This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Forums: Index → War Room → Previously rejected proposals

A follow-up to the discussion on agenda item #5 of the recent CoDference.

Similar to what the RuneScape Wiki currently has in place, certain topics in their equivalent of the War Room are listed on a page that notes previously rejected proposals. An example of one of these topics is restricting unregistered users from editing in some form.

This listing is primarily designed to educate editors on proposals that have failed numerous times before, and why they have failed.

However, the additional function that this page serves is to prevent editors from reviving proposals without providing sufficient, and differing reasoning when juxtaposed to the previous renditions of the topic at hand. Re-raising the proposal can only be accomplished if the points made by the opposition in the past are completely addressed.

A topic can only be added to this listing if it meets both of the following criteria:

• The proposal has been discussed and rejected multiple times (amount can be discussed here)
• The opposition to the proposal was overwhelming

With that, I leave you to discuss enacting this listing of previously rejected proposals, and perhaps what might be included on it. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 16:50, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

Though it's a little bit against a policy, I agree. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 16:55, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

That clause is part of COD:NOT to prevent people from saying "because this wiki has this, so should we" as their primary argument. The RuneScape Wiki is used as an example of a wiki where this proposal is in place. This specific proposal is still relevant to us, regardless of the fact that the RuneScape Wiki is mentioned. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 17:11, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 17:47, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Obvious candidate for inclusion: "Ban anons from doing X" threads. Raven's wing ^Talk17:49, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Banning blogging should also be on there.      17:53, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I predicted this :3 Joeytje50^{talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 15:09, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. Although we don't get a huge amount of repeat arguments in the war room, it couldn't hurt to introduce it. Also when it comes to COD:NOT that generally applies to trivial ideas that would not be worth the effort. 17:50, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, as it shows users which topics have failed multiple times and therefore topics which the community does not have an interest in supporting. It'd also prevent us having to go through and oppose it again if it is brought up again with the same reasoning.      17:53, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I've learnt my lesson... But yah! Great idea! It can help noobz (like me) from creating topics that, per everyone and the nomination, have failed multiple times or have extremely (EXTREMELY) strong opposition or extremely (EXTREMELY) strong opposing reasons, problems, or arugments. Tsunami Volt^Talk 05:05, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know one thing: This would be only for subjects that have been discussed many times before, and have failed everytime it was discussed, right? Cod4 said he wanted to add any "unblock" threads to the rejected proposals list, but I think that is something else, as every unblock is different etc. So, would any subjects be okay to add, or only subjects that have been discussed a lot before with a lot of opposition every time? Joeytje50^{talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 19:22, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

The issue raised with "block x" or "unblock x" is that it is purely administrative. We don't hold community discussions on blocks, and such punitive actions have little reason to be decided upon in the War Room. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:58, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

So the reason is that it doesn't have that much effect on the community when someone gets blocked? It does affect the community about as much when a very active user gets blocked as when an user gets sysoped. Still, you do have discussions for one, but want to ban the other subject at all. Joeytje50^{talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 14:00, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

It is present in our blocking policy for a reason. Whenever a major issue with another user arises, the solution is not to start a War Room topic demanding that they be banned. Such discussions only inflame the situation further, and create unneeded drama that can turn the topic into a battleground. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:08, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Since this has been open for a while and left for dead, I think we can finish this off with a quick vote

SupportEdit

Support — It will allow us to show what forums don't work with certain arguments.      18:32, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per cod4. N7[T|C|P|A] 18:33, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Callofduty4 and nomination. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 18:33, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Callofduty 4 and nomination Lucas is Crunch!^talk 18:36, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Callofduty4; can't really add anything else that would be of value. Smuffin^{[cite your sources or die]} 18:34, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Cod4. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 18:39, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per all. Reznov115^Talk 20:57, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per upper reasoning The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q}20:58, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per CoD4. Carbonite 0 22:45, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Yea, seems like a good idea, a very good idea. Hip-techboy ^Christmas --22:51, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

CommentsEdit

QuestionsEdit

Closed - ruled in favour, I heavily advertised this vote and no one seems to have any opposition to this.      23:27, September 8, 2011 (UTC)