Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 18 May 2013

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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)

Support PC/2

1. Support for a limited set of use cases. --j⚛e decker 06:21, 18 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 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)
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)
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 09:42, 18 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)
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 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)
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)
25. Support after an article-specific discussion OR after there is a at least one community-approved criteria.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. 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)
6. Oppose any additional layer of permission complexity. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 06:27, 18 May 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)

• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment