Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Rivertorch (talk | contribs) →Proposal: Survey: reply (mostly but not entirely to Beeblebrox) |
|||
Line 369:
*This type of filibustering and creating of uneccesarry procedural hurdles is what ruined the 2011 RFC and made it necessary to create the restrictive format used in this process. The time for moving backward i over, we need to move forwrd. I again appeal to any and all interested in moving forward to disengage frrom discussions analyzing or contesting the outcome. We don't need to particpate in them, despite the objections this thing ''' was''' handled properly. We are only wasting time by arguing on this point. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::This is a joke. The result is what it is and a rerun would come out the same. People need to accept and move on. If they don't work on the process the draft policy will be put in place which needs work done on it. No point wasting time on a pointless exercise given 4 good admin co-ordinators came to the correct conclusion based on the figures.[[User:Edinburgh Wanderer|<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh</font>]] [[User talk:Edinburgh Wanderer|<font color="green">Wanderer</font>]] 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Nothing "ruined" the 2011 RfC". It may have been messy and convoluted, but it actually provided a good example both of meaningful discussion and a well-reasoned close. While I was sympathetic to your desire to create a less messy, convoluted process in this RfC (and I remain so), I do ''not'' believe it was "necessary" to have a format so restrictive that it essentially guaranteed the outcome you favored by subjugating discussion to the vote (and I don't mean the "!vote"). A whole lot of editors, including every single Option 1 endorser, chose to participate in the RfC you designed, despite its flaws. We ''did'' "move forward", in other words, and we did so with good will towards you and, at least in my case, with a sincere hope that the participants would somehow find a compromise that everyone could accept. Sadly, that didn't happen.<p>While I may ''disagree'' with the closers' decision, which presumably gave you everything you wanted (except perhaps an immediate turn-on date), my objection to the close isn't the decision itself but the sloppy, haphazard justification for the decision. ''That'' took me by surprise, and that I find so difficult to accept that, after much consideration, I made my first-ever post to an ArbCom page. Would I have requested ArbCom involvement? No, and I advised one editor against going that route. But my continued willingness to "move foward" shouldn't mean that I have to keep silent about what I see as a major failure of the RfC process (and perhaps of the larger community itself). We can either acknowledge our mistakes and keep them in mind so as to avoid repeating them or we are almost certain to repeat them. I'll move forward towards the future ''and'' I'll speak up about the past when I think it's warranted. I find it a bit disappointing that no proponent of PC, however happy he or she may be with the latest RfC's outcome, has seen fit to publicly entertain the possibility there might be anything wrong with the way that outcome arrived. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
| |||