Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 2

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.

archive talk page

Shall we? --Osbus 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is getting a bit long - • The Giant Puffin • 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, it's our first archive! I used the subpage method because I hope our talk page will become very, very active. --Osbus 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Computerjoe's talk 08:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Osbus 13:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, it would be better to let conversations become dormant (for at least a week or so) before archiving them. Archiving an entire talk page actually makes following the discussion more difficult, rather than less so. -- Visviva 05:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt

I've removed this from the Community Justice cat - I believe I have consensus. Computerjoe's talk 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, by the looks of it's going to be deleted. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, its stepped up a gear over there - now Jimbo Wales is apparently involved, as well as the original WoW member. Ian13/talk

:D Computerjoe's talk 19:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's funny... it really didn't seem that significant. Clearly didn't have any chance passing. Interesting that Jimbo has commented there, but not on WP:HIRE, which seems far more controversial to me. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Jimbo's not involved any more than the nom editing him into it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it seems Jimbo has stepped down - or at least someone felt he never stood. :D Ian13/talk 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed Jimbo from the justices list because he was added by another user. This has happened again. I don't see why people think they can act for other users without permission. - Pureblade | ^Θ 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

They can't. I contacted Jimbo over this, no response. Computerjoe's talk 08:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo never (well, at least almost never) answers his talk page replying to issues as small as this one, so it's pretty useless trying to contact him--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I realise. Just notifying. Computerjoe's talk 07:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility barnstar

		Civility barnstar
		Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Sed sem nulla, consequat et, euismod vel, nonummy ut, turpis. Phasellus dapibus.

What do you think? Computerjoe's talk 09:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

V. nice - but I can't read latin ;) Ian13/talk 09:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks great but I can't read it either... – Tutmøsis (Talk) 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

LMFAO, you do realise it's a Lorem Ipsum I was just using to demonstrate? Computerjoe's talk 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Was that an insult? Tut tut. You're not getting a Civility Barnstar from me. No sir. </sarcasm> --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

haha... no insult, just stating the obvious. &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Ian13 and Tutmosis, the Lorem Ipsum text is not supposed to be real Latin. It's just a "test passage". If it makes you feel better, if it were in Latin, I would be able to read it. (^'-')^ Covington 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after the elections we'll push this as a barnstar. Computerjoe's talk 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Intresting, so does this say anything in particular or just made up? It looks quite good when someone says something nice in a different unreadable text. I wonder why? &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all made up phrases. Designers use it to test layouts because it takes the focus away from waht the text says and puts the focus on the design. (^'-')^ Covington 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The user chooses the text. Computerjoe's talk 07:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Hope it gets through the barnstar process. ConDem^Talk 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job working on the barnstar! I really like the design. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, looks cool. We should definately go for this as a barnstar after the elections - • The Giant Puffin • 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great and I can think of one editor who deserves it already. I'm sure it will be positively received as I had two nice messages from editors working on Homeopathy where I placed {{Calm Talk}} after reading the talk page. There is definitely support out there for this civilty campaign. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good but can the language be in English? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and it will be. Read the conversation above and you will see: "{{Lorem ipsum}} is example text used by designers, meant to take the focus off what is written and focus more on the design." — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility barnstar proposal on the WP:BARNSTAR page

The Civility barnstar has been sent as a proposal to WP:BARNSTAR. It is visible here. Computerjoe's talk 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am interested in seeing an award come out of your efforts. I think that it is covered by the Barnstar of Good Humor, The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, or Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience. I think that Wikipedia:Community Justice should consider adopting one of those awards. --evrik 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Those barnstars aren't as specific. Computerjoe's talk 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think your award is 'splained well enough. If you look at the Saint Star, it has been adapted by each of three user groups. I think that if civility is your goal, then an existing award should suffice, byut you can set the terms on how you want to present it. --evrik 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you see an editor remain civil in the face of goading by other editors. This is something that should be recognised and rewarded as it's one of the key qualities of a great editor. Civility has it's own policy which is quoted a lot - so why not it's own barnstar? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 09:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Created a redirect page Community Justice instead of writting "Wikipedia:" every time in the search box. Anyone object to this or does a policy exist that "wikipedia:" pages arent allowed to have redirects? I personally never heard of such a thing and created a couple such redirects for various other pages in the past. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CJ has existed since January 12th. - Pureblade | ^Θ 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Better have two than one, if you forget the shortcut, you now can just type "Community Justice" in the search bar. I see no harm in that. &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that it is policy to retain namespace notices in redirects. IE: All Wikipedia: namespace pages must have WP: in front of them. All articles in the article namespace, with no prefix, have to be valid encyclopedic articles. - Pureblade | ^Θ 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I have seen policy redirects in the main space. Computerjoe's talk 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of any of these. Links? - Pureblade | ^Θ 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith Computerjoe's talk 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding any policy forbidding redirects to namespaces or a policy demanding notices to be used in redirects... can't find it in Help:Namespace or Help:Redirect. So would some be kind enough to show me where this policy is stated so that I might know for future reference? &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects are contrary to policy and should basically never occur. I've deleted the redirect. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for creating the redirect and I won't remake it. I still want to know why namespace redirect shouldn't exist. I'm beating this into the ground because this times aren't the middle ages and "something is wrong because its wrong" answers don't satisfy me. So care to ellaborate why namespace redirects are "contrary to policy"? &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To reduce the chances that some poor reader will warp their way into policy cruft. It's also part of avoiding self reference. --Gmaxwell 02:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's mainly because the article namespace is meant only for encyclopedic articles; things that contribute directly to the goal of publishing Wikipedia. The namespaces exist for that purpose: to seperate Wikipedia infastructure and inner working and the encyclopedic content released to the public. - Pureblade | ^Θ 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's contrary to policy, why does Assume good faith exist? Shouldn't that be deleted too? — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should, but it's rather old and kind of grandfathered in, in the sense that nobody really thinks it's worth it to delete; that doesn't mean that creating new article space-to-project space redirects is a good idea. -- SCZenz 08:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Community Justice" also the name of a notable government organization in the state of Oregon? [1] If so then I don't think a redirect would be possible.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible if theres no page on the government organisation - • The Giant Puffin • 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What if someone would like to create an article on this gov. organization? I don't think a redirect of is necessary, unless we all too lazy to type WP:CJ. --Osbus 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies I think I got the general idea now. Sorry for my persistance. &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the name about, then?

You say, "Our goal, put very simply, is to encourage the community to be more civil so Wikipedians may state their opinions in an appropriate manner. We hope to promote civility within the community to make Wikipedia a nicer place to work. OK, that sounds very good to me, but what's that got to do with "community justice"? Seems a very misleading name, to me. — Matt Crypto 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Our goal when we started was different. New names have been proposed (see archive). Computerjoe's talk 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, well why not choose one? — Matt Crypto 07:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The council, and perhaps all the members, will vote for one after the elections - • The Giant Puffin • 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The council shall brainstorm, with suggestions taken from others if any, and members shall choose. --Osbus 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I came across the page. Why not find a permanent name first? If you have a functioning body with two names people will possibly get confused, resulting in your goal not being fulfilled. Ansell 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

After the elections....

I agree with the goals of this project, but what puts me off somewhat is the bureaucracy. For example, the name is clearly wrong, but it can't be fixed until a "council" has been set up and chooses a new one. But that requires a lengthy vote, for some reason, which involves people who meet five criteria, and special "election staff" etc etc. Why is all of that needed? Why not just have a WikiProject to encourage people to be civil without turning it into a special society? I don't wish to come across as negative and critical (well, I probably am!), and I think the goal of the project is spot on, but it would seem more wikipedian somehow if it were more casual. Just my two pennies. — Matt Crypto 08:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep it casual. That reflects on what we are trying to achieve. People communicate better when the environment is warm and casual, not cold steel and hardened bureaucracy. I suggest that we all agree on our identity before we commence elections. IsraelBeach 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Its okay to have entry criteria to keep absolute newbies from acting in ways they dont understand yet, but please dont go down the bureaucratic red tape line. The name can be decided on by putting suggestions down and seeing which one is liked... Straw polls after you have people voted into an organisation with a goal but not a name may not be the best way to get the community behind this initiative. Ansell 11:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. If this method doesnt work, maybe we can consider a change next time - • The Giant Puffin • 12:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the elections weren't in progress, I'd consider a name change - but as it is so close I may as well! A WikiProject is about the content of the encyclopaedia, this is not. Hope I've clarified. Computerjoe's talk 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've not really addressed the question of whether a council etc is particularly necessary. — Matt Crypto 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason a council is necessary is to represent members. WP:ESP, for example, have to have a council as involving every member in straw poles would be too hard. Computerjoe's talk 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have straw polls on Wikipedia-wide issues involving much larger numbers of editors? It's not so hard...open discussion and consensus making among all comers is how we generally do things here, not limiting decision making to a small group councilors and a Chief Executive. I agree with Matt Crypto here. Civility is becoming a real issue on Wikipedia for sure, but do we need a Chairman, Chief Executive and 5 councilors to decide how to encourage civility?

Perhaps the council should decide! :P In a country, why do we need MPs? Why not just have a referendum on every decision? 20:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)—The preceding comment was added by Computerjoe

I'm not sure, but I still don't understand why you need a Chief Executive and 5 councilors to do what every editor on Wikipedia can do by him or herself? I mean, good goal but if you need a new name, make a new section and start kicking names around. And for sure you don't need a chairman to make a new template that asks for more civility. Anyway, I agree that too many editors walk a fine line when it comes to WP:CIVIL these days. Rx StrangeLove 04:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What's in a name? Everything! Community Justice does sound like a harsh enforcement agency. I would suggest: Wikis Say No To Personal Attacks,Creating Bridges For Effective Communication or Community Communication. The concept of this group is ... excellent! IsraelBeach 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you...I think it's rather excellent too. --Osbus 15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the name, I would support having a vote on it - democracy is the way to go, after all. However, on whether we should have a council or not, it is important to have a representative for the members. Having straw polls that all members can vote in will take too long, and not all the members would bother to vote. The council is needed to help govern the group. Everybody knows you cant leave things to the voting public. If Rx StrangeLove's system was the norm, we wouldnt have leaders in any organisation on WP and things would just be one big argument between lots of people with different views. That's one of the reasons TfD is going down the pan, and people (including me) are leaving projects like the Userbox one! Just my two cents - • The Giant Puffin • 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. From my experience, I've learned that with a large group (more than 10 people), you need officers, because it gives the group more direction. The council does day to day stuff, but for all major decisions, all members can vote. Although members do not have the extra responsibility that the council has, members are encouraged to get involved in Community Justice. Please speak up, because we want to know what you have to say. (^'-')^ Covington 17:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil Team Re: RfC Woggly

I recently joined Community Justice and commend User talk:Computerjoe on this creative, warm and critical initiative. There is no reason for conflict if effective, friendly communication is present by both sides. Communication = understanding, understanding = respect and tolerance. At the very least parties can agree to disagree with a smile.

I am presently coordinating a team of civil advocates for my RfC addressing personal attacks and harassment by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her personal attacks and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Woggly. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 10:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggesr if anything, you use WP:AMA. We may provide opinions, but the organisation will not actually get involved, beyond civility warnings! Computerjoe's talk 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, representing members isn't our thing. We can hand out civility warnings though. --Osbus 15:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that CJ would take a slightly more active role in these sort of things. However, if the group doesnt want to, doesnt harm if I take a look at the RfC - • The Giant Puffin • 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

At the current time, the group itself doesn't offer advocacy or mediation. This, in time, may change! Computerjoe's talk 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering User:Israelbeach's willingness to deliberately violate policy by posting the personal information of another user online — leading to a subsequent block — I believe that his membership from Community Justice should be revoked. While I wouldn't suggest removing members who falls into the occasional civility issue, this runs strongly against what CJ was created for. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The council will... decide... Computerjoe's talk 09:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it will be decided by the council once the council is set up - • The Giant Puffin • 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's another thing for your council to decide. I'm pretty sure Misza13 suggesting another editor needs to be slapped does not fall in line with Community Justice goals Rx StrangeLove 23:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this show that the "community" is powerless if it does not have internal consistency? Ansell 01:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I agree with Cyde's motives but I wouldn't go as far as to say that he deserves a slap. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

By any chance is this humour over an attack? Computerjoe's talk 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Methinks this is humour...let's not get our knickers up in a bunch. --Osbus 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit was an attempt at irony firmly based in good faith. I think the organisation has a great goal, but the way it is going about it seems to have some flaws, as I pointed out. Ansell 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about your edit...at least, I'm not. --Osbus 02:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's assume good faith and say it was a joke, I'm not sure how joking about hitting someone and {{Calm talk}} fit together on such a heated page. He is consistently uncivil on that page, I'll leave it to you guys to decide what responsibilities your members have to promote civil debate. Rx StrangeLove 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil tags

