire driving force behind this being a bunch of editors who seem to have a BLP fetish to the point they'd burn the entire encyclopedia to prevent one frivolous lawsuit from some Z-lister bitching about him being an inch too short in his bio. This BLP maximalism needs to stop, or else Wikipedia will not stand. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another thing I feel I need to point out: This repeatedly asking the same fucking questions on an extremely frequent basis needs. To. Fucking. STOP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23. Support - Yes, violations of BLPs are still problematic, and full protection is too arbitrary and too simple, yet too perfect. But, after reading past RFCs on Pending Changes (and poorly-conceived, long-forgotten Patrolling Review or something), more discussion on PC2 is needed. This RFC was too soon, to be honest. No open discussion was made, as it was in
    same sex marriage in the United States. I'm sorry to say this, but unless constructive discussions are made, there should be no more proposals, and proposals here will fail. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support I'm reluctant to even comment here, because, as Risker notes, this RfC is based on bullshit. With that said, I oppose PC2 full stop. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Per many above. The title of this RfC is telling. Year after year these biased pending changes RfCs are thrown at the community, always worded to assume that pending changes is going to happen. Yet year after year we get on just fine without it. The cycle got tiresome back in 2011. ThemFromSpace 06:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Confirmed editors should never be forbidden from editing live. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support — Oh look, it's this year's further expansion of pending changes. As tempting as it is to {{
    WP:SPI, both on clerks/checkusers as well as normal users trying to create cases; that option, however, does not exist without someone sliding "BLP" on it, so a full-oppose it is. --slakr^\ talk / 05:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support
    (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support Pending changes is a bad idea. PC2 is a bad idea that has no practical application. I am firmly in this camp.
    Wha? 07:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support The entire point of Wikipedia is to have live changes. I know many, many other foreign language Wikipedias that use PC2 for almost all pages, and all edits seem to fall into the power of a few administrators that abuse their power. PC2 has little practical application (anti-vandalism bots and watchful users do the job well enough) and can only be a tool for abuse. Like Risker said, the only times I have seen PC in use was either when it was useless, or worse, abused to prevent all edits. Also per Risker, there has been no consensus that PC2 should be turned on, so not sure why it is being dicussed WHEN it should be turned on.Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support I think that this is counter to the premise of Wikipedia. Having read the other proposals I think that PC2 doesn't really provide any additional benefit to the encyclopaedia. I am of the opinion that if implemented we would likely see the beginning of a class distinction between those with reviewer rights and those without. I would much rather see us continue to use the strategies that we already have to deal with these sorts of problems. Zell Faze (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per the comments I made in the last 2 (or maybe its 3 now?) RfCs about PC level 2. Legoktm (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support this should be at the top of the damn page. I read through the other proposals first, and was wondering how to go about saying "no, they are all rubbish". Well, here we are. Pending changes has three big issues for me. And it comes down to: it makes it harder to edit Wikipedia. Many edits are drive-by edits by IPs or similar, fixing minor mistakes. 1. This would reduce those edits (by basically removing the instant gratification of making a change, and seeing it applied). 2. It would also make a disconnect between what we see (it needs fixing) and the reality (it has been fixed, but the fix hasn't been approved). 3. Less bureaucracy, and less hierarchy please. Wikipedia is already impossible to do anything major in unless you play by the thick thick rule book. More
    Calvinball and less (insert very complicated game here). **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. good faith but as I think I'm demonstrating here it is not without fault and may indicate support/opposition incorrectly, and I would like to see it removed. Ivanvector (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support As in many times before the "benefit" we gain from PC2 is to be weighed against our current options and the difficulty the reviewers will have with the toolset. As I recall, WMF wasn't going to invest any time in making the tool easier to use until en.WP started using it and en.WP wasn't going to use the tool until WMF improved tool use. I challenge the foregone conclusion that PC2 is authorized and say explicitly For the perceived benefits of PC2, the amount of pain we will suffer through is not a beneficial trade. Hasteur (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Do we really need an additional layer of bureaucracy for what is ultimately a marginal benefit? We should be streamlining the edit process, not confounding it with excessive exclusivity. Lithium6ion (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 4 AKA Proposal 0)

1. Oppose long-term, but support by default on a temporary well, technically, an indefinate basis (and ONLY on a temporary basis) until such time as the community agrees on at least one way to use PC2. Wait, I think I just said what the previous discussion said: No PC2 until we agree on a specific proposal to use PC2. It looks like at least one of the proposals on this discussion is going to pass, which is why I'm logging this as an "oppose." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, because it's already been used with some success on a very small number of articles after discussion (usually at ANI). So "no change, don't use it" isn't accurate: it would have to be "no formal change and no official limits, so apply IAR as usual". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Seems a useful tool to use against auto confirmed articles subject to socking. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose PC2 has been used with IAR/one-off consensus on
   Dinh Bo Linh with success, and would be helpful on Fritz Springmeier (currently fully protected). On both of these pages, new accounts began disrupting them as soon as they hit the autoconfirmed threshold. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Actually, PC2 was a poor decision for the Đinh Bộ Lĩnh article, because the problematic edits were not coming from auto-confirmed accounts; with respect to the Fritz Springmeier article, the issue is a content dispute, not anything that is covered by pending changes policy at all. Further comments on the talk page. Risker (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose – I prefer Proposal 2. Except in the case of edit warring, I don't see how Full Protection is always (or even usually) a better option for dealing with problematic confirmed editors. Mojoworker (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose (see my Support and Discussion comments) Changed my mind. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose It should be used.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Much stronger oppose than the strongest oppose 'ever'. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 06:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. There are definitely cases where PC2 is useful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose ( moved to support ). While I am against the other current proposals, I could see supporting a stronger proposal with well defined criteria. PaleAqua (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to support. With how few pages are fully protected, I don't see the use of PC2 at all. PaleAqua (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose Same reason I supported in previous RfC. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. It should be used. How and why need to be established. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose, it should be implemented for more flexibility. Tal Brenev (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev[reply]
12. Oppose. There are many cases in which PC2 is a very good idea.
    talk!) 14:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Could you provide an example? Ozob (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose If we can't use PC2, then for articles on which semi is insufficient to control the disruption, we're left with full or off-label use of template protection. Both are extreme hindrances to editing. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose, PC2 definitely has its merits and should be used, albeit rarely.
    t • c) 01:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Oppose. I've seen situations with significant disruption from autoconfirmed users for multiple reasons with some useful edits in between (e.g. Bigg Boss 7 prior to November 2013) where PC2 may be useful. MER-C 04:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that there were multiple abusive accounts active on that page prior to November 2013, and the main problem was repeated and persistent copyright violations (though there were also some BLP violations). The copyright violators were also sockmasters who used autoconfirmed accounts. On the face of it that looks like a PC2 argument—except that PC2 was tried and didn't slow them down. So in exactly the situation where PC2 is supposed to be of most use, it doesn't work. Ozob (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16. FDMS 08:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC): Successfully in use in other Wikipedia versions, also see my comments above.[reply]
17. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Wikipedia should have a broad toolkit to suppress vandalism. Enabling PC2 would fill a gap in current practice. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose - PC2 can be a better solution than blocking or locking completely. Go Phightins! 19:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Give a concrete example, then, of a page that PC2 can handle that can't otherwise be handled by any other forms of protection, admin tools, community engagement, or the edit filter. Stop it with the uncited FUD and start showing your work, or get out of the classroom. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a values choice, not a question of whether alternatives exist. We could put every page under full protection. But most editors agree that allowing people to edit directly is better. Some people believe that using PC2 is a better option than using full protection, even though it's true that a page "could otherwise be handled" with full protection. The issue isn't whether it "could otherwise be handled with full protection" but whether "handling" it with full protection is the best/freest option available to us.
    You have strongly opposed PC for years: you would prefer no PC anywhere. That limitation on options fits best with your values and your fear that "light" protection styles will increase the typical page protection level. You are entitled to your opinion on that matter. Other editors prefer options that turn fully protected pages into pages with lesser levels of protection, including PC2. That flexibility and increase in the number of pages that people can directly edit first best with their values, and they are entitled to their opinion on that matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not comparing it to just FP, Waid. I said any other forms of protection, admin tools, community engagement, and the edit filter. With respect to PC2 specifically, I (and other opposers, such as Ozob and Risker) feel that it adds nothing to Wikipedia's "defensive options" (so to speak) especially given we are spoiled for choice in protection already. We have: Semi-protection, PC1, full-protection, the edit filter, the title-blacklist, the spam-blacklist, AfC, admin blocking tools, AIV, AN, ArbCom, Rollback, CSD, Checkuser, etc. etc. PC2 adds nothing that any combination of two of those can achieve except for long-term full-protection-lite, and

    controlling article content). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I would additionally like to add that there are only 61 fully protected non-redirect articles in mainspace. Of these, 37 are indefinitely protected:

    1. 23 soft redirects to Wiktionary such as fatass and dingleberry.
    2. 5 disambiguation pages:
       Feminem, Laura Wilson, Nishant, The Act of Murder, Santorum (disambiguation)
       .
    3. 3 redirects currently at RfD:
       The Funkadactyls
       .
    4. 3 regular articles:
       Mass killings under Communist regimes, Stephanie Adams, and Duncan Graham (writer)
       .
    5. 2 administrative pages: Main Page and Mysandbox.
    6. 1 salted deleted page currently at DRV: Decade of Darkness.

    In addition there are another 24 pages whose full protection will expire.

    1. 23 regular articles.
    2. 1 disambiguation page: Douchebag.

    Most of the expiry times are within the next few months, though douchebag's protection expires 1 Jan 2015.

