Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Meeting 1

Meeting closed. Minutes available on project page. Computerjoe's talk 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice Second Meeting

Following the first Community Justice election, we believe it is time for another meeting. This time, we ask non-councillors, non-chief executive and non-chair to contribute in the discussion section.

Please can councillors reply directly in the agenda section.

The minutes off the last meeting are located at Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting.

This meeting will end on SunMonday May 28 2006. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Extended until Wednesday Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agenda

Name Change

Many users on Wikipedia talk:Community Justice and it's archive have stressed how they want a name change. I'm wishing to get councillor's opinions on changing our name from Community Justice to something else. If you are in favour of a namechange, please suggest an alternative. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In Support

1. I think the name Community Justice is misleading...it seems more like a name for the AMA. How about Civility Commision? As for the disruptive part, I don't think that should deter us from doing something that we should (or at least, I think we should). --Osbus 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In Opposition

1. Too much disruption. Computerjoe's talk 18:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The name "Community Justice" gives this organization a strong but not overbearing feel. Neither "Community" nor "Justice" has a negative connotation; the word "community" indicates togetherness, the word "justice" (iusticia in Latin, which is a noun form of the word iustus, which was almost always seen a positive for over two millenia) suggests fairness. In all respects however, I appreciate the intent of those who suggested the name change, and I will try my best to keep in the spirit of it and ensure that Community Justice will not be seen as aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Covington (talk • contribs)
3. Strong Oppose I like the way Community Justice sounds Mahogany

   Non-councillor. Computerjoe's talk 19:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Too confusing. olaboy-

   Non-councillor. Computerjoe's talk 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/No opinion/abstain

1. Neutral - Although I feel the name is a little forceful and possibly could be changed for the better to suit our refined aims, I feel this could cause too much disruption, and so far it hasn't detered the 60 something users who have joined. Ian13/talk 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I dont think the current name is bad, although I'm always open for suggestions in all fields, this included. I think making a new name would cause disruption, and I agree with Ian that it hasnt stopped over 60 members joining so far. I also think that a name change might be needed if the council and members decide to move the group in a new direction. I may change this depending on future suggestions - • The Giant Puffin • 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Per above. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I don't really care what the name is; I think the more important thing is our goals and how we accomplish them. - Pureblade | ^Θ 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I don't think the name matters that much. --[eddie] - pure ginger 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Non-councillor. Computerjoe's talk 09:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Member Conduct

Ethnopunk

I suspended one user, Ethnopunk (talk · contribs) over various personal attacks and the personal attack made on the CJ page itself [1]. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnopunk is welcome to post his side below this line:

(if Ethnopunk chooses to, please can he put it here). Thank you. Firstly I live in a developing country that was under a blanket ban for many years. We are only now seeing ADSL penetration. Secondly, you're all so way ahead of yourselves that you fail to understand why I joined CJ in the first place -- to escape the wild-west system of rules and justice and people who game the system, use wiki's own rules to suppress information, create precedent in the absence of participation and make us all look bad by ignoring consensus debate or discussion. Admittedly, this was done in the midst of a flame war.

Thirdly, I do tend to get mad when people like Schumiweb delete articles without allowing for reverts or discussion. What should one do if this happens? Also I've noticed that some users on Wiki seem to have more rights than others, is this because of skill level, or perhaps they're able to hack into the system? In short, I am trying to reform my evil ways, if only youll give me time to find my way around without gunning for me. I apologise for the misunderstanding and initial flame.

The council may decide if shall be expelled from CJ, giving a timed suspension or no action. I urge you to rescind your votes made without my having put forward my side of the story. Ethnopunk 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Expulsion

1. Agree until such a time a statement is made privately or on this page to the effect the user has some valid reason for joining. Ian13/talk 17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

   I think they have misunderstood the aims personally. I think they should be expelled on this basis but allowed to return in the future. Changed to probation. Ian13/talk 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Agree per Ian13. Computerjoe's talk 18:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree A Leopard cannot change its spots. I will take this view until a statement is made - • The Giant Puffin • 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Agree The user appears to have misunderstood the reasons CJ is here and how the encyclopedia works. I'd like to expel him or her until we see that sie has become more civil, and then we can think. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
   1. Clarifying: I'd like to expel him or her, and point him or her in the right direction for starting off in the community, and then perhaps allow for rejoining after we see that sie is doing well. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
   2. Perhaps it is more like a suspension? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree. We cannot allow people to perform personal attacks under the sanction of CJ. - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Timed Suspension

