Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 6
 Archives |
|---|
|
Name change
This has now been completed, and I am working through fixing up all the pages. I have archived this page so we can start afresh. Ian13/talk 11:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Most seems okay. I need someone with a bot (or some time) to change categories on pages listed from Category:User Wikipedia/Community Justice to Category:User Wikipedia/Concordia. Ian13/talk 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Done by Misza13. Thanks! Ian13/talk 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Shortcut
I have done the WP:CCD shortcut, and it should work fine - • The Giant Puffin • 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Noticed as I went to make it. Ian13/talk 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm drafting out Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard at Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility Noticeboard, your help would be appreciated. Computerjoe's talk 15:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did mean introduce. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good in terms of layout and such. Good work - • The Giant Puffin • 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
So when will this sucker get introduced? --D-Day on WHEELS!!! 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure, its looking nearly usable already! Ian13/talk 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I guess if we get all 3 boards ready, then we can have a big launch...? Ian13/talk 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- And a lunch as well, I believe? Misza13 T C 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: New Logo
I must admit that I was very shocked to see the new logo.
Don't get me wrong; I am very much in favor of changing the logo and the name, and I like the name Concordia. I applaud everyone's initiative in improving Concordia.
But I must say that I feel uncomfortable with - much less being a counsillor of - an organization that uses Chinese characters in its logo in such a way. As an Asian American I wao slightly taken aback. Although I know that the new logo was made from good faith, I nevertheless feel humuliated - for lack of a better term - by the use of this logo. The logo seems to play on stereotypes of Asians and Asian Americans; namely that we are exotic, overly passive/peaceful, and otherworldly. As a point of comparison, in feels as if Aunt Jemina was chonen. It's not only about me; I worry about offending other Asian Americans, and many of them are more strongly against what they consider the misuse of their culture than I am.
I was especially taken aback because this decision to make this the official logo happened in less than a day. I visited here yesterday, yet I did not get a chance to say anything about the logo because it was proposed and implemented in less than twenty-four hours.
Again, I do not wish to point fingers at individuals, and I don't want to disrupt the positive momentum that I have seen in Concordia lately. But no matter how excited we are to make changes, we must ask for others' opinions before making major decisions.
Let's work diligently but carefully to make Concordia work for all members.
(^'-')^ Covington 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had similar concerns, what do the symbols mean? Computerjoe's talk 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know because I do not speak Chinese. What I do know is 1) Many Asian Americans will be put off by this. 2) Many of my Chinese-speaking friends have told me that most ameteur translations have an unintentional bias. 3) If we as a group don't know what it means, it ceases to have a deeper meaning. (^'-')^ Covington 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I also dislike the use of asian characters in our logo. They seem overused to me, and, I agree, they have become more of a 'look-at-we're-cool' abuse of chinese culture and language. Also, I am shocked at the speed this all happened. Yesterday, I logged off to an ongoing debate and discussion, and today, I log in to Concordia. Seems rather rushed to me. - Pureblade | Θ 17:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know because I do not speak Chinese. What I do know is 1) Many Asian Americans will be put off by this. 2) Many of my Chinese-speaking friends have told me that most ameteur translations have an unintentional bias. 3) If we as a group don't know what it means, it ceases to have a deeper meaning. (^'-')^ Covington 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The new logo looks all very flash but I think we've lost the point of this whole project - the humour of the cup of tea appealed to the editors of the pages where I've used it and the green was very noticable and neutral. This project now looks like the "Harmonious editing club" or whatever they are called and the chinese characters are naff for the reasons given above. Whatever the real meaning of it the name Concordia seems most linked with evangelical bible colleges from the wiki searches I've done which is not good for an inclusive project. I really liked the word justice as it's something some editors feel is missing here sometimes. I coped with the loss of the cup of tea from the calm talk template but the new one is so bland as to be a waste of time. I'll be honest that all the reasons I joined are now gone. Sophia 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right. What should we change the logo too? Ian13/talk 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have changed it to the most recently approved draft from the name change discussion. Ian13/talk 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I want some tea! Computerjoe's talk 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've added some tea. :) Ian13/talk 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I want some tea! Computerjoe's talk 