    Altogether there are only 26 plain old articles on the entire Wikipedia that are fully protected. Consequently PC2 offers virtually no gain in editability. Ozob (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting that those three regular articles each have a history: MkuCr is protected per an

    WP:ARBEE enforcement thread, Stephanie Adams has issues with payola (note WP:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (3rd nomination) and the talk page) and Duncan Graham was fully-protected a last month pursuant to an OTRS ticket. PC2 is useless in the first case (The Eastern Europe topic area has more partisans than a medieval museum) and second case (ArbCom appears to have gotten involved on that article). Not knowing the nature of the OTRS ticket I can't say whether or not Duncan Graham's article is a good case. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

    ]

20. Oppose PC2 will be a useful tool in some cases. Precisely where it works and where it doesn't we will work out over time. The only thing we need to define here is where the community doesn't find it acceptable to use it and there's no good reason for that to be all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does it make sense to add a tool when we can't (yet) identify a use case? Shouldn't we do that before we turn it on? Hobit (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Nil, that isn't how it works. Onus is on you to come up with a good, usable use case before we even start using it, not on us to do it for you. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose. Prefer proposal 1 or 2. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. A necessary tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose – Per other votes.
    CT Cooper · talk 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Oppose – As I read it a supporting vote for Proposal 1 is automatically an opposing vote to this proposal. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose per above, It definitely should be used. But how & why needs to be discussed a lot more. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose PC2 should be an option we keep on the table for use when needed. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose • Astynax ^talk 18:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose If the community can't agree on rules for use then PC2 won't happen; if it can then PC2 will. PC2 is already technically available, it's just a policy decision; this proposal is pointless and a diversion from the needed discussion of how to use it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29. Per Tom Morris --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose - Should not be the first thing to use on a article but I think there is places were it can be usefull instead of having full protection. QED237 (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Speedy close as this was already decided on in the preceding RfC.
    talk) 20:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Neutral (Proposal 4 AKA Proposal 0)

Discussion (Proposal 4 AKA Proposal 0)

I've moved this from proposal 0 to proposal 4. I don't see any reason this proposal should get to jump to the top of the list. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do. A "no" here is global in effect (in terms of the proposal). That should be the first choice anyone has to make. It could affect all the other choices. Evensteven (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some questions: "forces every edit to go through pending changes" How so? That's not what's being said at all. "This software is not being well-maintained or upgraded, it does not integrate properly with VisualEditor." How is that relevant to PC2? If FlaggedRevs is that bad, PC1 shouldn't be usable either. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to undo your change; your proposals are putting the cart before the horse. This is the horse. And I agree that PC1 shouldn't be used either, because it's technically awful, and is also unmaintained and unintegrated with VisualEditor. And since we're the only wiki that uses PC anywhere at all, it's going to stay that way. How about trying a completely different RFC, like "change Pending Changes to Flagged Revisions"; at least that extension's being maintained. Risker (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"change Pending Changes to Flagged Revisions"? Pending Changes here is being provided by mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are localized changes that are unsupported and make it PC instead of FR. The German and Russian wikipedias have FR applied without the overlying PC changes. Risker (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the code that activates FlaggedRevs here.

https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=flaggedrevs.php

// Temporarily give testwiki enwiki's settings instead, for testing PageTriage --Roan May 7 elseif ( $wgDBname == 'enwiki' || $wgDBname == 'testwiki' ) { $wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN, NS_PROJECT ); # Show only on a per-page basis $wgFlaggedRevsOverride = false; # We have only one tag with one level $wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'status' => array( 'levels' => 1, 'quality' => 2, 'pristine' => 3 ), ); # Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected $wgFlagRestrictions = array( 'status' => array( 'review' => 1, 'autoreview' => 1 ), ); # Restriction levels for auto-review/review rights $wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels = array( '', 'autoconfirmed', 'review' ); # Use flag "protection" levels $wgFlaggedRevsProtection = true; # Use current templates/files $wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes = FR_INCLUDES_CURRENT; # Group permissions for autoconfirmed $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['autoreview'] = true; # WP:FPPR trial quota $wgFlaggedRevsProtectQuota = 2000; # Group permissions for sysops $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['review'] = true; $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['stablesettings'] = true; # Use 'reviewer' group $wgAddGroups['sysop'][] = 'reviewer'; $wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][] = 'reviewer'; # Remove 'editor' group unset( $wgGroupPermissions['editor'] ); $wgAddGroups['sysop'] = array_diff( $wgAddGroups['sysop'], array( 'editor' ) ); $wgRemoveGroups['sysop'] = array_diff( $wgRemoveGroups['sysop'], array( 'editor' ) ); }

Where is it running modified code? That's all configuration for the standard FlaggedRevs code. (I'm asking the developers now. Sounds like it might be somewhere else.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After talking with some developers, it seems that Pending Changes is just a name we gave to FlaggedRevs here, kind of like we renamed AbuseFilter to Edit Filter. $wgFlaggedRevsProtection = true; could potentially be seen as the difference, as it controls whether all pages need review, or only pages "protected" to require it. Is this what you were referring to changing when you said to switch to FlaggedRevs? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know much about the technical side of the code and whatnot, but from discussions I have had with devs and others my understanding was that the WMF would only expend resources on tools we actually use, and they had already put a lot of effort and funds into developing PC only to see the community not use it for several years. I doubt we would see any real updates to PC in any form unless and until it has a strong track record of being used by this project, which as Risker points out is the only project out of all WMF sites to use it. They felt burned by us, and rightfully so, because we asked them for something, they made it just for us, and then we literally took years to really do anything with it. Now that PC1has been in use for a year it may have some chance of getting back on the developer's radar, but PC2 is pretty much a complete loss in my opinion and we should just let it go nd forget we ever knew it existed. I know there are a lot of people on WP who have trouble letting things go, but there's nothing to even be attached to here, the community has never supported this tool and even now I suspect that many of those commenting have only a partial understanding of what PC2 is and how it is different from PC1.
  talk) 04:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Recently, there are cases of people adding and removing similar contentious materials in BLPs. Some people were whining over full-protection use and duration of protection time. Also, some administrators were reluctant to use full protection, as other alternatives are considered. If discussion about similar material becomes exhaustive during full protection, maybe there is human err... or current system err. But suppressing usage of PC2 won't help matters. As said before, full protection may be too bureaucratic, too absolute, or too weak to handle weak matters, like sockpuppetry. As full protection is appropriate for dispute of similar content, PC2 can be good alternative for weak matters that is considered "appropriate" for full protection. George Ho (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Moved from Oppose section. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have issues with autocon-busters, semi-protection is doing its job by weeding out more sockpuppets for Checkusers to scrutinise. Full-protection is overkill for sockpuppetry matters, yes, but so is PC2. Block+CU check to ferret out more socks or abused ranges is the medicine here and anyone who suggests otherwise is a lazy fool. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more adverse types of vandalism these days so to combat them, it's perfectly safe to implement more. 5 types of protection should be perfectly easy to handle on articles. And we aren't increasing its intensity, we have nothing higher (and thus nothing more intense) than full protection on articles. What you may also be saying is more protected articles will be there. Page protection is always used sparingly. Never, without any reason. We wouldn't have needed sysops for PP-ing then. We are increasing the types so that full protection or other protection types aren't used uselessly where other methods could be productive. Admins must be definitely aware of all community rules without which if we elect them it would be meaningless. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 06:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Give me a definitive use case for PC2 that absolutely cannot be covered by normal administrative tools and community processes, semiprotection, full-protection, PC1, or the edit filter. Stop it with the fucking FUD and start giving definitive answers, or go to fucking de.wp. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been inclined to support PC2 on the grounds that having a tier of responses available to respond to threats is preferable to having a short (PC1 only, un-auto-confirmed) or heavy (full page protection) set of tools. Threats intensify and increase in sophistication. But so does bureaucracy. I'm newer here, but quick to pick up on some things. One thing I do understand is that Beeblebrox is right about me: I have only a partial understanding of what PC2 is and how it is different from PC1. Attacks can kill from the outside; bureaucracy can kill from the inside. I tend to favor putting PC2 in place for a trial run: 1 year, 2 years? not longer. Reassess then, and vote again. Let's see what experience accumulates in the mean time. It will make for a better decision in the long run. Evensteven (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the extraordinary amount of discussion that various forms of PC have had (

  Wikipedia:Pending Changes lists organized discussions going back nearly five years), together with the fact that PC1 has been active for a year now and received an extensive trial beforehand, I think the data and experience we need is available. I think the issue is, and has been for a long time, that the Wikipedia population has no consensus on the benefits and drawbacks of PC (neither 1 nor 2). There are good, informed, respectable opinions on both sides, and those opinions are held in roughly equal measure (with some natural variance in who votes in any one poll). I'm sure I'm not alone in just wanting PC discussions to be over, but I can't ever see that happening: Supporters will continue to believe that PC is a net benefit, and opponents will continue to believe that PC is a net loss. It would take a very powerful argument to close PC discussions for good, I think, and I don't know what shape that argument could possibly take. Ozob (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks; that actually makes it easier. I too had noted "good, informed, respectable opinions on both sides". It's good to know you'll have good company either way. Evensteven (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm missing it. Has _anyone_ put forward an example where PC2 would be a good idea? Hobit (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  None. The only arguments I've seen for it can be summed up as "sockpuppetry is bahd, m'kay?" and "Think of the Z-listers!". The former would be exacerbated by PC2 and the latter is BLP theatre at best. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, whenever I ask supporters, I either get no response, or I get an example which doesn't help their case, like Emmelie de Forest, The Biggest Loser Germany, or (in the previous RFC) Audie Murphy. Ozob (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re I'm not human: "1. This would reduce those edits (by basically removing the instant gratification of making a change, and seeing it applied)." IPs still have an option to see pending edits, and the one that makes the edit sees it automatically. "2. It would also make a disconnect between what we see (it needs fixing) and the reality (it has been fixed, but the fix hasn't been approved)." Registered users see the fixes by default, and everyone always sees the fixes in the edit box. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5

I propose the idea by User:King of Hearts in the original RfC that many users supported: "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." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This can be used along with other methods if multiple methods gain consensus. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further, this should only be implemented if a set of standards were to gain consensus first. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Proposal 5)

1. Support Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as an additional method of having PC2 on a page. I do not support the idea that this should be the only method to get PC2 on a page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Update Support is conditional on not being abused, see discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, as an extra method per davidwr. This new board will help develop community consensus on best practises for when PC2 is appropriate. I think the same board should also process requests to remove of PC2, if the PC2 was added on the same board. That way the decisions to apply and remove are archived together and searchable in the same set of archives. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak support, should be used, but along with at least one of the other proposals. Tal Brenev (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Tal Brenev[reply]
5. Non-exclusive support I like this idea, but it should be implemented along with one of the other methods of allowing PC2, rather than being the only method. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Non-exclusive support, along with the specification of narrowly defined criteria. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Non-exclusive support. I think we can enumerate a few circumstances (which this RfC is trying to do) under which PC2 is eligible without need for discussion. However, because it is a highly specialized tool there will indubitably turn up cases where PC2 would be useful that we didn't think of before (or generalization of said cases would not be applicable). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Weak and non-exclusive. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 11:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, though this should not be the only way to get PC2.
   talk!) 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support Seems reasonable. Should not be the only way to impose PC2.DavidHobby (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support since "implicit oppose" script makes neutrality now not a recognized option. Also this is as a slightly more restrictive version of prop12. PC2 shouldn't be enabled on a page without some kind of discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 5)

