Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Closure

Ok, so after going through this many many times, and having tried to read other discussions where I could (and noting I didn't find User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's "comments in past discussions"), and having waited quite a while to give time for anyone else to step up to help close, though it looks like it's just going to be me at this point - here goes : )

(puts on my closer hat)

First, there were a handful of editors who supported this only as a test case. There was no consensus for that.

There were several whose support conditionally relied upon certain criteria (such as limited usage) not only among those who supported (User:davidwr for example), but even a handful who opposed (User:Hut 8.5 for example). And there were significant concerns that this rfc was in effect (to paraphrase the words of several commenters) like giving a blank cheque.

I'm copying something from the proposal because it directly impacts the closure result:

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

The result of this rfc is: There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first.

To try to be clear: without the requirement of community-wide consensus in a followup rfc concerning criteria for usage as noted above, the result of this RfC would have been no consensus to implement.

And along with that, while it did not have consensus to prevent implementation, given that it had the weight of policy argument and a fair amount of those commenting noted this concern, it is recommended that a followup RfC should keep in mind the many concerns about WP:BURO as well as WP:ANYONECANEDIT (third pillar).

(takes off my closer hat for a moment)

This is not part of the "official" close (And comments related to it did not have enough significant weight/support in the rfc discussion to have affected the close anyway.). This is merely a request from a fellow Wikipedian. 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.

(puts the closer hat back on)

And finally, I have at times noted that I can at times be a bit verbose (hmm, that ceiling is a nice shade of white), and knowing that, I sometimes try to truncate what I say, and following that, then get questioned over whether my close was explanatory enough. So with that in mind (and because we should expect this of closers anyway) I welcome any positive and collegiate (we're all Wikipedians here) requests for clarification of this close, as I do of any close. - jc37 23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Table of Pending Changes Level One and Level Two

Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels   Unregistered or newly registered Confirmed or autoconfirmed Extended confirmed Template editor Admin Interface admin Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy) No protection Normal editing The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level. Pending changes All users can edit Edits by unregistered or new editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in, until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not. Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users. Semi Cannot edit Normal editing Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules. Extended confirmed Cannot edit Normal editing* Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive. Template Cannot edit Normal editing High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space. Full Cannot edit Normal editing Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. Critical templates and modules. Interface Cannot edit Normal editing Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces. * In order to edit through extended confirmed protection, a template editor must also be extended confirmed, but in practice this is almost always the case. Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection Cascade protection

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

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

Support PC/2

1. Support for a limited set of use cases. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

   What use cases do you propose? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

   Top of the discussion section, as the proposer requested. By the way, I've replied to your reply there, I believe you've misunderstood what I said. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

   I understood fine, Joe. You are proposing to penalize the entire editing community and the article itself instead of addressing the behavioural problems of a few editors; that's really how it parses. (Ohhh, autoconfirmed editors are misbehaving on this article! Instead of dealing with the individual human beings that are behaving badly, let's use this fancy technical solution that creates tons of work for other editors and still allows all kinds of nonsense to go in the page history.) I know technical solutions are easy and people are hard. Still, it's the people who are the problem, not the article. Risker (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2. My proposal: I do not imagine PC2 should be used very frequently. Therefore I suggest the following approach: Create a subsection of WP:RFPP dedicated to PC2 requests. One can put in a request for a page to be PC2-protected, after which a discussion will take place. If consensus is reached, then the page will be PC2-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support as RfC creator (full disclosure). PC/1 has proven that it can be implemented consistently and well. PC/2 would provide a nice gradient of protection from SP to FP, and cover cases of sockpuppetry, etc. for which PC1/SP is insufficient and FP is overkill. Deadbeef 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

   How does preventing a fraction of regular editors (i.e., those without review permissions) from editing directly into the article make the likelihood of problem editing decrease? Where does the sockpuppetry theory come in? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

   Risker and I disagree on nearly everything to do with sockpuppeting, but on this point we agree: PC/1 and PC/2 do nothing to reduce sockpuppeting. I'm of the opinion that they actually assist it.—Kww(talk) 01:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

5. Support per User:Deadbeef. Rami R 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support in limited use cases. PC2 has been seen to be useful in cases of autoconfirmed puppetry, such as the one Joe explains below. I cannot really see any other reason why it would be needed in article space, although I am open to being persuaded. I tend to like King of Hearts' idea of requiring consensus for PC2 requests. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Support with the caveat that in some appropriate place there be a notice for administrators that they should consciously dismiss semi and PC1 as alternatives before imposing it. If King of Hearts's idea is used, editors requesting PC2 should be instructed to explain why they seek it instead of one of the others. -Rrius (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Support as an alternative to full protection in extreme cases of socking. --Rschen7754 08:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

   Given that only vandalism and BLP violations are supposed to be rejected for PC, why do you think this will affect socking edits? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

   A lot of socking is to conduct vandalism and BLP violations. --Rschen7754 20:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

   Let's have some examples. Risker (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

   Just go down the SPI list and I'm sure you'll find a whole bunch. --Rschen7754 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm going to side with Risker on this point, although I generally favor PC/2. I found PC/1 to actually promote socking problems relative to semi-protection: instead of preventing the sock from editing, it put the sock's edits into a forum where people evaluated the quality of the edit. It was impossible to get people to consider that a good edit should be rejected because it was being made by a sock. I don't think PC/2 is any different in that regard: if the goal is to discourage socks, an actual protection mechanism needs to be applied. PC/2 in conjunction with semi-protection could possibly be effective, but not PC/2 by itself.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

   Not to mention that PC does make life harder on the oversighters, since it doesn't stop the edits from being made in the first place. Phone numbers, unsubstantiated accusations of serious crimes, and email addresses have no business being in mainspace. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

9. Support per Deadbeef, and endorse Rrius' comment as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Partial Support per Deadbeef, King of Hearts and Rrius above. I was and still am a vehement opponent of using flagged revisions liberally because I think every editor should be able to contribute equally; this philosophy is also the reason I can support this proposal though because as has been pointed out above, PC/2 would actually allow users to edit in cases in which they currently wouldn't be able to because of FP. That said, usage of PC/2 has to be limited to only cases where FP would be applicable otherwise. Regards SoWhy 08:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Support —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support -- Ariconte (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
13. (edit conflict) Support, but user right-giving admins should be more careful when giving the reviewer flag. It should be treated the same way as the rollback flag. I have encountered some reviewers who accept/decline changes seemingly without even knowing what they are doing, so if PC/2 was to pass, the reviewer flag has got to be given as much importance as the rollback flag. smtchahal^(talk) 09:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    Given the criteria for rejection of edits is that they are vandalism or BLP violations, can you give examples of where reviewers permitted such edits?Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

14. Support. This is a sensible extension to the earlier trial, and result in our reduced reliance on full protection (which is a very subversive, damaging condition to impose on any wiki page). AGK [•] 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    Full protection means that there are lots of eyes on an article. Why is making people think that they're editing an article, only to discover that their changes have not been published publicly, less subversive? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    @Risker: That answer really ought to have been obvious. On one hand, changes are merely delayed by a few minutes pending approval by a reviewer (sensible enough - for most people making their first edit to Wikipedia, the surprise seems to be at the fact their changes weren't subject to review). On the other hand, a page is completely locked to all editing (aside from edits made through a confusing process on the talk page). It is obvious which one is less damaging and more desirable. AGK [•] 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

    There's no guarantee that the delay will only be "a few minutes pending approval". There is always the possibility that the edits will go into a backlog—which effectively means a black hole. As a new editor, I would rather be told up front that I can't edit a page (which is extremely clear and familiar, since you can't edit most websites) than have my edits vanish into a complicated system of approval that I don't understand. Ozob (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

15. Support. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support in full accord with AGK's comment above. PC is proving its worth and I support it, and this extension without equivocation. My76Strat (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support per Deadbeef and Rrius Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Support per AGK. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Support as per Joe Decker. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Support - better and more flexible than full protection.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Support per Deadbeef. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
22. (edit conflict) Support - Although it will not be used too frequently, but it is beneficial and very useful on pages where there are all edits from IPs are vandalism and some autoconfirmed accounts vandalise too (or at risk from vandalism from autoconfirmed accounts), but yet there are still many good-faith accounts who edit the page. And of course, it is better than full protection, as mentioned above by User:FutureTrillionaire.
    Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    The "not used too frequently" argument has been made with respect to PC1 as well, but it is now on over 600 articles, most of them indefinitely, and every time I have checked the "edits awaiting review" backlog, at least 1% of articles have edits waiting, usually for more than an hour, and sometimes for several hours. Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

23. Support per Deadbeef. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support - The wiki needs this in extreme cases mentioned above. TCN7JM 16:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    What extreme cases are you talking about? Are there many articles where autoconfirmed editors without reviewer permissions have been vandalizing articles or inserting BLP violations that are not addressed by action directly against the editor? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

25. Support after an article-specific discussion, as alternative to stronger protection, OR after there is a at least one community-approved criteria. See discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
26. Cautious support from a long-time PC skeptic. We've had Level 1 for a while, and I've been pleased to see that it works better than I had expected. My caution comes from (1) the fact that we don't really have a clear plan about where to use Level 2, and where not to use it, and (2) the fact that the reviewer flag has been given out too carelessly, and we will not be able to depend on every reviewer to use Level 2 properly. That said, I'm increasingly optimistic that we can (1) figure out proper use over time, and (2) solve problems with individual reviewers one-by-one. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Support PC-2 (combined with semi-protection) for high-use templates that would otherwise need full protection, and on a limited basis for articles that experience persistent vandalism from auto-confirmed users where semi-protection isn't enough and full-protection is too much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Support per User:Deadbeef. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support per my comments in past discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Support as a way of reducing the use of full protection. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    Can you give an example of articles under full protection now that would benefit from PC2? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

31. Support per deadbeef.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - Seems to create more options but still within a clear hierarchy of protection levels that avoids confusion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Might be very helpful sometimes (eg. autoconfirmed puppetry, autoconfirmed/inexperienced editor's edit warring) --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Support per Deadbeef. ---Someko1999 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Support Just because its use would be rare doesn't mean it shouldn't be used at all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support I believe it would be quite useful and there are some great statements above that represent my stance on the matter. — -dainomite   01:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
37. Support. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    Support Neutral for templates only. Otherwise, strong oppose. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

38. Support I believe it would be useful for some WP:BLPs and templates. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 02:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

    Can you please give some examples of BLPs that are suffering from problem edits from autoconfirmed editors without reviewer permissions, that should not be addressed by direct action for the involved editors? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

39. LlamaAl (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Long overdue buffer between full and semi; would also reduce the need for the full and thus allow more editors to contribute during disputes. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    This ignores the fact that it doesn't prevent the main parties in the content dispute from continuing to edit-war. PC is wholly inappropriate for content disputes, especially if one side has the reviewer flag. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

41. Support Under the condition that it is never used when PC1 would suffice. Otherwise, we may find ourselves creating a backlog, and we don't need any more of those. As long as that does not happen, this would serve as a good protection level that's somewhere between semi-protected and fully protected. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Support the ability to use PC2+semi in lieu of full protections for repeatedly and egregiously attacked BLPs, that would be justification enough. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    Why would we not just block editors who repeatedly and egregiously attack BLPs? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

43. Support - So obviously needed as a bridge between silver and goldlocking. PC1 I would argue has fewer merits than PC2, and I think the toolkit for protection is not complete until FlaggedRevs is used to it's bread and butter; that is, using the PC2 component (with or without PC1 at all). -TIM^(Contact)/_(Contribs) 07:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - Or else, what's the point of having a reviewer permission flag where he can't revoke edits? And also per Deadbeef. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
45. Support - Broadly speaking PC2 has it's uses and I feel the community should have the option of using it if required. Pol430 talk to me 10:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    What are its uses? Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

46. Support I support the continued use of PC/2. There should NOT be a need for consensus those involved make the decision as they review the initial request for protection. The fact that they can protect a page means they've shown clarity of judgment and I stand behind that majority.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 10:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
47. Support - Let's move on to the real question: when to use PC/2?--agr (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
48. Support PC2, though if it actually happens the reviewer right should become a little bit more of a big deal. Ignatzmice•talk 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Support per User:Deadbeef. Thomas.W (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
50. Support so long as "infrequently" is honored. I'd like to see another RfC if the roster of articles with PC2 protection exceeds X. I'd suggest X= one half of the number of articles carrying PC1 protection. David in DC (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    That's a huge number of articles. As I write, there are 21 fully protected articles (not including redirects). There are approximately 620 PC1-protected pages. You are proposing increasing the number of articles at high protection 15-fold. Risker (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'd propose a different way of limiting this. First, I think PC (1 or 2) can only make sense with low-edit-volume articles, because the review mechanism bites. So make a specific, quantifiable limit for that. 5 edits/day, or something. (This would exclude some of the articles PC1 has been applied to, and I'm okay with that.) Second, PC2 should only be used in my view where there's a long-term pattern of trouble. This too can be quantified. "N signficant, unambiguously bad (BLP/VAND) edits by different autoconfirmed editors/socks continuing over a period exceeding K months", or what have you. Alternatively, or in addition, the "discussion" requirement for any PC2 usage King of Hearts proposed would also be a good way of keeping this very limited in scope. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    Ah, but Joe. That is not what is being "voted" about here. It's whether or not we'll allow use of this tool, without limits. Unfortunately, instead of figuring out how we would use it, we're going to permit use of it and then figure out how to use it. We know that access to a tool without clear rules as to its uses means that the tool will be used however the administrator sees fit, whether or not there's any kind of consensus for that use. We've seen it repeatedly over the years. We should be mature enough as a project to figure this out. As it is, PC1 is applied almost universally to high-edit articles, not low-edit articles, so your "quantification" is being roundly ignored or not considered. Risker (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    About 1/2 to 1 day after this RFC opened, new language was added at the top in response to concerns about when this would be used. The new language says

