Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) |
S Marshall (talk | contribs) Remark |
||
Line 87:
# '''Comment'''I think it should be reformed although the PC looks fit.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 05:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''If it gives admins the power, some cruel admins(I am not blaming any kind admin, but cruel ones) can block users for nothing or do personal attacks.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 12:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
# This is not a request for comment, it's a request for votes. The structure is ridiculously constraining. If it was a proper request for comment, then we wouldn't be so rigidly confined to discussing the three predetermined options. Of the three options available, this is the one that comes closest to my view, although I really ought to be editing the sections called "not this rubbish again" and "haven't we already hunted this down and killed it several times before?" and "no doubt I'll see you all again at the next pending changes-related RFC".—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<p>(Later) I want to emphasise that this is a serious point. There are users who are determined to keep asking the same question in slightly different words until they get a positive answer. This time the gimmick is to force us into particular predetermined slots and to close down (and literally hat) all discussion of alternatives or attempts to step off the railway tracks that take us directly to pending changes. Veni, vidi, voti.<p>Please will the pre-appointed closers (!) also take into account the positions I expressed in the March 2011 RFC.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
# I would like to vote for the adoption of Pending changes -- or something like it -- but the entire process of its adoption has been so badly handled that there will never be a consensus for adopting it in the foreseeable future. (Frankly, I consider the whole Pending changes debate a text book example of how '''not''' to change policy on Wikipedia.) A majority of Wikipedians -- either a slight or large majority, depending on who one talks to -- supports it; a sizable minority is opposed to it; yet there has been no effort to attempt to talk to the minority to understand & address their concerns, nor even to provide an objective way to test whether Pending changes can/will fix any problems. Let's just drop the whole idea for a long, long time. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
#We would be better served by semi/full protection. It is confusing to tell an editor that they can edit the page, only to have their edit not show up after they make it. Either let them edit the page, or tell them flat-out that they can't and how to make an edit(semi)protected request. There were also serious problems with overuse even during the trial, and I would be very concerned about yet another backlog requiring human intervention. Requiring edit(semi)protected drives away vandals while still allowing good-faith users to put in their edit; under PC, they'll still make the vandal edit and require someone to waste time figuring out it's vandalism and disapproving it. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
| |||