Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Task 3: Fix LintErrors |
m Task 5: Fix LintErrors |
||
Line 136:
=== Just keep asking ===
:<small>'''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012|RfC discussion page]]'''. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue"> (ʞlɐʇ)
As much as this has already been discussed, I guess that this RFC just goes to show that if you're dogged enough and remain focused enough that you can beat through whatever changes you want into Wikipedia. The whole "just keep asking until you get the answer you want" approach really does work, doesn't it?<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 05:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
::If it had actually worked the last RfC would not have removed it. I disagree with you on the accusations of forum-shopping since a new RfC was always going to happen because the last RfC left the overall question of whether to use PC or not unresolved. It took this long to do it because the well had been sufficiently tainted by the neverending trial. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 19:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 157:
=== Where was everybody when semi-protection was proposed? ===
:<small>'''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012|RfC discussion page]]'''. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue"> (ʞlɐʇ)
I'm just asking where everybody was (note, back in 2005) when semi-protection was implemented, because I hear the similar comments flashed here as then for when semi-protection was proposed as an alternative to plain full-protection of everything (i.e. opponents of that claimed that semi-protection was similarly "un-wiki" and against the "editing principles"). --[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 07:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
:In case people was wondering about what MuZemike is referring to, here's a link: [[Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy/Archive_3#Oppose_.28please_explain_why.29]]. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 164:
===Draft policy===
:<small>'''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012|RfC discussion page]]'''. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue"> (ʞlɐʇ)
Looking at the first sentence of the draft policy, "Edits on articles protected by pending-changes protection will not be displayed to readers who are not logged in, until the edits are checked by reviewers." Don't you mean that edits will not be incorporated into the version of the article displayed by default to readers who are not logged on? They can still see the edits if they look at the history, or the effects of them if they try (god bless them) to edit the page themselves. Also, if this is supposed to be policy, you'd better say which edits you mean - and be careful, because it's like "either all edits, or all edits made by unconfirmed users or even by confirmed users if there have been edits by unconfirmed users since the last review" (so level-1 PC is in fact slightly MORE restrictive than semi-protection, which I know is not to be spoken too loudly). Also you'd better say who can apply this protection (administrators I presume). --[[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
: Wouldn't the restrictiveness under this interpretation (which I also inquired about) vary depending on how frequent the reviewer "status" is among (auto)confirmed users? (BTW, the above is an example of what I would think should belong on the Discussion page - if it's transcluded onto the main RfC page.) [User:?]
Line 205:
=== Usage boundaries between pending changes lv. 1 versus semi-protection still not addressed ===
I remember there being discussion as to when it would be best to use Pending Changes and when it would be best to use semi-protection. The boundary isn't clear, and if this isn't addressed there's going to be a messy piecemeal system where if the admin likes PC, PC will be used, and if they don't, semi will be used. Something specific is needed. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"
: Okay, I don't know if I can hit every point necessary here, but maybe at least I can get the ball rolling. SP is preferable to PC1 (and FP to PC2) on frequently-edited articles (pick a number, 1 edit/hour? 1/edit 10 minutes)? because things just get messy when multiple editors are queued, cognitively and otherwise.
Line 225:
=== Implementation: Do we tack this on to RFPP or create a new request system ===
I recommend the first option. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"
:I'm staying out of the actual debating this time around, but I believe I can easily answer this and it gives an opportunity to clarify an important point. The way PC was used during and after the trial, it was just another tool in the article protection suite. No new systems or noticeboards are needed to begin using it again, everything we need is still present, we just need a consensus on whether or not we are allowed to apply it. This is why the draft policy repeatedly uses the words " as with other forms of protection". The draft policy would be an addendum to [[WP:PP]] and PC would be just one of the options available to admins when reviewing requests for protection, whether made at RFPP or through other channels.. The draft policy is just that, a draft. It is not intended to be complete or perfect, it is intended to give us something to work with if the tool is approved and it is expected to be changed over time, or even right away, just like any other policy. The idea here is to make the decision to use the tool or not use it, and sort out the smaller details in the usual manner, by identifying specific issues through regular use and correcting them as we go. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
| |||