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have changed it to the most recently approved draft from the name change discussion. Ian13/talk 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have commented at the discussions but have been busy elsewhere for a couple of days so am surprised this has all happened so fast considering how long the name change was asked for. I personally liked CJ as it had a definite purpose - to bring civility and hence a fair hearing for all users in heated situations. I know this was not univerally accepted but I feel the latest moves have left the original concept behind and watered it down to nothing of consequence. To be completely honest I would go back to ComputerJoe's original ideas - to me CCD means Charged coupled device. I also feel the tea humour aspect was very important to the original message. Sophia 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The word evolved is better. The goals changed, so does the name. Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- We are trying to improve this project, and make it do something. People say we don't act on what we say, so we try and act on it... I don't know what else we can do personally. You are more than welcome to chip in and try and lead us in the correct direction. Ian13/talk 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- goodness me. I take one day off and when i get back community justice is gone...which is wonderful and at last we have ungagged actions and now they certainly have spoken louder than words. Well done to everyone involved in the change. Cicero Dog 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was waiting for your happy reaction. :D Ian13/talk 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Its defiantly good that people are happy about the new changes. Let us all hope for a brighter future as Concordia.--☆TBC☆ 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was waiting for your happy reaction. :D Ian13/talk 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- goodness me. I take one day off and when i get back community justice is gone...which is wonderful and at last we have ungagged actions and now they certainly have spoken louder than words. Well done to everyone involved in the change. Cicero Dog 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- We are trying to improve this project, and make it do something. People say we don't act on what we say, so we try and act on it... I don't know what else we can do personally. You are more than welcome to chip in and try and lead us in the correct direction. Ian13/talk 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Help Desk
I will be drafting the Help Desk soon. Feel free to lend a hand. (^'-')^ Covington 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll try to help out as much as I can--☆TBC☆ 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. (^'-')^ Covington 11:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll try to help out as much as I can--☆TBC☆ 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Postponed until the end of MfDs. (^'-')^ Covington 11:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Councillor Term Length
I know a little while ago we agreed to shorten counsillors' term lengths, but it doesn't seem fair to cut current councillors' terms in half after we stated during the elections that it would be a six month term. It would be okay to shorten the next group of councillors' terms, or if all of the counsillors in this term agreed to a term reduction, but at this point, I feel uncomfortable about this term's reduction. (^'-')^ Covington 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree. This wasn't decided but dictated (uncivil, my apologies) by Ian13, ash he was acting chairman. I propose non-councillors gain consensus on this issue (to avoid obvious bias). Computerjoe's talk 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes there is bias in this issue if the counsillors vote. That's the point. By accepting our positions, we accepted the agreement to serve for six months. Sorry if I am sounding as if I were lawyering, but I am uncomfortable about telling someone to serve for six months and only give him 3. Next term's length may be decided by majority vote, but it in only fair to shorten the current term each of us counsillors voluntarily decide to alter the promise that the organization and the counsillors have already made to each other. (^'-')^ Covington 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, how do you propose this is resolved? Change it or somehow vote? Ian13/talk 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- For next group's term we could vote, 2/3 majority wins. But since an agreement has already been made with the counsillors for this term, each of the counsillors this term must voluntarily decide to shorten our terms if we are to make it official. (^'-')^ Covington 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, how do you propose this is resolved? Change it or somehow vote? Ian13/talk 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh, what have I done! Feel free to lengthen it again. I am also thinking the 6 users idea was bad, and 7 is better, due to the odd number. Ian13/talk 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Or five... Computerjoe's talk 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like it at 7. It does not make sense to decrease representation when we have more members to represent. (^'-')^ Covington 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I also prefer 7 people, and I also prefer 6 months. It was the amount of time that was originally stated. If the length of someones term is to be shortened, it should start from the next election - • The Giant Puffin • 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have changed it to 6 months. Since most people here seem to agree on that, and it is what people expected after all. 7 people sounds sensible, since that's what we are at. Basically - ignore my dictator