Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 4

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

I've archived this. I hope this version can be positive. Computerjoe's talk 07:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The more we calm down the more we can achieve as a team. (^'-')^ Covington 10:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Plan?

I've spent a while reading the Community Justice page. I now know that the aim of the project is to promote civility in wikipedia - a valiant aim. What the page doesn't tell me is how you plan to do this. Perhaps it would make a good start to the new talk page if someone(s) could explain what the plan of this project is, what it adds to the existing means of WP:Resolving disputes, how this project differs from WP:Esperanza and the various other members groups? --Hughcharlesparker 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently, we are making templates asking for people to remain calm. Esperanza support WikiLove while we support civility. We do not offer mediation, ATM. Computerjoe's talk 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the templates you created on the index of test templates. They look useful, and I may well use them. That part of the project looks to be complete, though - do I assume that your plan now is to use them? If so, is this an organisation for patrolling the recent changes page? --Hughcharlesparker 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No. We do use them. We are thinking of more ideas. If you join, you could contribute. Computerjoe's talk 18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that, having contributed some really useful stuff to wikipedia in phase one of your project, you're between phases, so to speak, at the moment. There's some very lively discussion going on, which may well lead to more good things, but the practical activity of WP:CJ is dormant at the moment, if I've understood you right. Thank you for your invitation - I'll check back in a couple of weeks and depending on what your plan is, I might join in, but in the meantime I think I'll make myself useful elsewhere. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm talk

With all this recent bickering over Community Justice's bureaucracy and goals, I've added the calm talk template to the top of the page to encourage everyone to get along and as Computerjoe said, "be positive". I hope it helps :)--☆TBC☆ 11:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TBC. Lets work together to make this better. (^'-')^ Covington 12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is wise, it will be removed when it becomes productive here again Computerjoe's talk 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PROJECTS

This, in my opinion is now our KEY goal to aim for.

Can we please have suggestions of things we can do, projects we can start, and how we can interact to make our community more civil. Ian13/talk 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Not shouting may help :D Computerjoe's talk 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to draw attention to it. Would you prefer if it was changed to _Projects_ ? Ian13/talk 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh. My response was a little uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 17:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See, I think the hunt for incivility is misplaced. We should not be looking into things so much. :P Ian13/talk 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban The Block - Project?

yes i have a project. It may be unpopular so i'll tread carefully...when someone on wikipedia is incivil to a high degree they are blocked (sometimes never to return) i propose that we begin a campaign of re-education for people who are uncivil to others rather than just blocking them. Blocks are fine in extreme cases but surely civility -as a point - is better made with a civil answer. I suggest we arrange times for blocked user to be unblocked and re-educated on this very talk page. By doing this we will promote civility and also hopefully create more civil wikipedians who previously would have been thought of as blaggards Cicero Dog 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Blocks are very rarely given for incivility, as policy makes it hard/impossible. Personal attacks should be blocked, as they disrupt the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're both getting your ideas but if it was my choice I would agree with Cicero Dog (sorry Joe) but to get to the point we should take the time to change someone to a much more civil Wikipedian instead of banning them and they'll just make another account and continue their ways. Mahogany

I've had users call me a vindictive nut before, amongst other things which were blatant breaches of WP:NPA, they should be blocked, without question. IMO, WP:CIVIL shouldn't be blocked for unless it is abused often WP:ABF'ing. The civility policy is harder to block users for, and generally it requires a RfC or ArbCom. Computerjoe's talk 17:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I must say blocking for incivility isn't wholely common, and NPA blocks are rightfully made. "Vindictive nut" is rather mild by some definations. Helping people in guiding them stop being uncivil could do with expansion on talk page warnings though. Ian13/talk 17:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I chose a nice word ;D . Computerjoe's talk 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

are we going to rake up this project or not? .... i am conseding following in Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs) 's footsteps. Every project raised seems to be shot down. Cicero Dog 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think at present we are waiting for a few more opinions. Ian13/talk 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ban the Block is too specific...another idea is to step in where others are being incivil and educating them about civility. In short, we are teaching users about civility. --Osbus 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, because being banned for uncivility isnt that common, we wouldnt really have a lot of cases. We could, as Osbus said, step in and educate people about civiility. That way we could cut the problem short before it gets out of hand. But I think rehabilitation in terms of cility is too specific. It would come under general civility education IMO. But, if there turns out to be enough cases out there, I'd fully support it. But I dont want a project that has such a small target that half the time it wont be doing anything - • The Giant Puffin • 07:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Advising users?