1. Oppose we need some kind of criteria for specifying when PC2 should be used, as with other forms of protection and with consensus discussions in other areas. This ensures that standards are applied consistently and fairly. This proposal would allow any article to be protected for any reason if the editors who showed up in the discussion agreed with it. Hut 8.5 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose any implementation of PC2 (including this) for reasons stated above. Ivanvector (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Revised after discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose This would lead to PC2 being applied on a case-by-case basis, without any standard criteria, which is the whole point of this RfC. I agree with Hut 8.5. Novusuna ^talk 20:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Opposition withdrawn after clarification, now neutral. Novusuna ^talk 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Hut 8.5. Ozob (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose, even if PC2 is implemented, it should be easier and not have another built-in layer of bureaucracy. —Kusma (t·c) 08:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Hut 8.5 -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - Not a good idea. Separating requests is the last thing to do. Increase and reduction are enough sections. George Ho (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sounds like the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 05:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose ditto S Marshall Evensteven (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. It's not a bad idea (I once proposed something vaguely similar when it became clear that some form of PC would be implemented), but at this point my sense of it is that if PC2 is permitted—and I hope it isn't—the level and nature of disruption should be so extreme that the discussion really should take place at AN where more people will see it, including administrators willing to actively work on identifying and blocking socks while fully protecting the articles. RFPP isn't a particularly good venue for discussing things, and if PC2 proposals occur there it might well become the venue of choice for editors seeking the upper hand in esoteric content disputes and trigger-happy admins "specializing" in PC protection. If we must have PC (1 or 2), it should always be reserved for extraordinary situations where other measures don't work, and the place for dealing with such situations is AN. Rivertorch (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose as putting the cart before the horse. This should be done after PC2 is approved, not same time as. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori!
10. Oppose - Confirmed editors should never be forbidden from edition an article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose – Seems too bureaucratic to me; admin should be trusted to apply the
    CT Cooper · talk 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Oppose:Even with the state not being permitted, we have admins that choose to apply it. This will do nothing but provide a cloak of legitimacy for such conduct without any controls over said conduct.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose As in many times before the "benefit" we gain from PC2 is to be weighed against our current options and the difficulty the reviewers will have with the toolset. As I recall, WMF wasn't going to invest any time in making the tool easier to use until en.WP started using it and en.WP wasn't going to use the tool until WMF improved tool use. I challenge the foregone conclusion that PC2 is authorized and say explicitly For the perceived benefits of PC2, the amount of pain we will suffer through is not a beneficial trade. Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose To convoluted. Leave in the hands of those who work that board to use their best judgement instead. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 23:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

14. Oppose per
    talk) 20:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Neutral (Proposal 5)

1. Explicit neutral - I intentionally did not vote on this one earlier, but since it shows me as implicitly opposing below noting now. If proposal 4 fails, I'm neither for, nor against this proposal. PaleAqua (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Explicitly neutral I withdrew my original opposition early in the life of the RfC after the proposal was clarified. I no longer have a position for or against this proposal. Novusuna ^talk 04:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Proposal 5)

• Commenting on my support, in light of Hut8.5's oppose: Any RFPP discussion should be based on established criteria/guidelines/policies/etc. just as AFD and other discussions are. I trust the closing admin to give weight to opinions backed by established criteria and with the very rare exceptions where
  WP:IAR should be invoked for the good of the project (and, as with all uses of WP:IAR, at the risk of the administrator's reputation, admin-tools, and even editing-privileges), not give weight to opinions that amount to "WP:BECAUSEIWANTITTHISWAY." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hut 8.5, Kusma, and Ypnypn, the above would be informative and would clarify that this is non-exclusive and a set of standards would be made if one of the first two proposals pass. If no set of standards pass, then I believe this would be moot. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole point of this RfC is to come up with a set of standards. In any case I don't see why we should vary our usual approach to protection in this case, and we don't have these consensus discussions about protecting articles with any other kind of protection. The discussion would be somewhat pointless in that the closing administrator would have the authority to implement the result on their own if there is a policy justification for it. Hut 8.5 07:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 6 (withdrawn)

Withdrawn by proposer, TuxLibNit. --Ankit Maity «T § C»«Review Me» 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. PC2 can (and should) be removed from any article that has unreviewed edits more than 3<insert number> hours old at which point the article will transition to another pre-agreed level of protection, or to unprotected if no alternate level can be agreed. If PC2 is removed in this way it should not be reapplied for 7 days. This is intended as a modification to any "apply PC2" proposal that might gain consensus. TuxLibNit (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Edits above to clarify what I was actually thinking and take on board some of the comments, however I'm giving up on this proposal. See discussion for some final comments. TuxLibNit (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support (Proposal 6) Oppose (Proposal 6) Oppose Some topics are highly obscure and reviewers who know enough about them to verify the change might not be able to in time. I'd like to see a cutoff of at least 24 hours. Also, should PC2 be removed in this way, the pending edits would effectively be automatically accepted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Three hour backlogs on Special:PendingChanges aren't common, but they do happen. Sometimes there just aren't enough reviewers online, or sometimes an article takes some research to determine which edits to approve and which to revert. If this proposal is accepted (and I hope it isn't), I would at least hope to see a longer cutoff. Novusuna talk 20:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose This accomplishes nothing. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose because three hours is too short. But if the threshold were one week I would consider support. Ozob (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per too strict. See discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose No idea why this came up. Page protection is supposed to be used sparingly not because of time. --Ankit Maity «T § C»«Review Me» 11:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Too strict. If this is what we have to do, better to not use PC2 at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Neutral (Proposal 6) Discussion (Proposal 6) This proposal is intended to neutralise the concerns about large backlogs and the like. It should act as a non-bureaucratic means to implement the "remove PC2 if an edit war occurs" point from Proposal 3. It cleanly embodies the notion that the reviewers are volunteers so that if no-one is willing to review a particular article there is no point applying PC2 to it. Finally, it means that in principle any "your changes will not be visible until thay have been reviewed" message can contain a reliable upper limit on how long the user must wait, which should mitigate user frustrations. TuxLibNit (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I could support something like this under the following conditions: This would not apply to articles which qualify for full protection, meaning this would be moot if the only way an article would have PC2 is if it qualified for full protection (i.e. if the only other proposal that passes is proposal 2). The time limit would be much more reasonable, like 3 days. Instead of removing PC2 altogether, the protection would drop to semi-protection see update. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Update I meant to say "protection would drop to whatever is most appropriate for the article, probably PC1 but possibly just semi-protection or possibly both, with the expectation that if an admin boldly changed from PC2 to the "wrong" protection, someone would request a review or solicit consensus on the admin's talk page, the article's talk page, or WP:RFPP. It might be worth discussing what the "when in doubt, downgrade to XXXX-protection" default should be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I like the idea behind this proposal, but .. 3 hours way too short. I like Davidwr's conditions above. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Well it sounds like this isn't going to fly. So some final comments and clarifications: I guess I gave way too much weight to one person's comment (my emphasis): "it's just going to add another process in which articles that need attention can get tied-up in an ever-growing backlog waiting for someone higher-up in the community's ever-more-complicated hierarchy to approve". If that is a minority view this proposal serves no purpose. If it is a significant view then the idea was to put a hard limit on that backlog. 3 hours was my ill-informed attempt at a balance between what would be high enough to be achievable and but low enough to make PC2 more palatable. I'm certainly not wedded to any particular value. From what's been said it sounds like 24 hours is the lowest that might be acheivable. If the lowest achievable value is too high to attract support from someone who would otherwise oppose PC2 then again this proposal serves no purpose. I think the discussion has had some value in highlighting the range of delays that users might encounter when trying to edit a PC2 article. In particular that some articles may much take longer to review than others, which to me suggests that PC2 might be less appropriate for some articles. When I said that PC2 would be removed I didn't mean that the article must revert to unprotected, just that PC2 isn't working so the article should not remain at that level. That said, if PC2 isn't working I don't expect PC1 to work either, but any other protection level would make sense, including full protection. If it is acceptable for reviews to take as long as a week for certain articles then for any article that does take that long, it seems to me that PC2 will have been about the same as applying full protection for a week, except that the editor awaiting review may be a little dispirited. "Please hold, your calledit is important to us... Please hold... Please hold... " END TuxLibNit (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your closing remarks. This general concept - automatically down-shifting PC2 to something else after a period of time if the review queue gets excessive - is something that can be brought up several months after we start using PC2 on pages that would not otherwise be fully protected, but only if there is a real backlog problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (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.

Proposal 7

The use of PC2 for longer than 1 year on any page must be reviewed by an administrator and/or by a community discussion at least once a year, excluding protection set under the authority of the Arbitration Committee or a higher authority.

Clarifying notes:

• Existing tools like Template:Update after exist to make tracking such things relatively easy. I say this to deflect opposition based purely on the idea that "it would take extra work to identify such pages."
• This is intended to make sure that long-term/indef settings don't get forgotten about. It is not intended to say "you can't use PC2 on a long-term basis."
• For cases where PC2 was imposed under the authority of the Arbitration Committee or a higher authority, annual review is generally a good idea but this proposal is not meant to tie their hands.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Proposal 7)

1. Support as proposing editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. 2nd choice ( prefer proposal 14 ) Edit: Though a gradual increase of time seems like it might be better. For example given the most under 30 days for Full Protection, start with a review before 2 months after an article is first protected, than if really necessary 6 moths, then 12 months since PC2 was applied, and then once a year from then on out. I can't see ( and hope there is not ) any cases that really last that long. PaleAqua (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. This seems feasible, and would help provide confidence in its use. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Why not? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Conditional support only if a similar proposal is passed for full protection. Otherwise we end up with a totally illogical situation where a stronger form of protection requires less work to maintain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. It would be best if we did this for all forms of protection, but we have to start somewhere. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support —
   ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 01:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support George Ho (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support If we are to have such things at all. DES ^(talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Phil2011.13 (talk)
13. Support Amitrc7th (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Evensteven (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support: I agree with King of Hearts that this should also apply to full protection. I also believe that page protection that lasts beyond a cooling off period of a couple of months often indicates tendentious editing on the part of one or more editors that would better be resolved by long-term topic bans. • Astynax ^talk 18:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support also apply to full protection. --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Seems like a good safeguard Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support If indeed PC2 is going to be implemented each page under its purview should be regularly reviewed. This safeguard is a good idea. - tucoxn\^talk 06:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support in principle, though I would prefer that neither FP or PC2 be applied indefinitely to any page, unless imposed by ArbCom or the Office. Ivanvector (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I don't think it's a big deal, but I understand some are highly concerned with possible PC2 misuse so I'm fine with whatever helps reassure them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Conditional support only as part of a guideline for periodic review of all forms of page protection and I would prefer a shorter review interval for PC2, at least for article space.--agr (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - I don't want Pending Changes at all, and I don't trust that admins won't just 'lock and forget' as a way to deal with difficult articles. While this doesn't solve the first issue, it does deal with the second issue in a reasonable manner.
    Wha? 07:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support – Proposal would have to be more developed before implementation, but I agree with the principle. In fact, I think it could be applied to most forms of page protection.
    CT Cooper · talk 20:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak support, but only if the period of time is reduced from a year, since a year seems like too much. Tal Brenev (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support — Sounds like a good idea to have this checked out once in a while (perhaps not a year). And should probably be the same for full protection. QED237 (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 7)

