Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 3

message: Archived the talk page again, obviously. Right now the dates don't seem to be following any particular format; if y'all would like, I can refactor them so they are sorted on a month by month basis. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it the way it is. The posts are in pretty much chronological order anyway. (^'-')^ Covington 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: May I ask why user Ciraric, under members, wrote Grrrr... next to his name. --Osbus 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No clue, but its genius!  - Tutmosis 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ciraric's account was being used by Cicero Dog without Ciraric's permission (see User talk:Petros471#Cicero Dog et al.) – they may not even know they're a member here. Somebody should probably check? Cheers --Pak21 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone tried to hack me too... strangely it came from one of the IPs involved range! Computerjoe's talk 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here - got a nice flood of password request emails. Ian13/talk 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is indef. blocked, though I have a feeling we'll be hearing more... now I suggest we move on. Computerjoe's talk 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the block has been reduced, and now expires in ~24 hours. I and others will be keeping more than a casual eye on him though... Cheers --Pak21 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If sie continues with behaviour after a block I will file a RfC. Computerjoe's talk 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to let you know that I did warn Cicero Dog with a re-block if he returns to disruption. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you think this is happening (I don't really follow CJ events, sorry!). For now lets hope we've got another productive editor :) Petros471 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible incivility 

message: Let's not victimise whoever is causing these problems. Let's leave it and discuss something else... like ideas for programs. Computerjoe's talk 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we must move on - • The Giant Puffin • 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Leave It 

message: On the advice of Computerjoe I am appealing to the council and members of community justic to allow me to rejoin as a member. I have learned my lesson and am willing to work to earn back the respect and integrity i have lost through my actions. I feel that Community Justice would be a perfect place to regain a feeling of civility and pride in Wikipedia which i had clearly lost. And, besides, what better place for me to be observed for my behaviour. |I feel that after my 2 day ban i am ready to return to wikipedia as a good and policy abiding user. I appeal to the members of the council not to shun my efforts but to find it in their hearts to welcome me back as a member of Community Justice. Thank-You. Cicero Dog 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinstated  as sie apologised and I was uncivil to him/her. Any disruption will lead in expulsion, once again. If anyone has strong objections, please state them. Computerjoe's talk 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay - I accept, on the basis that if ANY examples of incivility or disruption of CJ occur - he will be removed perminantly. Ian13/talk 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ian13 - • The Giant Puffin • 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have serious doubts about this, however I will tentativly go along with the consensus to give him a second chance.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to assume good faith Computerjoe's talk 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept...don't let us down Cicero Dog. --Osbus 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Ian13 and with the same tentativity as Death Eater Dan. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cicero Dog To Rejoin? 

message: We need to actively spread the word of civility. We are a tiny organisation on a huge site. We need to attract more members and be more effective in spreading civility. Can we not get on the main page? or place adverts at the bottom of the most popular articles. We need some form of action. Cicero Dog 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have. Unfort. we can't get onto the Main Page, but we often get on the Community Portal. We can't place links on irrelevant articles, or any in the main namespace. Computerjoe's talk 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  can we not try (by talking to the high head-one) arrange for our adverts to be put out there Cicero Dog 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. The Wikipedia doesn't work like that :D Computerjoe's talk 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after an edit conflict) No, we are not advertising ourselves on the main page. --Osbus 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we need to do something to raise our profile Cicero Dog 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our profile is high, considering we are a small organisation. We are probably going to do something with WP:ESP in the future. Computerjoe's talk 21:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We need some programs... — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Computerjoe's talk 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actions Speak Louder Than Words 