Moved from the front page below the civil warning tags. Ian13/talk 19:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[bold]I doubt it is ever appropriate to place those on a user's talk page. It is only something that will incite more defensiveness by the offender. It shows no understanding of the situation. Personal attacks are undesirable, for sure, but so often occur because the Wiki mass mob has provoked them reapeatedly to attack. I wouldn't even doubt that this a ploy that the mob uses to get the singled out editor to attack, in frustration. Please follow cases of some strong personal attacks. I believe you will see what I mean. Thanks for following up on this.[/bold] Maggiethewolfstar 20:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people seem opposed to warnings on the whole, though they are necessary. Not all incivility are personal attacks. Some times it's just generally being unpleasant. Civility tags, amazingly, do not provoke as unlike NPA warnings they do not make threats. Computerjoe's talk 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do people dislike these templates so much? They do not attack anyone and are not aggressive. They are generally useful in several situations and I support their use in appropriate cases - • The Giant Puffin • 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add my SUPPORT in this. I feel they are quite useful in appropriate cases. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To add my two cents, I generally avoid the use of a template for civility suggestions — not because I don't think that they're useful, but because they're impersonal, and it's difficult enough as it is to tell somebody "stop being rude" without offending them (and possibly being incivil yourself in the process). Even when we may use it with the best intentions, it's easy to misinterpret a thing like that, and we should take as much responsibility upon ourselves as possible to be the peacemakers in the process, even if it means bending over backwards to do so. Personal messages are far, far more effective and show a different level of sincerity. Besides, it takes a whole extra 30 seconds to write something out... big deal. If a TfD came up, I wouldn't vote either way, knowing that some people like the templates — but all the same, I'd advise against using them. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the introduction of {{tracker}} our civility warnings have been used 50 times. Not bad, IMO. Computerjoe's talk 07:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If by "to be the peacemakers in the process, even if it means bending over backwards to do so" you mean we should take a more active role, I'm with you there. But I still think the templates can play a role in things - if it is a small one, so be it - • The Giant Puffin • 08:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz has changed {{Civil1-n}} and {{Civil2-n}}. I'm fine with the modifications - are you? Computerjoe's talk 08:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

People who aren't fine with it can edit them—this is a wiki and all!—although you might want to consider whether the contents of the template are going to be accurate when people use them as intended. I assume you didn't mean to imply that Community Justice "owns" the civility templates, Computerjoe, but you might want to be careful with your language in that regard. -- SCZenz 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no, I didn't mean to imply that. I realise anyone can edit them, I was just asking for feedback - as if we work together as a group to change it the improvements will probably be better. Computerjoe's talk 08:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They look fine now - • The Giant Puffin • 12:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Council

So the council is elected. I pass on my congratulations to everybody who got a seat, and my condolences to everyone who didn't - especially Dr Mahogany. Computerjoe's talk 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Computerjoe's Incivility

I have been accused of incivility here and also a few users accuse me of incivility on WikiEN-l.

The incivility is about what I find to be general AfD procedure calling things listcruft and by stating an editor only had 91 edits, and that the edit in particular was the first in the project namespace. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PS2 DVD9 Games.

I am not wanting advocacy, I am still notifying the organisation if I am being a hypocrite (to quote Alphax). Computerjoe's talk 16:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have one word (and please try to think I am also being civil here): Pathetic. Nobody is perfect, and neither are those who are incivil towards you in your discussion of the matter. We work for civility amoung users - not that we are civil towards articles with have no use on an encyclopedia. "Oh no, I think that article should be deleted, yet I can't nominate it for deletion or vote incase someone thinks I am being civil to the author(s). "Comment on the content and not the author" - that is what you were doing, yet people seem to be commentig on you more than what you have said. Your place in CJ should not be referenced really. (As you may guess, my tone is worse than usual. That is because I strongly dislike discussion of contributors outside user talk pages/arbcom/admin noticeboard purely because people can pretty much say what they like and get away with it). (It should also be noted I fully respect many of the people against you, but I feel that using 'leader of CJ' as a way to complain about a user more incivil than the original point.) Ian13/talk 16:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I, actually, posted it on the mailing list as I used the article as a reference in another post; so I thought it appropiate to do so. In many ways, I felt that it was AfD etiquette itself under question - and I was been used as an example. Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that - it is just the responses to your good faith comments which seem poor to me. Ian13/talk 17:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It has now moved from me calling it cruft to me stating it was the first vote. It's tiresom. I'd much rather be subject of a RfC and get it over and done with. Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion with just the rationale "listcruft" is considered rude by at least some people. Listcruft isn't even a criteria for deletion, but more importantly it's a jargon that's going to seem condescending or confusing to newcomers (and non-newcomers)... well-reasoned and argued AfD noms make the whole place a lot more civil. But not everyone realizes the one-word-wonder nominations are considered rude though, so I totally see this being good faith. But uh... you might take it into consideration... thoughtful arguments instead of regurgitated jargon is (to me) an important part of civility. --W.marsh 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, nobody was perfect on WP. Its not like Joe is a constantly incivil person. He has strived for civility by creating CJ and other work throughout WP - • The Giant Puffin • 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Computerjoe was incivil. He called something listcruft...so? That in my opinion, is not rude. If it is, then I'm sure Computerjoe will use a more polite term next time... --Osbus 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above in that there wasn't really a problem here; it's probably more likely that Alphax was interpreting "listcruft" and the edit count as offensive... and, really, that's understandable; "-cruft" sounds like a demeaning word, and it's easy to misunderstand the edit count notice, which is legit, as an attack. Everybody either offends or gets offended at some point here; it's no big deal unless the parties involved are determined to make it one.

I think this all goes back to bending over backwards, within reason (and sometimes without), in the interests of promoting WP:CIVIL and CJ. In a case like this, an apology and explanation are appropriate. Sure, that line of thinking may pave the way for a few trolls, but if met with 20 accusations of incivility, of which 19 are trolls looking to cause trouble, I'd look to appease all 20 cases in order to encourage good faith with the one at the expense of some frayed nerves and time lost to the rest. Right or wrong, Alphax made an important point — members of CJ should do their best to be beyond reproach when it comes to civility issues. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Next Meeting

I've started the page for the next meeting (WT:CJ/M/1) but I'm just asking when people think it should start? Computerjoe's talk 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ASAP i suppose, or as soon as all the council is aware of the results - • The Giant Puffin • 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This time, we ask non-councillors to contribute in the discussion section. Why only non-councillors? - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This will aid straw polls and such. Esperanza have their council meatings on IRC but I feel it impratical as our members are spread throughout the world. Computerjoe's talk 20:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm doing something wrong Mac OS X users can't access IRC channels - I get a error message telling me websites begining with IRC are not supported. If anyone knows how to get this working please let me know. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 20:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to download an IRC client. See List of IRC clients. I never got this working completely myself, so I can't really recommend one. -- SCZenz 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's get to work then. I assume the actual meeting is taking place on WT:CJ/M/1? — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'll do the agenda tomorrow. Computerjoe's talk 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can one of the items on the agenda be the impending/not impending name change? --Osbus 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly. Computerjoe's talk 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If the "formal" discussion is limited to the governing body, perhaps the meeting could be conducted via listserv rather than here, with minutes posted afterwards. May cut down on the confusion of comments made on things which are still being discussed by the gov't. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt there a WT:CJ/M/2, with WT:CJ/M/1 being an archive of the discussion? I find it strange that Meeting 2 is on a page that says Meeting 1 - • The Giant Puffin • 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my way of archiving. WT:CJ/M is the first meeting, M1 second, M2 third etc. feel free to change it. Computerjoe's talk 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has begun! Computerjoe's talk 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tracker