1. I don't really want to see any articles under PC2 for a year, much less longer. But if someone were to decide that this were appropriate for a page, especially a non-article page (e.g., downgrading full protection on some SPIs to PC2), then I'm unconvinced that this proposal is a good idea. For one thing, the bar for multi-year PC2 should not be higher than for multi-year full protection.
   I'm also concerned about the bureaucratic hassle: is the benefit worth the time and hassle, or is this going to turn into a rubber-stamp brigade? Imagine what would happen if you systematically nominated every single fully protected page for routine review. People would stop paying attention, start !voting to leave the settings alone, and start yelling at you after the first few dozen (just one or two days into the review cycle). But if you bring them one, or a couple, that you believe need to be changed, then you get a thoughtful response. I don't have any reason to think that the community's tolerance for reviewing PC2 pages based on an arbitrary deadline is going to be any different.
   Finally, it can be gamed with not much effort: put the page under PC2 for 364 days, and add a note to your calendar to re-set it later, or keep it on your watchlist and reset protection with the first problematic edit after it expires. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose If you're using the equivalent of full-protection on an article for longer than 30 days continuously, you need to have your tools revoked. Full-protection is NOT for long-term use in articlespace for a good reason, and it stands to reason PC2 also needs to follow that paradigm,
   for much the same reasons. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Oppose Honestly, I like what the Germans are doing. I'd like to lock everything down. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. A periodic review is a good idea, but as this proposal is written it's too vague and unenforceable "by an administrator and/or by a community discussion at least once a year". Seesh. And if it doesn't happen? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Much along the lines of Jéské Couriano, if a page is locked down, it should be able to continously stand up to scrutiny, not once a year (or month). If a new argument gets presented for why this level of protection is appropriate, then the challenge must be heard. Not conceeding the point that PC2 is not worth the hassle investment. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per
   talk) 20:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Neutral (Proposal 7)

Discussion (Proposal 7)

If this happened for PC2, I'd want to see it for full protection (in the article namespace) as well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would as well, but that's another discussion for another page, and another time. And yes, I would consider this proposal "passing" as a sign that it might be time to have that discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal seems like a good idea, and it would be even more beneficial for full protection. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having trouble with the wording of this proposal, particularly the phrase "the Arbitration Committee or a higher authority". What authority is higher than Arbcom? If this is referring to office actions, then it should say so. In any event, I hope that neither Arbcom nor WMF staff would ever impose PC2 on any article. Or Jimbo, for that matter, but I don't think he does much with his mop anymore, let alone his übermop. Rivertorch (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just going to note here that there is already precedent for WMF staff applying PC2 to an article at

  Conventional PCI. FunPika 01:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Perhaps Philippe would care to comment here. I'm having trouble imagining why PC2 (or PC1, for that matter) would ever be appropriately added as an office action. In any event, a single occurrence, and a disputed one at that, doesn't set much of a precedent. Rivertorch (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't feel that WMF owes us an explanation – but I would like to know whether they find PC2 a helpful tool. I am willing to (grudgingly) accept their use of PC2 if they think it is the best tool available. Maybe a member of the WMF legal team can comment on this.

  I'm going to summarize the history of

  Conventional PCI as I understand it. If this is inaccurate I would appreciate a correction. The original DMCA takedown notice is dated 2 Nov 2010. The office actions removing the infringing links occurred on 4 Jan 2011 [1] [2] [3]. After a dispute on the talk page, an IP user removed the office action notice and restored one of the links [4]. He was reverted, and the next day the article was placed under semi-protection for a month [5]. When that expired, an IP user inserted links to links to infringing material [6] [7] [8] and restored them after he was reverted [9], leading the article to being indefinitely semi-protected [10]. On 10 Apr 2012, a non-IP editor wanted the article to include instructions on how to search for the specification [11] or at least a hint [12] or a whine [13]. On 17 Jul 2013, the article was switched from indefinite semi to indefinite PC2 [14] [15]. It stayed there until today, 24 Jan 2014, when an admin switched it to indefinite full protection with the justification that PC2 is an "illegal protection state" [16]. The office immediately switched it to indefinite semi [17]

  .

  What makes me queasy about the office adopting PC2 is that it seems to have led to overzealous enforcement by non-WMF employees. Some apparently good IP edits were rejected twice with the justification, "Too many changes for article under scrutiny" [18] [19]. User:Jalexander noted on the talk page that the office is concerned only about infringing links. If the office adopts PC2 as a standard tool, then I expect that we would see more vigilante edit rejection like this. I don't think that's a good outcome, but, not being a lawyer, I'm not sure how to weigh the alternatives. Ozob (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The office should be allowed to ignore consensus in response to external legal action (I'd argue they are allowed). I don't see the wisdom of applying PC2 here but I'm also not a lawyer, and maybe the office puts more faith in reviewers to enforce office direction than we have here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus on the talk page of that article is that the only cure for the article's ills is a DMCA counter-notice, which the Foundation is encouraging the users to issue if they're that bothered by it. Given that a counter-notice effectively outs the person making it it's no surprise one hasn't been filed yet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  (Replying to Ivanvector): Of course they're allowed; they own the servers. What I don't understand is why any article with content issues that require office action would be better served by PC2 than by a more traditional form of protection. If the problem involves only IPs and/or brand-new accounts, semi would seem to be a much safer choice; if other users are involved, the only safe choice (short of deletion and salting) that makes any sense to me is full protection. I wonder, does the office staff really want to leave it up to reviewers—as opposed to other established editors—to make the call on edits that may have legal ramifications? If so, I'm amazed. But I may be missing something, which is why I invited the protecting staff member to comment. (I understand if he doesn't want to go into specifics, but perhaps he might say something in general terms.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't get it either. Maybe they thought reviewers could be trusted to allow constructive edits while preventing the illegal links, but as Ozob pointed out, that didn't happen. I would've gone FP, but I trust the office to do what they think best. Ivanvector (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Bad reviews aren't a reason to worry about PC2. We can handle that issue separately. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, bad reviews are part of the problem with PC2. The standard of review, per WP:Reviewing pending changes, is "obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits". Reviewing is a very, very shallow process. It can't be otherwise or else reviews would be difficult and have a backlog. By that standard, the rejections of the IP edits I mentioned above were inappropriate. The correct standard is: Did the IP edits add links to infringing material, or not? That should be a straightforward question. But as always, people are complicated even when questions are not, and the reviewers I cited above applied the editing restrictions on the article too broadly. This sort of mistake is inevitable; but since PC2 (and PC) don't force you to stop and think (in the way that an edit protected request does), they make such mistakes more common than full or semi-protection. Which is part of why I continue to believe that PC2 does not solve the problems we have. Ozob (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My question is: What precisely is a legitimate use case for full-protection that (in practice) goes longer than 30 days? I can think of none that wouldn't fall afoul of WP:Protection policy, and if we're tying PC2 to full-prot then that means there is likewise no legitimate use case for PC2 that exceeds 30 days. Hence my comment above. And don't try to dodge the question or give me some half-baked excuse bullshit, give me a fucking definitive answer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  High-risk templates. For example, {{Infobox}} has been under continuous full protection since 2006. The Main Page has been under full protection for all but about 12 minutes since 2006. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  PC can't be used outside articlespace (and I'm unsure how it would react with templates, let alone those with thousands of transclusions) and the Main Page is absurdly complicated and almost-entirely populated by templates. Neither of those situations work. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  for templates, there's the new templateprotectyion, anyhow. and the main page is Hard Protected, the protection is hard coded into the page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, PC can be used outside the mainspace. It's just pointless to use it on templates unless the page(s) that the templates are transcluded onto are also under PC. I was answering the question that was asked. Jéské asked for "a legitimate use case for full-protection that (in practice) goes longer than 30 days". He did not ask for "a legitimate use case for PC2 in the mainspace that goes longer than 30 days". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that there only exists consensus to use PC in mainspace, I figured the rider "in the mainspace" was not needed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that the current configuration of PC here prevents it from being applied at all outside main or project space. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Meaning the example given with templates is presently technically impossible, so even if there were consensus to use it outside mainspace it still wouldn't be possible to use it on high-risk templates, Waid. And if the Main Page is indeed hardcoded to be FP, then PC2 is moot there. Still no legitimate use cases. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 8

In order to gain some idea of the effect of PC2, for the first 6 months after the first proposal that does not limit PC2 to articles that would otherwise be fully-protected passes, the protecting administrator must indicate what protection he WOULD HAVE used had PC2 not been an option. This should be recorded in the protection log but it may be recorded on the article talk page, the article edit log, or another location if the situation warrants. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Proposal 8)

1. Support as proposing editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support: Seems like a useful way to understand how PC-2 would be used and provides a nice check point for unforeseen concerns that might arise after PC-2 is approved for some use cases. PaleAqua (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support A tiny burden on the applying admin, in exchange for usage data. Novusuna ^talk 18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support subject to some other "apply PC2" proposal gaining consensus, of course. Everyone loves stats! Ivanvector (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Support

   talk!) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Oppose (Proposal 8)

1. This is the mildest possible oppose, not a strong one. The proposal strikes me as
   WP:CREEP, with relatively little to be gained, and I also find the current wording really difficult to understand. I had to puzzle over the language between the first and second commas. If I understand correctly, we're talking about cases where anything other than full protection is the alternative to PC2, and thus, only about situations in which there is consensus following this RfC to use PC2 as an alternative to anything other than full protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Oppose. Unnecessary IMO, unless PC2 is approved only for a limited trial. In that case I would support this measure for the duration of the trial. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Too much is too much. Proposal 1 isn't that great, so why should this one, as well? George Ho (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. This strikes me as CREEP. Also, I don't think people will remember to comply. If we want this data, we should just go ask people after they've added PC2. I don't think very many pages will get this protection, so it shouldn't be too hard to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Tryptofish. -Tal Brenev (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose ditto King of Hearts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evensteven (talk • contribs) 06:21, January 17, 2014‎
7. Oppose per Tryptofish. Rivertorch (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. You fucked us over before. I don't trust you to run a trial of AOL, let alone PC2! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose: The last trial was a fraud, and there's no reason to believe that this trial would be any better.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   This proposal is not intended to turn PC2 into a trial. See my explanation in the Discussion section below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose instead lessening our work you want to increase it? Proposal 7 was good but this proposal 8 is dumb.Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose – Overly complicating things and in any case in some complex situations it might not be possible to give a helpful answer.
    CT Cooper · talk 20:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Oppose per Tryptofish. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per Tryptofish. Also, this sounds to me like
    talk!) 13:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Oppose How many RFCs did we have to go through to stop the last "trial" of PC? No Camel Noses in the tent. Either we accept that PC2 is a valid proection state or not. Enabling the protection as a "Proof of concept" has already been shown in PC to require an act of Jimbo to shut down. Perhaps if the advocates stopped hastling us every year about this lead balloon project we'd forget about the bad taste in the mouth. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Replaced the asterick (*) for you. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose per
    talk) 20:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Neutral (Proposal 8)

Discussion (Proposal 8)

