Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 146:
#:<s>'''Yes'''. - [[User:ReZawler|ReZawler]] ([[User talk:ReZawler#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ReZawler|contribs]]) 19:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)</s> [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]]<small>sockpuppet vote struck [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
#'''Yes''' - that's the only sensible way the EC user permission makes sense. There aren't that many pages protected under ECP and ECP users hardly make edits to such pages. [[User:Some Gadget Geek|<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>>]] ([[User talk:Some Gadget Geek|talk]]) 19:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. I can't think of any hard reason to oppose it. Let's see how it goes. [[User:Stevietheman|<
#'''Yes''' This is a beautiful idea to fight such things. Much awaited, as I have been an active participation on such things. This concept is much needed. [[User:Light2021|Light2021]] ([[User talk:Light2021|talk]]) 20:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. I see no serious drawback to having this, and finer-grained control is always useful. Furthermore, this is a very natural measure given the introduction of the extended-confirmed group. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 22:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. Seems a good idea to allow protection of articles that PC1 doesn't help. ‑‑<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">[[User:Yodin|Yodin]]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>[[User talk:Yodin|T]]</sup></span> 22:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' PC1 isn't always strong enough to deal with persistent vandalism and/or sockpuppetry, and extended-confirmed protection can make it difficult for much improvement to be made at all because it limits so many potential editors. I think that this proposal well balances both of them. '''Edit:''' I, however, would strongly oppose any usage of PC2 without first exhausting less limiting alternatives, either semi-protection or PC1. <span style="background-color:yellow">[[User:Gluons12|<
#'''Yes''' I think that EC users are well used to the rules by now, and don't need auto-edit blockage from articles that they contribute with minor edits.— [[User:JJBers|<
#'''Yes''' per everyone above. I can't see it doing much harm. — '''[[User:Yellow Dingo|<b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>]]''' [[User talk:Yellow Dingo|<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b>]] 10:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' its a good idea will take a load off pending change reviewers <i style="font-family:Sans-serif">[[User:Fitindia|<b style="color:blue">FIT</b><b style="color:orange">INDIA</b>]] [[User talk:Fitindia|<b style="color:red">(talk)</b>]]</i> 13:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Line 157:
#'''Yes''' - net benefit. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 00:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Yes if''' used only as an alternative to ECP as in the "use case" above. If PC2 is to be used for pages which would otherwise be PC1 then it's a strong No from me.</s> [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 09:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC) - !vote withdrawn as I'm still unclear about likely usage [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. I've never thought PC2 a good thing; but ECP changes things. By lowering the requirements it could certainly be useful and fair. <span style="font-family: sylfaen">[[User:Eman235#top|<
#'''Yes'''. Previously, I've had many reservations about PC, but I think that the experience so far with ECP has demonstrated that this proposal will fill a need, and provide a net benefit. I'm unconvinced by the arguments about creep. However, I ''do'' have concerns about some reviewers having gotten the flag, who might very well not qualify for ECP. I assume that there will continue to be an option of removing the reviewer right at AE or somewhere, so I still come out on the side of seeing this as a net positive. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' To counteract some of the opposes:
Line 210:
#'''Yes''', per nom. [[User:TJH2018|<span style="color: orange">TJH2018</span>]][[User talk:TJH2018|<span style="color: blue"><small>talk</small></span>]] 01:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' Extended Confirmed Protection tends to slow down progression of articles a lot, adopting this proposal would allow for users to keep contributing good edits while keeping more persistent malicious users from damaging the articles. [[User:-glove-|-glove-]] ([[User talk:-glove-|talk]]) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' agree proposal would allow for users to keep contributing good edits while keeping more persistent malicious users from damaging the articles. - [[User:Mahajandeepakv|<
#'''Yes''' Support as specialized tool to be used in cases where PC-1 and semi-protection aren't enough to keep out persistent vandals/socks, but where Extended-Confirmed protection would be overkill. Also, I endorse the arguments made by Ritchie333. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''Yes''' I agree that an alternative to Extended confirmed protection should be implemented. <span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:red">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Music1201|<span style="color:green"> Music1201</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Music1201|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 23:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Line 229:
#:I agree with the proposer that lowering the auto-accept threshold for PC2 is preferable to leaving it as it is. But the better choice would be to reject implementing PC2 entirely. [[User:Altamel|Altamel]] ([[User talk:Altamel|talk]]) 05:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
