Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Archived the talk page again, obviously. Right now the dates don't seem to be following any particular format; if y'all would like, I can refactor them so they are sorted on a month by month basis. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it the way it is. The posts are in pretty much chronological order anyway. (^'-')^ Covington 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cicero Dog

Cicero Dog retracts all offensive statements he made and lays himself before the council as a defeated and broken hero. He feels that the actions taken against him were justified and he will take no further actions against wikipedia or Community Justice. Cicero Dog has made it very clear he regrets his actions and is sorry for any disruption or waste of time. Cicero Dog would also like to take time to draw your attention to The 4 Drams article which, for the good of humanity, must be saved. Thank-You Cicero Dog

whatever do you mean by that Pak21? Cicero Dog
Above and beyond faking votes on an RfA being unacceptable? --Pak21 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is great misconduct. He should be blocked. Computerjoe's talk 13:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed him on WP:RFI, although the summary there is a bit brief. --Pak21 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, RfC is more appropiate. Computerjoe's talk 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now indefinitely blocked --Pak21 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I was 50% through writing a RFC! Computerjoe's talk 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at it, I would have done that block now if someone hadn't beaten me to it. Ian13/talk 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope this uprising thing is all over. I dont want any more people to join on the basis of being uncivil to the other members... - • The Giant Puffin • 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible incivility

This is silly

May I ask why user Ciraric, under members, wrote Grrrr... next to his name. --Osbus 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, but its genius! - Tutmosis 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ciraric's account was being used by Cicero Dog without Ciraric's permission (see User talk:Petros471#Cicero Dog et al.) – they may not even know they're a member here. Somebody should probably check? Cheers --Pak21 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried to hack me too... strangely it came from one of the IPs involved range! Computerjoe's talk 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here - got a nice flood of password request emails. Ian13/talk 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is indef. blocked, though I have a feeling we'll be hearing more... now I suggest we move on. Computerjoe's talk 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the block has been reduced, and now expires in ~24 hours. I and others will be keeping more than a casual eye on him though... Cheers --Pak21 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If sie continues with behaviour after a block I will file a RfC. Computerjoe's talk 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I did warn Cicero Dog with a re-block if he returns to disruption. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you think this is happening (I don't really follow CJ events, sorry!). For now lets hope we've got another productive editor :) Petros471 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Let's Leave It

Let's not victimise whoever is causing these problems. Let's leave it and discuss something else... like ideas for programs. Computerjoe's talk 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we must move on - • The Giant Puffin • 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programs?

Does anyone have ideas for programs? What about a Civil Editor of the year Award (cheesy...)? Computerjoe's talk 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean an award? Mahogany
A title, contest dunno. Cheesy idea, just an idea. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the idea that's cheesy, it's more the name that you should worry about Mahogany
The prblem I have with that is how we decide which ONE editor of the entire year to give it to...maybe it should be given every month. Wait, but that kind of "devalues" the civility barnstar. --Osbus 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. My thoughts exactly. Computerjoe's talk 07:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero Dog To Rejoin?

On the advice of Computerjoe I am appealing to the council and members of community justic to allow me to rejoin as a member. I have learned my lesson and am willing to work to earn back the respect and integrity i have lost through my actions. I feel that Community Justice would be a perfect place to regain a feeling of civility and pride in Wikipedia which i had clearly lost. And, besides, what better place for me to be observed for my behaviour. |I feel that after my 2 day ban i am ready to return to wikipedia as a good and policy abiding user. I appeal to the members of the council not to shun my efforts but to find it in their hearts to welcome me back as a member of Community Justice. Thank-You. Cicero Dog 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated Cicero Dog (talk · contribs) as sie apologised and I was uncivil to him/her. Any disruption will lead in expulsion, once again. If anyone has strong objections, please state them. Computerjoe's talk 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I accept, on the basis that if ANY examples of incivility or disruption of CJ occur - he will be removed perminantly. Ian13/talk 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian13 - • The Giant Puffin • 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious doubts about this, however I will tentativly go along with the consensus to give him a second chance. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to assume good faith Computerjoe's talk 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept...don't let us down Cicero Dog. --Osbus 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ian13 and with the same tentativity as Death Eater Dan. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