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

    Even though this language could have been worded better, I WP:AGF and assume that this means that any particular use of this tool will be put off until there is a consensus for that particular use, as arrived at in a future RFC. As a side-note, if, hypothetically, there was a clear consensus in this RFC for PC2 in a particular situation, then that situation might be deemed "approved for RFC2 use" even without a future RFC. But I don't see that happening. What I DO see forming is a consensus that there are some possible uses that have a consensus among those who mention those particular uses but not near enough support to go forward without a new RFC. Hypothetically, this RFC could close as "pass" but the future RFCs that actually allow PC2 to be used in particular circumstances may get bogged down in Wiki-bureacracy and either close as "no consensus" or languish until they are deemed "abandoned" and closed as "no consensus." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

51. Support as an interim solution until a rethink of article protection with an aim to producing a set of simpler, more consistent, more effective and less intrusive anti-vandalism and anti-warring tools (including abuse and dispute resolution). • Astynax ^talk 17:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
52. Support as an alternative to full protection. Teammm ^talk
    _email 18:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
53. Support for infrequent use on articles and perhaps somewhat more frequent use on templates. I'd rather see some templates under PC2 than under full protection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
54. Support Andreas JN466 21:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
55. Support PC2 worked very well with the article Justin Bieber. At its time vandalism was so persistent the only option was to full-protect it (December 4, 2010). Although its usage won't be constat it is a good option when semi-protection against socks and vandals is not effective, and full-protection is excessive. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    Do you realise that every one of those edits (which included both grossly offensive, libelous, and disruptive edits) would all remain in the page history, and be accessible by anyone who clicked on them, absent the very same deletion and suppression that had to be carried out regardless? How is this of benefit? Risker (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    RevDel exits, so, what's your point? If the libel was reviewed by an admin s/he will remove it immediately. Also, you are an admin and oversighter, have you cared to removed those BLP violations in these 13 days? Of course you don't and probably you won't. You are trying to suggests to me full-protection is better to waste admins and editors time with edit protected tags than expecting real edits by normal non-vandal and reviewers editors. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

56. Support per King of Hearts' suggestion. Go Phightins! 23:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
57. Support. Many articles, particularly on contentious topics, are not amenable to rapid-fire editing, which clearly would destroy this. I could also imaging PC2 being used to improve articles about non-contentious subjects in the natural sciences, where editors often simply add new information to the lede and ignore the underlying structure of the article. We could eliminate biennial rewrites of various natural-sciences articles (such as cosmic ray or circumstellar habitable zone) if new information could be added in a controlled, collaborative fashion. Wer900 • talk 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    Absolutely not. Protection is used to prevent exceptionally high levels of vandalism to articles we know are and will continue receiving it, not to restrict editing to those editors we consider worthy. The goal is to have as few pages protected as possible, and those that are should have as low-level protection as possible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

58. Support, preferable with limited use rather than having no go between between PC1 and Full Protection. I understand the concerns of those who oppose this proposal, but as temporary semi protection and PC1 are the only steps before full protection level, having a middle protection level is useful.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
59. Support. An intermediate level is useful.DavidHobby (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
60. Support per Deadbeef and AGK. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
61. Conditional support. I support PC/2 only when applied to limited situations where the only other option is full protection, otherwise I'm against it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
62. Support - it seems silly to have a tool at our disposal and refuse to use it. It may be that we don't need to use it often, but to refuse to ever include it in our virtual toolkit makes no sense to me. WaggersTALK 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
63. Support per Rrius and King Of Hearts. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
64. Support Definitely. Good for situations when PC1 isn't working because of sockpuppetry; better to let the reviewers edit it than nobody at all except admins. What is User:Ozob thinking with his oppose? Asking for examples where it's worked when we've never approved it? The opposers are talking about the gatekeeper problem, but PC2 will lower the barrier to editing pages where PC1 hasn't worked. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I didn't say, "where PC2 succeeded", I said, "where PC2 would succeed". The collective experience present here is tremendous. Yet somehow, nobody can think of a concrete, specific example of a page and a time where PC2 would have been the right solution. I remain unconvinced. Ozob (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
65. Support I think that PC2 should be used infrequently. However, it may have its uses in articles that need more protection than semi-protection but are "editable" by users. Lukus 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
66. Support --Phospheros (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
67. Conditional Support Protection should cascade from semi-pc1-pc2-full protection.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
68. Support A reasonable addition to our quality control toolkit, as Waggers says, it seems silly to have a tool and refuse to use it. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
69. Support; looks like a useful tool. Maybe not the most frequently-used tool, but it would be helpful to have one more in the toolbox. I would be happy for future discussions to fine-tune expectations of which-tool-we-use-for-which-problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
70. Support Unlike PC1, which serves no useful purpose whatsoever, PC2 actually can be used to do useful things. There's a demand for a level of protection below full protection.—Kww(talk) 06:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
71. Support Intothatdarkness 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
72. Support broad use of the tool, especially for BLPs. --B (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
73. Support on a selective per article basis, where semi or PC1 where that is too little, but full is to much. Dan653 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
74. Support in very limited cases. Otherwise Wikipedia will cease to be free to edit ~ Anastasia (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
75. Yes. I think PC2 will eventually find a place on Wikipedia. Some interesting ideas have been proposed already. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
76. Support As a viable alternative to full protection. AIRcorn (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
77. Support, but require strong consensus (either on AN or an RFPP subpage), and only in cases where full protection would be the only reasonable alternative. I'd encourage people to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets, which has some very interesting arguments on both sides of the aisle. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
78. Support I was unsure at first and then came across a case where just this level of protection would be needed. On WT:WPM we have a problem with a particularly persistant sockpuppeter, who is quite prepared to create sleeper accounts with autoconfirmed status and then use the page to hound a user. This level of protection would make it posible to deny visability to the sockpuppeter but leave the page in functional state.--Salix (talk): 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
79. Support I could definitely see this becoming useful on BLPs. Full- and semi-protection lumps anonymous, well-meaning editors in with the vandals. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
80. Support Could be quite useful to have this in place. I'm in favour of the idea. Element₉. _TALK 01:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
81. Support - In rare cases, this would be beneficial. There are plenty of cases, such as sockpuppetry, where full-protection is necessary, and it would be beneficial to have this alternative. (X! · talk)  · @128  ·  02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
82. Support -- as alternative to Full Protection and in cases where edits have been shown on average to lower as opposed to improve the quality of articles (FA, GA, which are in the current news, etc.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
83. Support per many of the above. Specifically, I like the idea of a form of protection straddling the gap between semi- and full protection. Just from a policy perspective, since our mission is to be an encyclopedia editable by anybody (not just administrators), full protection should be very rare in articlespace, even as a temporary measure. I am frankly of the opinion that except where the volume of vandalism is so much and so coordinated as to impair the ability of PC patrollers from properly reviewing pending changes, or where the vandalism itself is targeted at harassing PC patrollers, full protection should not be used in articlespace at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
84. Support The way I think about pending changes is: it is basically the same as protection but with a better interface. When we could semi-protect an article, we can put it under PC1 which tells users "oh, you can still edit it, but your edit gets moderated" rather than "you don't get to edit, so bugger off to the talk page". Same with PC2: instead of saying that an article is uneditable by everybody except admins, we say you can edit it, but it has to be approved. We already do this: it's just we do this in a bad and clumsy way with {{edit protected}} and {{edit semi-protected}}. PC2 just gives us a better implementation of {{edit protected}} that reduces workload on admins (because the admin simply clicks "Approve change" rather than having to go into the page and do it by hand and then edit the talk page to edit the {{edit protected}} template to mark it as done). On contentious topics, we will probably still need to drop to full protection... but with PC2, we can do it less often. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
85. Good idea, let's rock. Would give one more level in the spectrum of protection. And I am a fan of more control, stability, and protection of good/important articles. I think the lack of it hurts us in ways we don't even see--people giving up or not contributing because of the too fluid editing of their work. As we mature and increase in quality, we need more control and steps and apprenticeship. Also, it would make the reviewer tag mean something and put article content control a little more with writers (reviewers) and a little less with moderators (administrators).TCO (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Aren't we "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? I know that's not literally true, but why go any further from that ideal than we have to? I don't see a need for control, stability, and protection. They might be more comfortable, but they are the road to Nupedia—and so to irrelevance. Ozob (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

86. Support but only in limited cases. This won't be some routine occurrence like semi. King of Hearts's proposal is good. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
87. Support We aim to use the lowest possible level of editing restriction that will control a given disruption. Some BLPs have such grave problems that the only feasible alternative to PC2 is full protection, for instance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    People keep saying this, but they don't name the BLPs they're thinking of. Which ones do you have in mind? Why would PC2 be the right solution there? Ozob (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    Carl Hewitt, for example, has been under full protection for BLP problems for nearly the last two years, but would probably be fine under PC2, since the users creating the problems did not hold reviewer rights. You can find several others in the list of protected pages. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    I thought about this situation all weekend, and I disagree with you. Here is how I think it would play out: The article is still under full protection because the same banned user continues his efforts to edit the article in inappropriate ways. Placing the article under PC2 (including PC2 + semi-protection) instead of full protection will not change this banned user's goals. Therefore he is sure to make edits that will require review, similar to the several rejected {{edit protected}} requests visible at the talk page. Given his persistence, I believe that he will generate a large number of edits over a long period of time. Some of those will surely be accepted by well-meaning reviewers unfamiliar with the situation and the need to WP:DENY. The banned user is therefore more likely to get inappropriate content added to the article under PC2 than under full protection.

    I wish there were a way to make it possible for ordinary users to contribute to the article without simultaneously allowing the banned user to continue his behavior. I can see that you want the same thing, and that you believe that PC2 will make that possible. But I don't see why you think so. I think PC2 will make the situation worse, not better. Maybe you can convince me otherwise; I would be interested to know your reasoning. Ozob (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

88. Support --CutOffTies (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
89. SUPPORT WITH ENTHUSIASM --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
90. Support any use case that an administrator deems necessary. It's a useful tool. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 18:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
91. Support cautious occasional use, though temporarily banning problem editors from the page would be more efficient in most cases. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
92. Support While it will have to be used judiciously, it's better than full protection, and I don't oppose it on general principle. There are circumstances where it would be appropriate. Anaxial (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
93. Support It would be good if use of PC/2 is started in Wikipedia. Instead of using full protection to pages these can be used. However, this should be used only in severe cases of vandalism or edit war by both IPs and autoconfirmed users. - Jayadevp13 17:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
94. Per my comment below, many others above. NW (Talk) 19:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
95. Support We have some very dedicated spammers and POV pushers who lie low with sleeping accounts, waiting to be autoconfirmed to circumvent eventual semi-protection. These are the cases that this is really useful for, especially if their edit-frequency is not very elevated. Lectonar (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
96. Support Given that use is very restricted. JamesDouch (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
97. Support - and I'd support extended usage. There's no reason to believe that "anyone can edit" also includes the secret meaning "and their edits will be the default version immediately." WilyD 14:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
98. Support per WilyD and also because part of my editing is picking up on the vandalism that gets past our current systems, currently there is too much of it. Ideally we should go down the same route as DE wiki and implement Flagged revisions on all articles so that every edit either comes from a whitelisted editor or is looked at by at least one editor. Currently we have an inefficient system whereby most edits are looked at many times but some slip through unchecked. PC2 would be a small step towards taking vandalism as seriously as the German wiki does, it would mean that when an individual complained that their bio on Wikipedia had been vandalised we could give it the equivalent of Full protection, but still enable all editors to edit it. If you don't like vandalism and/or you want the wiki to be open for editing please support PC/2. ϢereSpielChequers 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
99. Support In one instance that I encountered there was a BLP under PC1 protection and an account was persistently making objectionable edits that would get rejected. To limit the wear on reviewers the page was semi-protected, but that account had managed to make enough edits to become auto-confirmed and resumed the editing. Situations like that make PC2 protection desirable, not just instance of sockpuppetry.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    I don't see how PC2 helps in this situation. Under PC2, that editor, once he had become autoconfirmed, would have been able to continue his objectionable edits. Your example sounds like an argument for full protection. Ozob (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    No, for PC2 you need to have reviewer rights, if I am not mistaken. Autoconfirmed is not enough. Lectonar (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Shouldn't this be in the discussion section? I don't think you understand. Under PC2, everyone else can continue editing the article, but the objectionable edits are screened and discarded by the reviewers/admins. This goes back to Advocate's thing about "wear on the reviewers", but it doesn't mean he'd be able to continue. Ignatzmice•talk 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Part of the wear was that anons were relay-reverting with the account. Had it just been that account it would have been less bothersome.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    It seems I wasn't clear before: If the user's edits caused wear on reviewers under PC, then they would cause wear on reviewers under PC2. PC2 does nothing to stop the offending user from making edits; it just makes those edits invisible to the public. Ozob (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Were it PC2 with semi-protection then it would have reduced wear as it would have meant dealing with just a single account that just got autoconfirmed, rather than an account and multiple anons. The reality is that semi-protection reduced the wear but allowed that account to make live edits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    It seems to me that the right solution is to block the offending user, not to rely on PC2. Combining that with semi-protection or PC to stop the anonymous users looks (to me) like it would have solved the problem. Another possible solution is to leave the article unprotected, but to block the anonymous users; whether this is better or not depends on details not relevant to the question being addressed on this page. My point remains: I don't think PC2 is the right solution for this situation. So far, I'm unconvinced that it's right for any situation. Ozob (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