1. Agree. It is not to late for a human being to change his ways, no matter how young or old he is. Let's give Ethnopunk an opportunity to show how good he is by offering him an open hand after he has some time to think about his past actions. We can't change the past, but we can change the future by wisely choosing our actions in the present. Let's give him another chance. (^'-')^ Covington 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree Now a statement has been made, I can see where Ethnopunk is coming from. I too really hate it when some admins think they are better than members and delete articles without regard others. Although I feel Ethnopunk should be able to stay, I think there should be a short suspension - • The Giant Puffin • 14:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree per The Giant Puffin. I'm in favour of a 1 week - 2 month ban. Computerjoe's talk 14:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of No Action

1. As a provisionally suspended member I am voting that no action be taken and that my membership be sustained. Can we agree to be civil? Ethnopunk 07:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

   Only councillors can vote. Computerjoe's talk 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Probation

XChrisblackx proposed putting the editor on probation. More details found in the discussion section. If in favour of this, please add your name below. Computerjoe's talk 17:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Osbus 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC). If Ethnopunk did not intend anything harmful by his/her statment, then I don't see why punishment is necessary. However, probation is an excellent idea because we are not punishing him/her, but monitoring the user's actions. Of course, the probation would be lifted after a sufficient time period.
2. Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Ian13/talk 16:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
4. — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

JesusWChrist

JesusWChrist (talk · contribs) was expelled by me as he was giving an indefinate username block. If anyone wishes him to be re-admitted please post your objection below. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Misza13

Rx StrangeLove had concerns over Misza13 (talk · contribs)'s conduct. Personally, I have no interest for action. If anyone objects, please state it. Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections - • The Giant Puffin • 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope...no one should ever be penalized for making a bad joke. --Osbus 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me. - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Same. (^'-')^ Covington 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Probation Computerjoe's talk 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Computerjoe

There have been concern over my civility, as stated here. Naturally, I don't wish for any action to be taken. If you have any objections, please state it. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections - • The Giant Puffin • 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections for sure. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't think you did anything offensive. --Osbus 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection, nothing uncivil about using common shorthand. - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. (^'-')^ Covington 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars

Community Justice Barnstar

I'm asking for members to create a barnstar for excellent contributions to WP:CJ. Computerjoe's talk 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Let's wait until we work out the final logo design so that we can place it on the barnstar. (^'-')^ Covington 02:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar

The Civility Barnstar has been designed, and I'm just asking as to how it should be rolled out. Should we retain control or send it to Wikipedia:Barnstars and give the control to Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign. Computerjoe's talk 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If we can, I think we should retain control and somehow incoporate Community Justice into the text of the barnstar. --Osbus 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If we take control, it won't be as widely used. Computerjoe's talk 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we want it to be widely used? The value of the barnstar would go down...we should only give it to users who truly exemplify civility, etc. --Osbus 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We want to promote civility to the entire 'pedia; we shouldn't be elitist. I say we retain the authority of changing the text and such like that, but let anyone give it to anyone else that truly deserves it. - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we should be elitist, I was saying we should give it to editors who truly deserve it. --Osbus 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian should be able to give/receive. And really, we can't control it. I saw we say it was made by us, but send it to Wikipedia:Barnstars. Computerjoe's talk 07:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we control who gives them out...I was saying we control the text, etc. When we give them to editors, we should give them to the most deserving. --Osbus 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about sending it to Wikipedia:Barnstars but making a page listing the criteria for the Civility Barnstar and the receipients of the award. Any user may give it to any other user, but each award giver must add the receipient's list to the award page and provide a link to the award page somewhere on the Civility Barnstar. I hope this addresses everyone's concerns. (^'-')^ Covington 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I say let all give and recieve. Mind you, no-one owns or controls anything on Wikipedia. Ian13/talk 16:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We should only give it to people who deserve it. If we hand it out to everyone, it'll be worth nothing. However, it shouldnt be exclusive to the point that almost nobody qualifies for it. However, once it is put on WP:Barnstars, people can give it out themselves. But at least we can monitor and make changes to it accordingly - • The Giant Puffin • 19:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{tracker}}

SCZenz has stated he has concerns of the server strain caused by {{tracker}}. I am asking for the council's thoughts on phasing it out.