• How would this data be collected and viewed in aggregate? The main benefit of something like this would be the ability to see its overall effects. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The details are not critical now, this can be worked out later if this proposal is adopted. One possible way to do this is to adopt a standardized set of keywords to be put in the protection log entries, such as "(PC2/Full)", "(PC2/Semi)", "(PC2/PC1)", "(PC2/PC1+SEMI)". These can be sifted through at the end of the 6 month period. PC2 log entries without such keywords (there will no doubt be a few) can be examined by hand at the end of the 6 months, in the hopes that the intent will be present either in the protection log, the article history, or the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not. Last time we gave you a time-limited trial it took an RfC eight months after the fact to shut it down. You have proven that you can't be trusted to run trials with respect to PC, as you will not honor the trial's time limits, and you used Every. Single. Excuse. In. The. Fucking. BOOK! to keep the trial going even after the end date. As far as I am concerned, and anyone who wants PC2 to get a fair treatment should also be, you have no interest in the "time-limited" part of any trial, and just want to use it as an excuse to force PC2 in. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What's this have to do with trials? PC2 is intended to be permanent, even if this proposal passes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I read it as a time-limited trial, likely to see if expansion is justifiable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not meant to be one. Regardless of what the result of the data is, the status quo will be maintained without another RfC to change it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You see to be quite upset over something that is not true. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As the person who wrote this proposal, I apologize if I led anyone to think this was a "let's turn PC2 into PC2-trial." The 6 months was NOT to "review it after 6 months and get rid if it if we don't like it" but rather "review it in 6 months so we have an idea of how it is being applied in practice." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you seriously think anyone's going to be doing such a review after six months? Do I have to point out it took a fucking RfC to shut down a time-limited trial several months after the fact because almost nobody gave enough of a shit to actually shut it off and those that did were stonewalled by the developers? And you wonder why I cannot assume good faith on pro-PC editors! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 9

If proposal 8 is adopted, 6 months after it is "triggered," usage statistics will be gathered and formally reported on an project page that is directly related to PC2. Whether proposal 9 passes or not, if proposal 8 passes, it is expected that interim and final statistics will be gathered and discussed by editors on discussion pages. The passing or failing of proposal 9 would not impact such discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Proposal 9)

1. Support as proposing editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support: Per my reasons at proposal 8. PaleAqua (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Statistics are good to have. Novusuna ^talk 18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support
   talk!) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Support --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 9)

1. It's always a bad idea to mandate something and have no resources planned to meet the mandate, not even have an idea of what those resources need to be. If they are known, they needed to be stated in the proposal. Evensteven (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. You fucked us over before. I don't trust you to run a trial of AOL, let alone PC2! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   This is not a trial. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Reads like one as-written-by-Lemony-Snicket to me. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   This is not a trial. See my comment from a few minutes ago on proposal 8. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose, because I also opposed proposal 8. Tal Brenev (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Because the lead balloon of proposal 8 ain't going to pass. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per
   talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Neutral (Proposal 9)

Discussion (Proposal 9)

Who would be gathering the statistics? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a detail to be worked out later, but since the logs are public, if "nobody" did it then "anyone" could and "everyone" could verify things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposal is moot. If it passes, no one can be forced to gather those statistics. If it fails, there is nothing to prevent someone who wants to gather those statistics from doing so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: If proposal 8 fails, then there will be no statistical data to gather. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of this proposal is to state up-front that there is a desire to have statistics reported 6 months into the usage of "PC2 for other than pages that would have been fully protected." Having this kind of statement up-front - or an explicit up-front lack of consensus for this proposal - is important. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I vote that at the end of six months, someone will resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and they will give me a pony. This is just going to be Somebody else's problem and achieve nothing. If we wanted to do something practical, we might see whether someone wanted to request an WP:IEG to pay them to do this analysis (and, specifically, to do it and published the report by a stated deadline). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my specific concern about any trial, especially since history has shown the pro-PC camp has little interest in abiding by time limits for trials, and once one comes up they'll use every tactic they can to try and keep the "trial" (now a hostile takeover) going indefinitely. If they want an indefinite trial, they need to learn German. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are confused. This is not a trial. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's writ, Proposal 8 is a thinly-veiled proposal to run a 6-month trial. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 10 (moved)

Moved to

hate. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposal 11 (closed)

WP:SNOW. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

PC2 replaces Full Protection. Rationale: This would make it easier and more streamlined for non-admins to edit fully protected pages, but without the readers being subject to vandalism. Essentially using PC2, or something similar as a replacement for requesting protected edits. (Just an idea, I'm new to editing so I haven't had much experience with Protection\vandalism...) Isaac Oscar (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support (Proposal 11) Oppose (Proposal 11) Oppose. Admins should be able to use either full protection or PC2. Tal Brenev (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose: There are situations where full protection is needed for short periods. • Astynax talk 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose on Soooo many levels. I don't even know where to begin... Please consider withdrawing this proposal, before an someone else SNOW closes it... Technical 13 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply ] Oppose given that it's been discussed previously that PC2 should not be used for edit warring - protection is better in that case. Ivanvector (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose: Full protection is still needed in many cases, such as edit warring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose because full protection works well, and probably works better than PC2. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose but only because this is clearly meant to get rid of full protection entirely. I Support using PC2 instead of full protection in all cases where it makes sense to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Is this a joke? Rivertorch (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] FDMS 15:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC): Reviewers are something slightly different from Administrators.[reply] Oppose - and this is pretty much the only thing I will agree with CRASH on. PC2 can't stop an edit war, it can't protect high-use templates from ne'er-do-wells like Meepsheep, and it's a massive inefficiency (much like PC in its entirety) since it requires living bozo filters. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose PC can be used with or without semi. When an article is subject to a huge amount of vandalism, then that vandalism can still get through. Any reviewer of Admin would find it very difficult to make legitimate edits to the article. It would not stop edit warring. It would be bad for templates. Full protection means no-one can edit apart from admins, and even they should not unless they have consensus, this drastic a protection is useful because it should rarely be used.Martin451 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Neutral (Proposal 11) Discussion (Proposal 11)

Proposal 12

On articles where full protection is enabled, PC2 may be enabled when protection is lifted, if consensus to enable PC2 is established on the article's talk page, or as a result of a discussion on

WP:AN/I

, or a noticeboard created for this purpose. If there is no clear consensus, PC2 is not to be used.not to be used on that article. wording changed, see discussion.

Note: this proposal is intended to be exclusive to proposals 1-4 which give specific general conditions on use of PC2 (or oppose it entirely) but is not necessarily in conflict with the other extant proposals. (struck - covered by "not mutually exclusive" note above proposal 1)

Note 2: as a result of input from editors below, I have adjusted the wording of this proposal to remove the "exclusivity clause". I am notifying the editors who have already commented below so that they may revise their comments if they wish. Ivanvector (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Proposal 12)

1. Support as nominator. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Non-exclusive support. To make it non-exclusive, "If there is no clear consensus, PC2 is not to be used." would have to be tweaked, but that's not a big deal. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. I strongly prefer Proposal 12 over Proposal 2. I note that editors who oppose 12 express concern about spelling things out specifically, and they are correct, but 2 is far, far worse in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Just noting that the revision of the proposal is fine with me, and doesn't change my view either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Both Ozob and I oppose Option 2 anyways. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I oppose Option 2 as well. My main point is how Proposal 12 puts into focus how badly conceived Proposal 2 really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. 2nd choice ( prefer #14 ) This answers my strongest concerns over proposals 1 and 2. It still allows a full block to be used to cool down a heated situation and allows for a gradual reduction of protection. Edit: Reconfirming support after change. Edit2: If both 12 and 14 pass, I hope that the criteria from #14 mostly apply in this case as well. PaleAqua (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support as a non-exclusive option. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Similar to Proposal 5. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I oppose using the PC2 because, as I learned, potentials are harmful, so I opposed most of all above proposals. However, case-by-case bases on fully-protected pages are solvable enough, especially when a page is indefinitely protected. George Ho (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 12)

1. Oppose - Something like this needs some extremely clear-cut criteria for use. This has far too much potential to turn into a tool for
   the protection policy explicitly discourages use of FP for sustained vandalism). I will say it again: If you're using full-protection or an equivalent on an article for more than 30 days continuously, you need to have your tools revoked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   The clear-cut criteria is that FP was applied first (i.e. something bad happened that warranted full protection); beyond that I left it open intentionally. I would support a maximum time limit when this is applied, like "max 30 days and then either unprotect or revert to FP" or something like that. I would support it as a tack-on for all the other proposals too. Proposal 13? Ivanvector (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   That's not a clear-cut criteria (in that it doesn't demonstrate that PC2 is absolutely necessary); that's extremely subjective and there's nothing stopping edit-warriors from asking for PC2 after a edit-warring FP in an effort to control the article content. For areas which are known to be highly controversial in the real world (such as the Israeli-Arab Conflict or homeopathy) or which attract swaths of partisans (Armenian Genocide, any article on American politics) this is wholly unacceptable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. If PC2 is a useful tool, then it should be applicable to a different range of articles than FP, so a page having had FP should not be a necessary criterion for PC2's deployment. (And if PC2 is not a useful tool, as I maintain, then we shouldn't use it at all.) Ozob (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reaffirming my opposition, for the same reasons, in light of the revised proposal. Ozob (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I disagree. I see "PC2" vs. "Full" like "small hammer vs. big hammer." If you need to hammer something and all you have is a big hammer, you use the big hammer or you don't get the job done. If you add a small hammer to your toolkit, you use the small hammer on the jobs where the small hammer is a better tool than the big hammer. Now, the analogy does break down in that there are things a small hammer can hammer that a big hammer just can't do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   What this proposal says is, always try the big hammer first. Afterwards, if there's consensus that the small hammer might work, try the small hammer. So you'd be less likely to use the small hammer at all (because you wouldn't want to have to smash everything with your big hammer first), and even when you did, you might not even know whether it worked (because maybe hitting the page with your big hammer destroyed it). So, even conceding that this small hammer might be useful (which I don't—I think it's a tool in search of a job) this proposal would render it ineffective. Ozob (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I asked this question in the wrong context. I'll ask it again on your user talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. If this were revised to require consensus at AN/ANI, I could hold my nose and support it as a second choice (after Proposal 4). But local consensus is absolutely insufficient for applying a form of protection that is so problematic and whose benefits over other forms would be evident infrequently, if ever. If PC2 must be used—and I certainly don't think it must—it should be used rarely: in cases that present a set of circumstances so unusual that noticeboard discussion is already a given. Discussion at the relevant article's talk page might or might not be helpful in a particular case, but it would never be a substitute for discussion at AN/ANI. Rivertorch (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose – For the same reason as opposing proposal five.
   CT Cooper · talk 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Oppose per Ozob's comment above. Tal Brenev (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose If we decide that PC2 is a valid protection state (not conceeding the point), I would hope that admins have sufficent amounts of CLUE to make an intelligent choice about which protection scheme to use. I would also assume that a editor who presents a coherent argument for reducing protection would also choose a reasonable level. Binding administrator hands like this never ends well. Look how well mandatory minimums worked out. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Talk pages are sometimes constructive but it only takes one obstructionist to disrupt the process, better to have outside views. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 23:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

7. Oppose per
   talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Neutral (Proposal 12)

Discussion (Proposal 12)

