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

Revision as of 21:01, 28 May 2012

Revision as of 21:06, 28 May 2012

Line 510:

::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)

:::::That was one of the reasons why I devoted an entire section above to rebutting arguments from Position 2. I (correctly) assumed that, while there would be far more substantial rationales on the Option 1 side than the Option 2 side (as was the trend in the previous RfC), some of it would just be ungrounded speculation and much of it wouldn't directly rebut the Option 2 supporters' arguments, regardless of their merits. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 21:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

::::One of the closers has indicated that the close [[User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#RfC|may come fairly soon]], and it's unlikely that the close will be: "The winner is Option [whatever]. Have a nice day." It will be easier to chart a course of action after we see what they have to say. I'm hoping some of the Option 1 guys will talk it out and come up with a course of action, and the same for some of the Option 2 guys. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

===Timetime===

I wasn't here at the beginning, I was invited but doubted that people would write articles for free ... Whatever they close this attempt to strengthen policy implementation , the fact that users are desirous of pointy avoidance/weak policy asserts, those glory days are over and this appears IMO to be the death throes of the project, unless we strengthen [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] - Weakly cited opinionated content is worse than nothing - uninvolved people/readers are now fully aware of the weakness and opinionated aspect of content here, and do not trust content here. Limited application of pending changes may well help to raise trust in small sectors of our content and protect a few limited notability subjects - if not we can remove it as easy we add it - its not wheels dropping off its just a tool in the box.. that might , in a limited way, raise trust between the reader and the project and strengthen the project moving forwards.<font color="purple">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Youreallycan|can]]</font> 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)