100. Support Anything that helps prevent false and damaging information from easily being inserted into articles, I'm for, personally SirFozzie (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
101. Support Every tool option helps --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
102. Support A good middle ground between semi and full when needed. DrNegative (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
103. Support a great midpoint between full protection and semi protection, for example, articles that have problems with BLP violations and edit warring by registered editors, same problems as where PC1 would be instituted, but where review of additions by registered editors is required. when used appropriately, PC2 can allow an article to be developed and edited without all the hassle of full protection, so that any reviewer or admin can check revisions. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
104. Support per AGK -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
105. Support per Deadbeef. -- Nbound (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
106. Support per SirFozzie RDBrown (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
107. Support until we can fix notability so that we don't hundreds of thousands of poorly watched perma-stubs. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

     Are you proposing to put hundreds of thousands of articles under PC2? That's effectively flagged revisions, not a vandal-fighting tool. Ozob (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

108. Kind of Support why don't we just change PCLV2 protection as PCLV1?Ald™ ¬_¬™ 18:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
109. Support This is a useful tool to thwart "sleepers". Martinvl (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

     I take it you mean autoconfirmed sockpuppets? PC2 does not stop them. Becoming autoconfirmed is a very low bar; the interactive part of it takes minutes, and then it's just a matter of patience. A sockmaster dedicated enough to make PC1 insufficient will have no trouble thwarting PC2. Ozob (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

110. Support. A good middle ground. Sad that many of the 'oppose' votes were made (explicitly) because they are opposed to any change at all, even positive. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

     I am surprised that you consider this change so obviously positive that you doubt the intentions of those who are opposed. Could you explain what you see as the benefit of PC2? Ozob (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

111. Support Timmccloud (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
112. TL;DR. Support. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
113. Support strictly on the proviso that it is used no more widely than full protection is currently used. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
114. Support - In limited cases, such as where there is persistent sockpuppetry or violations of WP:BLP, etc., this could be a very good tool. I support using PC2 and look forward to an RFC to determine to what extent it should be used. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

     If there's persistent sockpuppetry, PC is counterintuitive since the sockpuppeteer is going to use it to hold others' edits hostage until a reviewer comes along. And if the sockpuppetteer is vindictive enough, they'll exploit this to harass reviewers. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

     That's only the case when the other editors involved are too new, inexperienced or problematic to give them the reviewer right. The more typical scenario is going to be that some or even all of the editors who are correctly editing the page can be given the reviewer right. PC2 would work very well against sockpuppetry in such cases. ϢereSpielChequers 07:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

     I expect that the sockpuppeteer would gain more pleasure out of harassing the page's usual editors, if they have reviewer rights, than an uninvolved reviewer. That would make PC less effective than traditional protection or semi-protection. Ozob (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

115. Support - per Inks.LWC---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 06:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
116. Support pending an RfC on when and how it is used. But I see no issue with allowing that RfC to take place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
117. Support as a middle ground between semi and full protection. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
118. Support - This is a much better option than full protection in certain cases. I often find very simple, uncontroversial edit requests that go unanswered for days or even weeks. PC2 would have made a big difference in those situations. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 19:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
119. Support - Per Deadbeef and Cncmaster. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
120. Support especially if it allows fewer pages to go to full protection, and reduces edit requests. Any tool that helps experienced editors spend more time improving articles instead of patrolling vandalism and new user typical mistakes sounds like a positive. Long overdue on the English Wikipedia; much thanks to those with patience to keep working on it. W Nowicki (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
121. Conditional Support - It would be a good idea for catching a lot of these silly typos and grammatical mistakes in a lot of these fully protected articles, but it shouldn't be implemented on everything. Also, there are a lot of semiprotected articles that aren't popular enough that they would have constant vandalism issues. On the other hand, it could easily overload the admins' and reviewers' ability to go through articles if not used too cautiously. impinball (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
122. ""Conditional Support"" - The most important thing to browse for is content in articles that are offensive to others (as in racist opinions or whatnot, unless it is a neutral reference to information that's relevant to the subject; those should be removed immediately & then any changes that user wants to make should be required to go through review first. The grammatical errors aren't as important to remove - if people notice some mistakes they should mark the page as having grammatical errors, but the article itself shouldn't be removed & it may not be reasonable to ask anyone to point out all of the individual mistakes. If the page is very important, than a grammar guru should flag that and get to it more quickly than less important pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia Blossom (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
123. Support but this can only work if the reviewer status is better defined and has a democratic way of selecting reviewers (similar to RfA but by no means as extensive). To redefine reviewer status, there would need to be a discussion on what would happen to current reviewers. iComputerSaysNo 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
124. Strong support per the "middle ground" argument as well as the fact that using level 1 but not level 2 is simply silly (particularly given that much of the reasoning for them is the same). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
125. Strong Support as level 2 can be extremely useful in some cases. (Sockpuppetry, etc) Vacation9 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

     I have the same question for you as I do for others who have mentioned sockpuppetry: Can you give one example of a real article and a real situation where you think PC2 would have been the right solution? Ozob (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

126. Support, but only in very limited cases where PC1 and SP have proven to be insufficient. It shouldn't be used as a first line of defense. CaSJer (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
127. Support - If the community changes so much that PC levels are abused by the admins, it will have failed. Unless PC levels are abused, they should help.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
128. Support This will ease a lot of problems with vandalism, particularly in BLPs. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

     Can you give a specific example of a real BLP article and a real situation where you think PC2 would have been the right solution? I am not aware of any. Ozob (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

129. Conditional Support As Risker had said above, PC/2 could further vandalism. I think PC/2/SP should be used in cases of socking instead of PC/2 because, as Risker said, socks could use PC/2 to harass other editors. And, like other editors have said, the requirements for being a reviewer should be to a higher standard if PC/2 is implemented. Citrusbowler (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
130. Ardent Support If I understand this, you are adding protection options. I'm of the opinion that all editors should be registered, but falling short of that, Hell Yes!, beef up what we have. Much vandalism comes via school accounts, and this would help. Also, I've been doing an in-depth search through the 10-year history of Audie Murphy, which is a testament to the need for this. The majority of edits by unregistered users in that article have been vandalism and otherwise unencyclopedic or unhelpful edits, with much time consumed in reverting, and sometimes multiple reverts of the same unregistered users over the years. The article itself was created by a sock as unsourced in 2003 and remained as much by and large until within the last year. I have not found any indication that protection was given to this article. Oh, yeah, I'm in favor!! — Maile (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

     It sounds like you've found edits to Audie Murphy that you think would have been best stopped by PC2; these edits either would not have been stopped by or would have been stopped less effectively by PC1, semi-protection, full protection, blocking users, blocking IPs, or blocking IP ranges. Can you give me some examples of such edits? Ozob (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

     Answered on your talk page.— Maile (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

     As I stated on my talk page I think WP is better served by having this conversation in public. I hope you don't mind if I quote what you said in your edit [1]:

     Ozob, thank you for asking about this at RFC PC/2. Over at Audie Murphy, we have been trying to get it cleaned up to nominate for A-class. I began researching the edit history for patterns on one thing or another. i.e., the redlink editor Audiesdad (May 7 2013) is a repeater in the history who was getting reverted for spamming, and given what he was spamming I suspect COI with the Texas government. Prior to 2013 was where it was worse. My raw results can be found in descending chron order tables at User:Maile66/Murph/Arb2 for 2013-2010, and User:Maile66/Murph/Arb3 for 2009-2003. It was too large to compile on one page. Ideally, it would be better to have this semi-protected permanently. But, of course, that all depends on which admin decides that. Some might say, "...not enough in recent history...." and decline. Since Feb 2013 when we began the cleanup, a small core of recent volunteers have been trying to deter it. Semi-protected would not take care of a return of disruptive edits by YahwehSaves, but perhaps it could eliminate other issues that are almost sure to return. Your opinion is welcome on this. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

     I've read through the article and the talk page archives, and I've looked at your tables of edits. It seems to me (and tell me if this is an accurate summary or not) that Audie Murphy has had at least two persistently disruptive editors; one of these editors has used sockpuppets and has earned a couple of short term blocks, but neither of them has been cut off from the article entirely. The first user has almost stopped editing (though after a nearly two year break in editing he made another edit to Audie Murphy last month). The second user was disruptive just a few months ago and tends edit in spurts, and it feels to me that he's unlikely to have gone away for good. Additionally, the article gets vandalized or otherwise damaged by IP editors on a regular basis, probably once every couple of weeks or so. Finally, until the recent efforts of you and other dedicated MILHIST editors, the article contained an enormous amount of inaccurate and sometimes libelous material. Some of the disruption occurs when people try to reinsert such material. Is that a fair description of the situation?

     The way I read your statement to me, it sounds like you want indefinite semi-protection for the article on the grounds that the article has had two persistently disruptive editors and remarkable trouble with unsourced and incorrect statements. You believe that indefinite semi-protection would stop the IP vandalism but probably not one of the disruptive editors.

     I agree with you on the effect of semi-protection, but I disagree that it is the right solution. I think the right solution is more complicated. Firstly, the right solution to disruptive users is to block them. I know that you tried to get one disruptive user blocked at AN/I before and it didn't go much of anywhere. I think that with a change in tactics you would succeed. AN/I is not composed of historians and the historically minded; your usual writing style does not fit there (nor does mine—see how much I'm writing to you!). I think if, next time this user presents himself, you immediately begin an AN/I thread where you list just the most recent diffs, note the past AN/I threads on him and his blocks for socking, and ask for a one week block, then you will likely get some help. If he socks, open a WP:SPI. I think you will get support; and once the wheels of the bureaucracy have begun to move it will be much easier to stop him.

     Regarding the other disruptive user, the solution would be WP:Mediation. He was quite clearly wrong, but asking for mediation proves your good-faith intent. If (more likely when) mediation fails, then you can pursue AN/I. If he is blocked then he cannot disrupt the article any further.

     Drive-by vandalism is mostly unstoppable. Semi-protection and PC1 are not currently used as long term solutions to that problem. They are reserved for exceptional cases where an article is receiving a very large amount of vandalism (or where there are other concerns such as BLP violations). Yes, that means that the article will be incorrect on occasion, and yes, that means that someone has to take the time to revert damage. But the ideal is to have Wikipedia as editable as possible; the encyclopedia can't improve without editing. That requires putting up with occasional (and sometimes not-so-occasional) vandalism.

     Returning at last to the subject of this RfC, I do not see how PC2 would materially help you. If none of the regular editors had reviewer rights the page could quickly become a mess; the standard of review is intended to be obvious vandalism and BLP violations, so the two disruptive editors would easily get their edits approved. Some of the incorrect IP edits would also be approved. Your reverts would be delayed until a reviewer approved them. I doubt that the article would be better on average; but I would appreciate your perspective. Ozob (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

     Thank you for your comments and time Ozob. I've been with Wikipedia long enough to know any subject can be argued on both sides, with supporting policies and examples. So, I respect what you've said, but that's not how it looks from where I am. Audie Murphy is just the tip of the ice berg. In regards to the AM article, both disruptive editors you refer to do not have reviewer rights. The ones who have made productive edits at least in 2013 do, and many editors at Military History project do also, or they can apply for the rights. And that project would be the core group to take this article to FA On this particular article, because so much work has gone into cleaning it up and preparing it for higher class, I'm not terribly concerned about missing out on a rare-as-hen's-teeth quality tidbit from some unregistered editor in cyber space. The editor you are referring to that went to ANI does not have reviewer rights, and is pretty much a scourge across multiple articles, is in fact noted for their disruptive edits and the number of editors who have dealt with the issue. In regards to that one, I'm not altogether convinced this editor is not a sock of someone else. There are indications that if not a sock, then multiple persons under one account. Catching the sock master is another matter, but sock or not, that account does not have reviewer rights. Yeah, disruptive edits could ultimately be approved, but it's less likely on AM where monitors are a whole lot less likely to let it happen in the current climate. None of this changes my vote here. I also happen to be firm on thinking Wikipedia needs to require registration. It can still be the ideal of being as editable as possible, just inserting some structure. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

     What I am drawing from your statement is: You believe that Wikipedia in general, and Audie Murphy in particular, would be net better off if potential editors were vetted (either by requiring an account or by PC2). In addition, because you and the other productive editors at Audie Murphy have reviewer rights and the disruptive editors do not, you believe that PC2 would allow you and the other productive editors to guide the article towards FA with fewer hurdles, both from the disruptive users and from anonymous vandals, because the poor quality edits these users make would not be visible to the public.

