Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party

program

This does seem to be putting the cart before the horse. At present it is proposing to run a slate in an election without first revealing the program of that slate. I'd suggest going in the opposite direction, think through the changes that you'd like arbcom to make, then ask the candidates in the Arbcom elections what they think of your proposals and publish a voting guide based on the results. If you consider issues such as experience and competence as well as responses to your suggestions then you might wind up with an influential voters guide. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights the program? —Cupco 10:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They aren't well thought out. No one has discussed them or thought about the consequences. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The sum at the bottom of the Lee Resolution is wrong, but it's nothing a couple days couldn't fix. Have you seen the talk page? —Cupco 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

pogrom? ^{[“pogram”]} me-fixed-it ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Freudian slip :D That's what rolls out after the election. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We need to start somewhere. I started this page 49 hours ago and Wnt added the bill of rights as a proposal. By doing it this way (instead of me charging ahead with a more concrete proposal), you have the effect of being more neutral so that people can think of their own proposals and writing about that here. I think a few paragraphs about problems we want to correct (instead of saying exactly how we intent to do that) would be helpful. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

While I respect that you only started the page 49 hours ago, perhaps you might have been well advised to develop it a bit more (in user space, for example) before you asked the community to deal with it. Right now, what you've presented is akin to buying a pig in a poke. Risker (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

More descriptive name

Why not just call this the "I'm Really Pissed About the Fae Case Party"??? That's exactly what it appears to be.

ArbCom transparency is one thing. Establishing free speech rights is another thing. There might be some traction there. Retroactively changing the rules to provide cover for multiple account users or abusers is another kettle of fish. What's needed isn't more anonymity in editing, but less; not more accounts per anonymous user, but one account per user. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just skimmed the Fae case, and I can't see any parallels. Would someone please point those they think are the most egregious, beyond anonymity? —Cupco 17:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In this version of the Bill of Rights, principles 2, 5, 9, and the second half of 10 are based on the Fae case. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Fae case is one of several where serious failings of ArbCom have occurred this year. It is a good thing to attempt to look at the causes of these failings, though they are, in my opinion, mostly due to having the entire body of the committee arbitrate on matters that only one or two of them have studied in detail. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC).

Questions for the author

On this page, you make several references to the phrase "ArbCom system" or sometimes just "system." Sometimes you appear to be referring to a current "system" and sometimes to the "system" that would be put in place if your "party" succeeds in obtaining voting control of the ArbCom. In total, the term "system" appears seven times in nine sentences. I would like to know, what "system" are you talking about? The system of having an ArbCom in the first place? The process the ArbCom follows in deciding cases? Or in deciding what cases to accept? The number of votes required for different decisions? How recusals are counted? The actual principles used in deciding cases? (Such as some of the things Wnt has suggested on the "Bill of Rights" sub-page, although some of those items seem to be outside of the authority of the ArbCom to change or decide?) How "lenient" or "strict" to be with editors, admins, and/or sub-groups within those groups? How to deal with long-term contributors with "behavior issues"? What kind of sanctions should be considered, or not considered? Or something else? Or all or some of the above, and if some, which ones? (I'm not asking for the answers; I am mainly asking for the questions.)

On a probably-related note, I notice that you have stated: "I think a few paragraphs about problems we want to correct (instead of saying exactly how we intent to do that) would be helpful." I would think so. Presumably that would include the portions of the "system" that you think need to be changed. Neutron (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to how ArbCom works in practice which includes all of the things you mention. There are quite a few problems with how ArbCom fucntions, I think the most important issue is the following. ArbCom lacks the ability to look into content issues. In some cases, content issues are at the core of the problems, while behavioral problems are caused by the diffuculties to address these when Admins intervene and the disputes escalates more. If such a case ends up at ArbCom, you can still only site diffs that point to behavioral problems.

E.g. in the Climate Change case, ScienceApologist said that if reliable peer reviewed sources say that the science is settled according to the consensus view, then Wikipedia should reflect this. But ArbCom's response at the time was that they cannot make any such rulings. There are some good reasons why that is difficult in the present set up; you don't want Arbitrators to get involved in editorial decisions. If we have a jury system, then content issues can be looked into without that compromizing the Arbitrators' editorial independence. One can also think about a compulsory and binding dispute resolution being ordered by ArbCom.