I'd like to suggest that this template be phased out in the near future. (In case anyone doesn't know, Template:Tracker is transcluded as part of subst'ed civility warnings, and is useful because clicking Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tracker shows all the places such warnings have been used.) The reason for discontinuing the use of the tracker is a logistical one, and in fact the same reason why the warning templates themselves are supposed to be subst'ed: the server drain when a widely-used template is changed is enormous. Certainly it has been useful to see if (and how) civility warnings are being used, but after this has been established, the compelling interest for the template goes away—while the server costs of vandalism to the template increase with every subst'ed message. (Protection might solve this, but protecting pages permanently without a very good reason is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Protection policy.) -- SCZenz 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How many people reading this have been using the tracker on a regular basis? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have used a few times recently. I dont think it uses a terrible amount of server space. It helps us keep track of templates, and see which ones are being used the most - which would help us find out in which direction the group should move. Is there any hard eveidence saying that it uses lots of server space? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not, yet, but imagine when there are 10,000 of them? It would be different if they went away after a while, so you could collect monthly statistics, but they stick around forever. Also, frankly, they do defeat the purpose of subst'ing—if everyone did this for their favorite warning template it would be as if we had no subst'ing at all. (And we have subst'ing in the first place because the issues I listed above are real problems.) So the question to ask is, once it's established that the templates are useful, what makes them special enough to warrant what other templates can't have? -- SCZenz 15:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I subst most things, but this thing is pretty much blank, removing some of the strain. Also, it's more important than tracking vandalism warnings, as civility is a topic much wider to arguement. Computerjoe's talk 15:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The strain doesn't happen just because they exist. It happens when they're changed, and the issue is server time rather than server space. Suppose there were 10,000 copies of {{tracker}}, and one day a vandal figured out what it was and put an obscenity there. The effects would be as follows:

1. The servers would update the cache for every page containing the tracker, slowing Wikipedia down for a noticable amount of time.
2. Until someone noticed, all the pages that had a civility warning would now have the obscenity in the middle. (This is the primary reason I watch the template, in fact.)
3. When the vandalism was fixed, Wikipedia would be slowed down again.

The template will never break Wikipedia by itself, but it is bad practice in the sense that if everyone did such things, it could cause the Foundation and developers a serious headache. Obviously there are exceptions where such bad practice is necessary (some vital and often-used templates are protected), but I just don't think there's a case for that here. It's not clear what the purpose of overseeing all civility warnings is, or indeed whether any oversight except compiling statistics (which would be better done with a bot) can possibly scale as the number of template uses increases. -- SCZenz 16:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of the template (for the above reasons). Ian13/talk 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All that has to be done is the {{tracker}} taken out of the other templates; the old copies are few enough that they won't ever matter. -- SCZenz 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If its such a problem, I suppose we could slowly replace it with a better system - • The Giant Puffin • 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I brought this up now because a) the initial usefulness of the tracker seems to be less now that we know it's being used (and how), and b) there isn't a big problem yet. May I suggest that you come up with exactly what you want to compile information for as a first step to "replac[ing] it with a better system"? Maybe you'll find that there are reasons so compelling that it should be kept as-is, maybe you'll find another way that's adequate, or maybe you'll find that you don't really need the tracker at all. So far, I have to say I haven't heard very detailed rationale for what tracker is really for—that is, you want to keep track of all the uses of the civility templates, but why? -- SCZenz 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be instant, my way. Computerjoe's talk 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I can implement a system that I discussed at WT:CJ/M/1. Computerjoe's talk 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. So you'd put user/article talk pages into Category:Pages with civility warnings or something? I don't see a problem offhand, with the caveat that individual users would be well within their rights to remove the category from their pages. -- SCZenz 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but they are well in their right to remove the warning. Computerjoe's talk 07:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

Trying out some new takes on the userbox, as I'm not a huge fan of the CJ logo (nothing personal, CompJoe). I'd like to try out icons that seem to be in the spirit of the project; this time, I tried a globe icon, as the Wikipedia community is global in nature. Any comments? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice. BTW, I only made part of the logo. Computerjoe's talk 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Then, should I say that it's only partially personal? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Liking the new userbox. May I suggest tinting the globe green to go along with the color scheme of the userbox? (^'-')^ Covington 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the obligatory tea cup? Only kidding - looks good. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Took a shot at making it green; I'm not so great with graphic programs, so somebody with more skill might want to fix it up. By the way, it's available at {{User:Tijuana Brass/CJBox}} for the time being. Feel free to play around with it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 11:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice, good job - • The Giant Puffin • 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Great job working on the userbox,--TBC☆^{O M G!} 19:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is almost as attractive as I am... --Osbus 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo?

Not to offend ComputerJoe or anyone, but (as Tijuana Brass said in the comment above mine)the current logo looks like something done on Microsoft Paint. I suggest that we should have a vote to decide on whether to create a new logo or to keep the old one.--TBC☆^{O M G!} 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The current logo was not done all by me. I did the original, which boy was ugly, but pureblade tidied it up. I agree about a new logo though, how about a cup of tea in a dark green circle? Computerjoe's talk 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the current - nice and simple. Some nice graphic effects could be nice though. Ian13/talk 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the logo. It is simple, and stands out with contrasting colours. Although, as I have said with the name change, Im open for suggestions. I might even try one myself - • The Giant Puffin • 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with The Giant Puffin. We could use other designs for other aspects of Community Justice (i.e. awards). (^'-')^ Covington 03:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean no ill will whatsoever towards those who created the current logo, but it could be cleaned up a little. The basic design, wtih the justice scales lady (does she have a name? an article? hmm.... Justice scales lady) and the CJ, is fine by me, but the outline is rough and a little sloppy. I'll start cruising open source clip art to see if there's any good substitutes there, and propose anything I find to see if anyone else likes it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, found Lady Justice. However, on that note, is that the most appropriate logo for the group? A concept of wikijustice is a priority, no doubt, but it wouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind for me when I think of the overarching goal of promoting civility and amiability. Perhaps an Oppenheimer Funds-esque holding hands logo? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tijuana Brass, I'm willing to look at the holding hands logo. Is there a way that I can take a look at how it looks like? (^'-')^ Covington 02:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of this, but original, of course. Image:Logo opp.gif Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Lady Justice and the scales. It suits the group's cause etc - • The Giant Puffin • 14:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a logo proposal (right), in case we do need to vote for one. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it, I'd love to hear them - • The Giant Puffin • 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a little pixelated. Could you save it as a PNG or SVG? Computerjoe's talk 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest use of Inkscape. Computerjoe's talk 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try as a PNG, it does look a bit wierd on here compared to what it looked like on Photoshop

