Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Concordia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Love the name change. Just logged in today after a couple of weeks offline, and thanks for doing something noble and inspirational as opposed to bullying, lynch-mob justice. Ethnopunk 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Well we try :D Ian13/talk 12:40, 2 June 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)

Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility Noticeboard

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? Misza 13 ^{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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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...

File:Head to head clowns.jpg

Then again, everything on Wikipedia is silly sometimes.

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)

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:

Oppose because it looks nicer and really doesn't add anything. --Osbus 13:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. F e tofs ^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)

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)

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)

According to WP:DR, one of the first things that should be tried is to go to the relevant user's talkpage, and express concerns directly. This should be done before an RfC or any other method. Has this yet been attempted, in a good faith effort to express concerns in a civil manner, and try to determine where the other person is coming from? --Elonka 23:12, 6 June 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... ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 11:03, 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. Misza 13 ^{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. Misza 13 ^{T C} 12:37, 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. Misza 13 ^{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. — Ilyan e p (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 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)

Same. (^'-')^ Covington 11:32, 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)

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! Misza 13 ^{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:

WP:POL, particularly WP:POL#How_are_policies_started?
Wikipedia:How to create policy

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)

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, Misza 13 ^{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? Misza 13 ^{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)

The sooner the better. We need to learn what people feel we are doing wrong and amend any problems we may have - • The Giant Puffin • 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Obviously I, and everyone else, is very frustrated about our reception to the Wikipedia community. One major complaint is that our organization does not do anything and is merely a repeat of Esperanza and other such organizations. However, as much as it makes sense to us and as much as we have tried to convince others, it is not in our best interest to complain and make RfCs. Instead, we should do things, step into major conflicts, and basically ignore these comments (unless Concordia is up for MfD or something major). As our complainers monitor these pages, our actions will presumably change their feelings. --Osbus 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment What bothers me most is the negative attitude, something that many - myself included - could control but chose not to. Although I appreciate all who stated their criticisms, I would like to especially thank those who made suggestions on how we could improve instead of choosing to wallow in our faults. (^'-')^ Covington 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support RfC. Yup. Let's let the wikipedia community as a whole decide whether a separate civility project is a good idea. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:44, 29 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)

That's exactly my point above. Misza 13 ^{T C} 19:08, 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)

Fine. Another organisation going on a WikiBreak. Only this one didn't achieve much before cracking. Misza 13 ^{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? Misza 13 ^{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. Misza 13 ^{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. Misza 13 ^{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)

Sorry, I thought we changed our name for nothing... We promote Civility, ESP promote Community. 2 VERY different things. This thing has had to end because of total misunderstanding, how else can we rephrase it? There is not a speck of the word justice on our pages... Ian13/talk 11:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you/don't you give your new name a longer run? I'm not here to try and cause trouble so if you want any more info from "the man in the street" about perceptions and pitching your ideas to others just ask me. I do think the civility noticeboard is a very bad idea, but I can't argue against the promotion of civility. It's a very fine trait to have and I hope I mostly display it! --kingboyk 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will take that as a command. Fire away. Ian13/talk 12:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I have no more to say but I'm happy to answer questions or listen to a "sales pitch" :) Or, if you're intent to bury this so be it, let's move on. --kingboyk 12:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Longer run? We just started and our ideas are being questioned without letting a real test run. To try to convince you of the use of WP:CN, a typical use case I imagine:

A dispute/conflict/edit war is brewing in some remote place on Wikipedia (or worse: a conflict has already erupted).
A user who notices it, instead of spamming friends to help him stop the disruption, posts the problem on a centralised noticeboard.
Volunteers who watch the page (mostly Concordians, but everyone is welcome) spot it and visit the site(s) of event.
All parties are being reminded of the importance of civility, encouraged to cool down, mediation is proposed instead of flaming...
The conflict (hopefully!) ends without the need to resorting to drastic measures such as blocks, RfCs, ArbCom cases.
WikiLove prevails and everyone is back to productive activities.

Misza 13 ^{T C} 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds like a job that admins should already be doing, but sometimes don't. Also sounds like something Esperanza could be involved in. That said, it's an admirable aim. Thanks for the reply and the dialogue, I'll check back occasionally to see if anything is happening but for now I'm outta here :). Cheers. --kingboyk 12:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the aim of it was to make a central location, so everyone could find the problem. Ian13/talk 14:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to try - well it looks like there's nothing to lose now!