Support Phasing Out

1. Per Computerjoe. We can find other ways to track incivility without straining the server. (Nice call, SCZenz.) (^'-')^ Covington 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

   See comment at Computerjoe's Suggestion. (^'-')^ Covington 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

2. A slightly bad idea anyway in my view. Ian13/talk 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Do we really need to know every single page one of our templates is posted anyway? - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, but make it gradual. Computerjoe's talk 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

4. I don't see the reason of making it anyways. --[eddie] - pure ginger 14:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

   Non-councillor. Computerjoe's talk 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstain/Neutral

1. Neutral - Until we can find a better alternative, this may be the best way to track the templates, although it does apparently strain the server - • The Giant Puffin • 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

   See my suggestion in discussion. Computerjoe's talk 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Computerjoe's Suggestion

For pages currently using {{tracker}} I'll add a category, and keep tracker in place. However, I'll remove tracker from the templates and a category. Computerjoe's talk 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Computerjoe's talk 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. • The Giant Puffin • 19:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Category seems the way to go. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Excellent work, Computerjoe. (^'-')^ Covington

Review

Review of {{Civil1}}, {{Calm talk}}, {{Civil2}}, {{agf}} and {{agf2}}

I'm asking for the council's thoughts on the progress of the above templates. You can see the usage of some of these templates at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tracker. Computerjoe's talk 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see them used more on actual article talk pages where things get heated, as it can be a good idea to remind all editors of such things. I don't know if that's how the templates are intended to be used, though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Review of Community Justice on whole

I'm asking for a review of CJ on the whole. Please consider factors such as respect, membership and progress on our goals and tasks. Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Membership

• Respectable. Excellent growth, excited members. Let's think of something to get the membership even more involved. Great work. (^'-')^ Covington 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. Our advertising worked, and now we have a good member base. As I said before, a larger member base will help us achieve our goals quicker and more effectively - • The Giant Puffin • 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Quality not quantity, to use a clichèd statement...it seems to me that not many of our members are active in CJ. --Osbus 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Osbus; very few of the members have done anything after joining. - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• And perhaps we need to get a 'program' of sorts going to increase member involvement? — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm agreeing with you all. Now that we have a member base, we can start doing things as a community. Many people here seem to be excited about Community Justice; we can use that energy to get members more involved. May I suggest a member newsletter similar to that of Esperanza? We need to let members know what we're doing if we are to increase member involvement. (^'-')^ Covington 03:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I like the program idea. It can get members involved, as I too noticed that only a small percentage of our members have done anything since joining. Although I want a large memberbase, I would rather have half our current members if they all did something - • The Giant Puffin • 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• What do you all feel about messaging our members with the results of the election and an invitation to the meeting? I'm hoping to get more members involved in these decisions. (^'-')^ Covington 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  I used to this, but compiling the list, even with AWB takes a long time! Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • • Yes, it would be a good way to keep people informed, although, as computer joe said, it takes a long time. We definately need to get our members involved. It's all well and good having 65 members, but if 45 of them do nothing, it's a waste of time. I'll rack my brains for another idea that we could throw into the ring - • The Giant Puffin • 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • • You know what we should do? We should welcome new users, make them feel a part of our happy community. --Osbus 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Progress on Goals/Tasks

• I think we have promoted civility well in the community. However I think that, if we are going to promote civility to the extent it is the norm for the vast majority of people, we must take a more active role within the community. Pretty much everyone knows who Esperanza are, but do a lot of people know us? If we are to get our goals across to the bulk of people, we must make ourselves known through templates, assisting people who come to us (or atleast turning them in the right direction) and working with other WP organisations to help each other and promote our goals through their members. This will increase our member base to the extent that it will be a small community in itself. This will, in turn, accelerate our progress more than it has been accelerating by the recent surge in membership. Progress has been good, there's no doubt, but it could be better - • The Giant Puffin • 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to work with ESP. I'll email CP after this meeting, if all agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Also, an intra-organization newsletter would remind our members about Community Justice, and our awards will promote both our goals and or organization. Nice work, Giant Puffin. (^'-')^ Covington 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Other