This organisation was moved to Wikipedia:Community Civility by User:Matt Crypto. I have reverted this, as there was no consensus. Computerjoe's talk 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new name is needed; "Community Justice" is a misnomer. I'm sure "Community Civility" could be improved upon, but it's at least descriptive. (By the way, "no consensus" is a suboptimal reason to revert a change on Wikipedia. Be Bold is a good principle -- if we only make changes after having documented a consensus first, we'd not achieve much).— Matt Crypto 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe so. However, the council needs consensus and we require a lengthy transition period. Computerjoe's talk 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the council needs consensus? Why do we require a lengthy transition period? — Matt Crypto 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Graphics... members need consulting. Surely renaming a Wikipedian organisation of about 70 members can't be made unilaterally? Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Most Wikipedia edits are unilateral; a minority of changes require discussion to reach consensus, but usually after someone makes an initial unilateral edit. Often it requires first action to get things done. But the point is that the name is currently inaccurate, confusing and quite unhelpful. For example, why have the council not chosen a new name, as promised would be their first order of business? I'm interested in an effort to promote civility on Wikipedia, but if a project is unable even to effect a name change, then -- and I'm sorry to be frank -- it seems unlikely to be ineffective in its goals. — Matt Crypto 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the council is neutral. For the next meeting, I'll put in the agenda again. Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a change of name is needed as Community Justice does not represent either the aims or the purpose or this organisation. Community Civility is an option which should be examined but other possibilities exist. However, Matt Crypto, i know that you feel that action must be taken to improve civility i once felt the same about other ideals which i can not name (cough freedom of speech, democracy cough) However, to take it upon yourself to move the page is not wise nor clever. On wikipedia we work with consensus and you may have performed a WP:Point. Work towards your aims with useful discussion not with actions which lead to the disruption of others. I learned this the hard way. Cicero Dog 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how Matt could've breached WP:POINT. Computerjoe's talk 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
he edited wikipedia to prove a point. Cicero Dog 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume Good Faith: I edited Wikipedia to improve it. I think "Community Civility" is a better name than "Community Justice", and I think it's valid to have moved it. Computerjoe disagreed, and I'm not going to revert war over it. — Matt Crypto 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming the assumption of good faith by all parties. You're right Matt, no point edit warring - but thanks for your contributions. Computerjoe's talk 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) So how does the word Justice fit in with the whole thing? If the point is keeping things civil then the move makes a lot of sense.. Rx StrangeLove 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the organisation, the goals were different. It's old and needs changing, I admit. Computerjoe's talk 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Computerjoe, you said it yourself. Community Justice needs changing. If it needs changing, then we should get cutting as soon as we can. Personally, I'm pushing for the name The Civility Project as a name change. Images, etc. can be settled after that. --Osbus 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That name make us sound like a WikiProject, which we are not. Computerjoe's talk 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should calm down in rushing to change the name. Yes, a change may be good, but if we change it and are unhappy with that, forcing us to change again, it will not assist in any way. Ian13/talk 09:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree totally with you Ian Mahogany
Further to that - no-one can agree on what to change it to, so just changing will leave a lot of people unhappy. Ian13/talk 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it might be better to just change it to a so-so, albeit descriptive, name, rather than wait to agree on the perfect name and end up not changing it from its current, problematic name. "The Civility Project" as suggested above, or anything of that nature, would be quite adequate. — Matt Crypto 16:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I'm not trying to rush anyone. It's just that everyone seems to agree that we DO need a name change. However, no one wants one b/c it will upset people. Now, that to me is ridiculous. WIth further discussion, I have faith we will come up with a name. Sure, not everyone will like it, but not everyone is happy right not anyway. OF course, it just might be my ny attitude coming in again, but thats how I feel. --Osbus 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the groups aims are a little unclear and it hasn't really done anything yet but I know I don't speak alone when I say that the word Justice in the title is problematic. It really does need to change...how about Wikipedians for courteous and civilized editing? Whatever, but the Justice thing has to be changed. Rx StrangeLove 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing we can do is set up a voting/ thing with all the different titles for this orginization, then let all who can put their two cents on that page on which name they like better. Tally it up approve it with the councillors..... Blah, blah, blah you get the point that no one can take action until we have loads of members backing us up. Mahogany 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

