Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment March 2016

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

Closed as no consensus. RfC open for 1 month and six days already. Insufficient participation to establish a consensus. Recommend implementing the suggestions made by KrakatoaKatie and starting again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Pending changes discussions

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
	Unregistered or newly registered	Confirmed or autoconfirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor ^★	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection	Normal editing						The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes	All users 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 registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed	Cannot edit		Normal editing				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				Normal editing		Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. Critical templates and modules.
Interface	Cannot edit					Normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
^★ Table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection Cascade protection view talk edit

Reason

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

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

@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. Katie^talk 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.