Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment March 2016

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I would like to re-open the PC2, as the last PC discussion was held in 2012. And the PC2 discussion in 2014 ended as no consensus. 333-blue 11:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

About pending changes
Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels
Function Level Unregistered or newly registered Confirmed or autoconfirmed Extended confirmed Template editor [α] Admin Interface admin [β] Appropriate for
(See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
Editing No protection Normal editing The vast majority of pages.[γ]
Pending changes 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 newly registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed Cannot edit Can edit
typically with restrictions as spelled out in edit notices.
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 Noncontroversial editing
and editing authorized via consensus on talk page
Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
Office Cannot edit Can edit with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Pages that the Foundation has determined to be exceptionally sensitive.
Interface Cannot edit Normal editing Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects fundamental to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
Page creation No protection Cannot create[δ][ε] Can create The vast majority of page titles.[γ]
Create Cannot create[ε] Adjustable
Protection may be applied to neither, either, or both groups
Can create Pages that have been repeatedly and problematically re-created. This form of protection is often called "salting".
Page move No protection Cannot move Can move The vast majority of pages.[γ]
Move Cannot move Adjustable
Protection may be applied to neither, either, or both groups
Can move Pages that have been the subject of move wars.
Upload files No protection Cannot upload Can upload The vast majority of file names.[γ]
Upload Cannot upload Adjustable
Protection may be applied to neither, either, or both groups
Can upload Files that have been repeatedly uploaded after deletion
Additional protection:
Turquoise padlockCascade protection: When used, extends edit protection level to all pages that are transcluded onto the protected page (unless the transluded page is already at a higher protection level).

Notes:

  1. ^ This table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
  2. ^ This table assumes that an interface administrator is also a "regular" administrator, which is almost always the case in practice.
  3. ^ a b c d This is the default protection level.
  4. ^ Since 5 December 2005
  5. ^ a b Under the default no protection, unregistered and newly registered users can create talk pages in all namespaces and draft articles in the Draft namespace. For these namespaces, it would therefore be possible for the creation protection to only apply to unregistered and newly registered users

Reason

[edit]

Some articles may vandalize by autoconfirmed users, and anonymous editors keep undoing their vandals, just in case if this happens. 333-blue 12:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Support I would only use this instead of full protection or user blocking if an article had continuous vandalism by autoconfirmed users, but that same article had lots of useful edits from autoconfirmed users too. Peter Sam Fan 20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]

@333-blue: You need to be very specific here. In the last RFC, there were three proposals that had consensus. Are you asking for comment on whether those proposals should be now implemented? Are you asking for different criteria to be used? You have to spell it out, because vagueness kills RFCs like kryptonite and it makes closing them next to impossible. I also suggest that, after your proposal has been refined, that you list it at WP:CENTRAL, as this is a major policy change that needs wide input. Katietalk 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.