Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pravknight (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 5 October 2006 (→Steady on). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Rejected

I've marked this proposal as rejected, just like the other one, though my arguments for doing so here are not quite as strong. anyway, due to the fact that it often produces more heat than light.

Unfortunately this exact approach has never been tried, so I can't say with 100% certainty how it'll behave. I can only infer from similar processes, which didn't really work out.

Kim Bruning 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. It seemed as though this was going in circles. I think several recent desysoppings might help convince people that the current system works at least okay. Grandmasterka 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I don't think ti was a bad move per se just a bit previous. A pause to reflect is good, and an archive of the talk (with summerization) is forthcoming, but "rejected" was too strong. - brenneman 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Steady on

There's a ton of material in the three archives. While I'm going to summarise it all, that might take time. In the interim, please re-read all three archives if you intend to comment. This is a contentious issue that has been plauged with a great deal of repetative discussion, which has greatly hindered consensus gathering, including consensus to reject. - brenneman 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin recall suggestion

I think there needs to be at least five signatures to start an admin recall petition. It should be demonstrated the admin has engaged in unprofessional conduct such as harassing editors, arbitrarily enforcing the rules/guidelines (meaning they expect others to follow the rules but not themselves), harshness with newcomers and partisanship.

All of these undermine Misplaced Pages's image.--Pravknight 04:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)