We need to actively spread the word of civility. We are a tiny organisation on a huge site. We need to attract more members and be more effective in spreading civility. Can we not get on the main page? or place adverts at the bottom of the most popular articles. We need some form of action. Cicero Dog 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have. Unfort. we can't get onto the Main Page, but we often get on the Community Portal. We can't place links on irrelevant articles, or any in the main namespace. Computerjoe's talk 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can we not try (by talking to the high head-one) arrange for our adverts to be put out there Cicero Dog 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The Wikipedia doesn't work like that :D Computerjoe's talk 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after an edit conflict) No, we are not advertising ourselves on the main page. --Osbus 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we need to do something to raise our profile Cicero Dog 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our profile is high, considering we are a small organisation. We are probably going to do something with WP:ESP in the future. Computerjoe's talk 21:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need some programs... — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Computerjoe's talk 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Poll

Per Xchrisblackx's suggestion I've created a poll for names to move CJ to. If you wish to add one, feel free to do so. You can support as many as you like. Computerjoe's talk 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who want a change but are unsure of what name, add your name to the Change section. Names will be settled after we determine how many members actually want a change. --Osbus 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Change

  1. Not that I oppose to a name change in general, it's just that the proposed names don't appeal to me. Misza13 T C 20:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You can add your own. Computerjoe's talk 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. I just don't have any ideas right now. Misza13 T C 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry - I don't see a huge conflict in our current name and aims, and I feel there is a lot more we could do instead. Ian13/talk 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. CJ is perhaps a slight misnomer, but not that serious to hurry. Plus, I personally got attached to it anyway. Misza13 T C 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support this mainly. Computerjoe's talk 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Preferred choice. (^'-')^ Covington 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It was the name that first attracted me to the project. Justice will be served by civility as valid arguments will not be lost in a sea of bad faith. Sophia 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Put your name here if you feel you want a change

  1. Osbus 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Civility Project

  1. (^'-')^ Covington 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. • The Giant Puffin • 10:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Osbus 14:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@
  5. - Pureblade | Θ 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Civility

  1. Computerjoe's talk 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cicero Dog 10:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mahogany 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Comission

Civilians

  1. Civility and humor go hand in hand. Al 13:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer of Civility

  1. lots of issues | leave me a message 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly

  1. --SPUI (T - C) 12:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Sean Black 02:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ral315 (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The word Justice and the word Civil have two completely different meanings. So there's an enormous conflict between the name of the group and it's aims. Furthermore, on the project page (where the aims are presumably spelled out) the word justice does not appear at all outside of the name of the group. It's one thing to call for civility among editors, it's something completely different to call for justice. Anyone can work toward civility, but "justice" is a much trickier concept and one that we already have processes for...this group lays outside of the dispute resolution process. Using the word justice in the name is false pretenses and really needs to be replaced. There's plenty of good options, in my opinion justice isn't one of them and if it stays in the name I'm guessing it'll be decided at WP:MFD. Rx StrangeLove 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't wanna be so pushy about this, Rx. I don't see how it hurts anything to let these guys do their thing. -- SCZenz 01:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly don't want to appear pushy. But I stand by my comments, they don't speak for the community and justice isn't a part of the groups goals. Take out the context on these pages for a moment and put yourself in the place of a new or infrequent editor. You see a civility warning from what appears to be a community based enforcement group...I think there's harm in misrepresentation like that. And by the looks of things here they want to increase their visibility which just compounds the problem. Am I wrong? Rx StrangeLove 06:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to focus on specific actions that might be misleading, rather than on the group itself. The civility warnings have had most, if not all, of the WP:CJ references expunged; if you think there's still a problem, you should edit them further. -- SCZenz 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Computerjoe's talk 09:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes when someone looks to see who left it they see a member of something called Community Justice. The person who left might it even be a councilor or a chief executive/chairman, very formal and official sounding titles. That the group is neither based in the general Community or involved in justice is misleading every time it's used, it can't not be misleading, and there's no way to edit that away. I'm disappointed in Computerjoe's reaction to this...a good faith and civil objection to the name is dismissed with a single "indeed". Anyway, I've said my piece...it'll resolve how it resolves and life will go on. But I stand by this and ask that changing the name be given serious consideration. Rx StrangeLove 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How was this uncivil? My saying indeed I was simply stating my agreement. Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rx never said you were incivil...Rx may have also taken your "indeed" as sarcasm or just a noncomittal, lazy response that devalued his proposal. --Osbus 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My stating SCZenz's response was civil, I took he/she was implying mine was not. Nvm. Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Osbus got it right....I didn't say anything about Computerjoe being uncivil. Rx StrangeLove 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not AAGFing. Computerjoe's talk 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view: I'm not a member of CJ for two reasons: 1) I don't have enough time to be active in anything else at the moment 2) The name does seriously puts me off- It gave me the impression of an organization campaigning against admins and authority, that sort of thing. Or campaigning for wikipedian 'rights'; something I'm opposed to- we all have responsibilities, we don't have rights (apart from right to fork, right to leave). I'm not saying this is what you do, that's just what your name brings to mind. Petros471 10:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, so far, the best suggestion is The Civility Project. It sounds good, and reflects our aims - • The Giant Puffin • 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Forwards...

I think we should move forwards. We, including myself, are spending too long on bureaucracy. We need to start taking actions, albeit it be be programs or something else. IMO, the group will not gain consensus on a name change, so surely it should remain the same? Computerjoe's talk 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you didn't delete my comment on purpose... --Osbus 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did not. I was replying to a previous comment of yours, and i must've edited an old version, and accidently revert. My apologies. I've restored it. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all right. --Osbus 16:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the logic there...however, as you are Chairman, you may decide what to do. But I do think a bigger issue at hand is lack of participance among our eighty something members. SO yes, a program would be the best way to go. --Osbus 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving the poll open, in the hope consensus will be reached. However, it is pointless not moving forwards when we are having the poll. Yes, participance is a problem and if anyone has suggestions on how to improve it I'd appreciate it. Computerjoe's talk 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here's the situation as i read it - and i am known as a man of action as this community knows - 9 want a change 5 don't therefore there must be a change and i feel the chairman must take the final decision. The Civility Project seems most popular. I would suggest a swift change to that within the next few days before we are bogged down in polls and opinion! Cicero Dog 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple votes :P . I'm afraid consensus isn't going to be reached. Therefore, I'm keeping it open in case consensus is every reached. Computerjoe's talk 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are 79 members consensus could take months we need action. Anf you are the man for the job User:computerjoe Cicero Dog 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Untill we can clearly see that one option passes - it will remain open. If we still can't see any direction, then the move will be dropped. Ian13/talk 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the poll should be redesigned...the current format is cluttered and leaves no room for consensus. We should therefore divide the poll into only two sections: CHANGE and NO CHANGE. If CHANGE wins, we will then conduct a second poll with various choices. If NO CHANGE wins, we won't change. How does this sound. --Osbus 22:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's do that - • The Giant Puffin • 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that will work. Then what do we change to? And what do the people who don't want it changing vote for in that second poll. That will just lead to a minority winning in my opinion. Ian13/talk 08:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'm not particuarly bothered if we keep the existing name, as long as we achieve our goals. But it seems such a problem to some people. I honestly cant believe a name can put people off as to stop them joining. I think we should develop some programs before we start work on less important issues like the name. It's all well and good having a nice name, but if we havent achieved anything, then its a waste of time - • The Giant Puffin • 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The people who are most concerned are those outside the group who think that your current name may cause people to misunderstand what your group is doing, and who you represent. I share these concerns myself, for what it's worth; although the timing isn't urgent, I think it would be nice if y'all eventually settled on a name that reflects your current goals. A name change is not a huge deal, but it is also dealt with quite easily the way things are usually done on Wikipedia; if you prefer to continue discussing the best polling method for your name change, well, you can always talk about substantive issues at the same time. But please don't give up on the name change because you've created such a complicated process for it! -- SCZenz 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Sure, this is a frustrating, tedious process, but if its right, we should! I mean, even our own chairman thinks we need a name change. Oh, btw Ian13, minority doesn't win...if NO NAME CHANGE loses, its because less people voted for that. --Osbus 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of a name change, however I would only be happy doing so with a clear consensus. Computerjoe's talk 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Actually Move Forwards...