• I like what The Giant Puffin says above, and I agree that we need to find a way to work with other organizations in WP with similar goals. Perhaps a joint program with ESP, or something of the like? — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, a joint project of some sort could be a serious probability. ESP have a variety of "programs", maybe one could involve working with us? - • The Giant Puffin • 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. Computerjoe's talk 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely, although I'd also like us to work with other Wikipedian groups as well. (^'-')^ Covington 03:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course. I just mentioned ESP, because I am a member and because it was what came to mind originally as a group that shares similar goals when I was reading the CJ page for the first time. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See Tijauna Brass's statement about setting ourselves apart from organizations such as Esperanza below, which I agree with. --Osbus 00:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As much as I love Esperanza, we don't want to be just a copy of what's already done. Nice suggestion, Tijauna Brass. (^'-')^ Covington 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont want us to be a copy. I just want us to maybe have a joint program where we can help each other in promoting civility etc. I dont mean we become permenant partners. Just a minor link between us and them. That's all that is needed - • The Giant Puffin • 19:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The Community Justice council welcomes feedback from members. Please post your suggestions and concerns in the appropriate category below. Thanks.

Name Change

As noted in the general talk page, the use of "Justice" and accompanying legal imagery (Lady Justice, scales) are misleading as to what the stated goals of CJ are. The suggestion that "it hasn't stopped 60 people from joining" is really irrelevant; I don't think many would see consider it grounds for ditching a civility-promoting program (I certainly wouldn't). What's important is whether it is an appropriate representation, and it's straying in a different direction. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility Commission? - • The Giant Puffin • 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Too formal. Computerjoe's talk 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds too formal and uptight. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The name isnt overly important. If people dont join because of the name, then maybe we're better off without them - • The Giant Puffin • 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the name is important. The name reflects who we are as an organization and our goals. And right now, Community Justice, the scales, and the law-looking images aren't reflecting our goals. --Osbus 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats all well and good, but if nobody seggests any new names, not much will get done - • The Giant Puffin • 18:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility Commision was shot down as being too formal...Civility Organization? --Osbus 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh. No imaginative. Computerjoe's talk 19:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil orange :P (Tee-hee) — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To those who support a name change: If we removed the law-related images and replaced it with, say, teacups, would the name "Community Justice" be suitable? Or is it the language in the name? I want to know where you are coming from. (^'-')^ Covington 21:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the language in the name. Images are a part of it, but more the name. --Osbus 22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I like retaining "Community" in the term, with what it implies. "Justice" still brings up that mental legal imagery for me, but I think Covington is moving in the right direction. I liked Civility Commission, but I understand the concerns that it sounds too... "official." Some more ideas (rearrange the words as you will to make it sound better): Civility Campaign, Community Equity, Community Equality, Wikicommunity... err... guess I ran out after only four. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility Campaign sounds ok, the other 3 are questionable in my opinion. I dont like Community Equality, because we are trying for civility not equality as such. Plus, if we change the name, we have to change the logo and it's leading symbol (instead of Lady Justice of Scales of Justice). - • The Giant Puffin • 10:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions without the word "justice". I tried to pick good sounding names that reflect our goals and that do not sound like other Wikipedian groups' names. (^'-')^ Covington 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Civility - commonly used phrase

Community Civility Caucus

WikiCitizens for Civility

Civility Crew

C-Unit (Community Civility Unit)

Sounds like a squad of rappers :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Civility Center

The Civility Project

Wikipedia Civility Group

I thought I would make a few suggestions and decided to go down the foriegn language route:

Bonne Foi (french for "good faith")

Derechos (spanish for "rights")

Respeito (portuguese for "respect")

Mantenga Fresco (french for "keep cool")

The translations all feature on our main page, mostly in the goals section - • The Giant Puffin • 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that route. How about Fresco? Computerjoe's talk 18:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool...literally - • The Giant Puffin • 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongest possible objection. While I value the Giant Puffin's work, creativity, and initiative, I must make known my strongest possible objecting to a foreign language name.

1. This is an English language Wikipedia; English is preferred.
2. It would make us look too much like Esperanza, which name is from the Spanish language. As many have stated above, we don't want to be a copy of Esperanza.
3. We've already decided that connotations are important, as we decided the name "Justice" was not desirable because of its connotations, even though it's from the positive Latin word iusticia. Unless several of us are from French-, Portuguese-, or Spanish-speaking countries, how are we to know what type of connotation these words mean?
4. From where I live, this move could be seen as political. I am a moderate, and I'd admit, if I were an outsider to this organization, I'd see this move as very political, and I would be very hesitant to join such an organization.