message: Per Xchrisblackx's suggestion I've created a poll for names to move CJ to. If you wish to add one, feel free to do so. You can support as many as you like. Computerjoe's talk 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of you who want a change but are unsure of what name, add your name to the Change section. Names will be settled after we determine how many members actually want a change. --Osbus 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't wanna be so pushy about this, Rx.  I don't see how it hurts anything to let these guys do their thing. -- SCZenz 01:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly don't want to appear pushy. But I stand by my comments, they don't speak for the community and justice isn't a part of the groups goals. Take out the context on these pages for a moment and put yourself in the place of a new or infrequent editor. You see a civility warning from what appears to be a community based enforcement group...I think there's harm in misrepresentation like that. And by the looks of things here they want to increase their visibility which just compounds the problem. Am I wrong? Rx StrangeLove 06:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to focus on specific actions that might be misleading, rather than on the group itself.  The civility warnings have had most, if not all, of the WP:CJ references expunged; if you think there's still a problem, you should edit them further.  -- SCZenz 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Computerjoe's talk 09:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And sometimes when someone looks to see who left it they see a member of something called Community Justice. The person who left might it even be a councilor or a chief executive/chairman, very formal and official sounding titles. That the group is neither based in the general Community  or involved in justice is misleading every time it's used, it can't not be misleading, and there's no way to edit that away. I'm disappointed in Computerjoe's reaction to this...a good faith and civil objection to the name is dismissed with a single "indeed". Anyway, I've said my piece...it'll resolve how it resolves and life will go on. But I stand by this and ask that changing the name be given serious consideration. Rx StrangeLove 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How was this uncivil? My saying indeed I was simply stating my agreement. Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rx never said you were incivil...Rx may have also taken your "indeed" as sarcasm or just a noncomittal, lazy response that devalued his proposal. --Osbus 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My stating SCZenz's response was civil, I took he/she was implying mine was not. Nvm. Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Osbus got it right....I didn't say anything about Computerjoe being uncivil. Rx StrangeLove 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for not AAGFing. Computerjoe's talk 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Poll 

message: # Not that I oppose to a name change in general, it's just that the proposed names don't appeal to me. Misza13 T C 20:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Change 

message: Put your name here if you feel you want a change
#Osbus 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: # (^'-')^ Covington 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Civility Project 

message: #Computerjoe's talk 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Civility 

message: # Civility and humor go hand in hand. Al 13:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilians 

message: # lots of issues  | leave me a message 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammer of Civility 

message: #--SPUI (T - C) 12:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is silly

