Wikireligion talk:Guidelines
From Wikireligion
(Difference between revisions)
(just do it) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
'''Support''' - We already have a sort of "ArbCom", and we don't need a "council" if there is no real "leader" here. -- {{userinfo|RyGuy}} 10:08, 19 March 2007 (EST) | '''Support''' - We already have a sort of "ArbCom", and we don't need a "council" if there is no real "leader" here. -- {{userinfo|RyGuy}} 10:08, 19 March 2007 (EST) | ||
:Don't vote, just do it. I think it's already covered in ''There is not to be a Esperanza or any group that has a leadership.'', but if you think it's worth it, just do it. Also, you admins appear to be protecting everything again. A wiki doesn't really work if all the pages can't be edited. Even if you think a non-admin wouldn't normally edit it, that's no reason to protect it. They can still make good improvements. Yes, they could ask an admin to do it, but doing that all the time is just annoying. [[User:Archer7|Archer7]] 15:47, 19 March 2007 (EST) | :Don't vote, just do it. I think it's already covered in ''There is not to be a Esperanza or any group that has a leadership.'', but if you think it's worth it, just do it. Also, you admins appear to be protecting everything again. A wiki doesn't really work if all the pages can't be edited. Even if you think a non-admin wouldn't normally edit it, that's no reason to protect it. They can still make good improvements. Yes, they could ask an admin to do it, but doing that all the time is just annoying. [[User:Archer7|Archer7]] 15:47, 19 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | ::It seems fit to have an ArbCom after there are lots of users here because of situations like Seven of nine where he just keeps pressing on and on. It would be better to have a third party, hear out the evidence from both sides and then make a decision instead of the admin vs user, admin making the choice. That's sort of abuse of power. [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]] 17:11, 19 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 19 March 2007
Contents |
This is where you can propose a new guideline or request a change in one that is already in effect.
Debate of Guideline reccomendation
"1. Wikireligion will have no Arbcom or council." was a reccomendation on the Main Page talk. If you support this, post Support, if you don't, post Oppose.
Support - We already have a sort of "ArbCom", and we don't need a "council" if there is no real "leader" here. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 March 2007 (EST)
- Don't vote, just do it. I think it's already covered in There is not to be a Esperanza or any group that has a leadership., but if you think it's worth it, just do it. Also, you admins appear to be protecting everything again. A wiki doesn't really work if all the pages can't be edited. Even if you think a non-admin wouldn't normally edit it, that's no reason to protect it. They can still make good improvements. Yes, they could ask an admin to do it, but doing that all the time is just annoying. Archer7 15:47, 19 March 2007 (EST)
- It seems fit to have an ArbCom after there are lots of users here because of situations like Seven of nine where he just keeps pressing on and on. It would be better to have a third party, hear out the evidence from both sides and then make a decision instead of the admin vs user, admin making the choice. That's sort of abuse of power. ForestH2 17:11, 19 March 2007 (EST)