spree. ;) Ian13/talk 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- 6 and 7 it is then - • The Giant Puffin • 17:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like it at 7. It does not make sense to decrease representation when we have more members to represent. (^'-')^ Covington 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Or five... Computerjoe's talk 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes there is bias in this issue if the counsillors vote. That's the point. By accepting our positions, we accepted the agreement to serve for six months. Sorry if I am sounding as if I were lawyering, but I am uncomfortable about telling someone to serve for six months and only give him 3. Next term's length may be decided by majority vote, but it in only fair to shorten the current term each of us counsillors voluntarily decide to alter the promise that the organization and the counsillors have already made to each other. (^'-')^ Covington 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
General civility noticeboard
This page is now live here (also WP:CN). Users started using it before it was copied over and made live, so I have merged them together and set it rolling. Ian13/talk 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good work. (^'-')^ Covington 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this Concordia movement. --Nikitchenko 20:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Anytime. Glad we could help. (^'-')^ Covington 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this Concordia movement. --Nikitchenko 20:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great job on the noticeboard--☆TBC☆ 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Membership
I just joined Concordia. I like this idea Computerjoe starts. I was going to be Esperanza but when I complained about one of their incivil members[1] they starts arguing against me[2] and one starts making borderline incivil comments[3] about me even as their charter says: "Esperanza members may be suspended for persistent and gross vandalism or violation of civility." I think users who cannot control themselves incivil they shall not be member of an organization to control incivility. Conflict of interest. --Nikitchenko 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Welcome. (^'-')^ Covington 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Welcome to thr group - • The Giant Puffin • 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Welcome, always nice to have new members. :)--☆TBC☆ 20:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wish you good luck in assisting us. Don't forget to pop in for a chat at IRC! :) Ian13/talk 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Any suggestions, just say. Computerjoe's talk 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I just gotta say...
Everything rocks, and I'm very proud right now, but I dislike the use of a cup of coffee in our logo...can we nix that? --Osbus 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, people seem a little split about that. Some like it, some don't. Some say it adds a level of humour to the page... Who am I to judge? Ian13/talk 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then again, as we all have our own perspectives and opinions there's always bound to be some sort of disagreement among us.--☆TBC☆ 21:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just think it would look better. --Osbus 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- If we only did things with complete agreeance, not much would get done... - • The Giant Puffin • 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, but I can still voice my opinions, can't I. --Osbus 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes you can. After all, this is a wiki isn't it?--☆TBC☆ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is vital opinions are voiced to help stop us screwing things up. A non-coffee one is available on the logos page. Ian13/talk 08:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes you can. After all, this is a wiki isn't it?--☆TBC☆ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, but I can still voice my opinions, can't I. --Osbus 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- If we only did things with complete agreeance, not much would get done... - • The Giant Puffin • 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just think it would look better. --Osbus 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then again, as we all have our own perspectives and opinions there's always bound to be some sort of disagreement among us.--☆TBC☆ 21:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC): If there's are differences of opinion like this, surely we should see whether there's a WP:Consensus. So: should the cup of coffee be in the logo?
Support:
- Support, if we must do this. It looks kinda empty without the coffee - • The Giant Puffin • 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Neutral:
Recent additions
I recently finished constructing the deletion noticeboard and I've also changed the pevious quote on the Concordia main page to a more suitable one about being civil.--☆TBC☆ 21:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good job on changing the quote. --Osbus 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Article and project noticeboard
I've recently noticed that the original intentions of the help desk and general noticeboard have been switched (the help desk was originally made for user incivility cases whereas the general noticeboard was made for article debates). This is why I'm changing the name of the help desk to "article and project noticeboard" instead. Feel free to comment on this.--☆TBC☆ 21:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
HEC
It seems to me that a good amount of this, is ~very inline~ with the Harmonious Editing Club (WP:HEC) guidelines circa 2003;
- Always aim to end edit wars by helping editors reach a compromise.