Ideas for program and such. Please. Computerjoe's talk 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few users have brought up some criticism, mostly legit (although perhaps premature), of CJ on Comp. Joe's RfA page. One that caught my attention is that CJ has been something of a "time sink", which I partially agree with... there's been a lot of time spent of who to put on probation, what image to use, and name changes, but not much towards things of a more useful nature. I've been a party to this as well.

For me, it's time to either get serious about finding a purpose for CJ, or move on to other projects (and returning once there's more direction). Since there hasn't been much offered in the way of ideas for the future, let me suggest a different approach: identifying the problems that CJ was created to address. If the problems can be outlined, then it'd be easier to nail down possible solutions. Here's a start; feel free to change what I've written for clarity, conciseness, or whatever:

Problem:
  • Stressful conflicts in editing can create a difficult environment to reach consensus in.
Solutions:
  • The use of templates on both article talk and user talk pages, such as {{Calm talk}} to serve as reminders of WP:CIVIL.
  • Personal interaction on involved users' talk pages by CJ members to A. identify the source of conflict (for example, differing points of view on the authenticity of a historical document), B. finding commonalities and points of agreement between concerned parties, C. clearly outlining differences, D. finding a means to work relevant/verifiable/notable material into articles in a manner acceptable to all parties involved.

Now, I'm not saying that every new idea has to follow that format. Just that it may be a helpful means to outline goals for an organization that's struggling. One last thing. I've suspected for a while that CJ may be over-organized. In other words, is there a strong need for a newsletter, for example, or a "governing body"? Certainly the efforts involved are admirable, and done by editors that I respect. But CJ may be something more akin to the Welcoming Committee, which is a much looser organization based upon some more basic concepts. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tijauna Brass for keeping us on track...anyhow, I don't think we differentiate enough from other WP groups out there. However, I thought a little about what makes us different from say, Esperanza, Mediation Cabal, or welcoming committee. Well, we're a combination of everything, is all I can say. --Osbus 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why my RfA is failing :P . I believe we should do more than templates, I like the programs idea. Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What On Earth?

I find it hard to believe that after discussing an issue which is of great importance and coming to no conclusion we immediately discard the idea and start discussing capatalisation over the picture of a duck. could we please concentrate on important issues. Thank You Cicero Dog 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Enough ducks :D . Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've removed it as disruptive. SPUI, enough with the ducks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WUF

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia United Front is looking for new members Cicero Dog 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now what inspired you to create this. --Osbus 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i hope that isn't a mordant tone you're taking Osbus i am merely trying to better wikipedia by creating yet another page of friendly do-gooders that is all. Cicero Dog 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Key words: "yet another" - • The Giant Puffin • 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
o, the incivility burns my eyes out replacing them with empty cavaties of sin - or perhaps better - a big yellow bird pecks out my eyes leaving them as broken crators of incivility.... Cicero Dog 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I hardly think this is the time, place, or people to attack for incivility. If you wish to moan about how civil people are - can you please do it constructively, and WP:AAGF. Ian13/talk 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i did ian, i fear you may have misunderstood ye ken? Cicero Dog 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Don't take me the wrong way now Cicero Dog. I was just implying that it is a bit redundant...not trying to be mordant here. --Osbus 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal (or a war!)