I think we should advise users on how to be more civil. This is better than warning, do you agree? Computerjoe's talk 17:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

is this an similar (or exactly the same) programme to the one above or you talking about "advising" users who are perfectly civil and have done nothing wrong? This could appear as patronising. Cicero Dog 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"on how to be more civil" to me implies it is for people whos civility it far from perfect. Also, it is similar to above but without calling for a ban on blocks, I guess it is an attempt to come to a mutual conclusion. Ian13/talk 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would get a much better reaction from users Mahogany

Indeed, though I believe in civility warnings they do not get the best response. For new users, especially, they could find this positive advice useful. Computerjoe's talk 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I support this project. Obviously, warnings would still be suitable and usable for certain users, but this has space to do something, and shows the rest of Wikipedia that we are trying to take an active role. Ian13/talk 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful not to advocate, though. Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If we also include a list of tips for new users that would take away the feeling of advocacy because the page would be available to all. (^'-')^ Covington 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'd support this one - • The Giant Puffin • 07:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

From the archives

This seems to have failed to be addressed, and brings up valid issues, so I am pulling it back... Ian13/talk 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

• But... Is this replicating what other groups do, such as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or WP:RFC?

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)

I believe I addressed some of these concerns. I the Tijuana should come back, as we're losing the bureaucracy. Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

so to the matter at hand; anymore opinions as to this programme? Cicero Dog 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Civility

Congrats people! We're now a "pseudo-paramilitary operation". But that put aside, Operation Civility looks like a good new name for CJ (or at least for a new project) and I'm being serious here. What do you think? Misza13 ^{T C} 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really like it. --Osbus 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And we're a cabal (IRC) :P Computerjoe's talk 06:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit...corny. Sorry, I dont think "Operation.." anything would work. Plus I thought we were putting a pause on a name change and focusing on programs? - • The Giant Puffin • 07:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

HAUD THE BA'

Sorry to revert to glaswiegian but we were (an hour ago) discussing an idea which seemed to me to have potential and now we seem to have lost track! could we please consider and discuss the issue as raised rather than suggesting names for non-existant programmes! This is becoming farcical. Lets concentrate....please...

THE IDEA

is

• that we will try to rehabilitate offenders to try and promote civility.
• We will do this by showing them (here in the discussion page why and how they can be civil
• This will be done to try and remove the need to block and create a more civil wikipedia.

please leave opinions and comments. thank you Cicero Dog 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

TBC's Thoughts on Community Justice

These are my (TBC's) proposals and ideas concerning Community Justice and its goals, based upon previous discussions and the fact that it seems that nothing was getting done (in fact half of the above discussions seem to continually repeat that we should reform Community Justice, yet not a lot of civility ideas have actually been proposed). Even though I may not have an official position in the Community Justice bureaucracy, I hope that you can please take the following into consideration:--☆TBC☆ 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

Routine checks on AfD and the creation of an AfD notice board

As many of you know, AfD is a frequent (and perhaps the most) source of heated debates, mostly resulting from the proposed deletion of articles dealing with controversial issues, spam, and the constant appearances of sockpuppets. Though I do understand that we have templates to be used when it comes to these situations, I personally feel that the use of such templates only helps to indicate that there is a problem and that these templates do not actually provide a resolution to the issue.

Therefor, taking the above into consideration, I propose that members of Community Justice (or any editor if he or she is interested) should routinely check the article proposals in AfD for any signs of possible bias, controversy, or incivility. If the editor finds any major issue, he or she should post it on a specialized Community Justice AfD notice board (perhaps Wikipedia:Community Justice/AfD?), so that Community Justice members are immediately notified of the issue. Putting major debates and issues in one centralized place makes it convenient to Community Justice members, as there are AfD lists for every single recent day, all of which are extremely long, making discussions that might need the aid of Community Justice hard to find.

I also suggest the Community Justice members comment, but not vote on the above mentioned AfD's, as voting to keep or delete tends to give others the impression that the editor is biased towards one opinion, causing frustration from editors supporting the opposing opinion. Keep in mind that one of the goals of Community Justice is to encourage Wikipedians to be unbiased and civil, and if other editors start to feel that Community Justice members are the ones who lack civil qualities, they may loose faith in the project and your comments.