Ok, here's the PNG version. This is the full size, in case making it smaller was making it look pixelated last time - • The Giant Puffin • 17:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a SVG, using Inkscape. Computerjoe's talk 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I cant use this program at all. How do you crop? Wont a PNG do? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

File>Document Preferences Computerjoe's talk 18:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

SVG version is ready, although the thumbnail wont show, and any link to it is red. Maybe the internet link will work: [2] - • The Giant Puffin • 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Also, can we use the Commons? Computerjoe's talk 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

SVG doesn't work becuase it isn't a valid SVG. It is an SVG with a link to a rastor file "C:/Documents...". The new logo also has an undesirable white background, and it is still abit small. To make an SVG you need to redraw an image - not just copy over a raster image - that totally defeats the purpose. Ian13/talk 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some comments- I don't like the use of scales in our logo. Scales are associated with lawyers, trials, and representation of people, which as of now isn't our cup of tea. Also, the light green used in the background of our templates isn't too stylish. Maybe a darker green, white, I don't know. Anyone agree? --Osbus 22:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel the same about the scales and legal-looking images... goes back to the misleading use of "Justice." The green seems okay, although that is the primary color taken by Esperanza, so maybe a new one would help set CJ apart. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I used a white background is because it is neutral. And as for the green, it has always been our primary colour - i just used it the same way as before so dont blame me for that. Im sure a PNG will suffice seeing as I have absolutely no idea how to use Inkscame (as Photoshop is better). If someone wants to propose a logo with the cups of tea in it, fine. I have made enough images for now - • The Giant Puffin • 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PNG support transparency. Computerjoe's talk 07:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm talk changes

{{Calm talk}} as it appears at the moment.

Following a couple of comments on Template talk:Calm talk, I removed the tea picture and comment on {{Calm talk}} (I also removed a newly added suggestion to count to 100, which felt demeaning). I've always enjoyed the tea theme, and while it was partially an attempt at inserting a little humor into tense situations, it had a few downsides:

1. Some users saw it as condescending.
2. It distracted from the "official" looking nature of the template; even though CJ is a group of concerned editors, WP:CIVIL itself is official policy and it was helpful to have an official-looking template to remind others of it on talk pages.
3. The issue of the universality of tea as identifying with civility, as mentioned earlier (something I personally have no problem with).

While I'm by no means the say-all, end-all when it comes to civility templates, I'd strongly suggest discussing the merits of the tea content before reverting if others disagree with my edits; since the template is not subst'd, and is becoming prominent on some pages, it'd be good to minimize changes. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to understand the people who didn't like the relly calm (with a cup) version. The template has now been completely warped from it's original meaning. Most notably, the warning icon must go. It is absolutely unacceptable - will only aggravate people instead of calming them. There is for example Image:teacup.svg, which may be better than the old mug image. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how it has been "completely warped". There's actually no new words here; all that has been removed was a picture of a teacup and "How about a nice cup of tea?" Neither were related to civility, and Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down didn't really address the issue that the template was designed for. Also, that's not a warning icon, it's an attention icon. This is a warning icon. Its purpose is to draw attention to some that's important — and I don't see how it is aggravating anyone. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps create a seperate template that uses the mug and the link to Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, perhaps? I like both. I think Tea is a symbol to calming down, although I also agree that the template is supposed to be an attention, so the attention symbol is appropriate. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought that the cup of tea was much better! Not b/c of the thought that we are trying to sit down and have a cup of tea with the users who are having promblems, but b/c we seem so harsh when using a warning symbol. Mahogany

The ! seems aggrovating, and not friendly. Also, it may seem as a warning. Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already started using the new template [3]. Any comments? Should I remove it? --TBC☆^{O M G!} 16:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you get any complaints there should be no promblem with leaving it there Mahogany

The current revision (with the dove image) is just perfect for me. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Great work. (^'-')^ Covington 19:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dove looks fine - • The Giant Puffin • 10:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done, the dove looks much better than the attention sign. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 11:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible punishments for uncivilty....

I think that banning users seem a bit too harsh... Not b/c they don't deserve it (I assure you I think they sure as heck deserve it!) But b/c we have a chance to help some user become more civil. So instead of banning some user using probation (Where a couple of users would monitor the user in question's edits and constantly remind him/her to be civil) Now for one second think about this and how well this will work. As for the opposite choice if the user in question does not want to take probation the shall have to be permabanned from CJ. Any input on this matter?? (It's currently being voted for in the CJ meeting) Mahogany

I added probation as a valid thing. Computerjoe's talk 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, I'm just trying to get the members to add their thoughts to the issue Mahogany

Probation is a great idea...however, if necessary, suspensions of a limited time should be used. So far, I feel that no users have deserved suspensions. --Osbus 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A motion for a member's removal.

I motion for Misza13's removal (or suspension) from Community Justice on the following grounds:

• In the IRC channel and in front of Computerjoe, he has been repeatedly incivil and argumentative and shows no remorse for previous personal attacks.
• I remind the membership that this organization is about civility, something that was shown very little in this entire log.

I push for immediate action. Members of this organization need to at least pretend to uphold the values that this organization stands for.

— nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You too, were been incivil. It is best for both parties to simply drop it. Computerjoe's talk 16:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not drop this issue. I was wronged and I want restitution. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:POINT. I was attacked repeatedly and I want this dealt with. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You must not be hypocrit if you were uncivil you must mention that too Mahogany

Look, this whole situation started when Misza decided upon himself to attack me in the Esperanza IRC channel. I brought this up in the CJ channel because I didn't want this to happen here. I spelled out exactly what I saw as an attack, yet I was attacked even more. Meanwhile, what I feared has happened - the whole thing is repeating itself all over again. Does this organization stand for civility or not? — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 16:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A log of the discussion is here Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I already provided logs. They say the same thing as yours do. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

but if you don't believe him I can provide my logs. ILovEPlankton 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Motion for Misza13's removal (or suspension) Opposed. I have read the logs and see two people (to copy a word repeatedly used in the log) acting childishly, continuing an aggresive, uncivil argument with personal attacks from both parties. Despite Computerjoe's requests for the argument to stop and user's to calm down (<nathanrdotcom|aw>:I'm not going to chill.). Indeed the most sensible course of action has already been suggested by Computerjoe, to let the matter drop, which has been completly rejected with a reply I find to be far too aggresive (being aggresive is also a form of incivility) in refusing to back down and demanding action. This is not how we prefer to do things on CJ, we like to chill with a clichéd cup of tea and calmly discuss like adults. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this requires tea and biscuits to sort out? When my kids are behaving like that above I always distract them with food. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. :P Computerjoe's talk 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Motion objected Computerjoe's talk 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll provide the Hob Nob's. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Food all round it is then! *thumbs up* - • The Giant Puffin • 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! But I think if both continue to cause problems maybe we could try out probation. Mahogany

I'd support that if the problem carried on - • The Giant Puffin • 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me why I should "chill" when someone I've called a friend has betrayed me? You don't see my side of the story. Misza has been incivil before and apologized. Now he's incivil again which renders his previous apology meaningless. Can you possibly understand from my side of the story how I'd feel betrayed? No, I won't "chill" and I won't drop this until it's dealt with properly, either I call for his head (so to speak), his suspension or I will leave and you can all encourage further incivility. Misza's actions and words are unacceptable, and I want an apology not to me, but to the community.

Edit: Relaxing is a good idea though, but I propose to do it my way, not just relax to forget about the problem. I also encourage Misza13 to do the same. Agreeing to be put on probation is not enough - that is just a slap on the wrist. Actually apologizing to the community (for making a lapse in judgement and acting in a manner that does not befit a member of this community), thinking about the problem (thinking about where we all went wrong) and promising to do better is a better solution - but one I fear will be ignored.

I can admit where I went wrong. I was upset and felt betrayed (and I still feel betrayed) so I apologize to the community for my lapse in judgement. I know I'm not without fault (so please stop trying to drill this into my head, ok? :D) However, I was not "stamping my feet and threatening to leave if things did not go my way" (I feel this can be read as a personal attack. Danlina, you could have worded this in a neutral way but this is unacceptable. It's just plain offensive. I'm 29 and way more mature than that even on my bad days), leaving on principle because (in my perception at the time) — CJ not dealing with a member who is being incivil is unacceptable, so I would've left on principle not because I am immature and saying "oh fine then!" There is a difference, you know). I know I can do better, I'm not innocent either (So don't pressure me to admit my faults, I know I have them :D).

Basically this boils down to: I was attacked without provocation, and the attack continued even though I reacted not in the most ideal way. Two wrongs don't make a right, but nobody asks to be attacked. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What about probation as it is? Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I consider both of you to have used actions and words which are unacceptable not just Misza, and I as a member of this community require no apology. If you (as stated) will not chill and still want an apology from Misza then discuss it on yours/his user talk page, CJ is not an organisation which forces people to apologise or goes about righting wrongs. As to not letting this drop until it's dealt with properly, properly in who's opinion? yours? or the consensus of opinions on here? As for stamping your feet and threatening to leave, thats up to you, but! if things do not go the way you wish, do not presume to accuse everyone else of encouraging further incivility as I consider that an incivil attack on all members. To clarify, I do not wish to see either user leave as I believe you both have the good of the community at heart. Therefore I urge you again to just step back, take a deep breath, chill and try to reach an amicable outcome with Misza on your respective talk pages. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have stressed this on IRC. Both users need to understand they are both in the wrong. Computerjoe's talk 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)``

I feel that many of your arguments could be applied ust as strongly to you. I think you both need to understand how you may have annoyed each other, and let it go. If one of you chooses to hold this against the other, then I fear IRC ban and he like will follow. Also, your statement of age is in my view uunacceptable - I am 15 and feel quite able to maturely handle situations, and I am sure there are many vandals much older than me. Ian13/talk 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Probation

Per IRC discussion with Computerjoe, I agree to being put on probation and leave the formal details to him. Misza13 ^{T C} 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The user will be on probation for 14 days, I shall personally supervise this. If the editor is incivil on one of these days, they shall the banned for the remainder, for example if the incivility was on day 4 they'd be banned for 10 days. In this period, they should not edit a CJ-related page. If there is extreme cases, the editor will be expelled. Computerjoe's talk 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally oppose probation, however I would support a block (for 4-7 days) on IRC to the next person in this debate who feels it necessary to continue. (Note - I aim for an IRC ban, and not on CJ pages). Ian13/talk 21:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I'll immediately unwatch this page so I don't feel it necessary to keep adding stuff to my edits. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC Channel Rules

I've introduced rules for our IRC channel Wikipedia:Community Justice/IRC Rules. Computerjoe's talk 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look fine - • The Giant Puffin • 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Mahogany

Great work. (^'-')^ Covington 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone reccomend an IRC server to download? As I dont want to miss out on whats happening on the IRC - • The Giant Puffin •

You mean an IRC client. An IRC server is a different thing. I'd suggest Chatzilla which plugs-into Firefox, or mIRC is okay - but not for me. Computerjoe's talk 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

server=network=freenode (where all the action is). client=what you use to access irc=ChatZilla, mIRC, etc. See Wikipedia:IRC tutorial. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean client. Thanks - • The Giant Puffin • 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone ever in there? I always look in there and there's nobody inside. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. You can often find me, Misza and Ian in it on evening UTC. Computerjoe's talk 07:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Councillor

When the next voting happens can I be alerted about it. I would have said that I would carry on being a councillor the last time in voting but I didn't get anything to do and I see things have changed. --[eddie] - pure ginger 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

6 months. Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am confused not just by what you just said but by the Timeline graph as it says I'm a Councillor. --Eddie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IN 6 months the next voting will take place...and you were councillor before the elections. --Osbus 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Buena Vista!