In the end the climate change case was conducted and decided in a very problematic way. E.g. Polargeo, an ESA scientist, ended up being topic banned because he broke down during the ArbCom case, and that breakdown was caused by the frustration of not being able to raise the relevant issues at hand. If ArbCom ends up making things worse (at least during and in the immediate aftermath of the case), you have to consider changing the system.

Note that I'm not arguing on the basis of me not liking the outcome of the case. If ArbCom had studied the relevant issues they could theoretically have come to some conclusions that I would not 100% argee with, but then that's not what I'm talking about here. The ArbCom elections can always deal with incompetent Arbitrators, but they cannot easily deal with the system itself not being up to task. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Another question (or two)

How, if at all, does your proposal for a "party" relate to the following two statements on your User Page:

"Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there."

and

"Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds."?

Is it your expectation that "members" of your party and candidates endorsed by your party would share these views? Neutron (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I like to remove that statement about ArbCom, that's why I launched this initiative :) . Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Third question

Count Iblis, are you now palling, or have you ever palled around with sanctioned editors? —Cupco 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many of them, and with most of them I had strongly disagreed about editing issues. So, I guess I'm the opposite of the more typical cases where editing disputes escalate to personal disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

New language added today

I've taken a look at the new "Putting Wikipedia first" section that was added to the project page today. The fundamental thrust of it seems to be that arbitration cases should be decided in a fashion that puts the best interests of the encyclopedia first. I don't think you would find many arbitrators, or other editors, who would disagree with that broad sentiment, although there will always be disagreements as to how to implement it in particular cases.

The section contains the assertion that for arbitration results to lead to the best outcome for Wikipedia articles, the arbitration system will need to be modified. This is fairly vague, which is understandable at this early stage in the life of the "Party," and will need to be fleshed out in more detail before anyone can say much about it.

The section also suggests that the best interests of Wikipedia articles (as opposed to so-called "social aspects" of editing) should always come first, but then it concludes by suggesting that "a number of inalienable rights of editors ... should be recognized." These two points strike me as being in considerable tension with each other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That section is badly written, has several errors or opinions disguised as facts, and seems to mostly express the opposite (and more sensible) viewpoint to that of the "party platform", before doing a volte-face at the end. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand the section later today. The reason why one must recognize certain "inalienable rights" is to amputate the irrelevant social issues and make sure the focus is on editing articles. Otherwise one can make an issue about an editor who does something that is not a problem, even if it is actually good for maintaining articles here. An example could be William while under the CC restriction, notifying via his userpage about vandalized/compromized CC articles. The fundamental reason why this wasn't allowed, why he ended up blocked for two weeks was because of a social effect. William is/was a controversial editor and then you get all this brouhaha.

What ArbCom failed to do here was to be pragmatic, recognizing certain inalienable rights would have helped here. You then don't reduce certain perceptions of disruption, which is actualy a good thing as those perceptions are then caused by the social issues which should be irrelevant. Count Iblis (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your post ignores a much bigger issue surrounding WMC, namely the community and arbcom's failure to deal with the agenda-pushing wikilawyers he got in conflict with. Your "bill of rights" looks to be of far more benefit to editors like those, than editors like William. It frankly reads like the platform of a DICK liberation front. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A jury system can allow ArbCom to look into more detail about who is pushing what agenda, and then make a better assement of who is behaving in an unreasonable way. In the current system, Arbitrators themselves look into the case and they only can consider behavioral issue, content issues are off limits as they need to stay away from content issues.

Note also that while there were always problems in the CC sector, William was able to deal with the problems. The global warming article became a featured article a long time ago, despite these problems. Things actually started to escalate and went out of the roof only much later in 2009 when the "agenda-pushing wikilayers" decided to challenge certain informal agreements reached in 2007 and decided to get adminstrative intervention to deal with what they perceived to be tag team editing by their opponents. A general sanctions system was imposed which did not work. That then led to the CC ArbCom case.