     I think, firstly, that you and I have different visions for Wikipedia. I edited anonymously and productively for a long time before making an account. If I had been required to make an account, or if my changes had been subject to review before being published, then I expect I would never have bothered. I see your position as a step towards Wikipedia:Flagged Revisions, and I see that as a step towards Nupedia—which failed because of its extensive review process. In addition, I see your stance on reviewers as fundamentally different from that expressed at WP:PC:

     The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content.

     The edits by the two aforementioned disruptive users were part of a content dispute, so, under the above rules, they would be approved. Not by you or one of the other regulars, but by an uninvolved reviewer simply trying to clear the inevitable backlog.

     Secondly, you haven't said that PC2 is perfectly, exactly, indisputably the best tool for defending Audie Murphy; in fact you mentioned semi-protection in your message on my talk page. I take that to mean that you really want some level of protection greater than what the ordinary Wikipedia article has, and you see PC2 as a way of getting that. I suspect that you would be just as happy with some other level of protection on Audie Murphy, but current policy prohibits it; since there are no policies about PC2, it remains a possibility. If I am right in this assessment, then I don't think you are actually arguing for PC2. You are really arguing for Flagged Revisions. I think that discussing Flagged Revisions is important (though I am more opposed to it than to PC2), but I don't see that discussion as being pertinent to PC2. (Your vote remains a good tactical maneuver.)

     Please let me know if I've misinterpreted you. Ozob (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

     Whatever.....I don't even care anymore....I'm not changing my vote....and this is not something I'm debating with you. My vote stands If I take anything away from this, it will be to cast my vote on any given subject and not explain. You're just looking for yadda yadda debate, and I've stopped caring what you think. My opinion stands.. Leave me alone. — Maile (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

     This is a request for comment, not a vote. If you make an argument, onus is on you to defend it against opposing arguments. He's not looking for "yadda yadda debate", he's looking for answers to his concerns. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

     No, he was just being awkward. There were approx. 141 Support comments on this page at the time Ozob replied, I think it was inappropriate for him to pick out just one editor, begin an inquisition and slap a 5,481b reply, relating to a single article, and refuse to take it to their talk page, where it belonged. It's paramount to harassment and Maile66 clearly felt he was being pressured, groomed or provoked into withdrawing his support; after he already gave a satisfactory answer Ozob should have laid off. There is no onus, RfC means "requests for comments", it does not mean that an editor should feel threatened for stating their views civilly. and no need for them to reply to challenges which appear to be WP:BAIT. Remarks such as "Your vote remains a good tactical maneuver" challenge an editor's good faith, abhorrently. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

     If you look at my other comments on this page, you'll find that I have been focused on finding just one time when PC2 would be an appropriate tool. I singled out Maile66 solely because he said he had such an example, Audie Murphy. We vigorously disagreed. I had hoped that he could explain to me why he saw PC2 as the right solution to the problems at Audie Murphy, and I had hoped that we were taking the first steps towards doing so. It did not work out that way; I am sorry if he feels threatened, as that was not my intent, and I would again like to apologize. Ozob (talk)

     Unfortunately, the work on the Murphy article has been very slow and teeth-pulling experience, for several months, due to various disruptions. Maile had hoped to get the article to GA then to FA standard, but constant disruptions prevented this, and I think Maile feels less inclined to bother with the effort until sufficient measurements are taken to prevent further derailments. An editor working so closely to improve an existing article, rather than an entirely new page of their own, from C-class to FA has their work cut out for them, and it becomes all too easy for prior editors to become resistant to changes, or for the new editor to show signs of ownership, if only for the sake of taking on the responsibility of solely improving the article for a limited period of time. Given that Wiki guidelines are more inclined to support older editors reintroducing old material in a poor fashion, than ownish editors who are fighting constantly to prevent being set back, I completely sympathise with Maile's concerns and agree that a short-PC/2 application would be an appropriate way of allowing articles to be developed, without hindrance from zealous editors who refuse to accept changes to their old contribs, even if it is for the good of the article. Put it this way, if you're painting an old blue wall with fresh marigold paint, do you really want someone else repainting the same wall the old shade of blue before your paint has even dried? When two lots of wet paint meet you get a muddy mess. PC/2 is like getting someone to present their tin of paint, and seeing if it's the right colour, before applying it. In terms of Wiki, once such an article reaches FA, following the hard work required to get there, and the hellish FA review process, the PC can be lifted, because FAs are subject to more lenient reversion policies, to help maintain the FA standard. PC/2 isn't always a matter of limiting people constantly, but limiting people during the critical stages of an article's development.. like not letting anyone into a newly constructed building only while the roof is being put in place. Safeguards shouldn't be stereotyped as being "bad", when they might simply be the better of two evils. Wiki is an encyclopaedia that must grow to survive, and it can't always progress, because some people stand in the way of progress. PC/2 is a barrier, yes, but if the goal of Wiki is to get all articles to FA standards, then we should allow editors who are involved in developing an article from the slums to FA to have temporary PC/2 support, because they're the people who really make Wiki grow and shine.. not the people who think IPs and fresh socks should be allowed free-reign to keep those dedicated editors from doing their work, on their time, for free, in completely good faith and standing. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

     Well said, MarcusBritish.

     • Ozob didn't select only me. Look above. He's been arguing with several who voted in Support.
     • I originally replied over on Ozob's talk page because I thought any drawn-out discussion on a singular article belonged on his talk page. You can check out his response there. He wasn't interested in discussing it on his talk page, but copied it here. Disagree with my perception of that or not, it has been following a pattern of disruptions in other places where the perpetrators want the largest possible audience..
     • He states above, "... I know that you tried to get one disruptive user blocked at AN/I..." However he meant that, neither the first nor the second ANI was initiated by me. I joined the second one after the action had been made known on a project page.
     • He further stated re ANI, "your usual writing style does not fit there.." Oh, really? He's read everything I've written on every project, every site, every page of the several hundred pages I created? What is my "usual writing style"? And I'm well aware of how an ANI works and the style needed. But I didn't start the ANI, and was only supplying back-up information. However, considering his never-ending rambling stream of consciousness here, I don't think he's anyone to talk about someone else's writing style.
     • Going on record with a "Support" or "Oppose" IS a vote, Jéské Couriano,as defined by Voting at Wikipedia itself. Let us not split hairs on semantics.
     • I accept Ozob's apology below as sincere (but please don't resume answering me here) that there was probably no conscious intent on his part at disruptive editing, just total over-kill and over-analysis of my intent and editing pattern based on my work on the Audie Murphy article. One article's work does not define any editor's style or experience here. There have been many articles I've cleaned up over the years, and only the Audie Murphy article has been so immediately thrown into disarray by disruptive editing almost as soon as I clicked "Submit" on the clean-up. Audie Murphy has been a learning curve, and absolutely the most frustrating work I've taken on here. And the analysis I've been doing on my user pages has clearly shown that if unregistered editors, IP editors in particular, had been required to be approved before going live, most of the 10-year vandalism streak at Audie Murphy would not have happened. Especially the one school whose rampant "live" edits finally earned a 7-year block from Wikipedia.
     • Also, I've been involved in some WP group processes where behavior such as Ozob's here are conducted for the sole purpose of shutting down a given process entirely, disruption and vandalism inflicted by using the Wikipedia guidelines to the disruptors' (plural) advantage. So, even taking Ozob's edits here in good faith, his pattern unfortunately parallels deliberate disruption by others elsewhere. — Maile (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

     I think I hear you saying much the same things as what Maile66 was saying, and I have much the same reaction: It seems to me that you want a way of approving edits on the basis of content, which is really WP:Flagged Revisions. PC2, as I understand it, is about preventing obvious vandalism and BLP violations. The reviewer userright has been handed out very generously under the assumption that it is meant to be a very limited capability. I don't think that's compatible with what you're saying.

     I don't know a solution to vandalism, and the only way I know of to develop an article free of interference is to do it in userspace or offline. Sometimes I wish we had better vandalism fighting tools. I don't know what those tools would be, but, for reasons I've stated elsewhere on this page, I don't think PC2 is one of them. Ozob (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

     My apologies. Good bye. Ozob (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

131. Support But if used on a limited basis. If for example PC1 fails. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 00:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
132. Support unreservedly. FurrySings (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
133. Support. It will help with vandalism. We can refine the rules as we gain experience with the program. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
134. Support. Any protection level helps reduce vandalism to some degree; reviewer requirements should be made higher if PC/2 were implemented. smileguy91^talk 15:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
135. Support for a limited & restricted set of use cases. ThinkingYouth (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
136. Support. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
137. sUpPoRt. The following are established facts: Semi-protection works well. PC1 works well. Full protection works well. (By "works well", I mean "good for some problems and not others" and "does not cause problems or get misused") There is no reason to think that the same will not be true of PC2, and PC2 will clearly fill a hole between SP and FP. Beware of pococurante neophobia. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
138. Support Alfie↑↓© 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
139. Support - It will prevent vandalism from going unnoticed. RoyalMate1 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
140. Support - In limited cases to discourage vandalism. Luchuslu (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
141. Support – I disagree with claims of instruction WP:CREEP. PC/2 is like having scanners at an airport, they do it to protect the many from the few. No one has any place to insist that massive levels of vandalism should be tolerated on highly popular pages, and we can't assume good faith when vandalism is clearly detrimental and often harassive; reasonable edits are still processed, they just take a little longer, and any member of society or the Wiki-community should appreciate that reinforcing some articles for a short or indefinite period is like leaving a light on when you go out – it serves to discourage intrusive behaviour! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
142. Conditional Support - If the alternative to PC2 is FP then I think I'd prefer to see a limited implementation of PC2, especially as a means of providing long term protection Userfriendly (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
143. Support – With additional scrutiny of reviewers as necessary per Tryptofish. Mojoworker (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
144. Support - There is no reason not to give articles that would otherwise be fully protected the ability to be edited be autoconfirmed and confirmed editors under review of a reviewer. This proposal would allow Wikipedia to be more dynamic in editing options for different situations. This would allow more editing, and not restrict it. Surfer43 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
145. Support - A tool which will have some uses for reducing the impact of problematic edits, as per the RFC we can decide where before implementing although only experience with implementation will tell for sure where it's best used. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
146. Support per Deadbeef Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
147. Support – A sensible supplement to FP. 㓟 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
148. Support - but be cautious and selective in usage The Banner talk 19:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose PC/2

1. I might be convinenced if point 2 by ♦ ♣ ♠ was emphatically enforced. That way a controlling mechanism is in place because reviewers and administrators need oversight. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
2. I don't oppose this in principle, but before introducing it, I think we need some ground rules in place - i.e. resolution of the question of how cautious administrators (and in this case, reviewers also) need to be when editing through protection. This issue is currently the subject of an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, and any consensus seems as yet to be a long way away. Victor Yus (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Let's not start using it before having proper rules in place about how it should be used. Ray^Talk 12:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
4. I am not completely opposed to the use of PC2, and I would be prepared to support it in very limited circumstances (as an alternative to full protection). However I would like to see rules about when it can be used laid down before I can consider supporting its introduction. This RfC is basically asking me to sign a blank cheque. Hut 8.5 12:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose I don't think this would be very useful, and it would just confuse matters even more. (More bureaucracy) Every editor should be able to contribute equally; do we need "Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection"? Help:Watching pages. I would be prepared to support it in very limited circumstances. One use case, which is rare but "high-value" for PC2 is situations in which a rarely-edited (and rarely-watched) BLP is the target of vandalism by (different) auto confirmed editors over an extended period of time with easily-recognizable and "bad" vandalism/BLP vios. Let’s not start using it before having proper rules in place about how it should be used. However I would like to see rules about when it can be used lay down before I can consider supporting its introduction. KhabarNegar (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC) See also: Help:Watching pages, alternative to Bureaucracy which is against the third pillar is more watchers.KhabarNegar (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Reason, Because: It probably will be the start to an end for Free Wikipedia, Any New User should have the same rights to edit as other users. If we have any concerns OK a new user rights as an example super auto-confirmed user(more days and more edits) would be OK. But considering an elite users which have power over all newcomers it is just not beautiful for Wikipedia and respected Wikipedia's Users even reviewers themselves, when there is logic and page watchers we don't need a super power over people.KhabarNegar (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose any additional layer of permission complexity. Wikipedia is too damn complicated already.  Sandstein  13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose as before—further stratification of editors, a real risk that it would be abused in content disputes (especially on matters such as whether adding something constitutes a policy violation), too narrow a use case to justify the potential for abuse. wctaiwan (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Seems I had a lot to say against this on a similar RfC a couple months back but couldn't find my comments in RfC links listed in proposal, or my past contributions. Anyway, if I was in charge of who gets to edit, I'd be all for it and put my buddies on a bunch of articles where I'd nix a bunch of other editors.... ooops, that's why I still don't like the idea. I don't tend to "get in charge" of things (and actually have conscience when do), but some other people do...and don't... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Would create more bureaucracy and complexity that isn't needed. I also don't see any clear guidelines on how this new protection level would actually be utilized. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose the creeping implementation of flagged revisions in disguise, as always.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Opposed Creates yet more castes of editors which is only to detriment of Wikipedia. Dalliance (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
12. The number of situations where PC2 is preferrable to the other tools in the suite of protection options is so rare that it is difficiult to see any benefit to adding yet another layer of complexity. We just don't need this option, it will confuse rather than help. Semi, full, and PC1 are sufficient to deal with the vast majority of situatons where protrection is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Much too complicated, and no compelling necessity has been shown. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Are we just going to have RfCs every 6 months about enabling it until it finally passes? The people above me summed up the arguments against rather well, as had the people in all the previous RfCs. Legoktm (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose as unnecessarily complex and contributing to further bureaucracy and divides among users with different sets of tools and permissions. Further, I remain opposed until additional information about the use of PC1 is provided so we can hold a discussion focused on new empirical data instead of rehashing the same arguments as before. Otherwise we risk ramming this proposal through entirely because opponents become tired of restating their opposition through repeated discussions (as stated immediately above by Legoktm). ElKevbo (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose per above opinions; too complex and an additional layer of bureaucracy. LT90001 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I dislike PC1 as it stands, and fail to see the point of it. PC2 would be yet more complexity, yet more bureaucracy, and yet more of a pain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Oppose per WP:CREEP --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose First, PC1 isn't working correctly yet. It can't be used on user talk pages where it would actually be useful and is easily workaround-able. All it encourages people to do is to create a bogus account, make ten edits, and then wait four days. So, the article gets four days of protection from an IP at best assuming that the person making the edits wasn't on the cusp of picking up autoconfirmed anyways. Fix those issues and come back in three to six months (this RfC was way too soon after last months discussion on it). Technical 13 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    But doesn't this proposal fix the issue of people making bogus accounts and getting them autoconfirmed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