Instead of having noticeboards and warning templates how about being pro-active on the civility front.

Lets have a group award for a difficult thread where all the editors kept their cool.
Lets have a template (or award) to thank individual users who remainded civil in the face of adversity (the hoped for Barnstar).
Editors in this group should go out of their way in the articles they work on to praise civil behaviour and show users who may have an unfortunate manner how to interact more effectively.

Wikipedia is a whole new way of communicating for some and people often don"t realise how what they have written can be misread by others. I have found that when someone external to a disagreement explains in neutral language what the various points are then agreement can be found. Wikipedia is a huge learning experience all the time. Some more established users think they know all they need to know abut procedures etc but all it takes is an influx of editors with a different world view and the project will change again and everyone will have to learn new editing styles. In the real world I don't debate tricky life questions with my best friends very often. In wikipedia all the time I am having to explain my world view or knowledge on a subject to people I will never meet who have vastly different life experiences to me. They may think I'm completely mad/wrong/stupid and I may return the sentiment but unless you approach these situations thinking you may actually have something to learn you are closed from the start and it's a pointless carrying on. Even if you only learn how to keep someone you consider stupid/uneducated/hopelessly POV in check without escalating into an edit war then you have gained something and hopefully the articles will be better for it. I have wondered about starting an WP:LEARN guideline as I think by realising that disagreements often arise from not learning how to effectively interact, or not admitting you have as much to learn as the editor you think is completely wrong, incivility starts and then the downward spiral begins. The most important part of civility is realising that other editors are as human as you, believe in their edits as much as you do, and that just maybe you have something to learn from them - even if it's not what they want to teach you. I liked CJ as I firmly believe justice is served by civility. A valid argument can get swamped with incivil language and editor end up feeling hard done by as they know they had a vailid point.

Humour can play an important part in "sweetening the pill" as it were and I think the downward spiral for this project began when it all got taken too seriously. If nothing else can we just go on as a Civil Editing Club or something like that? Sophia 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving out awards and other active work is needed. People need to see us doing something. Fast. - • The Giant Puffin • 13:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think this can be seen as bad or misinterpretted. It should have a positive non-policing effect. Ian13/talk 13:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's basic parenting - ignore the bad if you can and praise like mad the good. It does work - honest! The group award idea came from an editor on the Jesus and Christianity articles who was impressed at the civility of particular thread despite the passion on all sides. Maybe we could have an award we could put at the top of talk pages which would be lost if things deteriorated. It would be a sign to others that this was a good article to work on and that new users would be actively helped and encouraged by the editors that frequented the page. I'm hopeless at templates so I have the ideas but would need help to make them! Sophia 13:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact what about an idea like this as well? (If it works nick the idea and adapt is how I often work!) [4]. Sophia 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar would definetely be beneficial in promoting civility. - Tutmosis 13:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We have one going through approvals: the civility barnstar Computerjoe 's talk 13:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be approved to use it, just to have it listed on a barnstars page. Go for It I guess. Ian13/talk 14:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly I said previously Ian... :P Computerjoe 's talk 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion and Esperanza

Just to clear things up: as much as I like Esperanza and my fellow Esperanzians we are not Esperanza and I hope we will never be.

One major aspect that distinguishes us from Esperanza is that we do not have an edit count or time requirement. I understand and respect Esperanza's choice to have those prerequisites, however, I would like to have an organisation for Wikipedians that is open to all.

No matter what or where Concordia will be, it is my wish to have it available to all Wikipedians. (^'-')^ Covington 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this philosophy of yours. It should be available to ALL Wikipedians and not exclude any user. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 21:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that - • The Giant Puffin • 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I quit

I quit this project because they just signed me up. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 20:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you added your own name --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the demanding comment on my talk page, I don't think he realises that 1) CJ -> CCD is just a name change, we are still the same project, and 2) he is not a councilor. Ian13/talk 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's strange... didn't everyone recieve the notice about the name change? Or perhaps he didn't bother to read it?--☆TBC☆ 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He received it --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above)The funny thing is, that WAS the notice about the name change which he got mislead by... It was at the top of the newsletter which has sparked this responce. Ian13/talk 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the ol' General will come back --Osbus 21:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two issues

1) Could all councillors please list below if they are prepared for be to be approved as the groups IRC contact. This is for our channel at freenode:

Approve. Self. Ian13/talk 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand...what do you mean? --Osbus 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't explain. The fact we are now a #concordia means that an official freenode group should be registered called concordia. A person has to stand as official contact, so should there be an IRC issue, that person is to deal with it. It is for freenode purposses only, and is external to Wikipedia. However, someone needs to be appointed to such a role. As I registered these channels, the simplist option to register is to make me contact. I am asking all council members if they would approve me to stand in such a role. It is purely technical and external to Wikipedia. Ian13/talk 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You're approved. :) --Osbus 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Raising point: If it's external to wikipedia and independent of wikimedia foundation, how can it proclam to be an oficcial channel for a wikiproject? -- Drini 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It can be an official channel for our project, on the basis that we have no official basis in Wikipedia. Ian13/talk 10:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) has left a message on my talk page asking that the newsletter is not delivered to talk pages. [5]. Views/comments?

Indeed, we shouldn't have a group. Computerjoe 's talk 09:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Ian13/talk 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in the future when all our members are somewhat active. --Osbus 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this mass-messaging. If people want to follow something they can add it to their watchlists and view the page when something is new. --Randy 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have approval for me to deliver newsletters, through my bot, however we need to be careful and do them infrequently. Computerjoe 's talk 09:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we can shift the spamming to you, but it still doesn't really address the issue. Ian13/talk 10:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

What is the difference to esperanza? They both stress unity, harmony, have no official standing, start at basic policy and work upwards, &c… Esperanza at least has programmes! --Qu e ntin Smith 14:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We promote civility, they promote community. Computerjoe 's talk 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WHich is why I chose not to join Esperanza when I first stumbled across it...and probably never will. --Osbus 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See "Inclusion and Esperanza" above. (^'-')^ Covington 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been real nice guys........

I'm outta here for my long holiday but it was nice I hope I just log on to the same Concordia lol --Mahoga n y 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! Ian13/talk 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Have fun! --Osbus 20:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

All three noticeboards were deleted. IMO, there wasn't a clear consensus but I respect the decision. Computerjoe 's talk 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the consensus was drifting around the board being "concordified", so I guess it'd be ok for us to recreate it under Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility noticeboard (now a redirect to the deleted page). That is, if we still care at all. Misza 13 ^{T C} 10:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO it would undermine the MfD Computerjoe 's talk 10:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good question Misza. --Osbus 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it would undermine the MfD really... but thats if we even want it I guess. Who closed them out of interest? I would probably speak with them before any action was taken... Ian13/talk 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboards

Who would support all three noticeboards being merged into Wikipedia:Concordia noticeboard or Wikipedia:Concordia/noticeboard? Will (^E_@) T 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, this would undermine the MfD. I'd suggest an RfC. Computerjoe 's talk 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Concordia have its own noticeboard? What MfD? Is there an RfC? --Electric Eye (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Look through WP:MFD. Computerjoe 's talk 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Or just go to the most relevant part, which I'd expect to be the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing creating of Wikipedia:Concordia/noticeboard. It is not a recreation and it's very hard to come up with a case for its deletion - many other Wikiprojects/portals have their own noticeboards. Grue 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But technically we are not a wikiproject, and also the community rejected an idea of a civility noticeboard due to trolling. Computerjoe 's talk 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The community would also probably reject WP:CIVIL if it was a proposed policy. Ignore the community - you don't need consensus to do everything. It's a freaking wiki. Grue 17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The community rejected a Concordia's own civility noticeboard due to "trolling?" That makes no sense. I doubt the "community" made accusations of "trolling." It more than likely boils down to a few users who can be found to be associated and their opinions swayed the others. Who started accusing "trolling" in the first place? I think CCD's noticeboards should serve their own purpose which would be a place for users to get second opinions without the authoritative views of admins. --Electric Eye (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If CCD will have no place where people can report abuses against civility, and no mechanism/volunteers to deal with it, then this project will be much less useful to the community (IMHO), in essence becoming a variant of WP:KC and patting civil editors on the back with barnstars, but powerless to stop any expressions of incivility. That said, I am still awaiting reply as to what, if anything, this wikiorganization could do in the case I outlined above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus: maybe Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is what you're looking for. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

So can someone explain to me exactly where we are right now? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hell. Computerjoe 's talk 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, this may be 6/6/6 but thats a tad negitive. Ian13/talk 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider it more of a purgatory. Misza 13 ^{T C} 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, more projects I guess! Ian13/talk 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Omen comes out. . --Osbus 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hello all, i have returned from my trip to the orient in which i had a splendid time...i am slightly worried by the goings on here try to be positive. Cicero Dog 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This place is dying, and I think it is good. We had a good principle, we just couldn't deliver. Computerjoe 's talk 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My absence

Sorry I have been away recently. My internet connection hasnt worked since last tuesday (1st June) and its been a nightmare to get the company to fix it. Anyway, I'm back now - • The Giant Puffin • 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Dear contributors

I'm not a member here, but noticed a link to this project on one of your members' talk pages.