- Never revert more than once — always take it to the talk page.
- Avoid triggering edit wars — discuss major and/or controversial changes on the talk page beforehand.
- Request input from the wider community when necessary (e.g., at Peer review, Requests for comment, Requests for page protection, Village pump, etc.)
- Politely remind others not to make abusive remarks, keeping wikiquette and civility in mind at all times.
- Archive talk pages when they get too long or tangled.
- Be bold (not reckless) in editing
It is tempting to add WP:CN to both 4 and 5 in the list. -- ∞Wirelain 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? It would be appreciated. And if you are implying that Concordia is a little too similar to your club, then I'll have to disagree. You promote harmony, we promote civility. Two different things. If you aren't implying this, then it's just my typical "read between the lines" behavior. --Osbus 21:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club tries to encourage Wikipedia to act as a community and a team, whereas Wikipedia:Concordia aims to encourage civility.--☆TBC☆ 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- WP:HEC is, I believe, just a group of people who agree to follow certain rules — and not a group that does active advocacy — so even if your goals are similar your methods are different. -- SCZenz 23:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club tries to encourage Wikipedia to act as a community and a team, whereas Wikipedia:Concordia aims to encourage civility.--☆TBC☆ 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the areas of difference, that have been pointed out, are areas of debate. 'The word Concordia has many meanings, from the Latin word for "harmony" (literally "with (one) heart") to the Roman goddess of harmony and concord.' I'm just saying that there are more out there who would backup civility and concord ... and likely many that belong on both lists. AND making sure everyone on both sides are aware of the cousins over the hill. -- ∞Wirelain 00:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
More recent additions to Concordia
Just finished creating a proposal and templates/images section for Concordia. As with all my contributions, please feel free to comment or criticise my decisions.--☆TBC☆ 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- i like the coffee it's like a monument to the founder - cup of joe - Computerjoe Cicero Dog 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Article and Project Noticeboard
I finished Wikipedia:Article and project noticeboard, though I still need some help on Template:APN, which I might have messed up on. Anyhow, feel free to comment and criticise on my recent changes.--☆TBC☆ 22:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the link above ... WP is case sensitive. -- ∞Wirelain 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have fixed the templated for you. Please note that it must be subst'ed at all uses. If it's not there will be an error instead of the template message. Fetofs Hello! 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Your noticeboards and whatnot
Hi guys. There seems to be some ambiguity about whether the various noticeboards are general-purpose Wikipedia pages or subprojects of Concordia. I'd like to request that they be one or the other as follows:
- If they are general purpose pages, please don't reference WP:CCD or include your logo, as this would be advertizing.
- If they are your own sub-projects, please make them subpages of Wikipedia:Concordia.
I think the benefits of maintaining this distinction are pretty clear, but I am happy to explain in more detail upon request. -- SCZenz 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- My advice is to get rid of as many nb's as possible. The more there are, the less people are likely to visit any one of them. Therefore I agree with SCZenz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is an issue I raised earlier on the Concordia IRC channel, but didn't seem to be given any consideration, I was just told that the matter had been previously discussed and thats what had been decided. As per my comments earlier (now archived) I believe we are very close to getting this right. So lets keep concordia confusion free, less ambiguous, easy to use/understand and clear in its aims and methods. Therefore if Concordia has some noticeboards which use some/all of the Concordia colour scheme, logos, shortcut and links then call them what they are, i.e. Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility noticeboard instead of Wikipedia:Civility_noticeboard I just don't see the benefits of trying to seperate the two. Bring everything together under the project for simplicity and consistency, making the noticeboards a subpage of the project will not stop them being open and available to the community as a whole, rather it will benifit Concordia and help the project achieve its aims. Death Eater Dan
(Muahaha) 00:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is an issue I raised earlier on the Concordia IRC channel, but didn't seem to be given any consideration, I was just told that the matter had been previously discussed and thats what had been decided. As per my comments earlier (now archived) I believe we are very close to getting this right. So lets keep concordia confusion free, less ambiguous, easy to use/understand and clear in its aims and methods. Therefore if Concordia has some noticeboards which use some/all of the Concordia colour scheme, logos, shortcut and links then call them what they are, i.e. Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility noticeboard instead of Wikipedia:Civility_noticeboard I just don't see the benefits of trying to seperate the two. Bring everything together under the project for simplicity and consistency, making the noticeboards a subpage of the project will not stop them being open and available to the community as a whole, rather it will benifit Concordia and help the project achieve its aims. Death Eater Dan
- My belief is it shouldn't contain the logo. Computerjoe's talk 08:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it isnt exclusively part of Concordia, it probably shouldnt have the logo on there - • The Giant Puffin • 09:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Possible concern
- When I read that your project strives to encourage civility and fair treatment I immedietly thought of a fellow editor of mine. In this comment I will avoid any names as this is a somewhat sensitive issues and I want to make it clear that I am not attacking anybody, and certainly not raising any content issue, rather, I wonder if your project would have any suggestions how to deal with the problem of incivility target at a single user.