    The only people who do that are serial sockpuppeteers for whom PC is another attack venue. Your run of the mill sockpuppeteer doesn't care to put that much effort into it. I will say it again: Pending Changes is not suitable for pages under attack by LTAs. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

20. Oppose in principle. I find this an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Not that it hurts anything, but just redundant. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose as a pointless layer of bother. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose It may lead to some sort of monopoly and gatekeepers which makes it difficult for different users to contribute. --sicaspi (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose I simply don't trust that it will be used in an appropriate manner. Unless King of Hearts' suggestion becomes built into policy, and even if that does happen, I expect it to be something that will be abused with regularity. Also, if we're dealing with problematic autoconfirmed users, I would advocate blocks before I would advocate for shutting down pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Oppose I've had lots of experience with this level of PendingChanges, in my work on MediaWiki.org where is enabled and I have reviewer rights. The reviewing system is way too clunky to properly deal with this type of use of PC, and it is deeply annoying to deal with (as a new registered editor and a reviewer). I find that the only solution is to hand out the reviewer right like candy, which is a huge waste of our time. Steven Walling • talk 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose Limited usefulness, no rules, added bureaucracy? I'm behind anything that helps with B:LP vandalism, really. But as it stands, this doesn't look like a tool for the job. It feels more like one of those corrals put in front of the popular rides at an amusement park to manage the long lines - they don't actually DO anything to help. EBY (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose Even though I am a reviewer myself, the reviewer permission is handed out too liberally to give users the same level of trust that would normally be given onto admins. Even though I can definetely see how it can be useful and a big improvement, the system has been flawed from the beginning. Anyone can submit a protected page request. Also, see Amory's comment below. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Change to support following reconsideration. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

26. Pretty much per everyone else. Potential gatekeeper problem is a biggy. Also, not clear it solves any problems, while it clearly will create some. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Oppose. The RfC does not provide—indeed it makes no attempt to provide—justification or context for why PC2 is supposed to be helpful. Can anyone give an example of a page where PC2 would succeed but PC1, semi-protection, and full protection are all inadequate? And not a hypothetical example! I mean a real example, an actual page that you would have used PC2 on! That would at least convince me to take this proposal seriously; right now it appears only to increase bloat and bureaucracy. Ozob (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose. This is still going on? I thought we killed this last year... I oppose any form of flagged revisions or pending changes due to the unnecessary redundancy generated by it – people are already using recent changes to tackle vandalism, and the only thing this does is make EVERY SINGLE EDIT prone to revision. It's mindblowingly inefficient and taxing on already strained manpower. PC/2 doesn't change my mind. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose bureaucratic creep per KhabarNegar and S Marshall. Just putting it through partially and over time doesn't make it any more acceptable than swallowing the whole Flagged Revisions thing in one gulp. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Strong oppose - The right of anyone to freely contribute is fundamental to our project's principles and essential to its goals; the case being made for encroaching upon or potentially compromising that model is uncompelling by any means, and certainly by way of comparison.   — C M B J   11:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Oppose The last RfC for PC was closed with the predicate that in 3 to 6 months (after usage of PC1) there would be analysis of what we've learned from the PC1 trial. No concrete evidence proving that PC1 has helped us (that I have found). Asking the same question over and over fishing for a different response violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:FORUMSHOP and this RfC should be archived as a demonstration of how not to change consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Oppose No evident value add, extra bureaucracy and complexity. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Weak oppose. I do not see any immediate benefits from PC2 - indeed, even as supporters notice, it could be only switched on in extremely rare cases. I do not see how it provides the transition to FR, of which I am a big fan, either. The idea of FR is that everybody can edit. On the other hand, I see downsides: unnecessary increasing of complexity, and for some of the editors it means discrimination, which would create bad publicity.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Per Risker's quite excellent comments. PC1 and PC2 imply different requirements for the reviewer userright. If it's low (like now) to allow for effective PC1 then it is too free to be useful for PC2, and if it is kept high for PC2 it then becomes too tightly regulated for PC1 to function smoothly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Oppose Adds more complexity without any evidence that this is not just a theoritical or very marginal edge case (in which case full protection will suffice on grounds of simplicity). Aaron Schulz 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Oppose. On the one hand, replacing more instances of protection with PC might help draw in new editors. On the other hand, increasing the amount of edits to review will distract current editors from doing work that actually matters. I find it very hard to believe that the productivity gained will overcome the productivity lost. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
37. Oppose. Reviewing should be seldom used in a project like Wikipedia. Maxatl (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Oppose. I've seen this used on Russian Wikipedia where articles get left in limbo - people have updated them but no-one has ever approved so they remain visibly outdated, stuck. Secretlondon (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
39. Oppose. One layer of 'awaiting review' is enough thick paste to weigh down the process of editing on Wikipedia. I see no evidence of need to paint on another coat. Fylbecatulous talk 15:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Either it is used little (then it is useless clutter) or it will be used a lot (then it will be a rather anti-wiki frustrating experience for people who need to wait for their edits to be reviewed). Open wikis seem to do a lot better than sites where edits only go live after reviews (in theory, it might be the other way around, but in practice, openness wins). —Kusma (t·c) 08:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
41. Strong Oppose. This is far too complicated: it is just an additional layer of bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --WjI-kop (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Oppose on principle. This is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 15:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Don't see the need for this. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Oppose per lack of convincing use case as the discussion between the proposers and Risker above (and also below) illustrates. At least for full protection we have rules like WP:INVOLVED limiting the arbitrariness. This PC2 looks like is going to be a massive case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT allowing some editors to leverage the bit they got in some ill-defined process to win content disputes. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
45. Oppose, no real use case, and introduces excessive complexity. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Pending changes may be appropriate on some of the "quieter" wikis but the English Wikipedia is so ferociously policed that inappropriate edits are usually dealt with within minutes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
47. Adding yet another layer of bureaucracy is not the solution. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
48. Oppose as per many above fearing for the creep of this protection policy preventing decent users improving articles. The number of fully-protected articles in our 6,814,037 article encyclopedia is less than 100 (150 byte cut-off to exclude redirects). There isn't a sufficient problem to merit this "solution", but the problems it would create are quite troubling. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Oppose. You want it so bad, learn fucking German. Not like anything else me or anyone says against PC is actually going to be taken into account in light of the RfC that made PS the law of the land. As usual, numbers will defeat reasoned discussion, and the PC supporters will steamroll over everyone with nothing but numbers and extremely vague and vapid arguments pro. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
50. Oppose – Pending changes is total garbage anyway. And I have to oppose on the total bureaucracy problem developing. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
51. Oppose - the approval processes we have now work fine (sort of; I always find it funny that AfD page creations have the "!" next to them, for example), and I don't believe that the sort of problem it is designed to address really even occurs here. I am additionally not in favor of addressing a user behavior (people) problem via introducing a (mechanical) process. MSJapan (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
52. Oppose - I can't see any point to this or uses which aren't covered by one of our existing levels of protection outlined above. sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
53. Oppose with the same amount of hope I had opposing the last time...if I bothered to vote. I probably didn't figure it was worth my time. --Onorem (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
54. Oppose userbase segmentation. Extra work. Potential for abuse. thin use case. I expect PC/2 to be used mainly as a way to obsessively protect political correctness. Which in my view conflicts with WP:BB and WP:BRD Pinfix (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
55. "J'accuse" editors of wanting page protection of trying to own Wikipedia. I am now against most forms of page protection. Page protection is usually given to pages which are watched by dozens of editors. It is beginning to seem to me that the more a page is watched, the more likely it has some kind of protection. So I keep wondering what is the point; those editors are usually sufficient in number and revert vandalism, resolve disputes etc promptly. What I see is a group of editors united against any intrusion into "their" territory. The pages that are not watched are those who suffer. They suffer because there are less and less editors on the fringes. Yet the vandals, finding they can not edit highly watched pages, turn their attention to unwatched pages. I think protections and complex rules are turning Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a language where only the initiate and trained can edit or be allowed to edit. I think this has already started and in discouraging more and more users. There are less and less editors on the fringes because of these discouragements. Protections create a "them and us" situation. We actively say nobody owns Wikipedia articles, but protections are making a mockery of such concepts. I do not think this is the best path in the long run. In direct answer to PC2, think about what this is saying: "Your edit is only accepted if we accept it." But there is no justification in my view to "we" having a greater say than "you". Unless of course "we" do indeed own the page. I think all editors should be treated equally, regardless of experience or admin status. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
56. Oppose There was and is a lack of community support for the whole bad pending changes idea. So instead of killing it they hid it and now are instead asking us which version of this bad idea that we want. What a maneuver! North8000 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
57. Oppose Stratifying the Wikipedia users further than necessary will only serve to limit the contributions of the rank-and-file editors. Protecting pages at all is already dangerously close to violating the WP:OWN principle, but putting in further measures to restrict the contributions of confirmed users to such articles is counterproductive to the very ideas behind Wikipedia, especially Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
58. Oppose There are already several tools in place to protect the integrity of Wikipedia articles. We don't need more tools; we need standards, guidelines and rules governing the usage of the tools we already have. Truthanado (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
59. Oppose – This isn't necessary, as we already have plenty of other options that can cover the bases. Even if it were used, the scenarios in which it would be a possible option are incredibly rare. Finally, it's just more complexity that we don't need, and it simply won't improve the project. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
60. Oppose – What we need now, is not yet another layer of complexity and bureaucracy. Manxruler (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
61. Strong Oppose This is antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia, as (I believe) is the entire concept of pending changes.--Drasil (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
62. Oppose per the third pillar. Absolutely not appropriate on an encyclopedia where nearly any page is supposed to be editable and where bold editing is encouraged. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    Comment: No offence, but you probably might as well suggest and discuss about removing things like semi-protection and full-protection from Wikipedia. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    Semi-protection does not prevent autoconfirmed users from being bold, which PC2 would. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    exactly what is needed. sometimes articles need to have a moderated period to let things settle. EX: Emmelie de Foresst. BLP violating material had been repeatedly added by several editors, all confirmed, even after discussions and warnings. be bold, but not reckless... PC/2 has zero effect on proper boldness, especially with the limited scope it should be used for. not like every article is going to get PC/2... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    A full-protection would have *stopped* the BLP material being added, full stop, and {{editprotected}} would have been used to add uncontroversial material. PC/2 would allow them to continue making the BLP-violating edits and would thus only create more work, which given our issues with volunteer retention is a major issue. I feel obligated to point out that Pending Changes as a whole also increases the oversighters' workload, since it doesn't stop oversight-worthy edits from being made. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