If you want to improve civility on WP, one boiling cauldron that appears to be designed to bring out the worst in WPians is the RfA process. Last year, I went through a disastrous RfA that appeared to me to have all of the hallmarks of a mediaeval trial. I came out of it as a psychological wreck, and I know of others who've had the same fate.

The fact that the process is unmoderated, IMV, goes against the basic tenets of fair treatment and civility. Some regulars appear to want to gun down applicants, perhaps in the belief that they need toughening up.

I'd be pleased if the process were reformed.

Tony 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA is often harse, I know. It made me a wreck too. Computerjoe 's talk 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is also a big problem with malicious trolling by sockpuppets, who even if they are exposed, would influence the outcome in great measure (i.e. people voting against nominee as "too controversial"). I would support a fair review of the rules of engagement in that sense. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect editors disagreed with my community style on my RfA, however, they didn't take into account my 2k article edits! Computerjoe 's talk 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He's totally on target about that comment. I fear an RfA if I ever had one. I started a Help me Improve page so I could prepare myself for an RfA and get more involved at the same time, but I only got 2 comments. If I ever do have an RfA, it would probably fail, and I'd copy the whole "oppose" section to my "Help Me Improve" page...haha. I've seen wikipedians leave the project over the comments made there. I suppose we could make a sort of commitment to making sure civility stays. Maybe we could sort of make apologetic or balanced criticism (i.e. "I can tell you are a kind and dedicated wikipedian, I would just like to see you more involved with AN/I"). The thing is, though, you can't associate any good deed you do directly with Concordia, Concordia has to stand as a sort of informal contract which requests the most civil interaction from anyone involved, or else other editors will get the feeling we are following some sort of weekly goal in promoting civility, handed out by the concordia legislature.-- The ikiroid 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, we have no authority though. You may want to see WP:ER for your help. Computerjoe 's talk 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with you, Ikiroid - I think it's Wikipedia, not Concordia that should stand as an informal contract which requests the most civil interaction from anyone involved. Wikipedia has a formal policy and a general consensus that maximum civility is required from everyone all the time. Striving to be civil doesn't make you a Concordian, it makes you a Wikipedian. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Awww...dont be scared of an RfA. Out of possibly a drug-induced stupor I did a self-nom and it was completely catastrophic...no big deal though. But yeh, I see some incivility on RfAs. Not cool dude --Osbus 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here to keep separate. Incivility on RfA's is a real problem, and it shouldn't be tolerated. At the same time, constructive criticism is a real issue, and very necessary. I've seen admins go bad, and it is rather difficult to deal with, and the signs are often there before the user becomes an admin if you know where to look. That's why it can be harsh even if everyone is civil--but adminship is not an automatic reward for good work, and it can't become one. As Osbus says, you just have to kind of shrug it off if you end up receiving a lot of constructive criticism. -- SCZenz 09:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IMV, there's only one solution: RfA should be moderated. Tony 13:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

By whom, and for what purpose? -- SCZenz 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just been roundly bullied by an admin who was appointed late last year. And there's another who's been unilaterally semiprotecting and unprotecting an article without going through the proper channels. My point is: why does the RfA process have to be so abusive if it's perfectly possible to fake your behaviour/personality during the trial? The process is not efficient at weeding out problem admins. Tony 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions not necessarily related to the RfA issues

I've just spend the last few months mainly reading Wikipedia instead of doing any editing. How about a civility patrol with a request for assistance board. When a user is having problems with uncivil contributors, CCD takes a look and documents differences to be posted on a noticeboard which anyone can then use for RfC, RfA, RfAr, etc. --Electric Eye (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Organize members for effective WP policy amendment based on the experiences CCD has encountered. --Electric Eye (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The user talk page serves the function you suggest. -HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested several "functions," none of which would be very effective on just user talk pages. What exactly are you trying to say? --Electric Eye (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was too brief. The thing I was addressing was the suggestion that somewhere could form a record for people to refer to during RfAs, etc. The user talk page forms that record for each user. For anything that goes to a further step, whether it's a WP:3O, an WP:RFC or an arbcom ruling, the page there will form a long term record. You also suggested a request for assistance board for matters of civility - try the WP:WQA. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may or may not know, we did make a Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard, but it was deleted. Ian13/talk 13:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

{ {historical}} ?

