Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:53, 13 April 2022

Revision as of 04:51, 4 May 2022

Line 50:

#'''Support''' -- While I do support the continued use of Pending Changes in the future, it is long time to stop this weird purgatory-esque state we are in and make a decision about the future of PC. [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]][[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold">^{It's almost football season!}'''</span>]] 02:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

#'''Support''' First things first. We are taking way too long to get to the real discussion, which should have happened at the end of the two month trial. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved comment from my accidental 2nd !vote--sorry) I've always broadly opposed Flagged Revisions, but the PC idea interested me because it could allow more IP edits. So I supported the proposed trial. There were those at the time who warned that PC supporters would cynically leave it turned on after the trial, but I assumed good faith. I've been proved wrong. Leaving PC turned on has done tremendous damage to the project's credibility and to our ability to settle controversial questions by consensus. The first step in solving the problem is to shut it down. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 05:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

# '''Support''' The trial ended months ago. While it was good to get a feel on how the feature works and how the community may adapt to it, there has been little community consensus to continue it or to implement the feature. We need more discussion of the matter, but in the meantime the feature should be turned off or drastically limited. At this point continuing it isn't going to lead to any revelations or change many opinions. Let's not make pending changes a ''fait accompli'' -- more discussion is needed and there needs to be a consensus to switch this on for anything more than the trial we agreed to. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<fontspan colorstyle="color:blue;">Them</fontspan>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<fontspan colorstyle="color:red;">From</fontspan>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">Space</fontspan>]]''' 03:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

# '''Support''' I find the PC protocol a useful supplement to protection but as the trial is overdue for completion and there should be plenty of data already, why keep it on so many articles? It should be used as an alternative to semi and a protocol needs to be established rather than the current blanket use. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

# '''Support'''. The trial was supposed to be for a set period of time. It should have ended as soon as that time period was over. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 03:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Line 107:

#'''Support'''. I am surprised that this has not already happened in the months since the non-end of the trial. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#D40000">Super</font>]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF2000">Mario</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF8C00">Man</font>]]''' 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. Mulling it over, I actually like the way PC was implemented, and once guidelines are set for what articles should be there, I think it can work with semi-protection. That being said, the trial ended months ago, so until ground rules are set on all fronts and everything's in place, the trial has to be removed. Ask every corporation that's ever existed, when a trial runs out, the service is kaput. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] _{[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]} 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Ending the trial by decapitating the beast will have two effects. First, it'll back the supporters into a corner where the rest of us will finally have the leverage to compel them to make real, final, and clear decisions on scope, implementation, purpose, and legal ramifications, and to write a half decent document explaining those decisions to the community. Second, it will force the PC supporters to come back to the community with the above document and the trial data in hand, put all their cards on the table, and make their best and final case. This will galvanize both sides, lead to a more reasonable and hopefully more efficinent debate, and finally put this mess to bed one way or the other. I think it's time for these things to happen. [[User:Sven Manguard|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><fontspan colorstyle="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</fontspan></small>]] 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - no more vagueness. &mdash;&nbsp;''[[User:La Pianista|<span style="color:#777;font-family:Times;">La&nbsp;Pianista</span>]]''&nbsp;^{[[User talk:La Pianista|♫ ]][[Special:Contributions/La Pianista|♪]]} 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - I supported the trial (and support some form of flagged revisions... really anything workable, broadly interpreting workable), but I thought I understood that the trial would end... that is that the trial flagging would go away... unless the trial flagging was made permanent.[[User:Shajure|Shajure]] ([[User talk:Shajure|talk]]) 19:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)