Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:22, 23 May 2012

Revision as of 16:10, 26 May 2012

Line 85:

#As an editor resident in the EU, unless someone can put forward a good argument to address the question that I have raised on the discussion page [[Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Discussion#A_question_on_liability | here]] I would not be willing to review edits, especially on BLP pages, without personally checking and archiving copies of the sources. I can envisage many other EU residents adopting a similar position. This has the potential to make editorial control of EN Wikipedia more US centric, which I do not believe is a good thing. [[User:FrankFlanagan|FrankFlanagan]] ([[User talk:FrankFlanagan|talk]]) 20:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

# The one most necessary thing for the survival of Wikipedia is that we continue to attract new editors. For most new editors, the attraction of seeing one's edits immediately in the live version is one of the key attractions. Therefore other considerations are not even relevant. But in any case, the problems which incoming articles and new edits is much less than those with existing ones: we are already more careful than in the past. I left a site (Citizendium) where although I had status to edit directly, most others needed them approved--I left because experience showed the site was dying because of inability to attract newcomers. Our procedures are already excessively troublesome both to newcomers and to anyone who sets out to help them--it's the main complaint of those trying to start working here '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

# '''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)

#: '''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)

# 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)