63. Oppose. The reviewer bit has been handed out like candy (e.g. I have it) in much the same fashion as rollback. I can see absolutely no justification for protecting something against autoconfirmed users while still allowing such an arbitrary and large group of people to edit it. Just use PC/1, semi-protection, or full protection as needed. I've strongly supported PC in the past, and I continue to do so, but I see no benefit from PC/2. --NYKevin 21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
64. Oppose. I fail to see how this would be useful outside of a couple edge cases which are probably better handled through full protection rather than adding on yet another layer of bureaucracy. Also, without even a draft policy in place this feels too much like signing a blank check. BryanG (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
65. Oppose. It seems to add another layer of confusion to people seeking to understand how Wikipedia works (and how to use it). Why not just use full protection or some combination of PC and protection in these cases? I fail to see the purpose of confusing the waters further. Nomader (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
66. Oppose per Sandstein. We have sufficient methods of protection currently. Further complexity is unnecessary and counterproductive. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
67. Oppose Weakly opposing this, would be willing to potentially support a specific proposal giving us the criteria for when this would be used, how it could be requested/rejected etc. That stage should come first, not second. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
68. Oppose What concerns me about this is how it will affect people who are good editors or have distinguishing non-reviewer user rights such as rollback. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
69. Oppose The protections available already are sufficient KPLauritzen (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
70. Oppose I can't see supporting this without the use cases or need defined first. This approach seems backwards to me, and I worry that some of the technical limitations of pending changes may come into play depending on the case. See RfC on PC2 from April for some concerns with a recent suggestion on using PC2. PaleAqua (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
71. Oppose Seems to me the proposal is to change Wikipedia from an encyclopaedia anyone can edit to one that only a select few can edit. We already have a problem with editor retention and these changes will make things worse. I for one won't bother if I have to wait for someone 'better' to approve my edits. --Ykraps (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
72. Oppose. Although I (reluctantly, as the least of various evils) floated a proposal enabling PC/2 last year, I'm going to have to be a strong oppose here. Several reasons, most of them already well stated by others. My bottom line: the reviewer flag is handed out too freely. While I avoid watching PC/1-enabled articles, I have repeatedly seen evidence of reviewers ignoring (or being ignorant of) policy in their actions as reviewers. It's bad enough seeing some poor newbie's good-faith edit rejected as vandalism, but the thought of such reviewers being pressed into service as gatekeepers for the edits of established editors who don't happen to hold the same flag but may be more experienced and more competent strikes me as the first step towards letting the inmates run the asylum. Rivertorch (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
73. Oppose May discourage input by less experienced editors, don't see a clear use case outlined as to how and why this would be implemented and then discontinued. Jfraser (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
74. I oppose pending changes on principle because it shifts some of the responsibility of an edit from the person who makes the edit to the person who approves the edit, and I oppose this as well. The fact that this one is more restrictive will mean that many more changes will be marked as "pending", requiring even more people to process the pending edits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
75. Oppose again. Flagged Revisions and PC have been forum shopped continuously for years now. I still don't know how PC/1 slipped in; I assume that after the series of "no consensus" results there was another debate in a quiet corner that only the Support camp noticed. With no indication of when, why or how often PC/2 will be used, let's maintain the status quo. Certes (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

    The 2012 RfC, which had 61% support, was closed with a "turn it on" super!vote, partially influenced by the developers' refusal to work on it (since even a lot of supporters noted problems with it) without it being actively used on en.wp. You want to blame anyone, blame the closers first and WMF's tech team second. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

76. Oppose. A PC/1 and a PC/2 seem excessive. I'd think it would be better to shore up PC/1, rather than adding a second "pending" level. --FeralOink (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

    What do you mean by "shore up PC/1"? NW (Talk) 18:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

77. Oppose. InfinityBird (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
78. Strong oppose except for templates, as I wrote above. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
79. Strong Oppose The use of PC2 creates an unnecessary gulf between experienced editors and administrators/reviewers. EngineerFromVega^★ 22:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
80. Oppose as it really seems like a step to open up the distinct possibility of "approved revisions", yet without even the safeguards a well-thought approved revisions would bring. Already with PC/1, so many pages now look protected (I don't normally even notice, as I'm typically logged in) that probably wouldn't have been protected hadn't the option been there; when it seems too easy to just say "I'll protect it, people can edit it anyway, it'll just need approval", a slippery slope is created. LjL (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
81. Oppose unnecessary complexity. IMO the proper solution to the underlying issue is simple: remove/reduce the incentives for bad-faith editing by unhooking wikipedia.org from the search engines and getting Wikipedia out of the content distribution business (which we should never have been in). -- Visviva (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
82. Oppose, full protection should suffice. No rationale was ever presented why this should be useful. Who is supposed to do all the reviewing? Wikipedia currently suffers from a decline in active editors. It will scare potential new contributors away, because all they get is a glaring yellow bar instead of a published contribution. Also: this method seems to be inefficient: on pages with a lot of traffic disruptive edits usually are undone within minutes. With PC-protection it can take hours - see Operating system, as I am typing this, nobody has reviewed this for more than an hour. The article is ineditable while there are pending changes, because all changes, even hitting the undo-button, will have to be reviewed as well.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
83. Oppose, simply uneeded bureaucracy that slows things down. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
84. ... (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
85. Oppose, "A rose by any other name?" this is flagged revisions. I have encountered flagged revisions on German Wikipedia and they are severely annoying and have highly curtailed my desire to ever want to edit there. The problem is that it can take forever for anyone to "get around" to flagging my edited revision as patrolled. It makes me inclined to think, "Really? What is the point?" OmniArticleEditor (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • In case anybody is interested: this is the current backlog at German Wikipedia: 32 days. Currently, this backlog seems to build up at a rate of almost 200 pages per day. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Germany with perhaps 3–5 other smaller countries are all that speak Germany as an official language in the world. English is spoken in many more, and by a greater population, and is a more likely second language: the U.S. population alone probably exceeds all German-speaking countries. Perhaps there is a smaller member base on German Wiki, and therefore less Reviewers and Admins, leading these 200 per/day backlogs? Obviously we don't know what percentage of those are vandalism to be rejected, but is should be noted that Germany is also known for having a lot of legislation and sensitive laws relating to WWII, the Holocaust, Naziism, etc. Perhaps there is a greater incidence of articles on those matters being protected because of this, as a pre-emptive rather than reactive measure? I know on en:wiki PC/1 is mostly applied reactively, as it should be, except for some high-profile BIOs which is needed to help curtail libellous edits and safe-guard Wiki from lawsuits.. no getting around that. We need to be careful drawing comparisons with other Wikis, as different laws can affect the way things are done, and look to PC application on en:wiki as it affects us alone. We no doubt have a much greater member base here, more Reviewers and Admins to tackle a slight increase in the backlog should PC/2 be passed. Also, there's nothing to stop experienced editors from applying for Reviewer rights, and helping reduce the load from time to time, if they're that concerned. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

    • German Wikipedia has full preemptive pending changes protection of every article, except talk pages. I should have mentioned that. The experiences that were made there are still relevant. (German, by the way, is one of the ten most frequently spoken languages in the world and the number of articles on German Wikipedia is about a quarter of the number on here.) I posted the example because I am trying to illustrate that the human resources that are needed to execute this new policy are ignored: we have no exact numbers and the effect on workload is not recognized by many people who have expressed their opinion on this page. The table on top of this page makes it look like this measure resembles page protection, but it doesn't. It requires work from volunteers. Of course, we can all get reviewer rights after a certain time of membership or number of edits - but do we want to do the reviewing? If there are five to ten edits to review, some of them good faith edits by newcomers, some may just be clumsy, for some you may have to do research before you can judge if they are worth keeping... Many good edits will probably be lost because reviewers can't possibly be knowledgeable about every article that is listed in the backlog. I think that this proposal is like an overdraft on a budget (the budget being human resources, that is the volunteer editors, reviewers and admins) when we already know that the budget is tight, because the number of active editors is already declining.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

    • This will be used instead of full protection. Even if there is a lot of waiting, it allows more input into the actual version. It doesn't matter if it gets rejected or mostly not accepted, its better than full protection. Surfer43 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

    • No it won't. PC as a whole is ineffective vs. a concerted attack on the article, and it requires far more manpower. Not to mention the usual cause of full protection is edit-warring, not vandalism, making PC extremely inappropriate for such situations since it just allows the edit war to continue instead of forcing the parties to the talk page (which is the entire goal of an EW full-prot). You're going to have to come up with a more reasonably thought-out argument then that. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

    • "making PC extremely inappropriate for such situations since it just allows the edit war to continue" – uhh, what?? If an article is PC/1 it is effective at stopping edit wars if any of the parties are anon-IPs or new accounts, which is often the case, as IPs habitually consider themselves immune to being sanctioned, especially dynamic ones. In the case of PC/2 the edit war will be stopped so long as none of the parties have Reviewer or Admin rights, but in such a case they would be seen as abusing those rights to gain the upperhand in an edit war where PC/2 has been applied and would risk losing their privileges. Full protection is highly questionable as it prevents all but Admins making edits and requires every non-admin to make an edit request via the talkpage and then have it interpreted and applied by an Admin, which is in actual fact a longer process than PC/2 where the edit can be made and then reviewed to be accepted "as is" from editors, and without an Admin applying their own "fine tuning" to the request, which is often inappropriate because it implies that Admins are better than editors at doing things. The only time FP is needed should be highly-used templates, but not articles, except in rare cases when there is a massive controversial edit war and discussions are needed to allow the article to progress. Sorry, but it is your argument needs to be better thought out, Surfer43 is correct, PC/2 does allow more input, as pending edits are at least a form of restricted editing and gradual progress, FP is a complete hindrance on the ability to progress an article as fewer editors want to make edit requests as there is more pre-judgement involved, which should not be the case. FP requires more manpower than PC/2, i.e. making a requested edit from scratch and replying to the request (only admins, very time-consuming) vs simply approving a pending edit (admins and reviewers, one-click process, more hands to deal with PC reviews than FP requests). Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

    If you're using PC to filter one party's efforts just because they're new or an IP you're doing it wrong, and that is one of the major issues I have with your argument there. The protection policy explicitly forbids the use of any form of protection in such a fashion. Secondly, if the issue is two experienced non-admin editors edit-warring, PC/2 becomes counterintuitive because, unlike new users, they don't have as much issue with the outward face of the article as opposed to what the text itself says. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the way PC is set up it explicitly implies reviewers are better at doing things, making the "admins are better due to editprotected" argument fallacious at best and pot-calling-kettle-black at worst. Again, the intent of full protection on a page suffering an edit war is to force the parties to the talk page. PC/2 is a disincentive to do so. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

86. Oppose per Sandstein and anyone else after who agrees with him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
87. Oppose Unnecessary, time consuming, and workload increasing. I can see no benefits at all over the present system. Peridon (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
88. Oppose This sounds like more trouble than it is worth. Mr Mobile Man (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
89. Oppose. First of all, it is not good to hold such a discussion without an actual draft of a policy about the use of this tool. Second, the use cases that have been proposed (or are imaginable) tend to be covered by other tools that would work better (simple vandalism and trouble-making - by blocks and semi-protection, edit warring - by blocks and full protection, more dedicated trouble-making - by blocks and abuse filters, defamation of someone by someone very dedicated - by the legal system outside Wikipedia). Third, the enabling of this tool is likely to be misrepresented as "a big step towards protection of living people, reliability and the like", weakening our strongest protection - understanding that Wikipedia, while useful, is not reliable (lies are not that effective when no one believes them). Fourth, that leaves the reviewers with a major problem (maybe even a major legal problem) in borderline and unclear cases (made worse by lack of draft of policy). Fifth, in some cases having such a tool could make necessary blocks harder (since proposals to use this tool would have to be turned down first). I suppose that even more problems can be listed with some effort. Of course, even if we will use this, the world will not end... The again, the same is true for closing down Wikipedia... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about PC/2