message: The word Justice and the word Civil have two completely different meanings. So there's an enormous conflict between the name of the group and it's aims. Furthermore, on the project page (where the aims are presumably spelled out) the word justice does not appear at all outside of the name of the group. It's one thing to call for civility among editors, it's something completely different to call for justice. Anyone can work toward civility, but "justice" is a much trickier concept and one that we already have processes for...this group lays outside of the dispute resolution process. Using the word justice in the name is false pretenses and really needs to be replaced. There's plenty of good options, in my opinion justice isn't one of them and if it stays in the name I'm guessing it'll be decided at WP:MFD. Rx StrangeLove 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't wanna be so pushy about this, Rx.  I don't see how it hurts anything to let these guys do their thing. -- SCZenz 01:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly don't want to appear pushy. But I stand by my comments, they don't speak for the community and justice isn't a part of the groups goals. Take out the context on these pages for a moment and put yourself in the place of a new or infrequent editor. You see a civility warning from what appears to be a community based enforcement group...I think there's harm in misrepresentation like that. And by the looks of things here they want to increase their visibility which just compounds the problem. Am I wrong? Rx StrangeLove 06:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to focus on specific actions that might be misleading, rather than on the group itself.  The civility warnings have had most, if not all, of the WP:CJ references expunged; if you think there's still a problem, you should edit them further.  -- SCZenz 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Computerjoe's talk 09:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And sometimes when someone looks to see who left it they see a member of something called Community Justice. The person who left might it even be a councilor or a chief executive/chairman, very formal and official sounding titles. That the group is neither based in the general Community  or involved in justice is misleading every time it's used, it can't not be misleading, and there's no way to edit that away. I'm disappointed in Computerjoe's reaction to this...a good faith and civil objection to the name is dismissed with a single "indeed". Anyway, I've said my piece...it'll resolve how it resolves and life will go on. But I stand by this and ask that changing the name be given serious consideration. Rx StrangeLove 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How was this uncivil? My saying indeed I was simply stating my agreement. Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rx never said you were incivil...Rx may have also taken your "indeed" as sarcasm or just a noncomittal, lazy response that devalued his proposal. --Osbus 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My stating SCZenz's response was civil, I took he/she was implying mine was not. Nvm. Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Osbus got it right....I didn't say anything about Computerjoe being uncivil. Rx StrangeLove 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for not AAGFing. Computerjoe's talk 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I think we should move forwards. We, including myself, are spending too long on bureaucracy. We need to start taking actions, albeit it be be programs or something else. IMO, the group will not gain consensus on a name change, so surely it should remain the same? Computerjoe's talk 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that you didn't delete my comment on purpose... --Osbus 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I did not. I was replying to a previous comment of yours, and i must've edited an old version, and accidently revert. My apologies. I've restored it. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all right. --Osbus 16:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the logic there...however, as you are Chairman, you may decide what to do. But I do think a bigger issue at hand is lack of participance among our eighty something members. SO yes, a program would be the best way to go. --Osbus 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaving the poll open, in the hope consensus will be reached. However, it is pointless not moving forwards when we are having the poll. Yes, participance is a problem and if anyone has suggestions on how to improve it I'd appreciate it. Computerjoe's talk 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  here's the situation as i read it - and i am known as a man of action as this community knows - 9 want a change 5 don't therefore there must be a change and i feel the chairman must take the final decision. The Civility Project seems most popular. I would suggest a swift change to that within the next few days before we are bogged down in polls and opinion! Cicero Dog 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Multiple votes :P . I'm afraid consensus isn't going to be reached. Therefore, I'm keeping it open in case consensus is every reached. Computerjoe's talk 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are 79 members consensus could take months we need action. Anf you are the man for the job User:computerjoe Cicero Dog 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Untill we can clearly see that one option passes - it will remain open. If we still can't see any direction, then the move will be dropped. Ian13/talk 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, let's do that - • The Giant Puffin • 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that will work. Then what do we change to? And what do the people who don't want it changing vote for in that second poll. That will just lead to a minority winning in my opinion. Ian13/talk 08:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I'm not particuarly bothered if we keep the existing name, as long as we achieve our goals. But it seems such a problem to some people. I honestly cant believe a name can put people off as to stop them joining. I think we should develop some programs before we start work on less important issues like the name. It's all well and good having a nice name, but if we havent achieved anything, then its a waste of time - • The Giant Puffin • 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who are most concerned are those outside the group who think that your current name may cause people to misunderstand what your group is doing, and who you represent.  I share these concerns myself, for what it's worth; although the timing isn't urgent, I think it would be nice if y'all eventually settled on a name that reflects your current goals.  A name change is not a huge deal, but it is also dealt with quite easily the way things are usually done on Wikipedia; if you prefer to continue discussing the best polling method for your name change, well, you can always talk about substantive issues at the same time. But please don't give up on the name change because you've created such a complicated process for it! -- SCZenz 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in favour of a name change, however I would only be happy doing so with a clear consensus. Computerjoe's talk 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Forwards... 

message: I find it hard to believe that after discussing an issue which is of great importance and coming to no conclusion we immediately discard the idea and start discussing capatalisation over the picture of a duck. could we please concentrate on important issues. Thank You Cicero Dog 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Enough ducks :D . Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I've removed it as disruptive. SPUI, enough with the ducks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What On Earth? 