Since we seem to be having trouble describing specific examples/situations where PC2 might be useful, I am proposing this as a way to allow the use of PC2 to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, subject only to the condition that full protection must have been tried first, so as to limit this to very serious cases of disruption. The criteria here is intentionally broad, rather than attempting to guess at every situation where PC2 could be useful (see

WP:KISS). If, as some editors here insist, there are cases where PC2 works better, then let those situations be identified by the community when they appear, and let the criteria for use of PC2 evolve on its own. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would support this if you removed the "exclusivity" clause. Let's suppose only proposal 2 passes. Let's say an article's full protection is expiring and it doesn't quite qualify for continued full protection so downgrading to PC2 is not an option. It will be downgraded to Semi and/or PC1 or no protection at all. Let's say that, if given the chance, the community would agree that PC2 is best. This proposal would accomplish this, but only if proposals 1-4 all fail. If Proposal 2 above passes, then the community would not have the option of seeing if there was a consensus to keep PC2. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you and Jackmcbarn are saying. When I wrote this I thought that exclusivity would be implied and just wanted to point it out, but I can see how this could pass along with other proposals (though I don't support them myself), and I can also see how this RfC is already complicated enough without throwing in a proposal with forced exclusivity. I will tweak the wording. Ivanvector (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added my support but I'm not completely comfortable with the wording: It implies that if another proposal, say, 1 or 2, passes, and the article is currently at full protection, it cannot be dropped to PC2 without a discussion - without a discussion the only options are "keep at full" or "drop to a protection other than PC2, or no protection." I hope you mean that the "if no consensus is reached, PC2 is not to be used on that article" applies only once a discussion happens. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true necessarily. If this passes along with another proposal, then there are different sets of criteria for use. One way is the criteria in the other proposal, another way is via full protection plus consensus (prop 12). I'm reading proposals 1 & 2 as criteria for use instead of full protection. For articles which are already full-protected when this RfC closes, I would hope that discussion would take place regardless of the result here, but I don't see any proposals here where that is implied. Ivanvector (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 13

Regardless of what other proposals pass, stopping legitimate users (i.e., not sockpuppets or VoA's) from edit-warring with each other is not an acceptable use of pending changes, as this would only waste reviewer time. Note that this does not mean that it must be disabled if it was originally enabled for a different reason but an edit war begins. In this case, for example, an admin could full-protect the page as normal, leaving PC alone to take effect again when full protection expires. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Proposal 13)

1. Support as proposer. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, per proposal's justification. Ozob (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Edit wars must be stopped quickly and the warring users dealt with. PC2 doesn't accomplish this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding: PC2 doesn't accomplish this unless some stronger form of protection is applied first to freeze the warring. There could be a case for using it to prevent the war from starting up again. Ivanvector (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. WTF I thought this issue was dead and settled by the poll that turned PC on in the first place (i.e. that PC not be used in any form for content disputes)! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is only a sort-of support, to the extent that there are lots of other ways that PC2 should not be used either; in other words, I'm not implicitly endorsing other uses by agreeing that this use presents problems. I also see some merit to what WhatamIdoing says below, about certain cases where it actually could present some advantages over the status quo, but I end up coming down here because I think those situations would become too dependent on the judgment of reviewers, and I'd rather have it judged at RFPP (for full protection), or either 3RR or ANI if full protection is declined. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support In line with other forms of protection that leave out only certain groups of editors. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak Support and remove Reviewer rights to the reviewer who participate in an edit war (Since there's possibility edit war between reviewers as also between Administrators) oh wait... we did have ANI (now laugh).Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support If a edit war breaks out that SEMI can't fix, it does not make sense that any form of PC will save it, nor is it wise to waste reviewer's time in "reviewing" the war. This support does not negate any of my other statements regarding PC2, but is in general referring to all of PC. Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 13)

1. Jack and I discussed this above. For most edit wars, this would be useless. For the slow-motion type—you revert me on Monday, and I revert you on Tuesday, with no one even coming close to 3RR and with each side having a main motivation of "getting accurate information to the reader" and/or "BLP"—PC2 would be reasonably effective. In this scenario (which I've seen on articles that attract activists of the tiny-minority sort), full protection would need to last for weeks and could legitimately be seen as overkill. NB that we've asked for full protection in such cases in the past, and had it declined, which meant that the edit warring continued until one side managed to bait the other into other behavior problems. As for the "waste of reviewer's time", it would require no more time than people are already investing. You'd just be taking away the incentive to revert. It takes zero reviewer time to review changes that aren't being made because the editor realizes that the reversion won't be seen by readers.
   All that said, I'd be surprised in this valid use appeared more than two or three times a year on the entire English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Partial Oppose: While I mostly support at the early stages of dealing with an edit war, as I allude to in my support of proposal 12, I can see a case where PC2 is useful step in dispute resolution. If after a page has been fully protected to stop an edit war, the parties reach a consensus to try to construct a version of the article that all sides could agree to, I could see how PC2 would be useful for them to do the development of the mutual version. PaleAqua (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per the two comments above, I think a blanket ban would be overkill. That said, I accept that PC2, and really pending changes generally, are not well suited for dealing with edit warring.
   CT Cooper · talk 21:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Oppose per
   talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Neutral (Proposal 13)

Discussion (Proposal 13)

• I support the philosophy behind this but as WhatamIdoing pointed out in his "oppose" of 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC), in practice there will be rare occasions of edit-warring where PC2 is preferable to FP. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 14

The employment of Pending changes level 2 on English Wikipedia is controversial within the community and its implementation may raise some technical issues. Accordingly, at least at this time, this protection option should be used only where there is a specific reason to do so on a given page. It should not be used routinely or when another protection status would be sufficient.

PC-2 status for a page may be appropriate:

• Where a
  biography of a living person
  or other page containing BLP content has been the subject of repeated unacceptable edits by multiple autoconfirmed users, particularly where the edits create a risk of harm to the article subject.
• Where a specific page has been misused by multiple autoconfirmed users for purposes of harassment, defamation, or similarly unacceptable conduct.
• Where a specific page has been the subject of such seriously disruptive editing that in the absence of a PC-2 option, it would be appropriate to full-protect the page (effectively preventing all editing) for an extended period of time.
• Where there is a strong need (for example, for legal reasons) to keep specific content out of an article but the article should otherwise be open to editing.

PC-2 status generally should not be used:

• To address routine edit-warring.
• To address routine content disputes.
• Where semiprotection or PC-1 protection would be sufficient.
• Where the subject-matter of the article or of an underlying dispute is such that reviewers are unlikely to recognize which edits should and should not be approved.
• Except for test pages, in userspace or Wikipedia space.

The overall number of pages on PC-2 status should be kept limited so as not to swamp the reviewer team and cause undue delays in reviewing edits. The protection level of any page on PC-2 status should be reviewed periodically. Requests for modification of PC-2 status should be made in the first instance to the protecting administrator, and otherwise on

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

.

This policy will be reviewed by the community after six months of implementation and the use of PC-2 may be continued, expanded, or discontinued by consensus at that time. In the interim, feedback on the implementation of PC-2 may be provided at [link].

Support (Proposal 14)

1. Having considered all the comments above, proposing this as a framework. I'm sure some of the language will need tweaking, but let's see if the overall concept works first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support This seems to hit all the big issues. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support This one answers my concerns with proposal 2. PaleAqua (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support This seems great, sufficiently detailed and limited, and addresses my concerns with Proposal 1. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per above comments. Tal Brenev (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. The more I follow the discussions on this page, the less enthusiasm I end up having for PC2 at all, so this comment is not entirely one of support. Two things quickly stood out to me, when I read Proposal 14. First, it does a better job than the first couple of proposals on this page at delineating when not to use PC2. It's for that reason that I want to indicate at least some support for this proposal, relative to others. But the second thing – taking into account some of the oppose comments just below, that point out alternative solutions even to those problems listed in this proposal as acceptable uses of PC2 – is how clearly it shows that PC2 just isn't that useful. So, if we end up using it at all, I think Proposal 14 does a pretty good job of spelling out when to use it and when not to, but I also find myself increasingly skeptical that we need PC2 at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support ///EuroCarGT 21:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Such a usage would have been very relevant and useful on an article like
   talk) 11:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support – Broadly agree as general guidance. However, I would probably add language stating use of PC2 would generally not be appropriate if blocking is a viable option (as is the case currently for other forms of protection).
    CT Cooper · talk 21:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support This adds to the situations listed in Proposal 2, but also clarifies when PC2 would not be appropriate, I think it is the best definition of appropriate use I've seen so far. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support The conditions spelled out here have always been what seemed to me to be the most sensible use case for PC2, and I've suggested limitations much like these in discussions going a year or more back. (If I were writing it myself, I'd probably also include a specific "don't use on frequently edited pages" restriction.) I would add that in many cases blocks are in fact, as many opposers note, a better option, however there are individual cases where one or more extremely dedicated vandals have gone to quite a bit of trouble to reinsert severely problematic content from a variety of accounts and IP addresses. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 14)

1. Oppose - Too much instructional creep. I imagine that the proposal is well-intended, but this is still too complicated, especially for either a reviewer or an administrator. BLP-violations by multiple autoconfirmed users are rare. Other instances by multiple autoconfirmed are also rare. Temporary blocking, topic-banning, 1RR-enforcement, arbitrary discretions, and a lot of communication are good ways to solve issues. Why can't this proposal regard other alternatives unmentioned? --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Bullet by bullet: I is BLP theatre at best, II is better handled by blocks+SPIs or ArbCom (See also
   not our jurisdiction. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Oppose. I appreciate the attempt to find appropriate uses of PC2 and lay down bright-line boundaries for them, but I am still unconvinced that PC2 is the most effective solution to these problems, and I am further unconvinced that there will be no slippery slope towards looser standards.
   The examples that have been presented in here and on the present talk page have mostly been the work of a single user or a small number of users (
   Mass killings under Communist regimes. These pages are the loci of deep content disputes, not the shared hobbyhorse of sockmasters worldwide. The only solution to their ills is a careful and gradual building of consensus on talk pages. Having to make a protected edit request to enact change forces participants to either be constructive or to engage in user conduct violations (which can be handled as above); PC2 will allow them to scribble all over the page, even if their revisions are not publicly visible, and for many that temptation will be irresistible.
   As legal incidents such as DMCA takedown notices are handled by WMF and are not subject to community consensus, legal restrictions on specific article content do not seem to me to be relevant to this RFC. (Broader considerations such as copyvios and BLPs are, but as I've stated elsewhere I do not PC2 is an appropriate solution for these.)
   Finally, despite any intention of minimizing the use of PC2, it is (rightly) seen as a much less severe restriction than full protection, and so there is less pressure to avoid it. It seems to me that many supporters of PC2 believe that it could be appropriately deployed on more articles than are fully protected and for longer terms. This will cause inevitable creep towards looser rules for applying PC2 regardless of the written standard. I think that on average Wikipedia would end up with more restricted editing, not less.
   I therefore am opposed and have the same question: Is there a page on Wikipedia that would be better off with PC2? Ozob (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Oppose. I almost liked this option until I got to the first set of bullet points. But (1) I don't trust reviewers more than other established editors to prevent "harm to an article subject"; (2) the word "defamation" has legal connotations, and I don't think PC of any kind is the best protection option when there are legal concerns; (3) full protection does not "effectively [prevent] all editing"—it just forces any edits to be subject to consensus before the fact; and (4) ditto what I said under (2). Also, the last paragraph sets us up for another PC trial fail. We've been down that road before, and it's both tortuous and torturous. Rivertorch (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose: this is a restatement of proposals 1 and 2, and I oppose it for the same reasons. For sockpuppetry, even in cases of very large and coordinated sock/meatpuppet activity, the solution is to lock down the article and kick the offending editors out. When IP editors cause these problems we block their IPs; the treatment should be no different for autoconfirmed editors. For all of the situations presented, full protection and consensus seeking is better than PC2. Ivanvector (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose due to the indefinite nature of the review provision, which is just a kick-the-can-down-the-road proposal, and because too much of the wording makes detailed and unnecessary efforts to address routine implementation issues that should be addressed by the community in proper context if they actually arise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. "The employment of Pending changes level 2 on English Wikipedia is controversial within the community and its implementation may raise some technical issues. Accordingly, at least at this time, this protection option should..." not be used.
   Rationale: the conclusion should follow from the premises. p.s. Also, all proposals from Newyorkbrad should be in dulcimer couplet or rhyming haiku form, please. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Oppose Again, Camel's nose in the tent. All of the cases for PC2 are better handled as Full Protection with edit requests in addition to being a process the community already knows. If autoconfirmed users are misbehaving, you bop them on the nose like you would a misbehaving puppy. If multiple users have valid points to the edits and they aren't working together to resolve it, Full protection is the answer Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per
   talk) 20:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Neutral (Proposal 14)