#::I've expanded on my rationale after the fact. Several things, no add'l lock colors needed; there's already an orange one associated. The config itself has been around, and is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2016&action=protect already available to sysops in the interface] despite no consensus. The suggested new threshold is not arbitrarily defined, but a logical match as PC1 is to semi. Looking at it as review configuration, not a ''new'' restriction level in the slightest, I'm personally very willing to trust sysops to make their good judgment and allow this level as a potential option. — [[User:Andy M. Wang|'''''Andy W.''''']] ([[User talk:Andy M. Wang|<span style="color:#164">talk</span>]]) 07:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
#I'm hostile to all forms of flagged revisions no matter how disguised, because we don't have the volunteers to review all these edits before they go live. Look at de.wiki's experience, with the backlog of unreviewed changes growing longer every day and some changes languishing unreviewed for literally years.—[[User:S Marshall|<
#::{{ping|S Marshall}} Actually, as I'm typing this, the [[Special:PendingChanges|Pending Changes Review page]] is empty, and that's with literally [[Special:StablePages|thousands of pages]] under PC1 protection right now. And with [[Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes|almost 8,000 PC reviewers and administrators]], I'm pretty sure we could handle the volume. (Although I will admit that I'm not sure how many edits will hit the PC review log after [[Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016|this other RfC]] finishes.) <b><span style="font-family:Oswald;color:black">—</span> [[User:Gestrid|<span style="font-family:Oswald;color:maroon">Gestrid</span>]] ([[User talk:Gestrid#top|<span style="font-family:Oswald;color:black">talk</span>]])</b> 05:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#:::Of those 8,000, what proportion have actually reviewed a change in the last year?—[[User:S Marshall|<
#::::[[quarry:query/13849|1431]] of 7967, or about 18%, if my query is correct, including only manual reviews. As a note though, the usergroup was initially handed out widely specifically in prevision of the original PC2 being used. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 12:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#:::::Thank you Cenarium! That's an extremely helpful query that produces a rich data set. I see that we have 1,431 reviewers who have reviewed at least one change, and 398 who have reviewed more than 10 changes. The top 12 performers have reviewed more than 500 each, the top 6 have reviewed more than 1,000 each, and the top two have reviewed about 6,000 changes between them.{{pb}}I conclude that despite the large absolute numbers of reviewers, in practice the system depends on a very small number of volunteers. I'm sure they're all completely objective and trustworthy, but just in case there are any future concerns or allegations, it does seems prudent to ask: how can we review the reviews they've made?—[[User:S Marshall|<
#::::::This isn't unusual among Wikipedia processes, most depend on relatively few regulars. It's also the case for [[WP:NPP|new pages patrol]], for example. Reviews can be 'reviewed' at [[Special:Log/review]], by selecting 'manual accept' as type of review. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 14:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''No'''. The hard problem underlying all anti-vandalism work is people. Vandalism comes from people; vandalism is fought by people. Anti-vandalism tools, from PC1 to FP, are a way for people we trust to interact with people we don't trust. When there is a specific person we don't trust, the answer ''must'' be a block. Anything else ignores the fact that vandalism is about people. The ''only'' articles that should be placed under any sort of protection are those that are vandalized by a large number of different users, or articles that are vandalized by a single user (or group of users) who outwit our blocks.{{pb}}Many supporters of PC2 have, in past discussions, been blind to this fact. When I've asked for examples of articles where PC2 would work, they usually suggest articles that were vandalized by a single user or small number of users. PC2, even PC1, should never be used when a block will solve the problem. Sometimes, someone will suggest that PC2 should be used instead of indefinite semi- or full-protection. PC2 does not solve this problem, either. These articles are protected because they attract too much vandalism for PC1 to work. It should be obvious that they will still attract too much vandalism for PC2 to work. Finally, occasionally someone will suggest PC2 as a preventive measure. I believe this goes against Wikipedia's spirit as "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."{{pb}}I have the same challenge for PC2 supporters as always: Find me one article where PC2 would be appropriate. Until you do this, I will maintain that there are no use cases for PC2. [[User:Ozob|Ozob]] ([[User talk:Ozob|talk]]) 15:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Line 297:
#'''No''' more or less per Hut 8.5. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 11:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
#'''No''' per DGG and Yintan. I don't think that implementing another new level of protection is a good idea at this time.<small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:MediumSpringGreen;">Godsy</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 04:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
#'''No'''. Unnecessary and undesirable and...in lieu of tl;dr, just no. [[User:Rivertorch|<
#'''No''' per MusikAnimal. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɔk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]]] 00:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
#'''No'''. Layering new epicycles onto an already dysfunctional orrery is likely to be counterproductive. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 02:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
| |||