So, what doesn't work is to frame disputes in terms of only behavioral issues when the underlying issues are content related. By not addressing the relevant issues, tensions build up elsewhere and then you get bad behavior, but you can't diagnose the problem from that bad behavior alone. Count Iblis (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're planning to give these juries authority to sanction people based on an assessment of agenda-pushing or wikilawyering, that's, er, interesting and you should put something in your platform about it. It seems to contradict other parts of your proposal, but what do I know. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom wll be responsible for imposing sanctions. This has to be a transparant process, so that it is very clear why a sancion is imposed and what it is supposd to achieve. That will also make an appeal possible. In the current system, there is no appeal, what passes for "appeal" is a parole hearing. Also, what happens in the current system is that sanctioned editors are more likely to end up being wrongly sanctioned and thus more likely to have the desire to appeal. Then, because there is no appeal, that causes tensions to build up, causing even more problems. In the new system, the first judgement is more likely to be the right one allowing editors to move forward. Count Iblis (talk)

The reform is long overdue

I for one is happy to see the formation of the ArbCom Reform Party. I have been basically calling for the same reform as far back as 2008 Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/NWA.Rep in both of my previous ArbCom runs in both 2008 and 2011 Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates#NWA.Rep. Both runs ended due to controversial circumstances due to voter guide writers and power brokers wishing to prevent me from running. You have to ask the question, why are they scared to let my ideas be part of the election and the discourse? What are the clique/cabal afraid of?--NWA.Rep (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Who will be the candidates under the Reform Party banner?

I read the mission statement and agree with a lot of the points. Is any of the folks who took the time to write the Reform Party platform willing to run for ArbCom?--YOLO Swag (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A RFC will be posted asking editors to consider putting themselves forward as candidates. I'm unelectable because of the controversial statements I've made in the past. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds great. I applaud you guys for doing this and am willing to do whatever I can to help.--YOLO Swag (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that recruiting candidates is an appropriate use of an RfC, but I guess we will all find out together. Neutron (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation RFC to join the Party

Please consider joining the ArbCom Reform Party to contribute to the platform and/or to put yourself forward as candidate running for this Party. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In what way is this a request for comment? Seems more like you wish to use the RFC system to spam for this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Blatant spam. Abuse of the RfC system. WP:POINT much? Resolute 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of joining the Party is to comment on the platform. All that we do on talk pages anywhere on Wikipedia is write up our comments. Everything here on Wikipedia is either a comment, a sysop action or an edit to an article. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than disruptive spam. RFC is not a tool for you to advertise. And that is what this is. It is not a good faith attempt to solicit legitimate comment. Resolute 02:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, this is enormously disruptive. How dare Count Iblis post an RfC drowning out all the other RfCs. This has angered a large number of Wikipedians and it has become a talking point on all of the social media. Even Piers Morgan tonight on CNN has been interrupted by CNN Breaking News about this disruption on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, so far tonight you have abused RFC to post your POINTy spam and attempted to initiate a coup d'etat of ArbCom. I guess behaving like an ass is the cherry on top, eh? Resolute 02:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no abuse of the RFC because asking for comments on the entire Party Program is what I'm asking. What is disruptive is you edit warring here to prevent the processes that were announced well in advance from going forward. You are in violation of WP:POINT by nitpicking about the RFC process perhaps not usually used for this and then taking disruptive action based that. I could just as well argue (correctly) that ArbCom is technically in violation of some of the fundamental Wiki-Policies and then put ArbCom on MFD. If I were to do that, I would be in violation of WP:POINT. Count Iblis (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• speedy close as disruptive misuse of RfC process. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is no disruption here, the RfC is about discussing the Party Program. Count Iblis (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Count Iblis. I was not in favor of this "Party" concept at first, but recently ArbCom has drifted so far from reasonable actions that I have come around. An Rfc will allow for an open discussion of some very disturbing trends. And attempts to shut this Rfc down are a vio of WP:NOTCENSORED. Jusdafax 03:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Any comments you have about the program, suggestions for candidates (if you think you are electable, you can put yourself forward as part of this platform) are welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not censored applies to article content, it does act in defence of an abuse of process. And if there is a legitimate RFC to be had on ArbCom, then WT:ARBCOM (or perhaps a VP if you want a 'neutral' venue) is the place to formulate and hold it. Resolute 04:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the RFC template as "Join my party" is not an RfC, it is canvassing. Please do not replace it, as this would be disruptive. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Arbitration Committee is the appropriate venue for a discussion on the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to edit that page and start the discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• The heading says "Invitiation RFC to join the party" and the opening statement says "Please consider joining the ArbCom Reform Party to contribute to the platform and/or to put yourself forward as candidate running for this Party. " and there is a section right above this one where the Count is discussing opening an RFC for the purposes of recruiting and another user saying that may not be such a hot idea, and when it turned out it wasn't he suddenly changes his tune and claims he was in fact opening a request for general comments on the party. That sir, is a lie. This reminds me very much of the saga of bullshit that had to be gone through over another ridiculous idea put forward by this same user. Arbcom Reform Party, I suggest you find yourselves another leader, one who is a little more thoughtful and honest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears support for this is rapidly drying up... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is list of members of this Party? Is it Party of One? My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see, it is maybe a "party of two," as it seems to have two candidates running for ArbCom. I could say any number of things regarding this matter, how the candidates seem to be discussing their partisan agenda more than actually indicating anything about their qualifications and/or their relevant history regarding matters which are appropriate to ArbCom candidates, how this effort seems to be more about making back-door changes than displaying the transparentness the candidates themselves call for, and so on and on. Having said that, I think it is not unreasonable to raise some of the questions raised here, but it is one thing to raise questions and quite another to provide clear and direct answers or tactics, and, unfortunately, it looks to me like there is much more of the former than of the latter. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that didn't work, did it?