Although I appreciate the Giant Puffin's good faith effort, I must say that I absolutely cannot support foreign language naming for the reasons above. I have no problem using the English translations as components of the new name, but I cannot accept a name that will divide our membership. With regards. (^'-')^ Covington 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I like The Civility Project...that sounds cool. We could call ourselves the CP, double cool. --Osbus 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But we're not a project, we are an organisation - • The Giant Puffin • 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We are a part of a project to promote civility, are we not? OF course we are an org, but our project is mainly to promote civility. If that isn't one of our goals I don't know what I'm doing here. --Osbus 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked both Civility Project and Civility Campaign. Have to agree with it being clear that we're an org and not a Wikiproject, and that it wouldn't cause any problems. As far as the foreign language names go, I'd be more concerned about the question of the translation of meaning. For example, while fresco does translate to "cool" in English, the slang doesn't carry over. It'd be similar to calling our group something like "Stay lukewarm." I did like the creative approach, though... good thinking. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a councillor/chief exec/chairman for Fresco, nice to meet you." Not going to say anything, you be the judge.

"I'm the councillor/chief exec/chairman for The Civility Project, nice to meet you." NOw that, my friends, is suave (and not misleading). --Osbus 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Of those choices, I prefer The Civility Project; there is already a "Campaign" group out there - the Kindness Campaign. Also, when I think about it, I can't think of a way why an organization known as The Civility Project can be interpreted as a Wikiproject; there aren't too many articles on civility itself out there to start a Wikiproject in the first place. We can always call it Project Civility (but we don't want the initials PC). (^'-')^ Covington 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like The Civility Commission and The Civility Project (not Project Civility) - they sound catchy and reflect our goals. I dont think having a foriegn name would divide the membership (as long as we have the right one) because its not that big of a deal. People wont instantly leave because we change to something like Fresco (although that name is becoming less favourable as time goes on for some reason) because I like to think that we have members who joined for more reasons than how much they liked our name - • The Giant Puffin • 14:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Member Conduct

I suggest a probation for each where our best members watch them and remind them daily to keep theirselves civil. The choice if they don't want to go on probation is that they are all banned from CJ Mahogany (it sounds harsh but I've seen this type of thing in action and it tends to go well :)

Yes, that could work well - • The Giant Puffin • 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Call a vote on it then and let's see how other councillors think of it. Mahogany

That's a good idea. --Osbus 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See towards the top where Joe put that up for me (If you're a councillor) Mahogany

Barnstars

Community Justice barnstar

I support its creation, and would give it to all the election staff, for doing such a great job. You know. -zappa.jake (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Suppor It would go well I must admit Mahogany

I too wish to add my support on this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support its creation JRA WestyQld2 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a straw poll now? Keep it. I love it. It's good to reward civility, not just remind others to adhere to it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

{{tracker}}

I have thought of a way to replace this. In the current tracker we add a category, and in Civil1 and Civil2 we add categories and remove tracker. Whoola! Computerjoe's talk 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. (^'-')^ Covington 18:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add it as another option for the vote? Computerjoe's talk 18:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas - • The Giant Puffin • 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Great way to keep the tracker's functionality while dropping the actual original template. Well done. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't be done now. Computerjoe's talk 06:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Review

Review of Community Justice on whole

Not looking to be a gadfly, but in what way is the council planning on distinguishing CJ from Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign and Wikipedia:Esperanza? Both have similar goals — what unfulfilled role is CJ taking up? There's been some action, in creating a few templates, but the "promoting civility" agenda doesn't seem to have done much beyond that at the time. What is CJ looking forward to in terms of future goals? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We specialise in civility. Computerjoe's talk 06:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue — I don't think that could be any more vague. Specific goals, some of which have started to form, will direct efforts much more effectively than "let's promote civility." We've got numbers, we've got skilled leaders, we've got a good overarching theme, we've got organization... now what? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I was hoping we would take a more active role in things in terms of promoting civility, getting rid of people who are constantly uncivil etc. As to whether the rest of the group wants this, I dont know. I feel sittng back, creating templates, and working with no organisations on wikipedia is not much good - • The Giant Puffin • 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We've already defined our goals but how we are going to fullfill them is vague. --Osbus 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but are there any ideas of what could be done? Ian13/talk 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Review of the Meeting

Ending on Sunday May 28th? Isn't that a little long, especially considering that the other one was about 4 days long? It just sort of becomes an extended talk page in a sense. Any thoughts? — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a typo. Computerjoe's talk 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I see...that makes more sense :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did think 28th was a bit long, a typo explains it - • The Giant Puffin • 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)