May I ask why, just as we hit 100 users, are we tagged as historical? Ian¹³ /t 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you see activity here? Computerjoe 's talk 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your reply - yes. Ian¹³ /t 16:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm ROFL'ing. This organisation failed to deliver, to be put simply. Computerjoe 's talk 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And doing nothing but make it historical is going to help now is it ;) Ian¹³ /t 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think calling off the project will make it grow, as the founder ComputerJoe, don't you want it to succeed? — The King of Kings 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, well you could remove it. This thread has proved activity :P Computerjoe 's talk 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Groovy Green

Just to say a big thank you to whoever changed the {{calm talk}} banner back to green! Sophia 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

New Member

Hi, I have decided to join the group, because I believe it reflects my beliefs as a Wikipedia user. See my User Page for more details. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help! Abcdefghijklm 21:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You could go and stick Calm talks on dispute-heavy talk pages. Also, you could make some suggestions :D Computerjoe 's talk 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Note

Has anyone noticed that the Council's terms expired in January? Are we going to have elections anytime soon. Geo. 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in the American date format! It's the 1st Nov. Computerjoe 's talk 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. Geo. 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cicero Dog

I have expelled Cicero Dog, due to disruption to the Wikipedia, and CCD, on his part. He has being warned before. Objections? Computerjoe 's talk 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Although you can not make that rulling (you are just one council member), that seems fine for now - but it can be reviewed at a later date if anyone wishes. Ian¹³ /t 16:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked (again). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cicero_Dog. Petros471 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came here to note that. :P Ian¹³ /t 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Points to WP:IAR. Computerjoe 's talk 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion (follow up on Tony's RfA comments)

Hi - I noticed that the "Vote here" tag was changed to "Discuss here," when there is little practical difference. Why don't we suggest an initiative (experimental at first) to offer the services of Concordia members as moderators for RfAs, with the explicit approval of a bureaucrat? Obviously none of the bureaucrat's powers nor discretion can be overruled, and the candidate has to request Concordia moderator support.

Obviously most RfAs go smoothly despite a few heated arguments. Concordia moderators would keep a watchful eye, and do their bit if the going truly becomes disruptful. Rama's Arrow 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also perhaps that Concordia moderators can figure a way to give practical meaning to "Discuss here," instead of simple voting. Rama's Arrow 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moderators? Which moderators? Computerjoe 's talk 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Establish "moderators" to help out - the need for an explicit class may be that only credited editors may perform the role. Concordia needs an executive arm to push its agenda. Rama's Arrow 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the term moderators. Councillors should help out and such, as should any other member. Computerjoe 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, the term is not important. The issue is, what can Concordia do to help calm and civility prevail on WP:RFA? Rama's Arrow 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What special qualifications can the presence of a person's name on the Concordia membership list guarantee? --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It gives none. It should state the person believes in civility, and perhaps fairness. They have no god given right, and they are the same as anyone else. Computerjoe 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - perhaps the bureaucrat approval may be given only after the ascertaining of credibility? Rama's Arrow 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We're all committed to dealing with one another fairly and with civility. That's Wikipedia policy. What makes Concordia members different, other than the fact that they signed up to the principles redundantly? --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, a commitment to not be sarcastic. Wikipedia policy is not a legal code - otherwise why do we have so many concerns/issues about incivility? We need to find better ways to help each other. I don't care if Concordia fails, but at least some people are making some efforts. Rama's Arrow 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope you don't think I'm being sarcastic here. What does membership of Concordia mean, exactly? --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think so. However, it has been an enduring issue to figure how this group can be do good work, differently from efforts like Esperanza. I don't know where it's headed, but perhaps a cohesive unit of editors who may help to defuse tensions and keep things clean? Rama's Arrow 22:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, members of CCD believe that merely being civil themselves is not enough. We try to educate others about WP policies and take a more activist stance than a user who merely just exercises civility himself. No, CCD is not redundant...I would gladly mark CCD for MfD if there comes a day where there are no incivil edits. →Osbus 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur completely. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the day that CCD gets marked for MfD would not be when there are no incivil edits, but when CCD is inactive in combatting them. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Tony Sidaway has a point - surely every wikipedian should be calm, civil and constructive on RfA discussions. What do you propose that moderators should do that existing editors can't? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not moderators, as I've said before. Computerjoe 's talk 15:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

