Wikipedia talk:Community Justice/Meeting

Community Justice First Meeting

As Community Justice breaks 20 members, I believe it's a good time to review the progress of the organisation and our contributions.

It is important we put more towards out goals and more to complete the tasks.

This meeting shall have no fixed times, though it will have to end by Saturday 15th April. Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Chairman)

Agenda

Feel free to add to the agenda.

Review

1. Review of the success of {{Civil1}}, {{Civil2}} and {{Calm talk}}.
2. Review of progress towards our tasks and goals.

Our Role

1. Should we represent users, like the AMA or otherwise remain in our current role simply encouraging civility, while maintaining a neutral point of view?
2. Should we be more specific in terms of the issues we address, and maybe take a more active role in issues such as vandalism, abusive language and trolls?

Publicity

1. Need for publicity and means of doing so.

Elections

1. Per the tasks, at some point we need an election.
2. Should there be a fixed date? Or fixed amount of members? Or other?

Any Other Business

1. Add anything you think needs addressing here.

Discussion

Review

Success of {{Civil1}}, {{Civil2}} and {{Calm talk}}.

I believe the above templates have been rolled out well. For example, the civility warning templates are integrated into VandalProof and in a recent discussion with User:Master Jay he thought they were written by User:Jimbo Wales or User:Angela! Though this shows notability, it doesn't show any obvious link back to the organisation - which is a shame. Computerjoe's talk 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although I think they are working well, I think some users become offended (and possibly enraged), that someone with no part in their comments is making calls for civility. Somehow, I feel they just sort of float, I mean a vandal warning is hooked into vandalism, but civility is vague. Maybe this means that Wikipedia needs more of a civility guideline or policy. As an example, personally as an administrator, I would still be uncertain of blocking someone for incivility if they had been warned with one of these templates (unless it fell under WP:NPA). I think a form of official Wikipedia Guideline could be of use - or an expansion on current policy just to give these templates more basis. I am attempting to be constructive here, because I still feel overall these templates are a success, but I guess that is one of the main challenges of a community changing society that this aspires to be. Ian13/talk 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. However, rewriting WP:CIVIL would not only be a hefty task; but unpopular. Users can use their POV as to what's civil. Computerjoe's talk 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the warnings should be in a box. The way the text is kind of floating makes it seem informal, but I agree that they are effective. --Osbus 20:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, currently they are informal. Editors can't be blocked because of them. Computerjoe's talk 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They are most effective and I have used them a couple times. They can help, but sometimes they just get the users real ticked! Then they will get offended and come complaining like WTF?!? what is this civilty junk I've not done anything So they could use some modification.Mahogany-wanna chat?

Any suggestions of rewording? Computerjoe's talk 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could make space for an argument in the template so the warner can explain which edit it was and why some concern has been expressed. It could also be good to make it less formal like (so people don't view it as unofficial junk), and more, "some feel your actions could be seen as incivil". I know its vague, but I guess a little expansion could be made. Any views or ideas? Ian13/talk 16:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The current wording's clever, as we are not accusing them of incivility. If it is to be changed, the entire template must. Computerjoe's talk 17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

True. Maybe we could just add a reference to which dispute we are concerned about, and not any particular edit of either party involved in it. But yes, it doesn't warrent too much modification. Ian13/talk 09:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a {{Civil1-n}} and {{Civil2-n}} ? Computerjoe's talk 08:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Progress towards our tasks and goals.

Only two of five tasks have been completed in nearly 3 months of existance. Do you think this is satisfactory? Computerjoe's talk 16:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We are relatively new, so we shouldn't give ourselves too much pressure. I do think that the progress is due to lack of members. --Osbus 20:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As a new member, who stumbled upon CJ whilst perusing the Community Portal, I think the major issue at the moment is what the organisation is for. Are we a "template posting" group, to lightly slap the wrists of uncivil users? Do we offer third-party civility mediation? Do we aim to totally rewrite WP:CIVIL? Or something else? Of course, this is an issue for elections as well, but I think this is what we should focussing on at the moment. Batmanand | Talk 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not a mediation group. However, we (in time) might rewrite WP:CIVIL. Currently, we are trying to use templates. Computerjoe's talk 12:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think our progress is good being that as stated before we are a fairly new group but we need to start getting to work! Mahogany-wanna chat?

Yes, as we grow, we will have a bigger impact on Wikipedia - • The Giant Puffin • 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Although, I guess meditation could be a later option. Help people see what could have provoked people, and how they themselved were provoked in a controled enviroment, all unnofficially of course, but it could help the already clogged Wiki dispute process. Ian13/talk 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for at least 30 members before we do something major; we want to make sure that we get many different viewpoints into the "foundation" as possible. (^'-')^ Covington 21:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Only three more to go. --Osbus 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Our Role

Should we represent users, like the WP:AMA or otherwise remain in our current role simply encouraging civility, while maintaining a neutral point of view?