Okay, please don't think I am going mad here.

I have heard it said (or atleast implied) that we need to be more active, and spend less time on beurocracy. I propose that this organsiation dissolves its council, and executive + chairman roles. I think people may have a better outlook of us then, and that we could work better with everyone having a mutual role.

Obviously, I welcome your views, since I expect a lot of people oppose this idea. Ian13/talk 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that by squabbling like this we are destroying CJ slowly, being not only hypocrites are constantly joining now our own Chief Executive is proposing that his own seat not even exist. We are not only making more people not want to join but making ourselves look more foolish. We must fix these holes (We must especially solve the name issue soon!) quickly so we shall not lose CJ with our own foolishness. Mahogany
Ian13, I was about to say the same thing, but I deleted it. I agree. I will hapilly resign from my post. Computerjoe's talk 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand both of you two members getting rid of your seats but we need a council, as to help solve certain problems that we don't have time to sit and squabble over for months waiting for most members to agree Mahogany
A council is good. What about chairman and CEO just becoming councillors? Computerjoe's talk 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a good idea. I just want to try and make us seem less 'silly' as it were. Ian13/talk 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Most decisions on Wikipedia are made by whoever is interested contributing until discussion dies down, not by waiting for 70 people to vote. Maybe your perceived need for a council is based on a misunderstanding of the usual Wikipedia consensus process. -- SCZenz 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hang on, i wanted to do this a week a go....and with less violant language than aA PROPOSAL(OR A WAR) and i was blocked i feel that there is a certain amount of hipocracy and cronyism in who gets blocked and who stays on. I might add that perhaps an elected "dictator" figure would be better than a council - like a supreme president who is voted for every 6 months Cicero Dog 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am all too aware of the consensus process, however, as you said it takes to long for 70 to vote. An idea would be to let all interested parties vote. Re: Cicero Dog that was humour. Computerjoe's talk 17:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how that would work but we really need more democracy than a huge dictator telling what we need to do. Mahogany:
oh yes i see the humour now (not really but i'll take your word that it's there)... i don't mean a dictator like Sadam Hussein or Hitler i more mean a figure of authority to make decisions but who is answerable to the community. Cicero Dog 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe this would be better if you would explain the job of this let's say "dictator" Mahogany
by all means.... they would be elected every 3 or 6 months (6 months maximum) to lead the community justice project. They can not stand for term twice in a row to prevent a real dictatorship. They would discuss with other members here in the discussion page ideas and then chose what they view to be the best option. They will then head the decided programme taking on board comments from other members. They will, however, be able to be over thrown if the power goes to their heads by a vito if 5 members sign their names as strongly opposing the leader. The dictator/leader/bossman will have the final say on all issues cutting down on beurocracy and the enormous aamount of time wasted. If there are any further questions feel free to ask. Cicero Dog 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need more than one opinion. Computerjoe's talk 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We will make it legislation that the "dictator" must discuss with members before he acts or he will be "overthrown" the dictator will also make up an advisory council (made up of the most senior and wise members) They have no real power but can help the "dictator" make the correct decision Cicero Dog 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like more hassle. Computerjoe's talk 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing Can be "more hassle" than the present system - and don't worry Joe i'll vote for you when push comes to shove (said jokingly not offensively) Cicero Dog 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman Becomes Councillor (x2)