Discussion (Proposal 14)

• Would "unacceptable conduct" apply to any large, unrelenting sockpuppet or meatpuppet operation? - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most certainly, I hope.
  talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If that's the case, PC2 is a waste of time. Blocking all accounts and thoroughly CU'ing them would be a better use of time (and if CU comes back inconclusive,
  meatpuppets can be sanctioned as if they were the editor they're editing on behalf of). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is more or less the same as proposal 1, but will probably fail to be adopted mainly because of the wikiRfC effect, i.e. it came far too late, and it's also a bit wordy. Since #2 or #1 look likely to pass, amendments and clarifications should be proposed after the basic policy is adopted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It came late because it's a deliberate attempt to derive consensus wording from the proposals already discussed, taking into account the points made by both supporters and opposers of the simpler proposals. It's more complicated than the prior proposals for the same reason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to lay some blame here. My point is that in a community RfC, unlike in ArbCom cases, there is a large first-mover advantage (or rather an advantage for the first few proposals) because of the vote-and-move-on mechanics that are at work with many editors, the open-ended nature of the voter pool in RfCs, and the fact that RfC closers are likely to give much more consideration to heavily debated/!voted proposals, which is
      paradox of choice effect at work when voters get to the 10+ numbered proposals as well. I recall looking at some other community RfCs that this happens practically every time. Which is probably why we end up having RfC after RfC on some matters... Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The massmessage was sent out a week after the RfC opened to tell participants about the new proposals, to counteract the bias resulting from only some being available at first. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 15

Regardless of which proposals pass or fail in this RfC, any future implementation of PC2 shall trigger a review of the granting of the "reviewer" user right, including an RfC to develop a specific guideline for editors to be granted the "reviewer" permission, including specific expectations and a process by which an editor's "reviewer" permission may be revoked if they abuse the privilege.

In that RfC, the community may or may not elect to immediately revoke the "reviewer" user right for all non-admin users and allow editors to re-apply under the new criteria; this proposal is neutral in that regard.

Support (Proposal 15)

1. Support as proposer. See comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong, enthusiastic support. Well, it took 15 proposals, but there is finally one where I feel very, very strongly supportive! I absolutely agree: there are users who were given the reviewer tool who, if PC becomes more widely used, will prove to be poorly qualified to carry out the responsibility, and the community should anticipate how best to deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Not surprisingly, given what I said, I'm disappointed to see the opposition, which strikes me (at this time point) as wikilawyering and not based on the merits of the argument. After all, this is a discussion, as is any RfC. But if such a separate RfC is created subsequently, I'll definitely support. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   At this point, the participation compared to earlier RfCs on the topic is a fraction of the ones from the earlier RfCs. Community fatigue is a legitimate concern to me at this point, and the majority of voices on this RfC right now are pretty much the same voices that have been arguing since the original straw poll by Off2riorob, and especially since the 2012 RfC (whose close, from what I recall correctly, pissed a lot of people involved off, especially on the oppose side, due to developer fiat). Everyone else who doesn't have as strong an opinion has either stopped caring about PC, given up on PC RfCs owing to the situation being largely screwed in favour of one side (The aforementioned fiat, the RfC to end the original trial), and controlled almost entirely by the polemics, or have since left Wikipedia. Opening another RfC would not help, as the only people who'd contribute to it at this point are the polemics on both sides, and there are more pro-PC polemics than con-PC ones, making any RfC a formality at best (since every single RfC with regards to PC has been run as a straight-up vote). Run an RfC if you want. Don't be surprised if the same voices show up again and again to make identical arguments, the closer votecounts to close, and the pro-PC group gets its way. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support. Regardless of the procedural details, I think the underlying principles of this proposal are sound. Ozob (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. As things stand today, there is little reason to believe that reviewers are more adept than other experienced editors at identifying vandalism or other unacceptable edits, yet most of the proposals on this page are based on the premise that they are. If the already complex hierarchy of user rights must be made more complex—and of course it doesn't have to be—then at the very least we really should take measures to ensure that the wunderkind of the day (and every day seems to bring a new one) who has racked up 10,000 edits in three months isn't entrusted with judging the edits of Wikipedians who have been working here productively for half a decade. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Conditional Support. Only for the case where a proposal passes that would allow PC2 to be used in place of full protection. Edit: I would rather see PC-2 reviewers be a separate group if that is possible as suggested below. PaleAqua (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Qualified support with respect to PC2 only - I agree that those currently holding "reviewer" should not automatically become PC2-reviewers for the reasons already discussed. I also have no problem with ceasing handing out the current "reviewer" right. However, I have no problem grandfathering in those who got the bit when it was easy to get and allowing them to continue doing PC1 reviews. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support – The current Reviewer right has been handed out like candy at Halloween. Mojoworker (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support It doesn't take a lot to get the Reviewer right, and PC2 reviewing implicitly demands more experience than PC1 reviewing.
   talk!) 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Reluctantly support - I have reverted vandalism and test edits without needing to be a reviewer, especially for PC1 pages. There are over 1,000 reviewers, and I'm seeing a surplus. People fighting vandalism do not have to be reviewers to either accept or revert edits. They can simply revert without a need of rights. I would hope that a competent reviewer can accept an edit that is constructive. For now, reviewers accept edits that are bad but neither vandalism, test edit, BLP-violation, nor copyvio. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Proposal 15)

Oppose not because I'm opposed to this RfC, but because anybody can create an RfC anytime they want to. You could create one right now. This proposal is thus pointless. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose it even with the new condition. I don't find it necessary to delay PC2 until another RfC is completed. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the pros and cons are equal and I neither support nor oppose this. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose as unnecessary per Ramaksoud2000. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair points, though that RfC would be redundant if this RfC closes with no direction to implement PC2. Thus, this proposal. Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per the two points above. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Asking the same fucking questions on a regular basis NEEDS TO STOP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   So does opposing proposals without apparently having read them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Then let me rephrase. Holding a new RfC every few months NEEDS TO STOP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   That still begs the question of whether the current population of reviewers was properly identified. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you think an RfC will answer that question, given how skewed the situation is towards PC and reviewers? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. Conditional oppose as this is something that should be discussed at the talk page instead.
   talk) 20:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Just clarifying, do you mean it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing pending changes? This proposal is to require a discussion on reviewer rights prior to any implementation of pending changes level 2. I guess discussing it at the talk page isn't against the spirit of this proposal, I just thought it would be better off as a separate discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   My statement was indeed unclear - I meant that this proposal should be discussed at the talk page of this RfC. I should note, though, that the proposal as stated is not the same as what you just wrote above.

   talk) 22:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   (More specifically, the "prior to" part is not present in the proposal as stated.)

   talk) 23:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Neutral (Proposal 15)

Discussion (Proposal 15)

This is intended to address concerns brought up here and in previous PC RfCs regarding the granting of the "reviewer" user right. The current guideline is based on a draft coming out of one of the previous RfCs and apparently is only still in effect because there was no consensus to refine it in any of the subsequent discussions. That guideline is here: Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Becoming a reviewer.

While noting this was not part of the official close, the closer of RfC 2013 (jc37) left this comment: "Several commenters noted that they felt that several of the admin-granted user-rights are given out "like candy" (to quote one commenter). I agree that, in my experience, this is all to often the case. (See also my comment about transparency here.) So this is merely a request from a fellow Wikipedian, but please someone start a discussion/rfc to re-examine the current criteria (or lack thereof) concerning the granting of admin-granted user-rights, and the reviewing of the ongoing usage of such user-rights." Thus, I am proposing we do so. Ivanvector (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I recognize that Proposal 15 becomes moot if the overall consensus here ends up against implementing PC2. But I'd still be interested to hear from the opposers if they have a rationale for why – if, hypothetically, PC2 does get implemented – they would oppose Proposal 15. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oppose at least, isn't a "real" oppose. It's a procedural oppose, as no proposal is necessary to do what you're saying you want to do. I have no problem with the idea. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks, I understand. But, given that, I'll observe that such a position makes it effectively impossible to adopt Proposal 15 in the event that some form of PC2 were to be implemented, without starting a separate RfC. Absent a substantive reason from someone who does have a problem with it, that seems to me to be a needless extra step, when we are already discussing the idea here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me explain my rationale here. I do realize that anyone could start an RfC on this at any time. Discussing changes to the user rights would be counterproductive if PC2 isn't going to be used anyway, and would undoubtedly be disruptive to PC1 regardless of what happens here. I suggest that an RfC on reviewer rights is only necessary if we are proceeding with PC2, otherwise it's needlessly disruptive. So,

  • If we are going to implement PC2, we need to nail down the process for users being granted reviewer rights;
  • If we're not going to implement PC2, we shouldn't open that discussion. -- Unless someone else wants to, in which case they can do so at any time, but I'm judging by the fact that nobody has and there has been no past consensus to do so that nobody else wants to if they don't have to, and I don't either.