requesting concordian help

I'd like to ask for help on a civility issue regarding one of your members. SPecifically Xchrisblackx. See, he uses asignature that displays as "Mahogany" instead of "Xchrisblackx", which causes a lot of confusions for people already not knowing they're the same and therefore makes the working and collaboration process much more difficult than it should be. That's plainly rude, incivil and shows complete disrespect for others (i..e don't mind that it makes everybody's editing as long as my nice misleading signature shows). So, instead of takign some other paths of action, this time I decided to try concordia to see if you could help me convince him to use a signature that displays his actual username instead of some other word. Give civility a chance. -- Drini 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, Xchrisblackx doesn't timestamp. I'll have a friendly word. Computerjoe 's talk 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think it should really be changed, but WP:AGF since he may not be aware that it offends others so strongly. Ian¹³ /t 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What Concordia is Not

Does everyone agree with this?

Concordia members are not moderators, judges or or anything of the like. We simply believe that civility makes the Wikipedia a better place.
Concordia members are responsible for their ~~own~~ actions: Concordia, as an organisation, is not.
Concordia members aren't given superiority over any other Wikipedian on the ground they a Concordian member
Concordia is not a bad faith organisation.

Thanks Computerjoe 's talk 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I open motion to put it on the main CCD page. Misza 13 ^{T C} 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Process creep! Computerjoe 's talk 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor suggestions. You may wish to replace "or anything else" in the first bullet point to "or anything of the like". The current version implies that the members are, in a word, nothing (we're still editors :p). Also in the same bullet, after the word Concordia, you might wish to add "members", for grammar. And a question. The third bullet point, did you mean superiority? SynergeticMaggot 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than that it looks good :) SynergeticMaggot 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected! Computerjoe 's talk 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If this isn't already obvious - support I guess. Ian¹³ /t 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Got my support - • The Giant Puffin • 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It has my support, I merely struck out the word "own" in the statement as the existence of the word does not prepare one for a two part sentence, "their actions" seems to be clear enough for me. Ansell 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is a "bad faith organisation"? If such a beast does not exist, or is even difficult to imagine, it is not necessary to say that Concordia is not a bad faith organisation. This sounds very much like a positive statement, "Concordia is a good faith organisation", desperately wrung around to fit the form of the negative statement. // Habj 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

People have called Concordia a trollery organisation, and such. That would make us a bad faith organisation. Computerjoe 's talk 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are ethnic slurrs acceptable?

Some people seem to think so, see this discussion. Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs are not acceptable only if they offend someone. Obviously someone was offended. --Osbus 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously anything can be interpretted different from its original meaning (and I am not saying this is what is happening here), which is why WP:AGF exists. Things are generally unacceptable if nearly everyone thinks it was meant to be racist, and if the comment was made with sufficent venom or repeatedly (for example to intimidate or harrass). Ian¹³ /t 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely doesn't WP:NPA apply? Computerjoe 's talk 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Woooooooah

Is this place still active? Cause I think I should be more involved if it is. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Concordia seems to be dying... Computerjoe 's talk 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agian? There's nothing to do, I don't think it's dying but it just carries out a small part of Wikipedia, perhaps there should be a project page which posts heated discussions or such. --JRA WestyQld2 08:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not dieing, it's just inactive - feel free to get projects(!) working :) Ian¹³ /t 16:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Woot, lets make funky project names like 'Project Talk Page Incursion' ;-) --JRA WestyQld2 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we must still be active.--Tdxi an g Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 07:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you forget Jimbo Wales???

Today is Jimbo Wales's bday (August 7). You may wish him happy birthday here!!!.--Ed 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My Resignation

Dear Concordia members,

I shall state very simply what I'm going to say throughout this letter: I hereby resign my councillorship of Concordia, and hereby also quit the organisation.

Over 6 months ago, I - along with Ian13 - founded a Wikipedian organisation called Community Justice. This organisation's aim was to provide a fairer Wikipedia; though we quickly specialised, and decided to make a more civil Wikipedia. When I created Community Justice, I also decided to create a council, somewhat similar to Esperanza's, to decide Community Justice's management. In hinesight, this was not a wise move, because as a result much bureaucracy entailed.

