@Trish Yes! I believe the current guidance for removing items from the FAQ Index is to post a new [discussion] meta proposing a removal. For a larger general cleanup project I think a new [discussion] meta also makes sense. (Aside, perhaps a [faq-management] tag might be useful to keep such metas together without filling up [faq-proposal] or [faq] itself, but that’s a tangential thought.)

@ThomasMarkov Roll for initiative!

@KorvinStarmast I'd forgotten writing that, and it's not that old! Thanks for the compliment, and for the chuckle when I found the poor leopard again.

@Akixkisu The effect on our friendliness to diverse playstyles and the point that it affects very few cases and does little harm in those cases. My experience magnified the cases where it causes friction (not even harm); this post recalibrated my view. I found that once my personal sense of the friction was put aside, the beneficial effect on freedom to answer with more diversity of playstyles in mind, and benefit to the asker's power to affirm their playstyle over the majority voters, to be compelling.

This changed my mind and got my +1. I have a number of controversial check-pinned answers, and I like to be able to write answers that go against popular wisdom and rule interpretations, but having them pinned makes people argue I should change them, since votes will never put another answer over them. That makes unpinning personally appealing, to fix that friction. But this changes my mind—the problem of people arguing with pinned answers is a rounding error compared to the more valuable kinds of Q&A centred, quite rightly, by this answer.