| Revision as of 14:37, 23 June 2012 editMichaeldsuarez (talk | contribs)7,715 edits →The consensus: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:41, 23 June 2012 edit undoYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| * - '''Suggestions for primary switch on ''' | * - '''Suggestions for primary switch on ''' | ||
| *I would like to suggest we just switch it on and allow it to be used as we use semi and full - as and when requested on individual articles - just as another tool in the box to help us protect articles. This will also allow a slow and steady start and progressive usage so as to avoid suddenly having excessive reviewing work. I think there was enough experience gained in the trial that users know more or less when and where is is beneficial. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | *(1) - I would like to suggest we just switch it on and allow it to be used as we use semi and full - as and when requested on individual articles - just as another tool in the box to help us protect articles. This will also allow a slow and steady start and progressive usage so as to avoid suddenly having excessive reviewing work. I think there was enough experience gained in the trial that users know more or less when and where is is beneficial. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * - What about automatically adding it at creation of all new ] or <nowiki>{{BLP other}}</nowiki> articles - when the Living template is added to the talkpage? <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | * (2) - What about automatically adding it at creation of all new ] or <nowiki>{{BLP other}}</nowiki> articles - when the Living template is added to the talkpage? <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * - What about adding it to a a thousand of the current least watched ] articles, and if that is not an excessive amount of work we could add it to the next thousand - and keep adding a thousand until reviewing work increases unduly - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | *(3) - What about adding it to a a thousand of the current least watched ] articles, and if that is not an excessive amount of work we could add it to the next thousand - and keep adding a thousand until reviewing work increases unduly - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:41, 23 June 2012
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| This is the talk page for discussing Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Discussion used
Moving forward
Thanks kindly to the closers for putting so much time and thought into this, it's not like you don't have other wiki-duties. If this is on the wrong page now that the main RFC is over, please tell me where the right page is. As I mentioned above, I think the way forward is to put together working groups of like-minded people. And, I think with an issue with this much history, the much-maligned RFC process is actually useful ... without a deadline, without being able to say "Yes, that's a good argument, but I have to base my close on the arguments given during the RFC, so ...", arguments will forever sprout like hydra heads. I would love to see a series of short, focused RFCs between now and November 1. To the closers: are any or all of you available to close future RFCs? To any of the Option 1 guys who are dubious concerning the close: what would you want to see in future closes that would convince you that these, or any, closers are taking your concerns seriously? (I'm not judging, I'm asking your opinions.) - Dank (push to talk) 08:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have archived the previous discussion, on the assumption that this talk page will be used to plan the next step for PC. —WFC— 08:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think all four of us need a week or two to go do some low-profile article writing, but without speaking for the other three admins here I'm happy to help with future RfCs as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- - Suggestions for primary switch on
- (1) - I would like to suggest we just switch it on and allow it to be used as we use semi and full - as and when requested on individual articles - just as another tool in the box to help us protect articles. This will also allow a slow and steady start and progressive usage so as to avoid suddenly having excessive reviewing work. I think there was enough experience gained in the trial that users know more or less when and where is is beneficial. Youreallycan 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- (2) - What about automatically adding it at creation of all new WP:BLP or {{BLP other}} articles - when the Living template is added to the talkpage? Youreallycan 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- (3) - What about adding it to a a thousand of the current least watched WP:BLP articles, and if that is not an excessive amount of work we could add it to the next thousand - and keep adding a thousand until reviewing work increases unduly - Youreallycan 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I would support either the first or second position, with preference to the second here.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus
Pending Changes will become live on 1 December, 2012. To allow developers enough preparation time, we recommend that community discussion about changes to the draft Pending Changes policy be concluded no later than 1 November, 2012. If the community has not, at that time, reached a consensus about how to change the draft policy, Pending Changes will be implemented according to the terms of the Draft Policy until the community can find a consensus.
With the opposition to Position #1 so high, this is really surprising. I understand that the strength of the argument matters, but I don't believe that it's wise to alienate 30% – 40% of the community. This is simply begging for civil war (or at least many, many retirements). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)