Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 12 July 2008 (→Thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you

This is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. Thanks for not insulting our intelligence by pretending this is a solution to a specific case brought before you. Thank you for rising to the needs of restructuring the governance structure of Misplaced Pages. The community will, of course, ratify or not ratify specific aspects as we go along and you will of course adjust this reorganization in accordance with community opinion and what you think is or is not working. Jimbo is no longer owner of the servers nor is he part of the day to day transparent governance. Arbcom has replaced Jimbo in the guidance of the governance of the English language Misplaced Pages. Thank you for moving us forward. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Definite step in the right direction. I think the changes will help and are well thought out. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need a new governance structure on Misplaced Pages, I just don't want it to be arbcom. The community still needs a voice in all of this, but now we're just getting things forced on us. With the way arbcom has treated some recent cases (making poorly informed decisions), I'm even more worried about this. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the appeals committee idea is in the wrong direction at this stage - it's certainly too early to be considering and more time is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind to an extent; depending on how the Committee does it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Amount to digest

Was any thought given to breaking these up and slowly introducing them for the community's response? As it stands, I may be alone, but I would guess I am not, I am having a difficult time getting my head around all of the announcements. The scope of these announcments is very wide, and it will take some time to digest each piece. I'm afraid things will be hidden among the fine print that would have otherwise been discussed properly as a community. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just wondering if it wouldn't have been better to split some of these up. --Ali'i 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Each is in itself, very tightly focussed and fairly small. They are very independent, each targetting a specific issue we can see. It is a lot, people'll be digesting them a while, and we ourselves won't be rushing in to them. But as for announcing them, as described (and for the other reasons given, we don't want this to be habitual)... the announcing is probably best done together, so people can read, digest, discuss and absorb a bit, see them together in context, knowing that's what there is. Thank you, a good question. FT2  17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned a tad since multiple items (correct me if I'm wrong on these... the appeals committee thing and the checkuser expansion) have a date of July 2nd on them (as in, usersadmins have until then to email the Knott to be considered). Perhaps I'm reading these wrong, but a week really isn't that long to discuss and digest these 2 items as well as the other 4 or 5 things listed.

I understand the reasoning (not wanting this to be a habit), but that doesn't stop me from feeling rushed. And some of these (the orangemarlin case) could have been presented by themselves (i.e. they don't need the "context"). Thanks for putting up with my questions. --Ali'i 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are specific interests in long standing items - checkuser appointments, and an appeals list. Those interested in either will find it's probably plenty of time to decide "might this interest me". One is a well known matter, the other is very much "detail still being finalized", so there will be discussion, including with those interested. That's my first thought anyhow. Back tomorrow, I have to rush! Friday! And questions are exactly what's expected and what these pages are for. Go for it :) FT2  18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A summary decision restricting the editor Orangemarlin and admonishing another user has been posted by agreement of the Committee

So was it agreed by the committee or wasn't it? We have variously been told that it was, that it wasn't and that no such case was ever heard. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the misleading text. Would it be possible to include a link to the statement that was made about the abortive case? DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret trials?

There's a lot of stuff here, and this seems a very poor time to be discussing it. I'd say all this was far better pulled for a week or a month until the fuss has died down. But while its up... if you're clarifying the role of the ctte etc etc, can you clarify the circumstances under which secret trials will be permitted? Under which cases will be heard without input from the defendant? Ideally this would be an easy matter to clarify: the answer would be "never" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)