Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: 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) |
||
Line 171:
:::Not the one linked to from the proposal voting page - [[Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment/Discussion]]. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Oh, I see, there are actually two discussion pages. Starting to look like this whole exercise (like the abortion one I also wasted my time trying to take part in) is just a rubber stamp for a decision that's already been taken, somewhere. Try to minimize the likelihood of anyone's attention being drawn to any inconvenient facts before they fly by to vote. (90% of voters seem not to understand the issue anyway, their comments are effectively about whether or not restricting editing on certain pages is a good thing, not about whether PC is a better technical solution than semi-protection for achieving that. And those who do appreciate that this is the question, seem not to be aware of the downsides of PC. Maybe they think the upsides outweigh those downsides, which is fair, but I think there's no reason to assume voters have been given full enough information to make this vote worth anything.)--[[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::So is a suggestion for a change for ease of navigation forthcoming? And rest assured, ''none'' of the coordinating admins here have any strong position on PC; that's why we're the ones who are watching over it. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::::I've suggested transcluding the discussion above the voting sections. But the whole exercise seems flawed (see below).--[[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
*I object strongly to the notion that reviewer permissions should be any easier to remove than administrator permissions. Bluntly put, we had a large number of editors refuse to accept reviewer permissions, despite their undoubted abilities as editors, because any administrator could arbitrarily decide to remove the permission. The fact that a poor decision was made a long time ago (with the majority of participants in the discussion being administrators) to permit rollback permisions to be controlled by individual administrators does not mean we should repeat this error in judgment. Frankly, given the number of times I have seen administrators arbitrarily remove rollback permissions from users, I'm surprised we haven't had more requests for desysopping. I would prefer to see a defined number of non-automated edits that must be made before reviewer permission is automatically granted, with its removal only via a request to the Arbitration Committee or some other similar, elected, broadbased and representative committee (I'd fold in rollback if we went with the latter). I'd propose 500 non-automated edits.
Line 253:
=== Reopening Pending Changes Trial But On All English Wikipedia Pages ===
{{hat|Discussion should be of the three options above; I don't mean to be a dick, but I'd rather head things off at the pass. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
Personally, I can't make a decision on weather using PC instead of semiprotection (I guess) is better or worse because I realize that PC was only used on a few pages. If a trial on all pages was used, would that give a better judgement for people who are ignorant of its powers?[[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 02:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:Not going to happen as that crosses the line into Flagged Revisions. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 03:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 415:
:::::Thank you for responsing to my concerns. However, based on my own experiences, and the article [[WP:HUMAN#Common_misconceptions|IPs are human]], autoconfirmed vandals are fairly uncommon. Roughly 20% of IP editting is vandalism, whereas 2-3% of registered editting is vandalism. I don't have any hard stats on it, but I expect that the rate of vandalism by autoconfirmed users is even lower than that of registered users, with most registered-user vandalism being among people who just signed up. Although I'm not an admin, in the event that I do see an autoconfirmed user making non-contructive edits, I can undo their changes. If they continue, I can report them on one of the noticeboards. I know that I can get reviewer status if I want it, but I disagree with the concept of it, and I disagree with the expansion of article protection. Article protection violates the fundamental idea that anyone can edit articles, and should only be used in rare circumstances where the problem is severe edit disputes, and not violations of Wikipedia policy. [[User:Dwainwr123|Debbie W.]] 04:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Debbie, when I say Grawp, what immediately comes to mind? —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::I will say this much; there are certain types of vandalism which have to be undone by admins. Grawp is one such example, [[WP:LTA/MG|MascotGuy]] is another (and as of now, he doesn't even need to get autoconfirmed status to do what he usually does), and there are plenty of people who create lovely pages as [[John R. Niggerlover]] which have to be deleted and in some cases revision deleted. So while the vast majority of vandalism can be undone by just about anyone, there are certain types that require admin tools; I hope that sheds some light on the matter. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::::::You make a very good point about certain types of vandalism only being undoable by administrators. How does PC affect these situations? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that PC would not prevent a long-term abuser from creating a nonsensical Wikipedia article or from harassing other users. [[User:Dwainwr123|Debbie W.]] 04:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::PC affects those situations by causing an escalation of misbehavior aimed at making PC unworkable or an active detriment to an article, such as masses of tiny edits coordinated off-wiki (4chan en generale) or cheating PC by editing first with an IP, then making a null edit with an autocon-buster. I mentioned Grawp specifically because his MO has evolved to a point where no matter what we introduce as an antivandal measure, he'll exploit its flaws. (He did this in the trial with [[Park51]].) —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 423:
===Alternative proposal===
{{hat|Not a discussion of the options above. The place for this discussion would probably be either [[WP:VPP]] or [[WP:VPR]]. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
"Pending changes" is unworkable and violates the egalitarian spirit of Wikipedia. Rather than try to devise new ways of protecting pages, lets think of ways of ''reducing'' the number of articles needing protection. Here is a much simpler proposal - (1) Prohibit anonymous IP edits; (2) Strictly enforce rules against [[WP:vandalism|vandalism]], [[WP:EW|edit warring]], [[WP:COI|conflicts of interests]], [[WP:SOCK|sock puppets]], [[WP:TE|tendentious (biased) editting]], and other abuses of Wikipedia.
| |||