I'm not 100% sure if this is the kind of situation you tend to work on, but would Community Justice be interested in helping to improve civility, fairness and dialogue in the Cuba article? If so, I'll spare you my speil (: ~Here is Talk: Cuba (also see archives), RFC. Feel free to contact me via my talk page! I have this on my watchlist. Myciconia 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out we do not offer advocacy nor mediation. Computerjoe's talk 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Meeting

I've closed WT:CJ/M/1. Minutes coming soon! Computerjoe's talk 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference, I can confirm that I have accepted the role of watching User:Ethnopunk on probation, and that I have reinstated him as a member on the members list. Ian13/talk 17:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Can I thank Misza13 (talk · contribs) for creating the timeline! Computerjoe's talk 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, except I don't get it...there are 8 councillors? --Osbus 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nvm I'm being stupid. --Osbus 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice one! Really cool. I tried to make one of these myself once, and failed terriably. Ian13/talk 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It confuseed me untill I looked at it longer. Its a shame I'm not a Councillor anymore. --Eddie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice timeline, good job - • The Giant Puffin • 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hacked the Esperanza timeline and modified it. Note: I have changed the date format to dd/mm/yyyy. Misza13 ^{T C} 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can understand it that way lol - • The Giant Puffin • 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ohhhh. That was what totally confused me. I'm like 'January 11th 2006?!' But now it makes more sense :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Minutes Available for Second Meeting

I've published the minutes for the second meeting at Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting 1. Computerjoe's talk 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, I think that the meeting went over fairly well, although there wasn't much direction for the future. There were a few things to look forward to (namely, the barnstar and a vague plan with Esperanza, which currently has its own issues to deal with), but that was about it. Seems to me that there still isn't a lot of goals other than a general "We promote civility," which, to me, was something far more important to address than questions of probations, newsletters, and name changes. Thanks for putting together the minutes. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as ever we need to find things for the future, but we are open to suggestions... :) Ian13/talk 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeking permission off WP:BRFA for CJBot to have it's permissions increased to deliver CJ newsletters. Computerjoe's talk 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting together the minutes - • The Giant Puffin • 08:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't manage to help out too, my DSL connection goes abit haywire when it's wet. Ian13/talk 09:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tijuana Brass. Once we've got that, we can really start charting what we'll do. Otherwise the meeting went over well. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

after the meeting...

We need to decide our goals and how we will fullfill them. What I understand now is "We promote civility by adding templates and messages to talk pages".
I think we need to expand on that. --Osbus 16:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm in the progress of sending a newsletter. Also, I'll contact CP. Computerjoe's talk 17:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, join our IRC channel! Computerjoe's talk 17:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The newsletter's really awesome...thanks to everyone who created it. --Osbus 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though I found the newsletter a bit too big, twice the size of other newsletters. Could we try to reduce the size? --☆TBC☆ 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked the size, but maybe its because of my tezt size. I found it very informative and it looks great. Good job to the people who created it. Thanks - • The Giant Puffin • 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Next time. Computerjoe's talk 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say good job on the newsletter. I think it's great and explains what's going on. T. J. Day 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Nice work, you all. (^'-')^ Covington 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing templates

I'd like to edit some of the templates but when I attempt to do so, I am redirected to a different template. When I try to edit civil1, it redirects me to civil3. What's the reason for this and how can I edit the templates, in particular civil1? T. J. Day 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

When you edit civil3, you are also editing civil1 at the same time. In other words, civil1 and civil3 are the same template (anyone correct me if I'm wrong). And I don't know the reason for this, its odd and should be fixed. --Osbus 02:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

{{civil1}} currently redirects to {{civil3}}. To edit civil1 itself, you'd have to go here. (See Wikipedia:Redirects.) -- SCZenz 03:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno why this is so. I've reverted. Computerjoe's talk 10:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice Newsletter

Welcome Previously, various notices regarding Community Justice have gone out to our members; though this is the first actual newsletter. This issue will contain information regarding decisions made on the first meeting, our new council, and more...! If you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Do Not Spam. New Council Following our first elections, a new council has been elected.Computerjoe and Ian13 remain as chairman and chief executive (respectively); while Eddieh, Wiki alf and Xchrisblackx are replaced as councillors by Ilyanep, Osbus and Covington. The Giant Puffin and Pureblade remain as councillors. Member Conduct In the last meeting, the conduct of 4 members were discussed. Ethnopunk will be put on probation, supervised by Ian13, if he/she is uncivil during this probation, he/she will be expelled from WP:CJ; the same was decided for Misza13 (voluntarily), and his probation will be supervised by Computerjoe. No action will be taken against Computerjoe. Barnstar The Civility Barnstar which our member's have designed has been sent to Barnstar and award proposals. We'd appreciate your feedback! Also, we are planning to make a Community Justice barnstar to give to hard-working CJ members. If you're a budding designer, consider trying to make it, then post your proposal to WT:CJ! Name and logo change There has been no consensus reached regarding changing our name and/or logo neither at WT:CJ nor at WT:CJ/M/1. While suggestions are still welcome, no action will be taken at this time. Programs We are going to try to create programs to more actively involve our members. If you have any ideas, please drop a line at WT:CJ. We will try to work with WP:ESP on one of these programs, at some point in the future. Thanks! Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CJ or come into our IRC channel [4]. Computerjoe wishes to extend his thanks to User:Robchurch, a non-member who assisted in making {{tracker}} redundant, as well as Misza13 for his continued support and to the whole of this and the previos council. This newsletter was delivered by CJBot, written by Computerjoe, with technical help from Misza13. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(for those who missed it! Computerjoe's talk 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

There Must Be A New Election

File:Red-x.gif

This discussion is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. This discussion is now closed. All future comments will be ignored, due to incivility. Ian13/talk 19:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

New members to community justice have no say in the running of community justice. Many feel it could do more than it is under Computerjoe. A new election must take place to end the opression. I have ten members who agree with me about this. I have created a system which allows all new member to have a say. If you agree with me unite and we will have our say! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero Dog (talk • contribs)

Which members may this be? Also, we've just had an election. Computerjoe's talk 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Joe... why not humour him? It is the democratic option. It's not like he is gonna win UNLESS a majority agree with him! Ciraric 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It would create too much disruption. If you wish to have me deposed, contact all 5 councillors and if they agree I will be replaced by Ian13. Computerjoe's talk 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Several members i am not at liberty to reveal identities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.196 (talk • contribs)

If you make such a claim, you need evidence. Computerjoe's talk 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that, sir. However, people are not always online. Infact there's one - Ciraric

I'm a new member and I have no opinion on whether Computerjoe deserves their current position, but I do feel that it would be premature to run another election on the heels of the previous one without some reason to think that the results will differ. If Cicero Dog could demonstrate that this is a plausible outcome, then I'd support his call for an election, though I would quite likely vote for the status quo. Otherwise, it looks to me like he might just be trying to make a WP:POINT, which would just be disruptive. Al 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand Al's point. His last comment about a WP:POINT i do not understand as no disruption has been caused and we are all discussing it fairly. My point is that with the current system new members have little say on the running of community justice and perhaps a purer form of democracy can be found.

(image removed)

I vote yes that you should vote on whether to hold a new election. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we just do a quick raise of hands? If 30 people say Yea to this plea (in a week?) then Ian13 takes over? Ciraric 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No. If the council gains consensus (4/5) that I should no longer be chairman, I will be removed from my post and replaced by Ian13. Computerjoe's talk 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the system of this page is corrupt and i say bring about change soon power to the members! Not the Council! POWER TO THE MEMBERS!