- This fellow editor of mine is a fairly active editor, and as far as I know he has always abided by the WP:CIVIL; however due to his rather strong POV on certain issues he is a frequent revert warrior, has had several run ins into 3RR policy, and for many weeks now, despite any formal rulling (no ArbCom) he has been labelled a troll by many of his opponents. They often reply to his comments by 'don't troll' or 'I won't feed you' and alike, even if his posts are civil and provide valuable contribtion (including refereces). Further, some editors have taken to reverting his contributions using edit summary of 'de-xxx-ing article', where xx is is that user username.
- I have just recently thought that if I'd have been treated like this - by many editors I interact with, over the period of many weeks - I'd have long left this project in disgust.
- Now, I am not saying that the editor in question is perfect or does not deserve some criticism. However I feel that his opponents have completly forsaken any civility as far as he is concerned, and feel that they can call him a troll, accuse of sockpuppetry and like, and completly ignore the content of his arguments simply because of his past 3RR transgressions ('he has broken 3RR several times, so he deserves no respect and we can call him whatver we like and acuse those who raise in his defence of being troll masters and such'). I feel that this creates an unfriendly working environment, encouraging other editors to discard civility.
- Also, on a broder note, generalizing from this example, I think that there should be some guidelines that without a formal ruling that somebody is a troll or has resulted to sockpuppetry and like, accusing him of that during the normal edit discussions or in edit summaries should be considered a personal attack.
- I hope this project is the right place to raise that issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are two issues here, one is the user's conduct with regards to 3RR and POV, in that case the agrieved editors should follow process and maybe use RfC, CCD would not become involved in this. The sedcond issue is that this situation does not give those same editors the right to be repeatedly incivil to the user, even during disputes civility should be maintained at all times, and civility is certainly the issue that Concordia is here to try and help with. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are two issues here, one is the user's conduct with regards to 3RR and POV, in that case the agrieved editors should follow process and maybe use RfC, CCD would not become involved in this. The sedcond issue is that this situation does not give those same editors the right to be repeatedly incivil to the user, even during disputes civility should be maintained at all times, and civility is certainly the issue that Concordia is here to try and help with. Death Eater Dan
- If they is constantly (and wrongly) being accused of uncivility, they can probably gain assistance here - • The Giant Puffin • 09:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answers. In the case of the second issue, what assistance can CCD give? Mediation concentrating on being civil?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Newletter
I believe it is time for the first Concordia newsletter, specifically targeted to the less active members that probably don't know of the drastic changes we have undergone. MAybe this will encourage them to be more active. --Osbus 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not really anything to do with your comment but I have a related suggestion for the newsletter. Instead of adding the whole newsletter to user talk pages each time, how about put the newsletter in a subpage of Concordia, example would be: Wikipedia:Concordia/newsletter. All project members can be informed when a new issue comes up. What you think? - Tutmosis 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I have a problem with getting a newsletter on my talk page, I just think it be a good suggestion since we could also link to it on the Concordia main page. - Tutmosis 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like both. I enjoy getting the newsletter on my talk page because it is informative. If some of our members dont even know we have changed to Concordia, why would they check for a newsletter on one of our subpages? I think we should send out the newsletter as normal, but we can also have a subpage with the latest newsletter on it for reference - • The Giant Puffin • 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to get the newsletter on my talk page, and I *really* dig the new name. Esperanza and Concordia... