Cenarium sysop wrote: > To Risker: > > > *Pending changes will help to reduce visibility of vandalism and BLP > violations > Yes, classic protection is way too rigid for Wikipedia today, and has always > been too rigid. The flexibility of pending changes protection will allow to > use protection where needed, and only where needed, more than classic > protection would have ever allowed on its own. The protection policy allows > for a considerable amount of discretion, and it is evident that > administrators in general would be more willing to apply pending changes > protection on articles subject to vandalism or BLP violations than they > would otherwise have been with the rigid semi-protection. As long as we can > keep up with the backlog, this is a win-win situation. > This is a very dangerous view on the issue. This is what people who strenously opposed the new mechanism were most afraid of, and the supporters originally said would not be a danger. If this really happened, I could easily see many of the people originally in support of the new mechanism, could do a full volte-face and come strongly in opposition of the mechanism.
Supporters of the original agreement often voiced the proviso that using the mechanism for semied/BLP's or whatever their personal threshold was, would never ever be a thin end of the wedge to spread things out to things we wouldn't semi currently. That is the *old* *agreement* on this issue. A huge drive by any tiny group of blow-hard editors to expand use of the mechanism beyond what we currently semi, could back-fire spectacularly. I don't dispute that in the fullness of time; years or decades from now, it might eventually go that route, but that is a completely different issue, and I suspect there would be many more important community supported initiatives that would have to be accepted in the interim, before that could remotely be acceptable. > > *Pending changes will help with disputes. > No, and it was clearly stated in the proposal, and now clearly stated in the > trial policy (scope section), that pending changes protection, level 1 or 2, > should not be used on pages subject to disputes. > > I agree with your point here. The mechanism shouldn't be used as a damper in edit wars. That way, madness lies. You could have hundreds of reverts back and forth never going live, and a Stygian Stable for the person sorting out through all that which revisions and edits to go live finally. Just a total Charlie Foxtrot in other words. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
