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.
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-blue11:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About pending changes
Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels
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.
Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects fundamental to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
★ The table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice. ♦ Administrators are only authorized to perform non-controversial edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page.
Some articles may vandalize by autoconfirmed users, and anonymous editors keep undoing their vandals, just in case if this happens. 333-blue12:58, 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 SamFan20:44, 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. Katietalk17:04, 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.