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like both. I enjoy getting the newsletter on my talk page because it is informative. If some of our members dont even know we have changed to Concordia, why would they check for a newsletter on one of our subpages? I think we should send out the newsletter as normal, but we can also have a subpage with the latest newsletter on it for reference - • The Giant Puffin • 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I have a problem with getting a newsletter on my talk page, I just think it be a good suggestion since we could also link to it on the Concordia main page. - Tutmosis 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Due to recent userbox deletions, many people have substed their userboxes and other CJ templates, so simply making them redirects didn't work as expected. People could be notified of this through the newsletter. Misza13 T C 11:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Misza, could you compile me another list for AWB? Computerjoe's talk 11:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Check your mail. Misza13 T C 12:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Misza, could you compile me another list for AWB? Computerjoe's talk 11:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Should we wait for the conclusion of MfDs? (^'-')^ Covington 11:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say no. If more people get notified of changes and come here to get involved, we might expect some new thoughts on this matter. Misza13 T C 12:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice
Let me just say that I love the progress made on CJ/CCD over the last few weeks. And I love the new blue theme (cause I'm more a fan of blue, which is my favorite color, than green. It's a little cooler [temperature not slang term] too). Hopefully when finals are over (June 2nd is my last day) I'll be able to take an active role here. Keep up the good work. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree. The new design and name seems much more appropriate and soothing than before, and the transition from CJ to CCD was very smooth. Nice work everyone! --Randy Johnston 07:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I also prefer blue to green. Its just a nicer colour, and isnt being used by WP:ESP - • The Giant Puffin • 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
MfD
Both Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Deletion noticeboard are up for deletion.
I don't really understand some people, they say CCD/CJ does nothing, so we try and do something. If the MfDs close as delete I will instate the pages as subpages of CCD if people want... Ian13/talk 08:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt there'll be consensus - though they may be rejected. Computerjoe's talk 08:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I am seeing a fair few deletes. Ian13/talk 09:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Its just a catch 22. As Ian13 said, as soon as we do something someone goes and nominates our work for deletion - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is not this up for deletion, like my RfA, it is us being judged. What about nominating ourselves for deletion? Computerjoe's talk 10:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If people have a problem with us, use the talk page instead of MfDs. Most of our opposition did not attempt to discuss with us yet called for deletion. (^'-')^ Covington 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is not this up for deletion, like my RfA, it is us being judged. What about nominating ourselves for deletion? Computerjoe's talk 10:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Its just a catch 22. As Ian13 said, as soon as we do something someone goes and nominates our work for deletion - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I am seeing a fair few deletes. Ian13/talk 09:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suggested that both of those be deleted, on the basis that they duplicate the existing project level noticeboards such as WP:PAIN and the generic WP:ANI. They also, in my opinion, add an unnecessary level of process - if I see someone being uncivil, I warn them about it. I did however, suggest that if the pages are really that strongly desired, they should be moved onto the pages of this project. --bainer (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Having posted on WP:PAIN I can testify that it's not frequented enough by admins - either make CCD it a project subpage to alert members or delete it all togther and rely on the members to pick up problems. Sophia 11:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- More admins should be encouraged to visit WP:PAIN then. Duplicating the board without getting more admins involved will only be substituting one problem for another, no? --bainer (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Just to tell everyone, I'm on a semi-wikibreak. Computerjoe's talk 11:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Real life, I presume? ;-) Good luck! Misza13 T C 12:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, I'm stressed with the WP. Anyway, I got some web design to do. Computerjoe's talk 15:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
How to create policy on wikipedia
Some of what is being proposed here at the moment is, in effect, new policy on how wikipedia runs. I think before you guys go too much further it would be worth having a good read of:
