Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Constantly diminishing support: Put a hat on it, it's over |
Mojoworker (talk | contribs) →Constantly diminishing support: additional thoughts and reply to uncivil remarks |
||
Line 496:
::::As I mentioned previously, '''based on the rationale they presented''', many of the supporters of option 1 ''really'' should have supported Option 3. It seems that many of the Option 1 !voters didn't read the proposal and extant comments very carefully (or at all) – although, to be fair, that's probably true of the !votes in all sections. But, there were a number of misconceptions voiced by many of the supporters of Option 1 – conflating PC with Flagged Revisions; PC amounts to censorship; disenfranchises editors; and somehow contravenes the concept of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I assume we will be seeing an RfC by those editors to eliminate semi and full protection for the exact same reasons. Some based their support of Option 1 on the conviction that PC would be used far more liberally than other forms of protection. What evidence can possibly support that view? Way to AGF in our admins. It seems clear that the next proposal needs to include guidelines that address at least some of these issues to minimize the [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]]. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 20:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Bullshit, Mojoworker. Many of the "FUD" points we raised are legitimate concerns (such as logistics and being more labor-intensive than even RC patrol or SP). Conversely, I wonder who you are to be making such accusations when you comment that the next RfC is going to be about removing protection, which '''nobody''' - save for a few misguided ''Position 2'' supporters, as I noted above, and that's conditional on PC passing - wants to abolish. For every time I see a Position 2 supporter cry "FUD" I see another Position 2 supporter equating Position 1 to aiding vandalism. The blade cuts both ways, chummer, and it's hypocrisy. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Jeremy, I appreciate your comments, but decidedly do not appreciate your uncivil tenor. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. I listed the following points as FUD that were used as rationale by ''some'' of the option 1 supporters:
:::::::#Conflating PC with Flagged Revisions;
:::::::#PC somehow amounts to censorship;
:::::::#PC somehow disenfranchises editors and contravenes the concept of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit";
:::::::#PC would be used more liberally than other forms of protection;
:::::::My comment about an RfC to remove protection was satirical and in relation to point #3. I most certainly did '''not''' say ''anything'' about "logistics and being more labor-intensive than even RC patrol or SP", so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Nor did I label ''all'' of the rationale provided by option 1 supporters as FUD – on the contrary, there are indeed legitimate concerns. My point is that ''a number of'' option 1 supporters provided rationale that is plainly FUD. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::I switched from Option 3 to Option 1 because of how many problems I was seeing with PC - and each problem makes it less likely that all of the problems would/will be solved well. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
::Guys, I don't think anyone's going to benefit from continuing this. The admins in question are experienced enough that they can read through this whole long thing and come to their own conclusions without any of us pointing out factors that support "my" side, and especially without any further uncivil remarks. The time for comment was during the last two months, not now. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Since a "no consensus" outcome is a distinct possibility, my remarks are directed at the next proposal – that it needs to include guidelines that address at least some of these issues in order to keep the FUD to a minimum, but also to address, where possible, the ''valid'' concerns raised by option 1 supporters. I saw an [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#A call to arms | insightful comment]] by an uninvolved admin that "IMO the current state of voting indicates to me that good faith has broken down completely ... only a tiny fraction of the comments on either side attempt to rebut, or even address, the main points of the other side. That's going to make the discussion very hard to close" It's ironic, but in a thorough reading of all the responses, a case can be made to close as consensus for Option 3 – "Pending changes should be kept in the long term, but the draft policy is insufficient and/or out of step with what the community wants from the tool" – even though it received by far the fewest supporters. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||