Revision as of 14:28, 26 March 2012 view source TotientDragooned (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 696 edits →Position #1: + ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:17, 26 March 2012 view source OSborn (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 7,870 edits →Position #1: oppose Next edit →
Line 35: # My views are summed up by many of the previous posters here. [[User:Dalliance\|Dalliance]] ([[User talk:Dalliance\|talk]]) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC) # Unnecessary complexity creep. [[User:TotientDragooned\|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned\|talk]]) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC) # Honestly I find myself surprised I'm taking this position, but I feel I should '''oppose''' PC. I am concerned that this results in a more hierarchical system with more power to administrators. The draft policy requires reviewer status to have similar requirements to rollback, but I am concerned that a sort of RfA attitude could drift into PC which would have disastrous and [[WP:CABAL\|cabal]]-like results. PC protection is different from the existing semi-protect because AFAIK confirmed is an automatically granted permission; not one that requires beseeching one of our administrative overlords to allow you into the cool kids club. [[User:OSborn\|OSborn]]<sup> [[User_talk:OSborn\|arf]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/OSborn\|contribs.]]</sub> 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions