Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards/Archive 4

message: Do you have to be an administrator to give out Barnstars? WereWolf 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No...Anyone can just a word of advice don't give them to every single person you come across or they won't be special anymore.--Seadog ♪ 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they don't have to be barnstars to be appreciated either. User:Pedant 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving Out Barnstars 

message: This poll is open to all for one week. Please indicate by signing below how you feel about the following question:
:Do we want to keep Evrik on as coordinator?
:Yes
*South Philly 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No
*Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The administration of Awards is a matter relevant to the wider community, not just this project. The discussion should be open to all editors in good standing. It should also address whether a project coordinator is needed and, if so, what role coordinators should play. I also think it should be linked to from the Village Pump so that input from univolved members of the community can be maximised. It is important that steps be taken to address and minimise any WP:OWN concerns. WjBscribe 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns, but there has been some dissension within the wikiproject about leadership. Setting a limit on who can vote (for the time being) is only fair. It prevents vote stacking. Membership has been open for months, and anyone can join now if they so choose. There is even a second and maybe third coordinator job available. --South Philly 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Authority is not given to you to deny the return of the king a voice to wikipedians in good standing. Wikiprojects by their very nature have to inclusive or they SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN. --Fredrick day 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Award do affect the community as a whole. Anyone should be allowed to vote. I can think of very few WikiProjects that have/need a coordinator, from what I have read above there really hasn't been a reason given as to why a coordinator is really needed on such a small WikiProject. Would Oppose if I weren't being excluded.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the rubric, the voting is open to all. I have also advertised this poll on the Village pump. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't think so. It's kinda inappropriate to vote where you have a COI. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  well we don't allow people to vote on their own positions anywhere else on wikipedia? why would we here? --Fredrick day 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats stupid. Okay sooo ALL wikipedians EXCEPT evrik? Fine ill re-state my vote. thuglasT|C 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure why you see it like that, it's pretty standard in the west, that people don't get to vote for themselves! :0 --Fredrick day 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Huh? --evrik (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's not difficult to understand people generally don't get to vote on their own positions as there is a clear conflict of interest. it's standard practice in the western world and on wikipedia. --Fredrick day 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinator referendum

message: Trying to look at this objectively, despite what Dev920 says, there was a general agreement that some coordination was needed, but there was no consensus on how to do this. I was nominated to coordinate here, which I then accepted. I was also listed as the coordinator – and there was no objection for a couple weeks. Is that consensus?
The next month, Dev920 summarily removes me. From there that page has gone back and forth about whether or not there is a coordinator.
A poll was started, and then that too has gone back and forth.
There has been a lot of opinion about this whole thing, but there has been almost no recitation of policy. So I have five questions.
#Is there a policy about how a wikiproject determines who will lead or guide it (besides consensus)?
#Is consensus achieved from lack of opposition? If so, how long does a question have to sit?
#Is there a policy on the removal of such a person?
#Is there a policy about polling people?
#Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll?
I thought I was nominated to be coordinator, and was WP:AGF. My concern at this point is that rather than build consensus among the project members, Dev920 just acted, without even building consensus. If you look at the history, Dev920’s consensus to act was an agreement of two users. This started over disagreements on how two awards were handled. It should be obvious that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking, and disagree with Dev920 – but I’d like to get some objective answers to the five questions listed above.
Thanks. --evrik (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking - are you accusing editors of acting improperly in saying that the role of co-ordinator should be removed? why are they stacking votes? Why do you feel that normal wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this project? You accept that it is standard wikipedia process that ANY editor can have a say about a project? 
You ask one really one relevent question:
#Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll? the answer is summed up in one sentence "wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit". People get confused what wikiprojects are, they are just another set of community pages with a specific function, they work by the agreement of the those who share the goals of the wikiproject. However this is sometimes confused to mean that the people within the project have some special powers over the project pages - they don't. Those are community pages and thus South philly has ZERO authority to try and prevent any wikipedian in good standing, offering suggestions or saying "no this post of co-ordinator is not required". Membership of a project might be desirable to some but it is NOT required for a wikipedian to comment, offer suggestions or take part in any discussion that impact on wikipedia policy or process. Any attempts to prevent wikipedians having their say will be strongly resisted. At the moment, the co-ordinator poll could be closed as WP:SNOW - it's not wanted. --Fredrick day 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, most of what you wrote is hyperbole - but I'll answer (as succintly as I can). If I was to be removed then a poll should have been done - a poll was done to keep me, and that has turned into a circus. There are precedents within the community for limiting suffrage. As far as I can see, you cited no policies, but I appreciate you stating your opinion. --evrik (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikiprojects are covered by guidelines, those are trumped by policy - such as WP:CON - A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.. Regardless of the fact that you thought you had consensus for being co-ordinator (and I don't actually agree that you did) - policy is pretty clear there - what is the community saying about the position? well it's saying "it's not needed". you can wikilawyer all you want, the community is being pretty clear about this - the co-ordinator post WILL be going, people WILL have their say. --Fredrick day 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Consensus looks like the position is not needed. Nothing against Evrik, but very few WikiProjects are actually led by anyone.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally using polls and voting is frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, its a guideline not policy, but then again nothing is really set in stone around here.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I would say that if this position goes ahead, against consensus, that this project should be deleted.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The edit warring stuff maybe. Ignoring consensus is not a dispute.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell one person nominated Evrik, and discussion mostly centered around the position existing at all, current discussion concludes that the position is not needed. I think consensus is clear here, and like I said, it's nothing against you Evrik. I haven't been around here long enough to know anything about any of the users but I do that the creeping buro that this project is experieincing is anti-Wiki in spirit.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy?

message: Has anyone else noticed that now that Evrik has been removed, Dev920 has taken over? This was really about power, not about consensus. Dev920 wanted power and she got it. --South Philly 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The king is dead, long live the queen

message: Dev920 drove away thuglas from wikipedia. --South Philly 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, enough with the wikidrama. There was a vote according to Wikipedia policies, it did not go the way you or Thuglas desired (WP:SNOW) -get over it. I hope Thuglas returns one day (wikibreaks are an excellent way to de-stress, after all), but if he believes he can no longer contribute usefully to Wikipedia, we'll respect his decision and move on. Certainly nobody made him go away. And posts like the ones above are both unhelpful and unnecessary, as Smomo pointed out. I'm not even going to comment about MfD'ing this project in retaliation for the vote results, but I honestly believe it's high time people start contributing to this project and seeking consensus on issues instead of crying 'Dev920 is evil!' :-) Raystorm 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost users

message: Does anyone know how to make one? I really want to, if you know how to, show me how to on my talk page, or else I will forget to go back here and find out an answer. Thanks, Coocooforcocopuffs 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating a Barnstar

message: Can you give a barnstar to yourself? 65.102.35.249 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What for?  It would mean nothing.  As noted in a movie once, honor can never be taken.  It must be earned. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: :Image:Bs-1.jpg and :Image:Ubs1.png.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Found two new BS pics to be moved to commons

message: I just received a 'Bitch star' from a troll (it can be seen on my userpage or my talk page!). I am proposing we make it into a barnstar for troll reversion RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahahaha. MS paint. JPG. Support! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indolences (talk • contribs) 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bitch star I just received

message: I helped propose the Copyeditor's Barnstar.  I thought we basically had consensus, then talk died down.  There were a couple of dissensions.  Does it have to be unanimous?  I don't understand why it was archived with no resolution.  It looked to me like it was a go... (the discussion and design were moved here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive15)  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused about approval process and archiving 

message: I think an 'education' barnstar should be added to the list of catagory barnstars. what does everyone think? Kiran90 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  education 

message: I also thought of a 'good sport' barnstar. this could be awarded to someone who bounced back from warnings/blocking, learnt from their mistakes, and took it in good stead. Kiran90 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good sport 

message: I award a user a barnstar, and later, I found out that the user had already the same barnstar. The user was awared it three days earlier. Can we do that? WereWolf 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two of Same Barnstar 

message: I am looking and looking for rules regarding this proposed award. I think it would be a GREAT award, but am unsure what the ideas behind each "level" of award is. Please comment under this subject on this page; I'll look here for your guidance. —ScouterSig 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar v. other award 

message: I wasn't sure how to go about this but I created three ribbons, one for the DYK Medal, and one each for two WikiProjects, Ghost towns and Illinois. I'll post them here. Do they have to be approved to go on the main page here?A mcmurray 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate page on Ribbons, just post them them under a heading where it says your username. That's it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I deleted the images here. :)A mcmurray 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ribbons

message: Pardon my asking a dumb question . . .  but I'm totally confused about the process and standards for a WikiProject award.  I keep reading different things ("a project can do anything it wants as an award" but: "Awards should be in the shape of a star" but: "Barnstars should only be used for barnstars") so I'm confused!
*Is there already an ABCs primer on what are the visual standards for WP Award? (must it be in the shape of a star?) if so, could you steer me to this ABCs page?
*What are the visual standards for a WP Award? (can they be barnstars? must they be in the shape of non-barnstar star? WikiProject Aircraft is not in the shape of a star for example)
*Do all WP Awards have to be approved on the Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals page?  (can a project develop its own award independently? 
If you could take a moment and explain this to me s-l-o-w-l-y, that would be much appreciated! EspanaViva 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I feel illuminated!  Let me take this discussion back to WP Spain, and let them know.  ¡Muchas gracias!  EspanaViva 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon my asking a dumb question! 

message: I don't really understand the purpose of this?  Do you want to get rid of all of those "awards" you just linked to the Proposed Changes page?  --Cyde Weys 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also hope that by doing this, there will be some more interest in helping to clean-up the pages, which are right now rather chaotic. evrik 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose? 

message: I wasn't sure how to go about this but I created three ribbons, one for the DYK Medal, and one each for two WikiProjects, Ghost towns and Illinois. I'll post them here. Do they have to be approved to go on the main page here?A mcmurray 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate page on Ribbons, just post them them under a heading where it says your username. That's it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I deleted the images here. :)A mcmurray 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ribbons

message: Pardon my asking a dumb question . . .  but I'm totally confused about the process and standards for a WikiProject award.  I keep reading different things ("a project can do anything it wants as an award" but: "Awards should be in the shape of a star" but: "Barnstars should only be used for barnstars") so I'm confused!
*Is there already an ABCs primer on what are the visual standards for WP Award? (must it be in the shape of a star?) if so, could you steer me to this ABCs page?
*What are the visual standards for a WP Award? (can they be barnstars? must they be in the shape of non-barnstar star? WikiProject Aircraft is not in the shape of a star for example)
*Do all WP Awards have to be approved on the Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals page?  (can a project develop its own award independently? 
If you could take a moment and explain this to me s-l-o-w-l-y, that would be much appreciated! EspanaViva 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I feel illuminated!  Let me take this discussion back to WP Spain, and let them know.  ¡Muchas gracias!  EspanaViva 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon my asking a dumb question! 

message: I don't really understand the purpose of this?  Do you want to get rid of all of those "awards" you just linked to the Proposed Changes page?  --Cyde Weys 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also hope that by doing this, there will be some more interest in helping to clean-up the pages, which are right now rather chaotic. evrik 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose? 

message: I went and "speedy-supported" all PUA's. See the primary page for my reasoning. – ClockworkSoul 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed PUA discussion section 

message: Whatever happened to some proposed barnstars?
I know they're in the archives... but some of them seemed to be fit for real barnstars...
(Neuroscience, text star, Hong Kong barnstar...) Dark Ermac 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahem

message: Okay . . . I have some questions regarding my Wikihalo award. First off, I have no clue who nominated me, and I would really like to know. I also want to know who voted for me and such, since nobody let me know about this either. The only thing I do know is that the person who gave me the award got blocked. Any help would be great. Thank you. WereWolf 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikihalo 

message: Excuse me, what do right do you have to simply delete awards whenever you feel like it? There is no consensus to dleist the wikihalo whatsoever: cease immediately. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikihalo changes 

message: Evrik has no right to do this as there is no consensus to delete on the proposed removals page, and in fact the discussion was archived some time ago until Evrik unilaterally decided to reopen and speedy the pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Wikihalo/Nav

message: Evrik has no right to do this as there is no consensus to delete on the proposed removals page, and in fact the discussion was archived some time ago until Evrik unilaterally decided to reopen and speedy the pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Wikihalo Administration

message: I've rewritten the page to reflect what the wikiproject actually should be doing and to make it more user-friendly. It should be easier to attract new members now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know perfectly well that is a lie. The wikiproject has now been cleaned up, so we can get on with our job of maintenence. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making it more user-friendly, Dev.  I think the confusion about the order of names in the participants' list is due to perhaps Dev not seeing the note that said --please place names in alphabetical order--.  I'm not attached to alphabetical order vs date when joined the project, myself, only that we go with one format and stick to it :-)  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just squashed all the cats together. In my experience, incoming users always put their names at the bottom anyway, and someone else has to sort it alphabetically, so ultimately its pretty but kinda pointless. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, people do tend to just sign up on the bottom of the list.  It's fine with me if you want to put it back into the order of when people joined.  But then you have to figure out what to do with the names that have no datestamps ;-)  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thuglas, I am concerned about your wholesale reversion of the various changes to the project page. Discussion has been happening here about whether new members feel welcome, and whether it's really appropriate to have Evrik as the coordinator.  And, indeed, whether we even need a coordinator.  Your reversion also removed the addition of new members to the project, as well as the welcome to new members. Did you mean to remove us from the project?  While I think it is helpful to list people who can help with graphics, for instance, I think the version you have reverted to is rather unwelcoming.  I don't think the changes were "childish" at all.  Are you saying you want a Request for Comment done on the project?  On individual editors? I am willing to help you set that up if you like, but I think we can discuss it here.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, thuglas.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Im going to ignore large parts of that post because responding is clearly futile. None of that information was useful, the stuff that was, I kept. Kathryn pointed out that the way the current particpants section was hard to figure out so I rearranged it - if you want to point out you specialise, why not simply add to your name? Finally, evrik appointing himself coordinator is disgraceful. No Wikipedian may claim to assert authority over another. Ever. If there are posts which give titles to users, than they must be voted on, not simply taken on "because Im a great contributor". The only thing I care about is improving this encyclopedia - my edit improved the page, and I would appreciate it if you would actually consider it. Kathryn liked it, so clearly I did something right. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Right. You were nominated by Southphilly in the face of opposition to the idea of having a  coordinator at all, every subsequent voter opposed your election... and then you added yourself as coordinator to the page. You think that constitues consensus? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully intend to continue ignoring your fixation on my opinions on evrik - they are not relevant to this discussion and when I made my comments, they were on a user talkpage. You insist on referring to them in every post you make, this is irrational and so I am not going to pay attention to them anymore, because it is pointless. Evrik has made his thoughts on what a coordinator does above "I think we need one or two designated authorities", "I don't want to be a sole authority, but I am willing to help coordinate." He sees it as an office of power, which it is not. I don't want him to take responsibility "into his own hands", because that is utterly against the principles of Wikipedia - and everyone who has discussed the topic of a coordinator, with the exception of evrik, who brought it up in the first place, and southphilly, who nominated evrik, has agreed with me on this issue, including you! I am forcefully doing things because otherwise you will "discuss" for several months, as you have been doing, and the end result is usually what evrik wants it to be, because, to his credit, he actually does stuff instead of talking about it ad nauseum. I do not want Wikipedia:Awards to become "Evrik's awards" because you would rather argue than work. I am trying to work with you but you keep veering off on tangents attacking me. Either start discussing my edit (seeing as we have only addressed the participants section so far, and that was only WP:ILIKEIT rather than any actual discussion as to utility) or stop posting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we're all quite tired.  I'm not even sure which version we have now, after all the back and forth.  I did some minor re-arranging. I put the opening text up above the nav box, and put the project details and goals above the members lists, as I think what we're trying to accomplish is more important that who is here.  Many other projects list the participants on a separate page, actually; I don't think we need to do that, as we don't have a lot on this page, but I do think moving the names down might help with some of the issues.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, instead of joining the discussion, Evrik just reverted the changes.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Evrik, posting on one person's talk page is not the same as joining in the discussion here, where all members of the project, and Wikipedians interested in joining the project, can join in. Multiple editors have removed your name as coordinator and replaced the whole "coordinator" section with text to the effect that the project welcomes new members, who should feel free to sign up.  As long as you keep reverting those edits, and removing the text that says new members are welcome, ill will is going to continue to spiral around the project. You are seriously driving people away, trying to WP:OWN the project, then complaining when you wind up with a huge workload, then complaining that your work isn't appreciated. This is a huge problem, imho.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why can't they contact current members? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, why would you contact someone who has little to no involvement in the project at all then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit arguing with you? Excuse me for asking for more than "Well, that's just the way it is". As Kathryn and that chap below and me don't want it, your call is not law. What I'm going to do now is put my edit back, but without the members stuff changes and then ask for for wider consensus  from everyone else, as this is really all that's bugging you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am trying to understand why you're coming from with this. But you seem to be saying that the braintrust is basically a roster of people who you call on to help make decisions, which makes no sense - what exactly is it that separates them from being actual members? If we need outside input, what's wrong with the conventional method of posting on the village pump or community portal for a specific proposal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's more confusing. Two people in the past two days have commented as such. Also, if the braintrust is there to give advice on the boundaries between Barnstars and WPAs, isn't that the purpose of guidelines? Anyway, I started a specific participants section below to which Kathryn has replied, so you may wish to continue this discussion there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redone. 

message: I would like to discuss what additions or subtractions of text folks would like to see from the project page.  In the back and forth of yesterday, I really lost track of what people want to change vs hang on to.  Thuglas, could you clarify what you mean by "i dislike the new participants"?  Two options I see right off hand: we can leave it as the version it was at last time I looked, where we have a list of general participants, and then also a list of those who can contribute graphics skills.  Or, less easy to parse if we get more members, we could just do what most WikiProjects do and have one list, where people indicate their strengths and areas of interest after their names.  I am not attached to either.  One thing I would like to change is some things with the layout of the page, so we have some text up top before the nav. box, and some of the sections compressed so there's a shorter nav box. For instance, I don't think we need an entire section for project name.  I'm willing to do some reformatting of the project page for visuals, but not till there's a bit more calm and consensus about content and priorities.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're all quite tired.  I'm not even sure which version we have now, after all the back and forth.  I did some minor re-arranging. I put the opening text up above the nav box, and put the project details and goals above the members lists, as I think what we're trying to accomplish is more important that who is here.  Many other projects list the participants on a separate page, actually; I don't think we need to do that, as we don't have a lot on this page, but I do think moving the names down might help with some of the issues.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, instead of joining the discussion, Evrik just reverted the changes.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Evrik, posting on one person's talk page is not the same as joining in the discussion here, where all members of the project, and Wikipedians interested in joining the project, can join in. Multiple editors have removed your name as coordinator and replaced the whole "coordinator" section with text to the effect that the project welcomes new members, who should feel free to sign up.  As long as you keep reverting those edits, and removing the text that says new members are welcome, ill will is going to continue to spiral around the project. You are seriously driving people away, trying to WP:OWN the project, then complaining when you wind up with a huge workload, then complaining that your work isn't appreciated. This is a huge problem, imho.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary (sub-)section break

message: I assure you, there is no revenge motive in my edits to the main page. I did exactly the same thing to WP:LGBT here. Bold changes are fine on Wikipedia, as long as objections to content by other editors are addressed. So what I'm going to do now, in view of all the negative stuff above, is go through my edit and explain why I did it. Hopefully we can then agree over what parts should go back and what can be improved:
#. I created an introduction from stuff that was in the scope which wasn't anything to do with scopes.
#. I deleted the scope section because it was then redundant and moved the Goals section into it's place because it had been placed near the bottom, for whatever reason. People need to see our "mission statement", no?
#. I deleted the parents section and added them to the similar wikiprojects section because it looks tidier, and most established projects end up removing that anyway. It has no use as far as I can beyond showing users looking at new project where it fits in.
#. I removed the coordinator section because the discussion linked above showed that virtually no-one was interested in a coordinator, and when evrik was put forward, everyone opposed him. I thus considered that the addition was inappropriate. There are, so far as I know, only two WikiProjects with coordinators, WP:MILHIST and WP:LGBT, (though WP:BIOGRAPHY is gearing up for them too) - in each case the project had over a hundred members and lots of complicated fiddly tasks that required an overseer. This is simply not the case here.
#. The membership section seems to be the contentious one, but the reason I did it was so that it would be easy to add one's name. At the moment the lists are duplicated by interest. Perhaps it would be better to have a normal list and specify what areas you are interested in after your name? Also, maybe we should switch to ? It would make it easier to contact people.
#. I removed the braintrust because either someone is a member or they aren't, I don't know why that's there.
#. I took out the major overhaul page because discussion has shifted to our talkpage, and that is where it ought to be kept, that being precisely what our talkpage is for).
#. I've also removed all references to the aims of the WikiProject being to "discuss" anything. Talkpages discuss, WikiProjects DO. Yeah, we discuss stuff here, but the idea is that that will turn into action at some point.
#. I removed the related pages section because the links do not exist (and IMO never should). I similarly removed non-existent categories.
That outlines my thought process. I've numbered them so you can object to specific parts and we can discuss improvements. But I hope you will agree that the basic principles behind my edit are sound. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't they contact current members? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, why would you contact someone who has little to no involvement in the project at all then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit arguing with you? Excuse me for asking for more than "Well, that's just the way it is". As Kathryn and that chap below and me don't want it, your call is not law. What I'm going to do now is put my edit back, but without the members stuff changes and then ask for for wider consensus  from everyone else, as this is really all that's bugging you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am trying to understand why you're coming from with this. But you seem to be saying that the braintrust is basically a roster of people who you call on to help make decisions, which makes no sense - what exactly is it that separates them from being actual members? If we need outside input, what's wrong with the conventional method of posting on the village pump or community portal for a specific proposal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's more confusing. Two people in the past two days have commented as such. Also, if the braintrust is there to give advice on the boundaries between Barnstars and WPAs, isn't that the purpose of guidelines? Anyway, I started a specific participants section below to which Kathryn has replied, so you may wish to continue this discussion there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page edit 

message: For your consideration: 
	This user is a participant in WikiProject Awards.
 Simple, but should do the job.  Code to type for this userbox:   ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: How come on some of the awards in doesn't say what to type? (e.g. Wikipedia Motivation Award). Is there no template for some of the awards? C3322 03:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to Type 

message: It seems to me that we are overclassifying the awards.  Four levels? Heavy investment in saying some proposed award should be (e.g.) a Wikiproject award and not a Barnstar?  Why does it matter that much?  Why do we need to divide them up to that extent?  If someone wants to vreate an award and make it available for others to give, fine.  If it overlaps with one that already exists, so what?  If it says what it is for, and it is kind and civil and all things nice and none that are nasty, so be it.  I don't think we need to have these extensive arguments which take much time to read, let alone participate in.  The time spent doing that could be used in editing of articles - in actually creating and improving an encyclopedia.  The rest is just window-dressing. Aleta 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that Barnstars are supposed to be very special, recognising exemplary work from a Wikipedian. They thus need to be broad in their purview and, ideally, sparingly promoted (which is what is happening at the moment). WPAs are much more localised, much more, "Hey! Thanks for that help on that article that helped me get it to GA!", with the result that they're given out much more. The ORAs are a mess between the two and IMO, many of them ought to be delisted (if we learnt anything from Wikipedia:Esperanza, it's encouraging anyone to beautify their userpage is a BAD thing), and the PUAs are just small tokens for specific edits (I tend to give them when someone has said something particularly nice, or helped me in a small but meangingful way). The gradations are there because, let's face it, receiving a wiffle bat isn't as meangingful as receiving the RickK Barnstar of Vandal-fighting. I do, hoever agree with you that extensive discussions about this and the boundaries between when a barnstar becomes a WPA etc don't really help - I think we would be better off discussing every individual case and allowing consensus to gradually emerge from that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My thoughts

message: I am not a member of the project but poke around here sometimes. Just my two cents. This whole thing is way way way beaurucratic. Coordinators? Classifications of awards? What the heck? There are like ten members here. Just looking at this talk page makes me not want to join the project. What does braintrust mean around here, btw? It implies some special group. Anyway, the page does discourage new members with all that (seeming) beaurucratic nonsense. I know everyone knows what happened with Esperanza (sp?), would hate to see that happen here too. This whole thing is supposed to be informal (according to my understanding), why the push for so much formality? Projects work much much better without centralized authority. That just leads to someone saying "because I said so and I am the great leader, kiss my statue." (Crude ref to North Korea, haha?) Just my thoughts.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of this version of the main page? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At a glance I would say less beraucratic (I still can't spell that word). The guidlines are linked prominently which is importante. But what about the so called braintrust, are those members? What does that mean? I see it's gone in that version. So were they not members? Is there a cabal? ;)A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure myself. Apparently they're people who aren't involved in Awards anymore but can still be contacted about them - no, I don't know how that works either... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And mine too

message: I really want to throw this one out to everyone: how should the members section be organised? As a simple list with comments from individual editors about their particular interests? Currently, users are duplicated, if we continue with the current system, perhaps we should remove members from the general section who are in another? Should we switch from the current User:Example to ? And what about this braintrust thing, apparently made out of non-members without an interest in Awards anymore? Should we delete it and previous braintrustees can add themselves the full list? Should we keep it, or modify it in some way? I'd like to spark some wider dicussion on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I'm seeing in this discussion, I think we'd be best off to simply structure the participants list the way all the other WikiProjects I've worked on do:  A simple list of all interested users, with new members signing up at the bottom and, if they like, adding a few words about which areas they feel they can help with.  The linear order shows who has been around longer, and therefore gives some indication of seniority and who may know more about how the process works, without implying that anyone is the authoriteh or a closed cabal.  I think the "braintrust" should be merged into the main list;  more appropriately, the users on the "braintrust" list should be contacted and asked if they are still interested in participating in the project.  Otherwise it looks like they are another sort of cabal, who should have more say in things than other Wikipedians, or who have more right to have their opinions sought out.  I think casual participants can be in the same list as incredibly active ones, as in a healthy collective people take turns taking point, and workloads can shift around in an organic way as people have time and desire.  Who's working the most this week might shift in two weeks, and back again a few weeks after that.  In a volunteer project like this that sort of flexibility is necessary to avoid burnout.  If more input is needed in a discussion on a proposed award, I think a general post to the whole community, such as at the Village Pump, is more in the Wiki-spirit than only contacting a specific list of users.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Shall we just change the heading to "inactive members"? Then people can take themselves off if they aren't interested. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one has actually opposed most of the changes themselves (and many have supported), and the one that was opposed I have put back and have been discussing to reach a consensus. Sorry, but I don't consider improving a WikiProject page vandalism. On this braintrust thing, Zscout, if you don't know why you were listed, I assume no-one else knows. If it exists to provide outside input, it may be a better move to simply get rid of it and announce issues that require external views on the village pump and community portal, rather than canvassing the same people over and over again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You can see an example of my latest announcement here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I will go do that then when I get home. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants section. 

message: Uhmf. I'm gonna ask a stupid question. Is it OK to keep a Barnstar awarded by a troll (not to say vandal)? I've got one on my talk page (although I got it much much before he was indef-blocked). --PaxEquilibrium 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know: shortly, two groups of ultra-nationalist trolls and vandals were mass-destroying everything around them - I helped deal one of the groups, and a member of the other group of violent users awarded me a Barnstar just before I went to deal with that group. I think that he (now indef-blocked) might be regretful for giving me that barnstar... --PaxEquilibrium 12:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any traces of a barnstar on your talkpage, or you have removed it. When was it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one from C-c-c-c. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is your call to keep it or not. Some people removed it, some keep it. I personally remove them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll 

message: I have decided to join the project, despite what I told Dev920 yesterday. This is because I really  like the idea of barnstars, ribbons etc and I also believe that the goodwill and good faith of the editors here (who all obviously care enough about the community to have become involved in such a project in the first place) will easily be able to overcome any recent edit warring or conflict that has arisen on the page. Perhaps, as a neutral and   observing party, I can help with that. I have been hanging around here for awhile now and am fairly familiar with recent discussions, I have also made sure to watch the voting process. I hope to help out where I can, closing discussions, helping out users who drop by the page with questions, etc, etc. If anyone thinks their are any useful links that could help me become better acquainted with the project (more so than I already am) please do leave them here or on my talk page. Anyway, looking forward to helping out the awards process.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! Looking forward to working with you. - Anas Talk? 11:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining the circus