Community Justice members should also be reminded to keep an open mind on all issues, not letting personal opinions and perspectives get in the way of trying to make a fair and civil resolution to a heated argument. There should also be a group of trusted editors (perhaps the councillors?) who keep track of and monitor the AfD notice board. These editors should remove any AfD nominations that can be easily solved (such as obvious vandalism, hoaxes, or vanity) and make sure that Community Justice members remain unbiased and civil. It would also be best if these editors had sysop powers, as it makes it easier to resolve issues (if any occur) on the notice board.

Also, though not to be enforced, we should also have a list of recommended qualities that an Community Justice member should have before taking part in the above activity. Such qualities include:

• An extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's notability policies
• Previous experience with AfD
• Having read through and understood Wikipedia's civility guidelines--☆TBC☆ 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I have a situation in mind already. --Osbus 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This idea has potential. (^'-')^ Covington 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, well done - • The Giant Puffin • 08:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, good one to put into action. Ian13/talk 10:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a Help Desk for reports of incivility

I also propose that Community Justice should have a help desk (or something of that nature), where editors who feel or know someone that may be a victim of incivility can come to post whatever issues they may be involved in. Doing so can achieve greater community consensus that if the user simply contacted an admin.

Also, I understand that in Wikipedia, there exists the Administrators' noticeboard and Arbcom. However, I feel that these projects focus on more severe civility-related cases, whereas the Community Justice help desk is opened to issues and editors of all sorts (except, of course, obvious vandals). Instead, if an editor is found guilty of being uncivil through a majority consensus of Community Justice members (as well as other editors if they wish to participate), then the issue can be taken to Administrators' noticeboard or Arbcom, depending on the situation and the severity of the case.

I also recommend that a link to the Community Justice help desk should be added to the warning template for vandalism. This is so that any editors who feel that they have been wrongly accused of vandalism can find someplace where they can contact for possible incivility. However, I do realize that this might cause a sudden flood of vandals who falsely accuse established editors of being prejudice. Even so, I believe that this issue can be avoided if we (as with the AfD notice board mentioned above) have a group of trustworthy editors monitoring the help desk. These editors could help to remove accusations of obvious vandals and make sure that those participating in help desk remain unbiased. After all, we don't want the help desk to be controlled by a bunch of elitist Wikipedians like on AfD, do we? (Also, if you couldn't tell, I was joking around with the elitist comment, though one must admit it may have some truth in it :P).--☆TBC☆ 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this proposal...alot actually. ALthough I must say if we create this, there isnt a need for a seperate noticeboard for AfD. --Osbus 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the goal of the help desk is to deal with specific incivility cases where as the notice boards deal with resolving heated and controversial debate issues, so there is a difference between the two. Anyhow, thanks for the comments. :)--☆TBC☆ 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for another great idea. Lets make this helpdesk voluntary for all parties to encourage the affected parties to take the initiative to establish civility and to distinguish it from ArbCom. (^'-')^ Covington 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but it needs to be important any member can partake! Computerjoe's talk 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wahay! Your on fire. Another proposal to slam into action. Ian13/talk 10:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a general noticeboard

Wikipedia currently has over 1,145,000 articles, a few of which are subject to large amounts of debate and controversy (examples being articles such as Walmart and the Balkans). This is why, in order to increase convenience, Community Justice should also have a general noticeboard that focuses on main space articles, templates, projects, and everything else not covered in the AfD noticeboard.

However, unlike the AfD noticeboard where the actual discussions are posted on the page, the General noticeboard should only contain links and a short description of each issue categorized by subject. Also, unlike AfD, the General noticeboard is a long term assignment, which means that links to heated discussions are kept for a longer amount of time than that of the AfD notice board.--☆TBC☆ 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think this would be in our place. Computerjoe's talk 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see protential with this. Ian13/talk 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging civility with minor trinkets

Community Justice members should also be encouraged to hand out minor things such as coffee (or some other image) accompanied with a few words about keeping cool and remaining civil to major editors participating in a heated discussion. It should be noted that this is a different project than that of Esperanza's Stressbusters, as it focuses only on encouraging civility, not on relieving stress. Also, unlike the templates we currently have, it is encouraged that the above is custom made and different for each individual and for each situation, thus showing that that all the participants in the discussion are both unique and equally treated.--☆TBC☆ 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeh. --Osbus 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Nice work. (^'-')^ Covington 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea :D

Yes - • The Giant Puffin • 08:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Ian13/talk 11:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Other thoughts about Community Justice

Concerns

Though I do have faith in that Community Justice will someday (as the name implies) bring justice to Wikipedia, I also have many concerns and criticisms towards the project, as mentioned below:

• It seems that the goals and ideals of the Community Justice project resembles (or at least partly resembles) other Wikipedian projects such as mediation, some Esperanza's programs, etc.
• Is it possible to be completely unbiased when it comes to resolving issues? Perhaps in a perfect world it might, but in reality we, by human nature, all have our different perspectives and opinions. (Also, though this may be a little off topic, one should note that it seems there isn't any way to change this, unless of course we somehow took away free will, but we wouldn't want a society resembling Orwell's 1984, would we?)
• Overall, I feel that Community Justice, though good in theory, seems to not work as originally intended in the end (perhaps similar to concepts such as that of communism). Even so, I hope that by applying and altering the above mentioned recommendations and proposals, we can finally create a project that actually does eventually bring justice to the constantly chaotic and very diverse Wikipedian community.--☆TBC☆ 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo and name

Recently I've seen a lot of criticism and debates over Community Justice's name and logo, thus I suggest we rename Community Justice into Wikipedia:Harmonia. The term harmonia has many different meanings, from the Greek goddess of harmony and concord, to the latin word for describing melody, rhythm and harmony. After all, please remember that the goal of this project is to promote civility and peace within Wikipedia, not to enforce justice.

As for a logo, I created this one:

File:Harmonia.PNG

As you can see, I decided to make one side black, one side blue, and the middle a mixture of the two colors. The mixture of the two colors represent our project's goals of promoting negotiation and civility. I also decided to keep it simple, similar to the Esperanza logo which is composed only of the symbols E and @.--☆TBC☆ 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I love the name and logo but Harmonia doesn't state our beliefs. Computerjoe's talk 06:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, we don't want to be confused with Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. But Concordia would be a better choice. Misza13 ^{T C} 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. When we come to deciding the name in the future, this one should be a serious contender IMO - • The Giant Puffin • 08:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I like that one! I would probably try and rework the logo, but a very suitable name. Ian13/talk 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Misza's suggestion of naming it Concordia, so that we wouldn't be confused with the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club as mentioned above. Great work. :)--☆TBC☆ 11:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Misc.

• I'm not sure, but I believe the AfD noticeboard could also include images, redirects, categories, and templates that are under deletion.
• Please note that I think I might have made a few spelling/grammar mistakes while typing this up, so feel free to edit (this is a wiki after all).

--☆TBC☆ 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please write comments about the above proposals and ideas below, though if you have any personal questions or comments, please contact my talk page. Also, this took a lot of time to write, so please give me your honest opinions. :)--☆TBC☆ 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A thought just came to me...on Wikipedia, it is very hard to remain anonymous and retain privacy. By parsing through page histories, any editor can see the comment you really didn't mean to say, or the info on your userpage that you don't want people to know.
Therefore, I propose that there be an element of complete anonymity should the user request it. I dont know how this will be done, but I think it is a good idea. This is not anti-wiki, but feel free to object. --Osbus 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit histories can often provide useful information on previously removed material as well as vandalism. By allowing users to have complete anonymity, it will make vandalism and recent changes harder to track. Not only that, it will also encourage vandalism, as complete anonymity allows users the possibility of vandalizing without getting caught (which might unfortunertly become very tempting for some users, even the currently trustworthy ones). Also, I don't know how developers can allow users complete anonymity without having to completely re-program Wikipedia.--☆TBC☆ 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like Routine checks on AfD and the creation of an AfD notice board and Creation of a Help Desk for reports of incivility ideas. Definetely would support materializing this. Thanks for bring this issues in such an organized way to light. - Tutmosis 02:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of the ideas suggested are great ones. Thanks for being organised and straightforward about it - • The Giant Puffin • 08:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything proposed and am delighted that someone took the Initiative to finally get the ball rolling every sing one of these ideas should be inacted immediately! Cicero Dog 10:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and all your comments seem supported by most. I will make an effort to get some of this rolling if someone doesn't beat me to it! Ian13/talk 11:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have an actual vote first? Also, I would like to see some more comments and criticism on how to improve the above proposals.--☆TBC☆ 11:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. :) Ian13/talk 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change poll

Okay, not a good issue, but one I think we could try and quickly address and get sorted. Feel free to go for as many as you want:

The Civility Project

1. (^'-')^ Covington 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Harmonia

1. Cicero Dog 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC) sorry, but to me concordia sounds like a high-speed aeroplane. And sometimes aeroplanes crash. (maybe i should change my username to prophet of doom....)