message: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia United Front is looking for new members Cicero Dog 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now what inspired you to create this. --Osbus 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i hope that isn't a mordant tone you're taking  Osbus i am merely trying to better wikipedia by creating yet another page of friendly do-gooders that is all. Cicero Dog 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Key words: "yet another" - • The Giant Puffin • 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  o, the incivility burns my eyes out replacing them with empty cavaties of sin - or perhaps better - a big yellow bird pecks out my eyes leaving them as broken crators of incivility.... Cicero Dog 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I hardly think this is the time, place, or people to attack for incivility. If you wish to moan about how civil people are - can you please do it constructively, and WP:AAGF. Ian13/talk 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i did ian, i fear you may have misunderstood ye ken? Cicero Dog 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Don't take me the wrong way now Cicero Dog. I was just implying that it is a bit redundant...not trying to be mordant here. --Osbus 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''WUF''' 

message: I took the plunge. I've demoted myself to councillor, as I'm sick of the extra layer of bureaucracy. Ian13 will become acting chairman until he decides as to whether to demote himself to councillor, or remain as chair until November. Either way, the post of CEO will be scrapped in the next election. Computerjoe's talk 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a sad day for cxommunity justice....computerjoe will be deeply missed...but he is now in a better place Cicero Dog 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I view that as a personal attack, I hope it is humourous - I really do... Ian13/talk 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman Becomes Councillor (x2) 

message: The Leader/"Dictator" would be elected every 3 or 6 months (6 months maximum) to lead the community justice project. They can not stand for term twice in a row to prevent a real dictatorship. They would discuss with other members here in the discussion page ideas and then chose what they view to be the best option. They will then head the decided programme taking on board comments from other members. They will, however, be able to be over thrown if the power goes to their heads by a vito if 5 members sign their names as strongly opposing the leader. The dictator/leader/bossman will have the final say on all issues cutting down on beurocracy and the enormous aamount of time wasted. We will make it legislation that the "dictator" must discuss with members before he acts or he will be "overthrown" the dictator will also make up an advisory council (made up of the most senior and wise members) They have no real power but can help the "dictator" make the correct decision. Isee it as the only way to save community justice from a slippery slope leading to ruin. who is with me? Cicero Dog 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We can run loosely, as what you once said actions speak louder than words made me think. Removing obstacles and making the whole organisation much less formal will be best. Computerjoe's talk 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the council must resign and we should fall into a communist like society, no? Cicero Dog 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Computerjoe's talk 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what? parliamentary democracy? constitutional monarchy (can i be king?) erm....presidential congresship? Cicero Dog 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. A semi-democratic-anarchy. :P Computerjoe's talk 18:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, very good idea. I still Think Ian 13 should resign tho' and just have a coucil. Cicero Dog 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its all explained above. Even if I were to stay, I wouldn't expect to be commented on :P Ian13/talk 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we just drop the whole political stance idea. :) Ian13/talk 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We should have just a council, as having a leader makes us even more formal, which can put people off. Having a council with a leader that can be removed is better than the current system because it stops the leader going wayward (i think thats the right spelling). Maybe a proposal should be made for the members to decide on? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the council can stop a chairman (and chairman stop CEO). However, both chair and CEO have resigned. Computerjoe's talk 18:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have resigned, but not because its 'honourable'. Ian13/talk 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why then? lol Cicero Dog 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what do you all expect Ian13 to do? The chairman has stepped down implying the chief exec to do the same. Kind of a difficult position. --Osbus 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so he did do it out of honour....that's all i wanted to hear.... Cicero Dog 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did NOT do it out of honour. Obviously there was an expectation that I stand down, but I did it because I also feel that doing so would be a positive action. Ian13/talk 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elected Dictator like role? 

message: May i welcome our new council and ask if anyone has any auggestions towards the betterments of this organisation.... Cicero Dog 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  just a point user:ian13 says the council will be reduced to 6 surely 5 is better or at least an odd number - to prevent voting ties and further disagreement Cicero Dog 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes good point...5 is a good number. --Osbus 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawn Of A New (and hopefully Better) Age