• One use case, which is rare but "high-value" for PC2 is situations in which a rarely-edited (and rarely-watched) BLP is the target of vandalism by (different) autoconfirmed editors over an extended period of time with easily-recognizable and "bad" vandalism/BLP vios. (No protection, SP, PC1 don't prevent the high-damage edits, FP is overkill.) --j⚛e decker^talk 06:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  Note: I'm not ruling out other use cases, but this is a use case I've had a use for at least twice, and have thought about. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a use case for PC1 or semi-protection, not PC2. Risker (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You missed the part where I said "by autoconfirmed editors". The only option for this case right now that's effective is indefinite FP. There are cases of grudges out there that people are willing to create accounts, make 20 edits, and then add BLP crap just to get their revenge. When this intersects low-edit low-visibility BLPs, it can be a rare but real problem. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the use case for blocking and topic-banning people. What if one or more of those editors have reviewer permission? Are you going to strip them of reviewer permission because they were editing badly on one article? If you're going to do that, then go all the way and restrict them from editing in areas where they're creating problems. Penalizing the rest of the editing community (and the article itself) because of the actions of a couple of editors shows a lack of fortitude and an unwillingness to address the actual problems. Risker (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that every person in favor of even a trial of PC2, for any purpose, is demonstrating a lack of fortitude and an unwillingness to address the actual problems? - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And what happens when a sockpuppeteer goes out of their way time after time to spam or vandalize a page. Do we set up an edit filter? Do we continuously try to blacklist any spam? Do we just full protect the page indefinitely? I have placed two articles on PC2 (per IAR) in the last few weeks and I think it was a better solution than letting them get vandalized over and over again, as they had been for months. NW (Talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You think that IAR means that you can place articles on PC2 despite a clear community consensus from the last RfC that you should not do that? In my opinion, this is a misuse of IAR, and I would hope that you would reconsider your decision. Note that I just posted support for PC2. If it passes, how would you like it if someone who, like you, disagrees with the community consensus, started removing PC2 from articles while invoking the "IAR" magic word? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think it's stretching WP:IAR nearly to the breaking point to invoke it for something like this. Then again, there were admins who imposed PC1 on articles before that had been agreed to, and the reaction when that came to light was pretty much one huge yawn. So there is a precedent. Rivertorch (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I put in a month-long watchlist notice. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Do we need "Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection"? I don't think this would be very useful, and it would just confuse matters even more. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yes. Pending changes level 2 all by itself has the potential of being really messy, especially since it would most likely be used on articles already experiencing high levels of vandalism. (Basically every IP vandalism edit would go through and clog up editing for other people.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, PC2 isn't actually useful, except to allow autoconfirmed editors to vandalize or make BLP violations that remain in the page history but might not be publicly viewable. Risker (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reply to This, that and the other: How is that more bureaucracy, though? I wouldn't call that creating a new noticeboard, rather putting a protection request where it rightfully belongs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I skim-read and thought you said "subpage". I'll repair my comment above. Thanks for pointing it out. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• There was actually a discussion at AN some months ago about PC2 that wound up being moved to a sub-page but never closed. It saw opposition due to its ad-hoc nature, but people here may want to review it. See here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• I can't close a discussion on PC Level 2 because I've said a lot of things in opposition and support, but I do want to participate in the close on the limited question of the relevance of this tool to helping with the problem of the declining numbers of new admins, a problem I've been focused on for several years. Any real tool is relevant to the question, in theory, and I'm hoping to see opinions on both sides. As always, if anyone has a problem with this, please say so. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dank, while I don't know why you have that interest, I will say that having a history with this and a narrow issue that (I assume) is important to you probably makes you a non-optimal closer. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure thing ... anyone else? - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, this doesn't seem to be a burning issue either way. I'll sit out the discussion of the main yes/no question, then if the answer is yes, I'll join the discussion on the subject of whether PC2 is or isn't part of the ongoing debate over tool usage. - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• While I remain in opposition, I echo the opinion of others that much this depends on the criteria for applying PC2. Is there some sort of general agreement among people who support the mechanism? Are we just going to let the admins exercise their judgement? Or is there going to be another RfC on that before it goes into effect? wctaiwan (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• See here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Level 2 protection -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Without a listed criteria you are basically asking us to sign a blank check. For this reason my support is conditional: Until a specific community-supported criteria is developed, this should only be used on a case-by-cases basis after a community discussion. A formal, WP:AFD-type discussion would clearly meet my criteria but a well-done, announced-by-hatnote, article-talk-page-based discussion where all regular editors of the article had a voice and where the decision was arrived at in a fair manner would also be fine. I am also okay with this level of protection being used when a higher-level of protection would be non-controversially appropriate (under the principle of "if you can, without controversy, take strong action, you should have the freedom to consider taking less strong action"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• As with PC/1, editors with reviewer rights need tools to make it easy ("one-button" of practical) to
  1. quickly see all pending changes, both while reading and editing,
  2. with respect to non-conflicting edits, accept some without accepting others,
  3. make an edit without accepting non-conflicting edits, and
  4. make an edit that is dependent on an edit they don't want to either reject or accept and have their edit be treated as a "pending edit" (i.e. temporarily "demote" themselves for a single edit).

  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear to me from all three sections—support, oppose and discussion—that a sizable contingent of editors want a decision on how PC2 would be used to precede its implementation, so why aren't we having that discussion first? I'm not sure if the proper course is to move to suspend this discussion until we achieve consensus on how it would be used, but we need to do something like that. It is clearly not good enough to try to just pick that out of the discussion when many people supporting and opposing the proposal seem to be saying about the same thing. From my skim of those opposed, a lot of them would flip if we had the purpose question answered. If nothing else, they would feel better able to answer the question, as would a lot of us who went with "support". -Rrius (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think a good idea is to close the vote right now with the knowledge that most people support some form of PC2, but are not sure on its implementation. Then we can draft out a proposal via discussion, and then vote on a final version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree. I think that "the knowledge that most people support some form of PC2" is exactly what we don't have. What we know is that six months ago, the community found no consensus to implement it without a detailed proposal with clear rules for when PC/2 was to be used. That conclusion from a recent, well-attended RFC must carry weight here. Otherwise, there's a risk that we'll simply be asked almost, but not quite, exactly the same question again and again until the community agrees, at which point all RFCs on the subject will stop forever. (Which is, actually, an accurate description of the entire history of Flagged Revisions on en.wiki). The previous conclusion must be weighted in the close.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that there is a preliminary, non-binding consensus. A specific proposal should now be made, and the final, binding vote can be on that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• What about "reviewers" being able to protect pages with PC? This idea could be implemented. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. The reviewer user right requires no community scrutiny to obtain. I don't think we can assume the community trusts reviewers' judgment when it comes to deciding whether to protect an article. wctaiwan (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But what about their judgment as to whether or not a change should be made to the article? Wikipedia talk:Protection policy shows that a lot of people have strong misgivings about even administrators being allowed to exercise such judgment (in the case of fully protected pages). Why should an even "lower caste" of editors be given this right (in the case of what would be a certain subset of those pages)? Victor Yus (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between trusting someone to be able to decide whether an edit violates policies after a page has been protected with PC, and trusting them to be able to decide whether the edits being made to a page justify PC being applied. I don't particularly like even PC/1, but the proposal here has a much greater potential to be damaging. wctaiwan (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Just a heads-up: sometimes it takes weeks to get closers for PC-related and RfA-related RfCs, although I suppose if the vote is lopsided it will probably be easier. If you're not finding closers, we'll figure out what to do then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Deadbeef: I'm available as a closer. Theopolisme (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'm confused how this is already back up on the chopping block as it was just discussed last month here. I think this is way too soon to bring it back up, it feels like this idea is being pushed on the editors and I think that this RfC should be withdrawn for a couple more months until at least three months has gone by. If not withdrawn, then it should probably be closed as WP:SNOW since it just failed last month 44 opposed to 30 support. Technical 13 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That RfC was on several questions, all different from this one. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've listed myself in support, with a caveat: "Support so long as "infrequently" is honored. I'd like to see another RfC if the roster of articles with PC2 protection exceeds X. I'd suggest X= one half of the number of articles carrying PC1 protection." Please note: my proposed X is not definitive. If others wanted a different value for my proposed X, I'd be cool with that. My goal is to help provide a metric for "infrequently" and more discussion if that metric is exceeded. David in DC (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• @Technical 13: (Oppose #19): Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the entire distinction between PC1 and PC2? There's no way to change that unless you create another userright, "super-autoconfirmed" or something, with, say, two weeks and fifty edits. I fail to see how it's something that PC1 is doing wrong. Ignatzmice•talk 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Ignatzmice: Unless PC2 can be used on user talk pages, completely replaces PC1 eliminating the easy work-around, then I do not see it as an improvement and instead I see it more as WP:CREEP. Technical 13 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• We need several questions answered before this can have a serious RFC.

1. 1. How is the review flag given out or revoked? At the moment a simple request will get it for many. Will involved admins be able to revoke if there are no BLP issues/edit warring. Will admins be changing this right on whims.
   2. What edits can be made through protection. Is it only edits that have consensus, or any edits similar to current edits of semi-protection.
   3. When will it be used? Instead of full, or a replacement for semi.
   4. Who will be able to set this protection? Any admin, or one who is uninvolved? Will we see admins applying protection, then making changes against consensus?Martin451 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• The introduction of this RfC states that the previous RfC indicated that "a new RfC should be held in 3–6 months from its closure (in September 2012) to reassess its merits after PC/1 had been given a trial run, so that the community would be better able to determine whether or not to endorse any use of PC/2." Presumably the idea wasn't to merely hold the same discussion over again but to hold a new discussion informed by our experiences with PC/1. So where are the data from our months of PC/1 use? Where is the informed discussion by editors who have developed experience using this new tool? ElKevbo (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Although I oppose PC2, it amuses me to see how many other opposers seem to believe that we either already decided not to use PC at all or that this would mean the end of PC. there seem to be some similar misunderstandings among some of the supporters as well.

Anyway, I do think the lack of any clarity as to what PC2 would actually be for is a big part of the problem here. I've never understood what the advantages of PC2 are and this RFC makes no attempt to clarify that. The only situation where it seems preferable is in cases of disruption by multiple autoconfirmed socks. But then, we would just block those socks, so not really even then. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with you Beeblebrox, but when the autoconfirmed socks keep on coming it is good to have an extra tool at our disposal. Yaris678 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was even used for that. I've gone to SPI with clear cases of same sock on same article with several clear indications it was same person and was told I was on a fishing expedition. So with that kind of bias by admins, one can see why some of us distrust it more when unknown editors with unknown agendas are given the right to bar long-term users from editing articles. In the Israel-Palestine area there are so many socks, all they have to do is flood an article with socks, get PC/2 going and keep out the edits they don't like. One of several areas where highly partisan and probably paid socks are rampant and looking to corrupt the system. (Dang, I wish I could find the last RfC this year where I wrote something quite stirring about such a recent experience regarding some pending pages - or maybe it was page protection?) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"all they have to do is ... and keep out the edits they don't like." That kinda assumes that a reviewer won't lose if they try to POV push through their reviews. I think this is unlikely. Firstly, there are many other reviewers out there so the POV reviewer has to be very dedicated to make sure they are the one that does the reviewing. This is possible but consider the second point: It will start to become obvious fairly quickly if a reviewer is pushing a POV with their reviews. In the ultimate, the reviewer can loose the reviewer right or even be blocked. The reviewer can't then just start again with a new reviewer account. This is a big contrast to perpetual creation of sock auto-confirmed accounts. Yaris678 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One can hope; but there has been at least one aggressive and a couple more passive admins who I know who have pushed their POVs and only massive intervention(s) have stopped it. Hopefully there will be a clear and easy process for dealing with those who abuse it. But I'm not holding my breath so still oppose. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• If PC2 is implemented, then the majority of users need to be given the flag, it should be the de-facto standard. Anyone who has been editing for longer than say a year, with at least 1000 good edits or a few good articles should more or less get it by default, unless they have been involved in editwarring, BLP issues etc.Martin451 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, Martin451. The easiest way to give the reviewer userright to someone who has no business using it is by automatically granting it. Just because they haven't editwarred or committed BLP violations doesn't mean there's some other reason to not grant it to them (subtle vandalism, POV-pushing, one-trick horses, etc.). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that for editors with over a thousand edits the default assumption should be to make them a reviewer unless there is good reason otherwise. Few if any vandals get to a thousand edits before being spotted, plenty of edit warrers have more than a thousand edits but why not have edit warrers as reviewers? I rarely support RFA candidates who have been blocked in the last 12 months, but why should incivility or editwarring be a bar to reviewer status? ϢereSpielChequers 22:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Solely because they have X amount of edits" is not a valid enough justification, WereSpiel, since the ability to edit and the abilityto review others' edits don't even use the same skillsets. There is no guarantee that someone with any amount of edits who isn't already an administrator can be an effective member of CRASH; why bother giving it to them and having them either sit on a right they won't use or cock the whole thing up? As it is now, CRASH standards can be summed up as "Do you have a pulse and brains enough to ask?". —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that "Solely because they have X amount of edits" should not be the policy. If it was you could allocate the right by bot. But is there really any difference between our positions? Having this as the default assumption means that you give experienced editors the reviewer right unless there is good reason not to. If we had an editor who had got to 1,000 edits but when you checked their userrights log, talkpage and block log there was a good reason not to give them the right then of course the default does not apply. But even though I would like to see us appoint far more admins there are people who I would not trust as admin but I would trust as reviewers. Now the interesting debate is what one should look for, what are the things that would rule someone out for reviewer status even though they've been around long enough to do a thousand edits? ϢereSpielChequers 07:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I pointed out a few disqualifying criteria in my post before - specifically, subtle vandals (that haven't otherwise been blocked), anyone who has POV issues on a specific topic that they will not hesitate to push, and single-purpose accounts who show zero sign of editing outside the topic area, excepting in very specific circumstances (i.e. the editor's an expert in the topic at hand). Others can be a recent (Within the past three months) edit-warring block (or a history of recidivism for same) or misuse of privileged tools (specifically, misuse that leads to its revocation). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• PC2 has been applied at this article Dinh Bo Linh. The protection was removed by another admin before expiration, however, the protection is still in effect, and the removal doesn't show up in the logs. Bug? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  I'm seeing the protection still on that article. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but in the page history, materialscientist removed it. Something went wrong. See bugzilla:48755 Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Have a look at Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) to find pages protected with PC2. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• it appears that most of the opposes are missing the point of page protection, or are simply WP:IDL. page protections are meant to prevent consitent disruptive editing from multiple editors. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  Could you be more specific about that? I see plenty of opposes by people concerned about the lack of proposed rules for PC2, the increase in bureaucracy, the decreased ability to edit, the limited utility of PC2, the inevitable backlog, the inability of PC2 to stop sockpuppetry, the potential for abuse in content disputes, the further stratification of editors, the ineffectiveness of PC2 against the very large number of people with the reviewer bit, the lack of empirical data on the effectiveness of PC1, and the unending march towards flagged revisions. Which of these justifications is "missing the point" or is simply "IDL"? Ozob (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  protection is a preventative measure used by sysops on articles with a demonstrated repeated abuse by multiple editors. realistically, it is not any worse than full protection, and actually allows for development of the article. there are only 4 types of protection, if you still count PC/2. I don't see how that is bureaucratic in any sense of the term. potential for abuse is no different than if an article wasn't protected at all. if we cannot trust reviewers and sysops to behave, why are they gives the privileges? I do think there should be a set of guidelines for implementation, however. also, PC/2 is not intended to stop sockpuppetry, from what I see... no more than PC1 or semiprotection is. also, fullprotection is rarely used, does that mean we should get rid of it? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  You seem to have admitted that the opposes are not missing the point and have more in their favor that IDL, else you would not feel the need to try to rebut me.