   Or you could check the article on Concordia to make yourself familiar with the word (which is basically "harmony" but in latin, while "harmony" itself comes from greek) from which the plane takes its name. Misza13 ^{T C} 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

i am very familiar with the word i am a classicist. That means i study ancient Greece, Rome and the languages Latin and Classical Greek. Cicero Dog 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ego sum scholarem istimodi quoque. (Did I get that right?). --Osbus 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Concordia

Sample logo. (Transparent bg, svg.) Ian13/talk

Sample square icon. Ian13/talk

Sample square icon. Ian13/talk

Sample square icon. Ian13/talk

1. Ian13/talk 11:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Though I was the one who thought of Harmonia, I like Concordia better since (as mentioned by Misza above), the name Harmonia could confuse us with the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club☆TBC☆ 11:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Love it! Mahogany 12:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
4. zOMG! Misza13 ^{T C} 12:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
5. I like the swish too - • The Giant Puffin • 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment changed logo a little. Computerjoe's talk 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

   Great work. I was thinking of something similar myself. :-P Misza13 ^{T C} 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Yeh. --Osbus 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
7. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Computerjoe's talk 14:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
2. I would prefer Harmonia, but for the conflict. I personally dislike Concordia. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Is there going to be a short logo too? Because the logo above, because of its width, wont fit in a userbox. A small square-shaped logo would be nicer for templates too - • The Giant Puffin • 14:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll make one up. I do need to know what possible shortened version we could have though. CA? Ian13/talk 15:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A big C and little a, with a swish going through it perhaps? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just a C? Computerjoe's talk 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just did one with CCD (see above). We really need one which we can use for our [[WP:]] shortcut... Ian13/talk 15:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Added a Ca one too, but WP:CA is taken by Canada... Ian13/talk 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the Ca one best. The CCD one looks too squashed. Pity about the Canada clash tho. I cant think of an alternative abbreviation to use though - • The Giant Puffin • 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Co? Computerjoe's talk 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The CCD logo could probably be stretched horizontally. Unfortunately WP:CO is taken. :-( But WP:Co isn't. :-P Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:Co could work. I still prefer Ca for a logo instead of CCD. Seems more of an obvious abbreviation - • The Giant Puffin • 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, shortcuts are usually capital, and WP:CO is taken. I will have another smash at CCD if you like. Ian13/talk 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking the blue color as it is associated with calmness. Nice work. (^'-')^ Covington 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like 'concordia' but just out of curiostiy, what is the background of making that up? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find it under #Logo and name above. "Harmonia" was proposed at first, but it could be confused with WP:HEC, so I went to Harmonia and Concordia came up by itself. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Concordia is a latin word. Increasing its coolness by 1000 times :P I was just wondering where it came from. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the name Concordia, but I dislike the designs on the right, so I've created an emblem and banner that I've posted below under my comments. Any thoughts?--☆TBC☆ 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tasks

I have been bold, and given the Tasks list an overhaul. Any/all members are obviously welcome to help start projects rolling, as well as contributing to ongoing projects. Ian13/talk 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Civilty Barnstar

What ever happened to this idea? Or has it been used already being that we were talking about this for a while and then it seemed to disapear. Mahogany

Well... it's on the task list, so I just guess we are either giving out to whom and when we want - or someone needs to create a subpage for it. Which, however, is unknown to me. Ian13/talk 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still running through Barnstar approvals. Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to say we can't use it :P Computerjoe's talk 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Mahogany

Council vote

All motions pass. Ian13/talk 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actions Speak Louder Than Words Part 2: The New Age

Yes hello, lovely to see you have all voted but no action has been taken yet...a vote is one thing action is an other. Please could the council fulfill these fulfil these propositions. Perhaps firstly by moving to Concordia we'e hardly moving at concord(ia) speed are we? (sorry i'll never do anything like that again) Cicero Dog 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, 12 hours isn't really long enough for a poll. We also still haven't resolved all the image problems. Ian13/talk 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

i feel it is...people are leaving due to inaction we can't sit around all day waiting for polls. Cicero Dog 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets wait until tomorrow...I really like everything above, from the name change to the noticeboards. Great work --Osbus 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I'll create the boards. Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And I will see if a name change would be suitable. Ian13/talk 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the logos and color scheme change...esp color scheme. --Osbus 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In terms of a colour scheme, I used black,International Klein Blue (thats #002FA7) and white on the userboxes. That's based on the logo, so I suppose they would be our 3 main colours? - • The Giant Puffin • 10:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

More thoughts on Community Justice

I've already started an outline of Wikipedia:Concordia (if the name manages to become approved). As we are essentially restarting the project, I also suggest we take the following actions:

• We should inform all current (and possibly former) Community Justice members of recent changes, and ask them if they want to join the reconstructed project.
• All councillors from Community Justice are to have their positions removed. This is so that we can concentrate on building up the project instead of having to worry about the project's beuracracy (which was one of the flaws of Community Justice). I also suggest that we have a new election as soon as we finish reconstructing the project (perhaps in one or two months, depending on the situation).
• I've also finished a concordia banner and a logo. The chinese characters in the logo and banner stand for harmony and peace, one of the main goals of this project:

Concordia banner

Concordia emblem

Any comments?--☆TBC☆ 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, but I am wondering why chinese characters are on there...as Concordia comes from Latin, I don't see where the Mandarin comes in. --Osbus 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The chinese characters are there as to give the project more of a zen-like feeling--☆TBC☆ 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Maybe a set of logos where we use different character sets? Say chinese, cyrillic, etc? I like the idea of restructuring in some way, but whether we go all out ought to be discussed. Anyhow, somehow i manage to go on Wikibreak for the week before finals and you guys basically redesign half the project :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the chinese design cos it looks exciting, but i also like the original one because of I think it looks suave. I dont know which one to pick. *Sweating* - • The Giant Puffin • 08:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I love them. Would it be possible to make them SVG? (For better scalability and all...) Finally, I took a look at User:TBC/Wikipedia:Concordia - I see you're ripping WP:ESP (the "Navigation" box) and it looks nice ;-). I even prefer the new light blue theme to the current deep green we're using. And the "Zen feeling" will hopefully draw people from thinking of us as a paramilitaristic organisation (we have such one already). --Misza13 ^{T C} 09:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, SVG, and a transparent background (if not already done), would be very good. I will see if I can make one up. Ian13/talk 10:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I think the council should stay. It is now only a one level management, rather than a 3 level one, but I think it can be useful to help get stuff done. Ian13/talk 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm...

I'm kind of confused. I haven't been involved much here, because I don't like dealing with schedules or anything long-term. Yet I joined because I thought CJ was a sort of friendly cop squad of idealists that watch over high-tension situations and make sure that the peace is held. Am I totally off-base? Perhaps we should start watching pages with conflicts, like ones marked {{POV dispute}}, and watch the Rfc's for conflict, to make sure nobody is cheated, and justice is upheld. Anyone else think the same way?-- The ikiroid  02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the above comments and proposals on the project as well as the project's "Our Goals" section.--☆TBC☆ 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I have created a few Concordia templates based on the CJ ones. I used TBC's logo because there was just one proposal for a square one (instead of 3 for the other style logo) so it was easier. The link to Concordia will have to be changed when it goes to Wikipedia:Concordia. So far I have made:

{{User Concordia}}
{{Concordia small}}
{{Concordia Member}}	{{Concordia member}}

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Giant Puffin (talk • contribs) .

Very nice. Great to see the idea rolling quickly. :) Misza13 ^{T C} 09:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

O and I re-done the message in the larger template to match the Concordia one, instead of the CJ one. They differed slightly - • The Giant Puffin • 10:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I announce from the above, that this project will be renamed to Wikipedia:Concordia, with the shortcut WP:CCD. The change will be made by myself (unless anyone objects), as soon as a logo and colour scheme is decided. I don't think we want people to think we can't even organise a name change properly, do we? Ian13/talk 10:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Much Better

I removed myself from CJ this week due to all the quite frankly ridiculous bureaucracy and petty squabbling that had taken over the project. It just did not seem to be going anywhere and achieveing nothing, hence all the negativity from the wiki community. However I have been mostly offline for the last few days and had not looked in on CJ, but today I saw that ComputerJoe had messaged me to invite me to take another look because things had changed. I came for a look and wow, everything has changed! the new name is great the new logo's are great and there are actually some productive workable plans being suggested. The feel and outlook of the whole thing has changed for the better and I believe more people will support the project.

But thats only if the group is now BOLD and jumps straight on ahead with the change of name and implementation of the good ideas, but please with the new project (because thats what we need, something that acts and looks like a whole new better project, not just a simple renaming of CJ) the politiking the bureaucracy and the many many votes always being held needs to stop, just have it as an open friendly group. Still have some councillors but the council should not actaully do much in a councillor capacity unless absolutly needed, keep it simple with less legislation.

On the whole, I'm impressed, and provided that the changes happen very soon while the momentum is still running, it should be a success, and I will seriously consider rejoining once Concordia is alive. Good work. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)