[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

[David Gerard]

>Sure, improve it, but that's no reason to lambaste its
>community, or make false claims about it. (David, you still haven't
>addressed my questioning of how historical pages make Meta unusable).


Because you can't tell what on earth is active and what isn't. e.g. Is
[[Meta:Babel]] active? It's supposed to be the Village Pump of Meta. I
see tumbleweeds blow past. e.g. Is [[m:RFA]] checked at all on any
regular basis? The bureaucrats were notable by their complete absence
until Linuxbeak ran for bureaucrat, which appeared to cause a sudden
flurry of activity and declarations that there were enough bureaucrats
on Meta, even though there was visibly no-one minding the store. That
sort of thing. I've given both these examples before on the wiki,
though not here (my apologies).

Note, by the way, that everyone listed on [[WM:OM]] are individuals -
despite, e.g. Anthere answering one person [1] with a reply to what
someone else said [2]. So, e.g., Linuxbeak's list of things he wants
isn't mine (e.g. an en: only meta).

I will note also that the incumbents have successfully driven out at
least some of the "insurgents" [3]. Are you proud? If not, why?


- d.

(I'm giving references because people are too often claiming not to
know what I'm talking about in this discussion.)

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta&diff=316433&oldid=316395
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta&diff=315566&oldid=314729
- I do agree this was inappropriate, but it does help not to answer
the wrong person, as if everyone involved is a single entity.
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta&diff=316383&oldid=316371