There are several valid points raised by both sides in this discussion. Supporters of Level 2 Pending Changes argue based on two main points. One, it would open certain pages prone to problematic edits (such as highly-visible templates or little-watched articles about living people) to editing with a much lower risk of said edits being visible. Such pages are currently fully protected or semiprotected, and require users without the necessary access levels to make edit requests, and supporters contend that this would make these sorts of articles more open. Secondly, it would help keep attacks from autoconfirmed sockpuppets from becoming visible while simultaneously allowing edits from other good faith users to go through.
Opponents of Level 2 Pending Changes are both against it altogether or against it as is. Those who are completely against it in any form argue that it is too complex (whether or not PC in and of itself is already too complex) and that it would create/add to stratification among editors. Some also argued that existing options (semiprotection, full protection, or PC Level 1) work fine and they couldn't see any situation where it would be preferable to other options. Finally, a few stated that it would give administrators and reviewers the ability to exert ownership articles. I do not think the final argument is compatible with our guideline on assuming good faith, and have therefore given it no weight, but the other arguments I have carefully considered. There are also some users who are not against the concept of Level 2 Pending Changes, but against it as is. Specifically, these users want to see a concrete policy laid out before it is used, as they believe it could potentially be misused if such a policy doesn't exist. Of particular note, for this and future discussions, is the nearly universal rejection of using PC Level 2 for content disputes. Given all of this, I would have to say the result is no consensus, which would default to not using PC level 2 for the time being. We will leave discussions about PC level 2 until we have used PC level 1 as a community for 3-6 months. By then, we will have a better idea of how PC works, and people can work out a policy and come up with/adjust their views in accordance with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
The administrators who closed May's Request for Comment (RfC) on Pending Changes determined that it should be implemented around the end of 2012, but asked the community to continue working on the Pending Changes draft policy, noting that opposers had pointed out potential problems and supporters were not uniform in what they were supporting. Following extensive discussions, this is the first in a series of RfCs designed to answer these questions before some form of Pending Changes goes live. This RfC is on one of the less controversial questions – the role (if any) of Pending Changes Level Two – in the hope that the community will be able to come to a quick decision on this one, and in the process, join in developing a more elaborate RfC to follow.
Pending Changes currently has two levels of protection, Level 1 (PC/1) and Level 2 (PC/2):
Table of Pending Changes Level One and Level Two
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please indicate your support for or opposition to PC/2. Any replies to voters or longer rationales should go in the Discussion section. 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)