Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Arguments against Position #2: smaller communities are much different |
→Discussion: I doubt it, tryptofish |
||
Line 12:
*I'd just like to make a follow-up comment, after my "position 3" comment earlier. Assuming the community goes forward with this, I hope that the users who are working most closely with it will look very carefully at the points that I and others have drawn attention to in section 3, and present the community with a policy that is updated accordingly. I realize that this may be implicit in the way the RfC has been presented, but I thought it would be useful to point it out. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
*:Sorry to say it, but I highly doubt that your concerns will be addressed. Just look at the way that this RFC was set up, so that there was a single position for enabling PC and two slightly different options to oppose it being re-enabled. That sort of engineering to diffuse the opposition doesn't bode well to those who want PC listening to our concerns at all. It's all about making vandalism patrolling easier, and everything else be dammed. The Foundation already scuttled one attempt to add a tool which would ostensibly have made NPP easier, and now there's this. It all comes down to control, control, control. It's time to taking a knee and kissing rings in order to start racking up the user privileges if you're interested in continuing to edit here.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 02:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
===Arguments against Position #2===
In bulleted format, each bullet signed, for ease of threading.
| |||