Isaac Oscar

Hey there, you can talk to me here!

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Isaac Oscar! Thank you for your contributions. I am George Ho and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! George Ho (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Proposal 11

Can you withdraw proposal 11? It is failing, and consensus unanimously opposes. --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Isaac, you can call me 74. Don't listen to George. Well, let me clarify that: George is correct that proposal eleven, as written, ought to be withdrawn. But when George claims that consensus "unanimously opposes" your concept, he is flat out wrong. See the distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and actual WP:CONSENSUS and the much stronger and undefined WP:GLOBALCONSENSUS.

  *I* thought your proposal had some merit, because I've often thought the same sort of thing would be useful. The main problem with getting rid of full-prot entirely, is that there are situations where it has been found useful. PC2 is a different thing, because it is a double-layer-cake: anybody can propose an edit, but only an admin-or-reviewer can accept an edits. There are ~1400 admins (only about 600 "active" nowadays), and there are another ~6000 editors with reviewer-userrights (not sure how many are active). With full-prot, there is an implicit double layer: only admins can propose an edit, and only admins can accept an edit... but of course, in practice this simplifies to a single-layer-cake (only admins can edit). Now, actually, there is a triple-layer-cake here, in both cases: anybody can suggest a proposal, on the talkpage.

  What sort of triple-layer-cake would satisfy the objections? Something like this: WP:ANYONECANEDIT can suggest edits on the talkpage, only WP:REVIEWERs can propose edits, and only WP:ADMINs can accept edits. Now, this is not something that the software supports, out of the box. It would require help from Chuck Norris disciples to actually implement this feature. Since it is slightly stronger than PC2, we can probably get away with calling it PC2.5 for the moment.

  Please note that I'm not suggesting, that you should rush over and create proposal 22, which lays out PC2.5 as an option.  :-)   Mostly because, I don't think we want to have a caste system around here, like they do over on the other-language wikis. Of course, in practice we have a caste-system already, where anons are below autoconfirmeds, and reviewers are above them, and admins are above them, and at the highest levels we have arbcom members and Jimbo Wales and WMF employees and devs and other luminous beings.  :-)   But the written philosophy, is still that good old mission: the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

  Anyhoo, wanted to introduce myself, and note that I would have voted "may support with one change" on your idea. It was shut down prematurely, but as you can see, that page is a maelstrom of competing ideas and agendas already, so it is unlikely that much good can come of it. I do appreciate you putting forth your proposal eleven, and it was a good idea at the core, quite possibly. Don't give up, is my message, and of course, my usual message also fully applies: thanks much for improving wikipedia, it's appreciated.  :-)   Feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage, any time. See you around the 'pedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)