Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 127:
#::I'd like in response to later comments to make the observation that the continuation of PC after the trial was made as a result of a poll decided by ''majority vote'', as required by Jimbo. There has never been any kind of consensus for continuing PC after the trial. And now we have various users who say that there's no consensus for this proposal, arguing for using high standards for assessing consensus here. That's one of the most obnoxious of double standards I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is policy, and even much more than that, we should follow policy not only when it suits oneself, but all the time where it makes sense. Due to the intervention of Jimbo, consensus was not followed, but it should be followed now. Consensus weighs arguments, so please take under consideration the argument that I've just made. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Community perception, et all, also I don't see how it can continue in its present incarnation without eventually growing to encompass all of Wikipedia (although that might take a few years). I think we need to discuss exactly how this ranks above/below semi-protection, whether this should go on all BLP, how the chances of simple minority consensu and/or sock puppets affects "confirmed status" and what that might do to the chance of lawsuits. Worst, though, the interface is a little cludgy. From the list of pending edits, you can't just review the edit listed there, you first have to look at the history to see if there were any previous edits made by someone else or the same person (otherwise you will only be show the diff between the "present" and "most recent edit". I have seen it apparently make a difference, though, when I reverted obvious vandalism that had sat there for an hour or less. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] ([[User talk:Banaticus|talk]]) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. In my eyes PC is a decent new tool in the "Fighting vandalism" toolbelt, and i believe it will certainly help with the [[WP:BLP|BLP]] headaches that sometimes occur. Even so, i do not support keeping the 1000 or so article's on PC for now. We initially agreed on a two month trial after which changes would be evaluated, which would then lead to an improvement round, before we have a final discussion on whether or not this would be enabled. Regardless whether it is eventually kept around or not, I believe we should honour the original agreement to stop the trial now the time is over (Without prejudice for future trials). I believe this is no more then fair towards the people who were against, but still agreed with a trial - besides, how many would support a trial if they knew it would simply go months overdue? [[User:Excirial|<
#'''Support''', and I supported introducing PC in the first place. It clearly isn't going anywhere for the time being, and keeping it on only 1000 pages is just unhelpful to everybody; newbies who come across one of those articles will be puzzled why they operate on a completely different system. Pending changes should either be widely used, or not used at all, but using it on only a few pages is the worst of all options. We should turn it off (as this was supposed to be a trial, after all), take some time to consider the results and effects it had, and then come to a decision whether to reintroduce it on a larger scale. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' trial over, let's go forward from there. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 23:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| |||