Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Constantly diminishing support: linking |
|||
Line 502:
:::::::#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)
::::::::Likewise, Option 2 has been relying on FUD - "libel is astronomically high and we're too slow to react", "(Anonymous) vandals will run roughshod over Wikipedia if we don't implement this," etc. Saying it's only Option 1 supporters doing this is inaccurate as Position 2 has also been using scare tactics. That's what I was trying to get at. (I will note that some of the concerns by Option 2 supporters, such as RC patrol being inadequate, are valid, however.) —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 17:49, 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)
| |||