Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:38, 27 January 2023

Latest revision as of 12:44, 7 June 2025

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 1:

{{calmtalk}}

{{talkheader|wp=yes}}

Line 180 ⟶ 179:

"This RfC was open for 60 days from its start date. This means it was closed to comment at 23:59 UTC on May 22, 2012. '''The coordinating administrators are in the process of determining the result.'''"

Also, could Fluffernutter's closing comment, "Coordinating admins are working on a close. Target date unknown at the moment, but we will try to keep the community updated," be changed to a statement saying that the result has been determined? Thanks, [[User:David1217|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkblue;">'''David'''</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:David1217|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''1217'''</fontspan>]]} 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

<!-- End request -->

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EP --> If there was a result they would post it. Where is the result posted?—[[User:Cyberpower678|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green; face=font-family:Neuropol;">cyberpower</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Cyberpower678|^{<fontspan colorstyle="color:black; face=font-family:arnprior;">Chat</fontspan>}]]<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><fontspan colorstyle="color:black; face=font-family:arnprior;">Absent</fontspan></sub> 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

::At the top of the page. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:::On the off chance that the closers have any last-minute additions, I'm going to leave this alone for one of the closers to look at. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

::::Whoops, sorry 'bout that, both of those slipped our notice. I've removed/updated the "close pending" comments. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Thanks Fluffernutter! [[User:David1217|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkblue;">'''David'''</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:David1217|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''1217'''</fontspan>]]} 01:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

== Getting started ==

Line 364 ⟶ 363:

::::All I see are four of the prominant objectors to pending changes refusing to accept the outcome of a community discussion - in which hundreds of users commented over months and that was closed by four experienced administers. - sadly rather than aacept that outcome and get onboard with working together to discuss scope of implementation it appears filibustering and astroturfing are to be the order of the day, [[User:Youreallycan|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 11:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}} - I have noticed that the people unhappy with this close are the vocal minority strongly against the use of a much more effective BLP protection tool than semi or full protection. Don't be surprised if Arbcom decline this case. [[User:Barts1a|Barts1a]] / [[User_Talk:Barts1a|Talk to me]] / [[User_talk:Barts1a/Yell|Help me improve]] 11:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:I find this filing absolutely ridiculous. Yet another editor who believes their views overrule consensus.—[[User:Cyberpower678|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green; face=font-family:Neuropol;">cyberpower</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Cyberpower678|^{<fontspan colorstyle="color:olive; face=font-family:arnprior;">Chat</fontspan>}]]<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><fontspan colorstyle="color:olive; face=font-family:arnprior;">Online</fontspan></sub> 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:It's certainly interesting to know that having contributed two sentences to this RFC inherently qualifies one as a "prominent" and "vocal" commentator. <span style="background:black;color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;'''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C&nbsp;M&nbsp;B&nbsp;J'''''</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Line 381 ⟶ 380:

:I can already predict the rough opinion; about 310 people are going to say they were satisfied, about 180 people will say they weren't, and there will be a 15 vote swing either way. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 16:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

::I guess what you mean by "survey" is a sort of RfC on the RfC. Go for it. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

::Yeah that will probably happen. It's unfortunate, this seemed like an obvious "no consensus" to me. '''[[User talk:Aaron Schulz|<fontspan colorstyle="color:blue;">Aar</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:darkblue;">on Sc</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">hulz</fontspan>]]''' 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

*This type of filibustering and creating of uneccesarry procedural hurdles is what ruined the 2011 RFC and made it necessary to create the restrictive format used in this process. The time for moving backward i over, we need to move forwrd. I again appeal to any and all interested in moving forward to disengage frrom discussions analyzing or contesting the outcome. We don't need to particpate in them, despite the objections this thing ''' was''' handled properly. We are only wasting time by arguing on this point. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:::This is a joke. The result is what it is and a rerun would come out the same. People need to accept and move on. If they don't work on the process the draft policy will be put in place which needs work done on it. No point wasting time on a pointless exercise given 4 good admin co-ordinators came to the correct conclusion based on the figures.[[User:Edinburgh Wanderer|<fontspan colorstyle="color:Maroon;">Edinburgh</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Edinburgh Wanderer|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">Wanderer</fontspan>]] 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

::Nothing "ruined" the 2011 RfC". It may have been messy and convoluted, but it actually provided a good example both of meaningful discussion and a well-reasoned close. While I was sympathetic to your desire to create a less messy, convoluted process in this RfC (and I remain so), I do ''not'' believe it was "necessary" to have a format so restrictive that it essentially guaranteed the outcome you favored by subjugating discussion to the vote (and I don't mean the "!vote"). A whole lot of editors, including every single Option 1 endorser, chose to participate in the RfC you designed, despite its flaws. We ''did'' "move forward", in other words, and we did so with good will towards you and, at least in my case, with a sincere hope that the participants would somehow find a compromise that everyone could accept. Sadly, that didn't happen.<p>While I may ''disagree'' with the closers' decision, which presumably gave you everything you wanted (except perhaps an immediate turn-on date), my objection to the close isn't the decision itself but the sloppy, haphazard justification for the decision. ''That'' took me by surprise, and that I find so difficult to accept that, after much consideration, I made my first-ever post to an ArbCom page. Would I have requested ArbCom involvement? No, and I advised one editor against going that route. But my continued willingness to "move foward" shouldn't mean that I have to keep silent about what I see as a major failure of the RfC process (and perhaps of the larger community itself). We can either acknowledge our mistakes and keep them in mind so as to avoid repeating them or we are almost certain to repeat them. I'll move forward towards the future ''and'' I'll speak up about the past when I think it's warranted. I find it a bit disappointing that no proponent of PC, however happy he or she may be with the latest RfC's outcome, has seen fit to publicly entertain the possibility there might be anything wrong with the way that outcome arrived. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)