  I think that most of what you have said is already adequately countered by the rationales of the oppose votes. I do think I should mention, however, that there is a clear potential for abuse, and that just because someone is trusted with the reviewer bit does not mean that they will use it correctly. After all, sysops undergo much more intensive scrutiny than reviewers, yet they sometimes wheel war. It is impossible to prevent edit wars on PC2 articles among editors with the reviewer bit. It is also impossible to prevent reviewers from selectively approving edits based on their POV. I predict that within the first twelve months after PC2 achieves widespread use, there will be an ArbCom case in which someone is accused of abusing their review powers. Ozob (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  ok, many opposes do have good points, but some are just opposing on the grounds that an RFC was already done on this subject. pretty much all of what you have said is just this: 'it has potential for abuse, so it shouldn't be used.' how is that any worse than bringing article development to a full stop with FP... and sysops can still abuse it, so maybe we should get rid of protection entirely, if that is the case. perhaps even the entirety of wikipedia....

however, still my point remains: why should said users have the bits if we cannot trust them to maturely use them? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All tools have a potential for abuse. But, since our goal is to write a better encyclopedia, we should accept a tool if its benefits outweigh its drawbacks. I don't see any benefit from PC2—despite my badgering, nobody has shown me a situation where PC2 is the correct solution. Above I focused on a facet of PC2 that I think has been neglected: PC2 makes it easier to actively harm the encyclopedia. Why? Because it's easy to get the reviewer bit and it's easy for reviewers to POV push on a PC2 article. As I said before, sometimes the community errs in who it trusts, and sometimes those it trusts err. Expecting reviewers (or even admins) to never err is to expect something more than human, so I don't think your point "remains". Ozob (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmelie_de_Forest. take a look at the history, and the BLP and undue violations from multipkle users. PC/2 was placed on it until a sysop decided that this RFC means that PC/2 should not be used.... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I count only five users who who were problematic, and they were spread over about two months. That is a situation for blocks, not for page protection, not for PC1, and certainly not for PC2. The current use of PC on that page is utterly inappropriate. Ozob (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

one user was blocked... but the issues still continued. the pc/2 was implemented temorarialy, as protection is supposed to be, to prevent further BLP vios. mostly to just let the situation cool down, without completely halting page development. why the hell would you wait for users to repeatedly add inappropriate material t5o justify blocking? why should they have to be blocked? the pc/2 was just to let the subject/cause to drop out of the public spotlight. the pc/2 is also accompanied by an edit-notice till july. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the history of the article as I see it: There was an initial period of contention which lasted 6 April – 18 May. That was resolved with a one week block for the primary offending user. After that was resolved, on 20 May a user who had not previously edited the article and who was clearly not a sockpuppet added a very similar, but more offensive, BLP violation. After being reverted and receiving a block warning, the second user readded that same material.

That user had earned a block and should have received one. As far as I'm aware, the user did not. Instead the article was placed under PC2. This is exactly the wrong kind of incentive: A user who blatantly disregarded BLP policy was still able to edit, and innocent users (IPs and non-reviewers) were unable to edit. I believe that the admin who took this action meant well and thought it would be effective. I disagree; I do not think that PC2 was the right solution. Witness, for example, how many IPs have tried to make innocent changes to the article and have had to wait for review.

As Risker said at the top of this discussion, "technical solutions are easy and people are hard". I'm sure it's less stressful to put a page under PC2 (or even full protection) than it is to block someone; people like being blocked about as much as they like being punched in the face. But when someone begs to get punched in the face, we would be remiss if we didn't fulfill their request. Ozob (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

the first user continued after tha one-week block, and later a second editor, who was not a sock, added similar stuff... the fist user got indefed... if you check the block log.... pc/2 was just use teporatialy to let things settle down, I think. I highly doubt that she intended to have the protection go till august.... there might have even been a third editor adding the material, but only one needed blocking... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There were at least two other users who edited the article in questionable ways. The first one edited the article twice in January (violating BLP with this), then disappeared. The second made a series of edits in April (with questionable edits such as this and this); after being rolled back, an apparent sockpuppet started section blanking; after a second rollback, the user vanished.

There were only two users with persistent BLP violations. The first one was blocked for a week, not indefinitely; see here. However, he has not edited since being blocked on 18 May; see here. The second user was never blocked; see here.

The admin who applied PC2 seemed to intend it to be indefinite; see here ("I have now pending changes protected the article, so that anybody who tries to add any kind of defamatory "harmless fun facts" in the future will have to have their edit approved by a reviewer before it goes live.") and here ("As long as we keep the Pending Changes (2) protection + preferably also the rather in-your-face edit notice that I have now added to the article (only seen in edit mode), it should be fine.").

So, now we have the facts straight. And I continued to believe that the facts support me: PC2 is the wrong remedy for this situation. Blocks and reverts worked. PC2 punishes the innocent. Ozob (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't pending change protect articles that would be unprotected or semi-protected without this protection feature. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• As others, I tend to think, for PC and other matters, that a specific proposal should be put forward and discussed. Such unspecified RFCs can only be considered as surveys, and can neither guarantee nor preclude the adoption of a future specific proposal; that specific proposal must gain consensus. A second RFC testing the level of support for different criteria and stipulations may help to predict consensus, but in the end a specific proposal based on those findings should be put forward. I may participate in this endeavor. Cenarium (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

• I took a random sample of size 11 out of the 110 support comments, generated by the cpu: 56,22,27,61,38,53,13,17,102,74,62. Of those only entry #61 was by a non-reviewer. If that 10% random sample is representative, this means that over 90% of the people who support this are reviewers. While reviewers make up a much smaller percentage of the overall wikipedia users(even with it being handed out as nonchalantly as it is). Hence segmenting the userbase. The more vertical hierarchy can only discourage, and therefore reduce the inflow of new editors. Especially because reviewers get it wrong all the time. The amount of people who want to deal with these sorts of politics is a lot smaller than the amount of potentially valuable editors. if I didn't have to WP:AGF I would assess that this rfc is just pushing towards flagged edits using divide and conquer on the userbase. Seducing the vocal reviewer group with more "power" so that they will advocate in favour of it. The usecase is thin and misguided. Pinfix (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't some conspiracy going on. Virtually every experienced editor who would participate in these discussions is a reviewer. I took a sample of 11 as well but of the opposes generated by random.org and 18,2,64,54 were not reviewers. If I remember correctly, only one of them have ever created a userpage. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You do not have to create a user page to be an experienced editor. And yes people who are reviewer are more likely to participate in these discussions. That is why it is very distorting to any debate that favours them over others.You do not have to request the status symbol of a reviewer bit to be a valuable contributor, or at all experienced. What you have to be to have the reviewer bit is concerned about status symbols and into petty office politics. Which the majority of people detest. This will only further decrease the inflow of editors. Pinfix (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from your dubious test, do you have facts to back up anything you say? Most significantly, what specifically do you mean by reviewers "get it wrong all the time"? And why do you think reviewer status has anything to do with "status symbols" and "petty office politics"? I requested the status to help with the initial trial, mostly because it was the most sensible way to gather data about whether it worked well. And if it is handed out like candy as you suggest, it isn't much of a status symbol. I for one don't know whether any given editor is a reviewer (unless I happen to know the person is an admin), so I have trouble seeing how there could be a political angle. As for people not having to be reviewers to be valuable editors, of course that is the case. No one is saying anything to the contrary. And while an editor without a user page can be an experienced editor, it is not the norm, so when six out of seven editors don't have user pages, their being newish is logical inference. -Rrius (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It may not be a status symbol if it is handed out like candy, but the reviewer userright requires both a different, more restrictive, set of standards from rollback and a person who is unwilling to use it to his own benefit. As it presently stands, the standards for reviewer are less restrictive than rollback (despite the fact that PC/FR can actively cause damage to Wikipedia if done sloppily) and because of the lack of standards there's nothing stopping someone who has absolutely no right having the right from getting it. My concern isn't user stratification - it's competence. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Then, once again, how is it being misused? A generalized gripe about how it is passed out leading to the potential for misuse is not terribly helpful. Pinfix alleged reviewers get it wrong all the time, and you are implying a lack of competence, so what exactly are you seeing out in the wild, so to speak, to convince you that is the case? -Rrius (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not alleging a lack of competence at present. (I avoid PC'd articles, on principle.) I am protesting any automated granting of the right based only on criterion that are ultimately irrelevant to reviewing, such as edit count. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think an important question we should be asking is about how this policy would affect people with rollback or other special user rights that don't also have the reviewer user right. Shouldn't they get an exemption from that for proving themselves as quality contributors? Based on what I've heard so far, they are just as limited as every other non-reviewer or administrator. Even though that is not the only reason why I don't want the policy; that is the main reason I don't like it. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have long advocated the idea that reviewer should be no harder to get than rollback because they both require essentially the same skill, namely "are you able to differentiate vandalism from other types of edits." But with PC2 every edit by a non reviewer is held back until a reviewer approves it. In my opinion this grants an unacceptable amount of control of content to a select group.

PC1 works well for curtailing vandalism while still allowing most edits, PC2 is only actually useful in situations that are extremely rare and can be handled by blocking or full protection. In its way full protection is actually more fair because nobody but admins can edit through it and the vast majority of admins know better than to edit through full protection except to correct obvious errors such as typos. We can't expect that level of discretion from a group as broad as every user who has the reviewer right. So, we'd likely end up with a veritable parade of complaints about reviewer behavior, causing much stress and drama with little to no benefit. To me the equation simply does not balance and the negatives far outweigh the positives. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Statistics: As of 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC), there are 131 supports and 77 opposes. This means 63%[2] of all !votes so far support the change. I think that's close enough that we do need to ask what happens if this is a no-consensus. Is no-consensus allowed? What happens by default? --NYKevin 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What happens is that whoever closes it will super!vote. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the number of disillusioned users who have since gone on the record as being opposed to that outcome on principle, I'd prefer to think that no one here would have the callousness and poor taste to consciously divest the community of its right to consensus again.   — C M B J   05:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What about the significantly larger number of users who have expressed support here? Should their opinions basically be ignored simply to maintain the status quo (doing which is really taking the same position as opposing this)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that for "game changer" RfCs, it would be better if the closers signed up ahead of time, and if they were willing to point to how they've handled similar RfCs in the past (if any). Otherwise, voters get more anxious, more combative, and less willing to respond to reasonable concerns from all sides ... and it's perfectly understandable why voters would feel more combative and less cooperative in an RfC like this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, if the consensus ends up being "close and hold off on an outright vote until we know exactly how PC/2 will be used", as seems likely, I have another RfC drafted to serve the purpose of answering the question, "If we adopted PC/2, what would be the terms and conditions?" We could then hold a definitive vote in a third RfC that allows everyone who supported on condition or opposed because of a lack of definition to weigh in with knowledge of how it would be used. Deadbeef 17:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the fact that you already intend to start at least two more RfCs on this topic reminds me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ozob (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, any result other than declaring consensus to be in support of PC/2 with the current numbers or close to them sounds much more like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As User:Legoktm put it above, "Are we just going to have RfCs every 6 months about enabling it until it finally passes?" The unending push for FR and PC borders on disruptive. Perhaps, if PC2 is ever enabled, every six months I should hold an RfC on disabling it. Ozob (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The status quo isn't always a good thing, but it's the default action when a debate results in no consensus, which is the outcome that a non-trivial portion of our community considered representative of at least one major discussion after comparably careful consideration. The main point of contention here seems to be whether the affirmative of these big RfCs can be upheld by a lesser degree of consensus, because, for some reason, they keep just slightly failing by the usual standard.   — C M B J   21:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again: a "status quo" result is identical to an "oppose" result in this case - and considering the significantly larger number of "support" positions above... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That means nothing, Dogmatic. If a change has the potential to substantially change Wikipedia, it needs to have substantially higher support than an RfA in general. Thus far - and this RfC is following the pattern - NO RfC or poll on Pending Changes since the trial has achieved anything approaching 66%, let alone the overwhelming consensus a substantial change to Wikipedia demands. That's part of the reason the close that turned PC on was so controversial: The support amount was 61%, meaning the close was akin to a !supervote. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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.