I think part of the reason your noticeboards got MFD'd is that they were never proposed. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The noticeboards aren't policies, they are... noticeboards. Computerjoe's talk 15:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I know you weren't trying to create policy, but you implicitly changed the procedure for dispute resolution. If they are used, they'll have to be clearer about their role within that process. -- SCZenz 15:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. I for one have been strongly opposed to any CCD logo being placed upon them. I'll clarify it, after my wikibreak. Computerjoe's talk 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It also might be a good idea to emphasize that those answering comments are just ordinary editors, and that anyone can do so—this will perhaps prevent more incidents like the trolling about "those who specialize in civility" that was left on Tony Sidaway's talk page yesterday. -- SCZenz 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. Perhaps you could add that? Computerjoe's talk 15:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It also might be a good idea to emphasize that those answering comments are just ordinary editors, and that anyone can do so—this will perhaps prevent more incidents like the trolling about "those who specialize in civility" that was left on Tony Sidaway's talk page yesterday. -- SCZenz 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. I for one have been strongly opposed to any CCD logo being placed upon them. I'll clarify it, after my wikibreak. Computerjoe's talk 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I know you weren't trying to create policy, but you implicitly changed the procedure for dispute resolution. If they are used, they'll have to be clearer about their role within that process. -- SCZenz 15:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Do Something
I have never seen you guys do anything besides bureaucracy. I will consider joining if you show me five MAJOR things you have done. Raichu 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The noticeboards, {{Civil1}}, {{Civil2}}, {{Calm talk}} and their deriatives. Computerjoe's talk 15:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with us?
I don't get it. We're being called a militaristic organisation, while all we want to spread is the peace and civility. Some people claim we're not familiar with Wikipedia policies and dispute resolution process while all it's about is actually helping the process. Joe got a pile-on of opposes on his RfA because of his involvement here. People are not assuming good faith on our side and not giving us enough time to prove our worth (MfD on our sub-project within a few hours). Some comments suggest that we claim to be the ultimate experts in civility, which is absurd. All I'm expecting now is us being called a bunch of trolls or worse (and we're moving towards it - some negative generalisations have already been made). I'm seriously thinking we should file a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Concordia to gather from the community what's the problem with us. Assuming people don't want WP to be a rude place, such organisation should generally be welcome, while all we meet is contempt, if not hostility. Any thoughts on this matter? Concordially yours, Misza13 T C 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suggested a MfD. An RfC would suffice. Computerjoe's talk 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You mean like... an MfD on the entire CCD? Are you that badly disappointed? Misza13 T C 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- An RfC would be good - • The Giant Puffin • 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I believe a MfD would address concerns. Computerjoe's talk 20:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Personally I still do not understand the point of the project but I stick around to see where things go. Apparently our duty is to promote "civility"... how exactly are we going about doing that? placing a template after someones bad faith comment? is a template ment to cool someone down? If the template-inserting is all thats ment for the project members, then just about anyone can do that with a popular policy page explaining how to use them such as WP:CIVIL. There isnt a reason to have a project for people who like to go around placing specific type of templates. In my opinion we should do mediation work but that was brought up already and rejected by our project members. This might sound like complaining, but I just wanted to give my opinion on the matter. - Tutmosis 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Go for an RfC I guess - this needs addressing, by the community outside of us. Ian13/talk 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Leaving Concordia
Though I've made some proposals and contributions to the project, I'm leaving Concordia for the following reasons:
- Are Concordia members actually helping the Wikipedian community, or are they elitist, self-righteous users trying to act like admins?
- I'm busy on a few other projects that I would like to concentrate on more, leaving no time to spend on Concordia.
- Do these noticeboards and other programs actually help civility? After all, they can be very easily be abused by both vandals and established editors.
- Overall, personally I feel that Concordia, though good in theory, doesn't seem to work out in the end. However, even though I'm leaving the project, I'll still contribute from time to time.