I took the plunge. I've demoted myself to councillor, as I'm sick of the extra layer of bureaucracy. Ian13 will become acting chairman until he decides as to whether to demote himself to councillor, or remain as chair until November. Either way, the post of CEO will be scrapped in the next election. Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad day for cxommunity justice....computerjoe will be deeply missed...but he is now in a better place Cicero Dog 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I view that as a personal attack, I hope it is humourous - I really do... Ian13/talk 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I hereby announce:

  1. The next election will take place 1/8/06, and will then occur every 4 months.
  2. The board of councillors will contain 7 for now, but this will decrease to 6 post-election.
  3. The roles of chairman and chief executive are removed.
  4. And I therefore demote myself to councillor, and form the 7th councillor.
    Ian13/talk 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcousrse it's humourous! however, if you wish to twist it into a cryptic death threat feel free. Cicero Dog 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elected Dictator like role?

The Leader/"Dictator" would be elected every 3 or 6 months (6 months maximum) to lead the community justice project. They can not stand for term twice in a row to prevent a real dictatorship. They would discuss with other members here in the discussion page ideas and then chose what they view to be the best option. They will then head the decided programme taking on board comments from other members. They will, however, be able to be over thrown if the power goes to their heads by a vito if 5 members sign their names as strongly opposing the leader. The dictator/leader/bossman will have the final say on all issues cutting down on beurocracy and the enormous aamount of time wasted. We will make it legislation that the "dictator" must discuss with members before he acts or he will be "overthrown" the dictator will also make up an advisory council (made up of the most senior and wise members) They have no real power but can help the "dictator" make the correct decision. Isee it as the only way to save community justice from a slippery slope leading to ruin. who is with me? Cicero Dog 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We can run loosely, as what you once said actions speak louder than words made me think. Removing obstacles and making the whole organisation much less formal will be best. Computerjoe's talk 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the council must resign and we should fall into a communist like society, no? Cicero Dog 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Computerjoe's talk 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then what? parliamentary democracy? constitutional monarchy (can i be king?) erm....presidential congresship? Cicero Dog 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. A semi-democratic-anarchy. :P Computerjoe's talk 18:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, very good idea. I still Think Ian 13 should resign tho' and just have a coucil. Cicero Dog 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its all explained above. Even if I were to stay, I wouldn't expect to be commented on :P Ian13/talk 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just drop the whole political stance idea. :) Ian13/talk 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless you should resign. It's the honourable thing to do. In my opinion if we are to have a chairman at all it should be computerjoe. If nnot him no one. Cicero Dog 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should have just a council, as having a leader makes us even more formal, which can put people off. Having a council with a leader that can be removed is better than the current system because it stops the leader going wayward (i think thats the right spelling). Maybe a proposal should be made for the members to decide on? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the council can stop a chairman (and chairman stop CEO). However, both chair and CEO have resigned. Computerjoe's talk 18:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have resigned, but not because its 'honourable'. Ian13/talk 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why then? lol Cicero Dog 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you all expect Ian13 to do? The chairman has stepped down implying the chief exec to do the same. Kind of a difficult position. --Osbus 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so he did do it out of honour....that's all i wanted to hear.... Cicero Dog 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did NOT do it out of honour. Obviously there was an expectation that I stand down, but I did it because I also feel that doing so would be a positive action. Ian13/talk 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Of A New (and hopefully Better) Age

May i welcome our new council and ask if anyone has any auggestions towards the betterments of this organisation.... Cicero Dog 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wish all the best of luck to the new-formed council. My personal opinion (drawn from the ESP experience) is that having one councillor of "higher rank" than the others (an executive in contrast to the legislative) is a Good Thing(TM), but let's see how this works out. Misza13 T C 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a point user:ian13 says the council will be reduced to 6 surely 5 is better or at least an odd number - to prevent voting ties and further disagreement Cicero Dog 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good point...5 is a good number. --Osbus 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Concordia/Archive_3&oldid=1142666053"