Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Youreallycan

Counterarguments
If this is supposed to be a policy page, YRC, it's exceedingly weak at doing even that.


 * "There was a trial and the wheels didn't drop off[...]" a-HEM. The wheels didn't drop off of PC, they dropped off of WP:AGF and WP:Consensus. Why else would PC supporters have joined to help shut down a trial months past its amended mandate?
 * "[...]community support is for this implementation[...]" This is provably false. Looking at the !votes of PC supporters in all four polls/RfCs, it's clear that there is no consensus for any given implementation, nor is there a legitimate consensus for actual implementation.
 * "[...]experienced users know how and where the tool is beneficial[...]" This is the only unassailable point you make - but only just.
 * "[...]the tool is a benefit in the toolbox[...]" Depends on how one interprets "benefit". Admins and POV-pushers will love it, Joe Blow will not. The problem here is one of perception, i.e. that Reviewers are God compared to the unwashed IP masses. Also, with the narrow scope (Vandalism only) presently kicking around it's a waste of space as it will end up doing the same thing Rollback already does with far more manpower required than is necessary.
 * "[...]just switch it on and allow similar usage as in the the trial[...]" Same pitfalls as the above, especially since the trial scope was essentially "reject blatant vandalism only", thus making it a far more inefficient Rollback.
 * "[...]Sometimes pending is less restrictive than semi protection[...]" Again, perception ensures that this will not be so. With unprotection/semi-protection, a user knows he can/can't edit a page. With PC, a user can't know if his edit will be allowed to go through or not, especially on pages about contentious topics. I predict that the number of anon edits on PC pages will drop quite drastically as the anons shift their attention to pages that they *know* they can edit freely. And because vandalism is a significantly low percentage of anon edits, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In addition, the question of legal responsibility for reviewed edits will make reviewers' desire to handle controversial edits virtually nil, especially if a reviewer ends up being sued (which will inevitably happen).
 * "[...]a net gain to open editing[...]" Same fallacy as above. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)