--☆TBC☆ 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I too am growing tired of this, I don't know why. I think we are falling apart... Computerjoe's talk 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Same. Since I read all the criticisms of us, I thought "What is the point?". It seems like we are falling apart so soon after building up again. Maybe theres no place for this kind of organisation in WP - • The Giant Puffin • 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Perhaps we should disband, or let this grow inactive? Computerjoe's talk 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Tag as historical I guess. Show people that where were those who tried - but others choose to cause problems. I think I myself will shortly be going on a Wikibreak. Ian13/talk 21:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- We could keep it going for now - and see if we are somehow effective. I see little point to keep going - but at the same time, so much would be lost if we did. Ian13/talk 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Perhaps we should disband, or let this grow inactive? Computerjoe's talk 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Another organisation going on a WikiBreak. Only this one didn't achieve much before cracking. Misza13 T C 22:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Goodbye
I am going for now. Not due to this project alone by a long way. I wish you all the best of luck. You are welcome to leave me as the councillor or staff member here in any shape and form, or stand me for election, so I can continue should I ever return. For now, I have seen too much. Ian13/talk 21:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm leaving as well. I haven't been involved too much, so I must leave. If this gets anywhere, leave me a note. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 21:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just great. Leave us with this mess. Now, who in the world started this idea? Joe! Where is he? Lemme just get him... Okay, jokes end here. I'd really like to help keep this project (t)rolling (WP has become a hostile place recently), but in the coming weeks I might I will have no time to spend here. This means I couldn't start and maintain an RfC right now. Will anyone else bother with this? Or do we just drop down on external activity (how can you drop from zero?), just keep prompting civility to within our personal abilities and generally keep a low profile? Misza13 T C 22:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think this should be tagged as historical, so in a years time they can look back on us. Computerjoe's talk 09:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Finished
Are finished? Is it over? - • The Giant Puffin • 10:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tagged it historical, it's falling apart. Computerjoe's talk 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you should consider moving it back to "Community Justice" before turning off the lights. Why archive it under a name that almost nobody knows? --kingboyk 11:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, people like Wikipedia this way: a rude and often hostile place. Neither they want any help in changing it. Conclusion: there's no place for such organisation as Concordia here. A waste of a really good name, not to mention the idea. Misza13 T C 10:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I guess we are just all expected to be rude and troll. Ian13/talk 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but isn't that what Esperanza is for? Primary purpose of Wikipedia: building an encyclopedia. "Justice" and "procedure": to be used as sparingly as possible, towards aforementioned aim. Just my 2 cents. --kingboyk 11:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Justice"? Where do you see "justice"? The former name was a misnomer and was thankfully changed. I have no idea why people massively assume we claimed to be the Wikipedia police. All we aimed for was spreading civility and encouraging fair treatment. We never wanted to cut into the dispute resolution process, except perhaps for monitoring for rudeness. And WP:ESP is "dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community, so it's a related, but rather different aim. Misza13 T C 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just another example I guess of how we are doomed. People just don't understand us... Ian13/talk 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- If a message isn't reaching the target audience, the sender should try to rephrase it so the target audience understands. I see Esperanza for community spirit, I see arbcom/AN/RFCs for dispute resolution, and I'm still not sure what gap you were trying to fill. --kingboyk 11:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just another example I guess of how we are doomed. People just don't understand us... Ian13/talk 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Justice"? Where do you see "justice"? The former name was a misnomer and was thankfully changed. I have no idea why people massively assume we claimed to be the Wikipedia police. All we aimed for was spreading civility and encouraging fair treatment. We never wanted to cut into the dispute resolution process, except perhaps for monitoring for rudeness. And WP:ESP is "dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community, so it's a related, but rather different aim. Misza13 T C 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but isn't that what Esperanza is for? Primary purpose of Wikipedia: building an encyclopedia. "Justice" and "procedure": to be used as sparingly as possible, towards aforementioned aim. Just my 2 cents. --kingboyk 11:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I guess we are just all expected to be rude and troll. Ian13/talk 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)