The two candidates from this party finished dead last in the Arbitration elections, with incredibly bad numbers. 132 support, 854 oppose.

This project is a bad joke. As I noted above, CountIblis, the defecto leader of this outfit, has repeatedly engaged in WP:IDHT behaviors as well as out and out dishonest behavior such wasting the community's time with a run for ArbCom when he knew perfectly well he had no chance of being elected. It seems perfectly clear that he therefore ran soleley to get a free platform for recruitment for this project. Well guess what? You got some attention, but it does not appear to be the kind you were looking for. Note the lack of activity here during the election itself, as if the few users who did support this no longer wanted to be assosciated with it once this crank candidacies were announced.

I suspect this project is dead, and none too soon if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. I hope it continues: the presence of Wikipedia's equivalent of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in future ArbCom elections will liven things up. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not do this, okay? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Aww geez Brad, why do you have to be so much nicer than me? Maybe that's why everyone likes you so much. To clarify, I am not just trying to kick them when they are down, but rather to suggest that a more honest and open approach to reforming perceived flaws in the committee might have generated better reusults. But you're probably right, as usual. I'll let it lie. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, is it really necessary to dance on the grave? Count Iblis is taking this pretty hard. Whether you agree with his platform or not, he did devote a lot of time and effort to come up with this innovative concept and deserves credit. I suspect this is exactly the reason Brad is elected with the highest vote and your candidacy failed just like the ArbCom Reform Party. There is absolutely no need to gloat, no need to kick and bully people when they are down, no need to bait and poke Count Iblis to respond with incivility. This is not the sort of temperament I expect from someone who aspires to be an arb. Such cynical and immature behavior also does not help Wikipedia in terms of editor retention.--YOLO Swag (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think any non-admin candidate has a chance. This is like someone in US running for a president while not a member of a Democratic or Republican Parties. There is a Party already (no need to create another one), but this is party of administrators. It has very clear symbols of power (administrative tools), the members are elected at RFA, and this is a tenure position, unless they are trying to create their own factions. Just kidding. But I think Count deserved a lot of credit for taking part in these elections, responding to all questions, etc. Thank you, Count Iblis! My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there are non-admins who do stand a chance, but it is definitely easier to become an arb if you are an admin. And that stands to reason, actually. When you look at the people elected, most of them have been long involved with mediation and dispute resolution efforts (even if just at ANI) for a long time. That is how you build the kind of profile that gets you elected to arbcom. Most people who take on that work while not admins get nominated to become one and usually pass easily. So in this respect, I believe the tools follow the right attitude. Resolute 14:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree. Just remember that Peter Principle is working. In wikipedia setting this means the following. The admin's duties are different from the work of an ordinary user. Therefore, most admins will not be really competent and will simply continue to do something they did as ordinary users. All work will be accomplished by a small percentage of admins who are really competent. However, all admins will continue holding their position, excluding cases when they are "super-incompetent". And so on. However, one should also look at "criticisms" of the theory [1], as usual. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A party is a group of people who stand for elective office on a common program and with a shared support base. On that measure we admins are very far from being a party - on most RFAs and RFCs the admins split in similar proportions to other editors. Occasionally you get a vote where some admins argue that a measure is impractical and if they are right other admins will disproportionately share their concern. But the general pattern of !voting is not what you'd expect if Admins were a "party". Incidentally the voters differentiated somewhat between the two candidates standing on this slate, there were several other pairs of editors who got much more similar results, though I suspect that if we knew who had !voted for whom we might see some overlap in support for these two and that some of the closer correlations were coincidences with quite big differences in who actually voted for and against them. My criticism of this initiative is that it didn't develop or market its reform program, the community was divided in this election, but it wasn't obvious to me where this Party stood on the big current governance issues. Perhaps a better route for the future would be to develop a voter guide, make it clear what your agenda is and where all the candidates stand with regard to it. If it turns out that your issues are the ones that the community cares about then you may well influence Arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If just 10% of the 132 supporters become active Party members, we'll have a much better chance in the next elections. One or two editors here with limited time can't get a lot done, with more people here, we can get more work done, take on board WereSpielChequers' advice and get more people to stand as candidates on behalf of this Party. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, I'd advise against making the assumption that there were 132 supporters. 132 is both your supports combined, and surely some of those voted for both of you, so the maximum number that could be said to support the "party" is 45, but even that number is likely high, as I'm sure some voters just supported everyone or supported everyone except one candidate they opposed. The numbers do tell us something important, however: YOLO Swag did much better last year running as NWA.Rep, with more than double the support percentage (16.04% last year, just 7.51% this year). While it's impossible to make a definitive statement of what might have happened, I think it's pretty clear you both would have done better without each other and without the "party". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  To that point, I specifically opposed both candidates because of this party. Absent it, I would have ignored both completely. Resolute 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  You can all do as you please, but then you shouldn't complain when ArbCom continues to make a big mess. Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe ArbCom will work well this year? You could at least wait a little further into the year than January 4th before assuming that we'll make a big mess, y'know.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  False dichotomy. Choosing the lesser of two evils is not an automatic endorsement of the evil that was chosen. And, as NYB notes, things can improve. Hopefully they do. Resolute 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  The fundamental idea of the Reform party is that the problem is with the structure, not so much the Arbitrators. Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And the fundamental flaw in the party is the idea that deliberately creating a faction or cabal instead of using normal processes for attempting to change that structure is even remotely a good idea. (that and the fact that it is being run by dishonest people who are so comfortable with trying to "unsay" things rather than admit they were wrong, a quality we see all too often in real-life politicians) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC on the platform of the ArbCom Reform party for the 2013 ArbCom elections

This is a RFC to ask Wikipedians about their opinions for a suitable platform for the 2013 ArbCom elections. Count Iblis (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Don't use RFC as a means to spam for this party? Resolute 22:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Unlike last year's RFC, this is strictly within the rules. I only have posted a RFC two or three times since I joined Wikipedia in 2004, so I could be forgiven to not know that inviting editors to join an open ended WikiProject about reforming the ArbCom is not allowed (it's not canvassing, because people are free to put forward what they think it's best and whatever the oputcome fo that would be is going to be put to the Wiki electorate). But this time I'm not asking people to join, I'm just asking people to comment and come up with suggestions for this WikiProject, which is precisely what RFC are meant for (it is a "Request for Comment" after all).

If you still have problems with this, I suggest you put the RFC template up for TFD. Count Iblis (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)