Okay, how about, to satisfy everybody the council be removed and every decision decided by a vote of ALL members. Or atleast all active members. Democracy, NOW! Ciraric 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shout. It may be seen as uncivil. Also, involving all members would take too long. For big decisions, members will be involved. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I must state that I don't understand what's the merit of the issue being raised. It may be that Computerjoe leads this organization with a firm hand, but I thank him for that (who said it's a democracy, BTW?). As of not being able to "have a say"... Well, I thought this is the exact place to do it. Everyone is welcome to make suggestions and our councillors, who I believe are the best chosen of us, will take them under consideration and make wise decisions. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I just say it'd be a good idea for everyone to come onto our IRC channel where we can discuss this in real time? Computerjoe's talk 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue being raised is democracy. Power to the members of this organisation. Not to computerjoe. and i can't get the link to work lol so i'll ramble on here. The amount of debate generated shows how strongly we feel on this issue. Let the vote decide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero Dog (talk • contribs)

What makes you think this is a democracy. The Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. There's no such thing as a vote, it's consensus gathering! Also, for the link you need an IRC client like Chatzilla or mIRC. Computerjoe's talk 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The council was elected by members. That implies that the members trust their elected officials to carry out their best interests. If you have any problems with us or our decisions, bring them up in a CIVIL manner on this very page. Other members can then voice their opinions, and I for one will do whatever the majority's decision to do is. So far, the only majority you have is yourself and a few phantom members that have not contributed to this discussion or been named. If you want to, go ahead and start a straw poll to disband the council. Democracy will carry out its course. Also, please sign your edits; it's considered rude not to do so. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in the UK, we have elections every 4 years. We don't however shorten it just because a few more people have reached voting age. Unless there is a solid reason why another election should be held, I hardly think it should be. Ian13/talk 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, have a say. Many do not. And the UK is hardly a prime example of utopia. Also in the UK pure democracy cannot be done it is impractical. Here it is practical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero Dog (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~ Computerjoe's talk 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Infact, you will find I don't have a say in the UK - I do not meet valid voing requirements. And as far as I was aware, the UK is a democracy - providing you are using the true English definition. Ian13/talk 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

indeed

I'm a new member and I have no opinion on whether Computerjoe deserves their current position,but i think it should be like the old leage of nations and have a few representatives to voice the oppinions of the others.a democracy workes better than a dictatorship. does it not? and i think cicero dog has the right idea democracy wth all views taken into account is the right way to do things Wolf guevara

POWER TO THE MEMBERS - the slogan of the brave

I'm tired of this argument. Why not just go with my original idea.

i agree with ciraric. A VOTE!

I'm afraid I, and many members, disagree. Is it practical to have an election every day to make everyone happy? Nope. Computerjoe's talk 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote no that you should vote on whether to hold a new election and in the unlikely event of that happening, no in that too. Thanks for the duck SPUI :) --Alf ^melmac 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

your idea wasn't bad aric but from what i've been reading i think computerjoe is a bit of a dictatorin bastard and wouldn't go for such a thing.a good idea all the sameWolf guevara

It is not a vote to hold an election. It is a vote to have a new system of government in which dates for votes are arranged and all interested parties vote. Rather than the select few. All members can vote but do not have to. Times for votes on issues will be displayed a wekk before votes take place.

Wolf, be civil. I propose that Wolf guevara be removed from Community Justice for a blunt personal attack against Computerjoe. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that last incivil comment by Wolf guevara just about sums this discussion up......... ridiculous! Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolf guevara stated his mind! HE was justified! He should remain it was not uncivil but heated. Wolf has done a lot for wikipedia. Silent Lamb Child

Wolf is expelled for personal attacks. Any incivility, by any party, from now forwards will result in a suspension. Personal attacks will result in expulsion. Computerjoe's talk 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

you wish to kick me out because i'm uncivil computerjoe? where would we be without people being uncivil? we would probably be americans or even worse austrailians i shudder at that thought but you must agree this does seem like a dictatorship does it not? Wolf guevara

I have no objection to discussing any changes to set up. I do object to a pseudo-coup for the purposes of social experimentation. There is no hurry for anything. This has taken enough of my time already. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 18:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Computerjoe

I feel you are being uncivil, and I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks or take part in edit wars. . Computer Joe has threatened and insulted peoplein other chat rooms

A NPA warning is not uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

END THIS DEBATE NOW IT HAS DESCENDED INTO HOSTILITY ON ALL PARTS! ESPECIALLY WOLF GUEVARA AND COMPUTER JOE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero Dog (talk • contribs)

Wolf Guevara and Silent Lamb Child are indef blocked by Shanel. I've filed RFCUs on a few others. Computerjoe's talk 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot but help ask outright if Wolf Guevara and Cicero Dog are not one and the same. An amazing co-incidence in names otherwise. --Alf ^melmac 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope this discussion is still going, because I'm going to say no to an election. As Ian13 said earlier, elections are not held just because some more people become elegible to vote. If you want to vote, you'll have to wait until Novermber when the next election takes place. If you don't like it, leave. But do not rant and rave in an uncivil manner. Why did you bother joining this group when you evidently have no manners and no intention to act in a civil way. I suggest you cut your losses short. The council will not vote against Computerjoe because he is doing a good job. Wikipedia is not, as much as you may want it do be, a democracy. Decisions are made based on concensus not votes. This is not 1919 Germany, a left-wing uprising will not occur. If you want to revolt, go somewhere else and do it - • The Giant Puffin • 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

...perhaps? - • The Giant Puffin • 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. (^'-')^ Covington 23:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

comment

I was reading the above discussion for "historical interest", and wanted to know if the situation was resolved. I don't want to lose any members...if it isn't I suggest opening it up again. --Osbus 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much resolved with the permanent blocking of some involved users/socks. I'm going to ask you not to call it a nathanrdotcom, it's slightly uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 20:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. --Osbus 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been unfairly blocked I was at no time uncivil and have used no socks Cicero Dog

Contact the blocking sysop. Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am looking into it, but there is autoblock links to suggest a sockpuppet. It was an autoblock, becuase they use either a shared IP or an account was recently blocked from their IP. Ian13/talk 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this edit is very civil - • The Giant Puffin • 21:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have expelled the user from CJ until the council can make a decision. Ian13/talk 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I say we expel Cicero Dog unless he makes a statement defending himself should he want to return. After making the statement, we will change expulsion to suspension. After suspension is probation. After probation, we hopefully have a productive CJ member. --Osbus 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I note only that the comment above was made by 88.110.198.242 and this edit. Sorry, but I'm well past assuming good faith here. --Pak21 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)