  So I'm proposing that we have the discussion if PC2 is enabled, otherwise we don't. And I'm seeking consensus on that here as the most appropriate venue. I acknowledge that the procedural opposition to this proposal is correct, and

  I am proposing it anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  After this RfC, you can open any RfC you want. You don't need to hold an RfC to determine whether there should be an RfC. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This proposal is to require that RfC as a condition of implementing PC2. If there is no consensus that that is a requirement, opening another RfC is a waste of time. Ivanvector (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a significant point, and I want to underline it, in case anyone else missed it. A big part of the point of Proposal 15 is has always been that, if PC2 ends up being implemented, then Proposal 15 becomes a condition of its implementation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Just in case I wasn't clear, that was always my intent in making this proposal, that revisiting reviewer rights becomes a condition of PC2. As a non-closer, I would interpret broad opposition to this as saying "we don't need to revisit reviewer rights to move on with PC2." Which seems to be what Ramaksoud2000 is saying by adding to his oppose !vote, and that's how I was expecting this discussion to go. And that's a fine and logical conclusion, if the community feels that reviewers are fine as-is, and if so then I have no intention of opening another RfC just to make a point. But that hasn't been what I've seen from reading some of the previous RfCs, as evidenced by the quote I pasted in from jc37 above. Ivanvector (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re davidwr: I doubt having different groups for reviewing PC1 and PC2 will go over very well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that point, I think the community could decide, per the existing language of this proposal, whether or not to automatically review everyone who already is a reviewer. The alternative might be to define a recall procedure or criteria, and let PC1 reviewers be evaluated case-by-case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's worth noting here that the way that PC1 is implemented, any autoconfirmed editor can accept or reject pending changes, regardless of reviewer permissions, since the changes are visible. It's just ever so slightly more difficult for non-reviewers. So in actuality taking away reviewer permissions from all non-admins would not really be all that disruptive. Ivanvector (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No. If an autoconfirmed user edits a page while there still are unreviewed edits, their edit is put into the review queue as well. The FAQ makes this clear. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it is possible for an autoconfirmed user (who's not a reviewer) to do that (and it's not a bug). Not going into details per

  WP:BEANS. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Re to
  forum shopping going on here, as PC supporters don't get the answer they want so they ask the question a different way, while the significant portion of the community in opposition thins out, loses interest, or moves on. With due respect to the closers of previous RfCs, your discussion analyses (which I respect) have left the community open to this shopping behaviour, and it leads to a much weaker consensus and a weaker community. Notice that many of the dissenting editors in previous RfCs have simply abandoned the discussion, instead declaring that they will not edit on any page where pending changes is enabled. (Jeremy, I think you are among them, and I am considering it myself at this point). However, we are here now, it looks like prop2 has broad support which will lead to PC2 being enabled in some form, so let's deal with the issues where we can. Ivanvector (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I have always refused to edit on pages where PC was enabled ever since the trial, not because of RfCs on the topic. I just do not feel PC is compatible with the Foundation's own goals of bringing in new blood and retaining the old. And yes, every single RfC on this topic has been some form of shopping, with every single RfC written out by a PC supporter as opposed to a neutral party. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  

• I read Proposition 4/0 as superceeding all propositions defining a use for PC2. The existence of, at a minimum, no broad consensus in Proposition 4/0 precludes any broad consensus on details for implementation of PC2. We now have 15 and counting propositions. This RFC has expanded to include mutually exclusive propsitions, with differing nosecounts. It is not logically possible to have any rational close other than no broad consensus. Since, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a democratic centralist organization, I don't expect broad acceptance of any close of this mishmash. I expect the question to be brought up again and again (as it has been). A hallmark of a hasty or partisan plan is that it has unintended consequences (fewer edits and fewer new editors). - Neonorange (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, you must be new here. It's more likely the closers will view option 1 or 2 as consensus as there's "clear consensus" for both of those, and option 4 as not having a broad consensus. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would hope they would not accept proposals 1 and 2 so readily, because not everyone who supported proposal 4 took the time to explicitly oppose the other proposals. Ozob (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen enough of this shit over the past four years that I hold out no hope whatsoever. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheer up! It can't do any more than totally annihilate Wikipedia. You and I will still have real life. Ozob (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the size of Wikipedia, it'll take a good chunk out of real life. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I notice something, Why don't we just make another User group/rights like Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia(Indonesian Language), they differ between normal reviewer (which is just like PC1) and more advanced reviewer for PC2 see here, out of 532.725 User they only give PC1 reviewer to 86 User and PC2 reviewer to only 6 User. They also not giving it out like candy and have some serious strict controlling rule over giving out this rights (see here for Status Editor/PC1 Review request), I really thought this gonna be a good Idea, and also remove reviewer rights for some User that didn't even bother to care about Guidelines and policy.(please note their editor status and peninjau status is kind of different from ours the difference is the level of protection and theirs is the quality of article).-->AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 06:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit opposes

Several users have neither supported nor opposed proposals specifically, but are considered to have opposed them because they supported a proposal that conflicts with it. Signing your name in the Support, Neutral, or Oppose section for the proposal will cause your name to be removed from the list on its next update.

Implicit oppose (Proposal 1)

1. Edgepedia
2. ElKevbo
3. I'm not human
4. Isaac Oscar
5. Ithinkicahn
6. James500
7. Joefromrandb
8. Kafkasmurat
9. Legoktm
10. Lithium6ion
11. Slakr
12. WDGraham
13. Zellfaze
14. themfromspace

Implicit oppose (Proposal 2)

1. Edgepedia
2. ElKevbo
3. Harsh_2580
4. I'm not human
5. Isaac Oscar
6. James500
7. Joefromrandb
8. Kafkasmurat
9. Legoktm
10. Lithium6ion
11. Slakr
12. WDGraham
13. Zellfaze
14. themfromspace

Implicit oppose (Proposal 3)

1. DESiegel
2. DGG
3. Edgepedia
4. ElKevbo
5. George Ho
6. Harsh_2580
7. Hasteur
8. Hobit
9. I'm not human
10. Isaac Oscar
11. Ithinkicahn
12. Ivanvector
13. James500
14. Joefromrandb
15. Kafkasmurat
16. Kusma
17. Kww
18. Legoktm
19. Lithium6ion
20. NaBUru38
21. Ozob
22. PaleAqua
23. Risker
24. Slakr
25. Spinningspark
26. Sven Manguard
27. WDGraham
28. Zellfaze
29. themfromspace

Implicit oppose (Proposal 4)

1. ALH
2. Aircorn
3. Aldnonymous
4. AmaryllisGardener
5. Amitrc7th
6. Anaxial
7. ArnoldReinhold
8. Arunsingh16
9. Aunva6
10. Berean Hunter
11. Bill william compton
12. Blethering Scot
13. Buffbills7701
14. Callanecc
15. Canuckian89
16. Cirt
17. CogitoErgoSum14
18. Dan653
19. DavidHobby
20. Ed Cormany
21. Epicgenius
22. Etineskid
23. EuroCarGT
24. Evensteven
25. Figaro
26. FormerIP
27. Hahc21
28. Happy5214
29. HueSatLum
30. Hut 8.5
31. Inks.LWC
32. Jane023
33. Jed 20012
34. Jianhui67
35. Jinkinson
36. Joe Decker
37. John Cline
38. Jr8825
39. Lisapollison
40. Mark Arsten
41. Mr. Stradivarius
42. MusikAnimal
43. Newyorkbrad
44. Nick Levine
45. Novusuna
46. Pastaguy12
47. Phil2011.13
48. Planet Herald
49. Pocketthis
50. Ponyo
51. Red Phoenix
52. Remsense
53. RexxS
54. Rschen7754
55. Stanleyipkiss32
56. Surfer43
57. Tbhotch
58. Technical 13
59. Terminator92
60. TheOriginalSoni
61. Touch_Of_Light
62. W. P. Uzer
63. Xxanthippe

Implicit oppose (Proposal 5)

1. Beeblebrox
2. DESiegel
3. DGG
4. Edgepedia
5. ElKevbo
6. Harsh_2580
7. Hobit
8. I'm not human
9. Isaac Oscar
10. Ithinkicahn
11. James500
12. Joefromrandb
13. Kafkasmurat
14. Legoktm
15. Lithium6ion
16. Neonorange
17. Risker
18. Sandstein
19. Slakr
20. Spinningspark
21. Sven Manguard
22. WDGraham
23. Zellfaze
24. themfromspace

Implicit oppose (Proposal 11)

1. Beeblebrox
2. DESiegel
3. DGG
4. Edgepedia
5. ElKevbo
6. George Ho
7. Harsh_2580
8. Hasteur
9. Hobit
10. I'm not human
11. Isaac Oscar
12. Ithinkicahn
13. James500
14. Joefromrandb
15. Kafkasmurat
16. Kusma
17. Kww
18. Legoktm
19. Lithium6ion
20. NaBUru38
21. Neonorange
22. Ozob
23. PaleAqua
24. Risker
25. S Marshall
26. Sandstein
27. Slakr
28. Spinningspark
29. Sven Manguard
30. WDGraham
31. Zellfaze
32. themfromspace

Implicit oppose (Proposal 12)

1. Beeblebrox
2. DESiegel
3. DGG
4. Edgepedia
5. ElKevbo
6. Harsh_2580
7. Hobit
8. I'm not human
9. Isaac Oscar
10. Ithinkicahn
11. James500
12. Joefromrandb
13. Kafkasmurat
14. Kusma
15. Kww
16. Legoktm
17. Lithium6ion
18. NaBUru38
19. Neonorange
20. Risker
21. S Marshall
22. Sandstein
23. Slakr
24. Spinningspark
25. Sven Manguard
26. WDGraham
27. Zellfaze
28. themfromspace

Implicit oppose (Proposal 14)

1. Beeblebrox
2. DESiegel
3. DGG
4. Edgepedia
5. ElKevbo
6. Harsh_2580
7. Hobit
8. I'm not human
9. Isaac Oscar
10. Ithinkicahn
11. James500
12. Joefromrandb
13. Kafkasmurat
14. Kusma
15. Kww
16. Legoktm
17. Lithium6ion
18. NaBUru38
19. Neonorange
20. Risker
21. S Marshall
22. Sandstein
23. Slakr
24. Spinningspark
25. Sven Manguard
26. WDGraham
27. Zellfaze
28. themfromspace

Users supporting other proposals along with Proposal 4

Some users have supported Proposal 4, which opposes the implementation of PC2, along with one or more other proposals that support its implementation in various ways. At face value, these endorsements may appear to be contradictory. Please see the specific comments for any explanations of these endorsements.

• Proposals 4 and 1 are both supported by Tryptofish
• Proposals 4 and 2 are both supported by DESiegel
• Proposals 4 and 3 are both supported by Tryptofish
• Proposals 4 and 5 are both supported by Tryptofish
• Proposals 4 and 5 are both supported by Ivanvector
• Proposals 4 and 12 are both supported by Tryptofish
• Proposals 4 and 12 are both supported by PaleAqua
• Proposals 4 and 12 are both supported by George Ho
• Proposals 4 and 12 are both supported by Ivanvector
• Proposals 4 and 14 are both supported by Tryptofish
• Proposals 4 and 14 are both supported by PaleAqua

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.