When I started this organisation, my goal wasn't to represent a party. My goal was to protest for more attention to paid to a specific pillar. Do you think this goal should change? Computerjoe's talk 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take a more active role in maintaining civility (such as extended template use, etc), thus increasing our member base. This will, in the long run, both achieve our goals and improve our place in the Wikipedia community - • The Giant Puffin • 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. We need to make it our goal to keep the whole of Wikipedia civil, not just those who come to us. If someone needs help with resolving a dispute, we should be able to refer them to an apprpriate path, but we want to remain objective, and avoid any claims of bias. - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Computerjoe's talk 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Recently I've been involved in a content dispute which suddenly became a really obnoxious set of personal attacks against me (check this edit out!) and it really helped when a third party stepped in and said something. I suggest that we all put Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct on our watchlists, and step in with brief but personal calls for civility when we see personal attacks in progress. --James S. 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have had personal attacks made against me when I tried to step in. :( Computerjoe's talk 06:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly that will happen, but it can serve to expose the uncivil participants -- someone who is willing to attack a third party stepping in is not likely to be able to control themselves when they are in a long-running dispute. And who cares if you get attacked by someone involved in a controversy on which you've never edited?

Perhaps we should create a noticeboard-like place to report uncivil behavior prior to reporting people on user conduct RFCs? Or maybe there is some way to monitor the new links to places where civility warning templates have been used? It just seems to me that if there were a concerted effort to encorage others to be civil, by a number of people instead of just the target of the personal attack, that would help to get people to control themselves, even if it did occasionally result in further attacks. --James S. 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, we needn't get into the territory of AMA (after all, that's what they mainly do), but rather try to ensure civil and objective debates whereever possible. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think we need to be more specific about what we will do to ensure civil/objective debates. Some of the commments I'm hearing are confusion as to what Community Justice does. --Osbus 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nightstallion's comments. I would like to add that the group's focus should be on providing information and pointing it out / advertising it where the civility of a debate is degrading. Individual members could get involved in a passive, neutral way in such debates. T. J. Day 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my aim. Computerjoe's talk 19:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to try and be neutral in our approach, or we ourselves could be seen as incivil and bias. I mean, we can have users report incidents at the first point of disputes, and I think that would fill a great whole in Wikipedia, but we have to independently look at the situation, and not just go on the report. Ian13/talk 10:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Publicity

Why It Is Important

Publicity for this organisation is important as it's the best way for people to encourage further civility. As more members join, more members link to us, which creates more publicity. Relative to WP:ESP, we are still small. As we grow, we grow further. If the growth slows, it slows further. It is important to keep growth going. Computerjoe's talk 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How to Gain It

Two ways we could've generated publicity was the Wikipedia:Community Portal and Wikipedia:Signpost. However, we should've really done this nearer the start. Do you think it's too late to add ourselves, somehow, to either of these? Computerjoe's talk 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say completely the opposite, now is the perfect time to add a message about us onto the Community Portal, as we are now growing in size and have a good clear framework of policies and aims. Indeed it would be very good to get people invovled in this meeting, who are new members thanks to a link off the Community Portal. --Wisden17 17:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Now we are larger, we will be notice more when listed. I also think that we should work with WP:ESP to help promote our goal (civility) using their medium (the community and WP's members) - • The Giant Puffin • 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though I don't want to merge into Esperenza. Our goals slightly differ. Computerjoe's talk 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I dont think a merger would work. We should just keep in contact with them, and just work in harmony etc. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I can post a message on the CBB...--Osbus 20:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  Nvm, it already has one. An announcement at the Village Pump might be useful too.--Osbus

  Sorry for spoiling your fun on the CBB. Yes, Village Pump would be good. As would any coverage by Wikizine or Signpost. Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  It's okay :). Yeah, I'll do the wikizine and the village pump announcement. --Osbus 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think trying to get in with the Signpost at this stage could be hugely beneficial. Anyone know how to go about such a task? Ian13/talk 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  I agree, it would benefit the group immensely, but I dont know how you go about it - • The Giant Puffin • 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You should go to the signpost main page, check the history for the more active contributors, and drop a message on their talk pages. --Osbus 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    • I've e-mailed the Signpost, so hopefully we will get a mention in the next issue. --Wisden17 00:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Put a link to the main Community Justice page on each of our warning templates. Once users learn how disruptive it is to be involved in edit wars, they might want to make sure that it won't happen again. (^'-')^ Covington 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  Problem with that is it would associate too much. {{Civil1}} and {{Civil2}} already contain a link. Computerjoe's talk 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Elections

Need for elections

In my view it is important to have elections as different members have different views in which direction the organisation should go. It is important that our member's views are represented. Computerjoe's talk 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur whole-heartedly. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. (^'-')^ Covington 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When?

I think elections should be ASAP. However, many of our councillors and members believe the organisation doesn't have enough members to gain a clear consensus. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Computerjoe's talk 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the 30 member mark, or perhaps 25. However, I would support an election now, if we were certain all members would vote and are active enough (or at least mointor CJ) to know who to vote for - • The Giant Puffin • 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Most members are active, but quite a few are on wikibreaks. Perhaps we could have some sort of eligibility? Perhaps something such as 2 edits to WP:CJ, WT:CJ or another CJ-related page? Computerjoe's talk 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should prepare the elections now, and start the voting as soon as we hit 30 users. I've noticed that newer users are typically more active, so we would probably have more voters. - Pureblade | ^Θ 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should wait for one more opinion to gain some kind of consensus. Computerjoe's talk 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thirty members sounds good. What should the criteria, if any, be? --Osbus 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the criteria should be at least three edits to CJ page, since one of them was the sign-up, and at least 300 edits, to answer my own question. Later, the standards might increase as we get more members, but for now, I think this sounds good. --Osbus 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not just the CJ page, also the WT pages and templates. Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The elegibility criteria sound fine to me. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)