Community Justice was largely misunderstood. Many people though, due to the name, we believed we had some sort of power, or that we wished to create a Wiki Supreme Court. I, personally, did not: and I'm sure the majority of members would agree with me.

I believe it was Alf who said: It sounds like an organized army of trolls: that's got a lot of people scared (I can't source that or provide an exact quote though, as it was on IRC). It seems like a lot of users agreed with him, and though many users didn't look closely at CJ: they disliked it based on its name. Hence, we changed our name.

I have being pondering as to whether to leave Concordia for some time. The first point I thought about this was following the rename to Concordia. Though it was partially my fault, I disliked the amount of bureaucracy involved in the process of the name change.

Also, many controversial users joined Concordia, and were uncivil, claiming they were doing it under the role as a Concordia member. A Concordia member has no special powers. Their actions brought Concordia's reputation down.

Concordia has grown inactive, and if it still has a role within the Wikipedia, I don't think it is under me spearheading it.

Concordia aims to improve the encyclopedia by speedying up disputes by maintaining civility. I hope you continue to improve without me.

Good luck, Computerjoe 's talk 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Computerjoe for creating Community Justice/Concordia. I won't say it is a huge success and all the members here will tend to agree with me, but mate you've put a lot of effort into this project which has seemed to just not have enough backing and I admire your persistance. We will sure miss you mate. --JRA WestyQld2 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

GOod luck, and hopefully we can continue... Ian¹³ /t 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have to be an administrator to join this?

—$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you? --JRA WestyQld2 08:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly not. I founded this organisation, and I'm no sysop (though I have left). Computerjoe 's talk 10:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering, since it seems all the members I've seen around here are admins. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC) One other thing…it seems to me that this project's aims are the same as Esperanza's. While I know they can't be, can someon explain?

This project aims for a more civil Wikipedia, Esperanza aims for a stronger community. Big difference. Computerjoe 's talk 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, and never have been one, so I don't think you have to have been one. It's just that the administrators, probably, get more grief from the unmentionable little noobs like me and so they tend to have more cause to try to find somewhere to vent their frustrations with individuals who can understand what they've been put through. Badbilltucker 18:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So, um...

What programs have we got going now? And given all the stuff that's happened, shouldn't we have a newsletter? Dev920 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, can someone put loud and clear on the front page how Concordia differs from Esperanza?Dev920 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the heading above. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did, which is why I think it's needs to be made utterly clear on the front page. Dev920 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and diy... --Osbus 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, some other little yutz, like, say, me, might. I in fact have just added a comment at the end of "Our Goals" to the effect of what has been stated above. It's not great, but it at least addresses the point made. Feel free to make it at least slightly coherent, though. I never have been that good a writer. Badbilltucker 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Back

Hello all,

I just want to let you all know that I'm back and I can finally type again.

(^'-')^ Covington 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you forget how to type? --JRA WestyQld2 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I had carpal tunnel. (^'-')^ Covington 06:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, I hope you're feeling much better :-) --JRA WestyQld2 07:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this project has gone practically dead, I will be bold an suggest a merge with Esperanza. Many Concordians are members of that project too. I am open to discussion. Best regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of response and almost inexistant level of activity at Concordia at the present time, I have decided to leave this project. Best wishes, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Morale seems to be too low here to fit purpose. I too am leaving. Dev920 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We have different aims to ESP, and therefore I think it would be out of place. We want civility, they want a community. Although we have similar aims, we have a different aim. Ian¹³ /t 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't we have civilty and community? --JRA WestyQld2 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that Concordia is different from Esperanza, it is the fact that Concordia does not do ANYTHING. From what I've read, you've been complaining about your noticeboards being deleted for almost the entire project, and then got bogged down in adminisrative matters to do with the council. Why on Earth was Concordia created if you didn't have at least one plan to further your aim? Your aim of civility is admirable, but Wikipedia will not become more civil if you simply post nothing but "We're not Esperanza!" Dev920 06:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I oppose Concordia being a part of Esperanza because I believe that there should be a civility organization for those who do not meet Esperanza's edit count requirement. I myself am a member of Esperanza and I support and respect their aims, but I feel that there should be an alternative organization that everyone can join. For the record, we did have plans. Many of them fell through. That doesn't mean, though, that we cannot have more plans. Let's focus on the future as opposed to what happened in the past. (^'-')^ Covington 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)