Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 6

message: Instead of what we have not done, let's focus on what we can do right now. I wanted to spread kindess and civility in Wikipedia without interfering with Wikipedia's policies. Here are some ideas that I came up with.
Wikitokens: For kind actions that are not "big" enough to get an barnstar. Like Wikismiles except for specific things. i.e.
  # Token of Hope
  # Token of Kindness
  # Token of Civility
Wikicards: Put these cards on the talk page to cheer someone up. i.e.
   # to cheer someone up
   # to thank a user who recently left Wikipedia
   # to send well wishes to a sick Wikipedian
WikiGrams: Say one thing positive about a Wikipedian and place it on his/her/hir page.
Let me know what you think about these ideas. I was going to do them myself, but I realized that it would be much more successful if more people are involved. Take care. (^'-')^ Covington 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Wikicards/WikiGrams for CCD, they sound Esperanzial? Computerjoe's talk 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's keep it with us. I want every Wikipedian, regardless of edit count, to be able to participate in this. WikiGrams and WikiCards do promote civility, as once the positive-ness is lost, then civility is hard to come by. Let's take steps to prevent incivility by fostering a positive attitude. (^'-')^ Covington 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas 

message: I thought I would archive the page, it was getting a bit long - • The Giant Puffin • 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Hi, guys, I've just joined concordia and interested in furthering the concordia agenda. But I was cut short because I can't find further guides from the task section of the page. Its has no links to what it points out to do. So.... Any pointer would be appreciated. ;) Thanks F3-R4 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks 

message: Well, I was going to instigate a discussion regarding whether we shoudld elete, tag, or revive, but Computerjoe seems to have got there first. Would it be a good idea to discuss this, or delete the accoutrements such as userboxes etc. to discourage new users? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest keeping them, like Concordia itself, for historical reasons. You never know, this may be revived some day, and I want it to have all it needs when it happens - • The Giant Puffin • 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD 

message: A comment on Concordia's MfD has revived a question in my mind I had when this organisation started to wilt. Do we have a future? Well, I still dont know. Do we? Its looking more bleak every day and I dont see us reviving any time soon. Esperanza are far bigger and were seen as safer, and yet they were recently up for MfD and are now, as a result of it, discussing its future and making drastic changes. What do we do? Do we revive ourselves with yet another revamp? Do we leave this as historical for some hopeful in the future to revive and bring back as much of the old as possible all the while flooding in some new ideas and concepts? Or do we simply let this organisation fade away into the minds of those who were members (council or not) or involved in some other way? Do we let it gradually become something only a select few remember doing anything? I just dont know at the moment. I havent seen most of the old council around Wikipedia recently. Maybe thats because I am doing less, or maybe its because they are doing less. There are a lot of unknowns at the moment - • The Giant Puffin • 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest complete inactivity. Don't let this organisation turn into a group of vigilantes, like it has been perceived in the past. Computerjoe's talk 20:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suggest inactivity.  If some editors want to revive it, let them.  I will be helping them. --ElectricEye (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to revive Concordia, they ought to have some veyr good ideas and enough people to support them. Concordia crashed and burned because it didn't have a big enough market share and not enough innovation. Additionally, as I said on the MfD, Concordia never seems to have got over the deletion of the Civility noticeboard. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth remembering that there was a discussion here about merging Concordia and a few other similar programmes (Esperanza, Kindness Campaign etc). While I'm not saying that this is the direction to take, it might be worth keeping in mind for later perhaps. Thε Halo Θ 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your POV Dev920, but is 171 members not enough people?  I think Concordia "passed-out" when it's parent's decided to let it die instead of defending the purpose of Concordia. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, I've been quite active in the Esperanza overhaul. Which means I've been checking a lot of userpages and it seems to me that Esperanzans have been adding themselves to both Concordia and  the Kindness Campaign as a way of "completing the set", if you know what I mean. I would estimate from the archives that there was 15 members at the most who were active. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some people do join some of these organisation just to look like they are bothered about this sort of thing. But there are/were over 170 members, some of which must have joined for a good reason - • The Giant Puffin • 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a member of all three of these organisations and my personal reason for joining them was to set a personal goal and make a public statement about trying to be kind (Kindness Campaign), civil (Concordia), and supportive (Esperanza). I don't normally rub it it people's faces, though now I do understand that some people are offended by the green letters present in many Esperanzans' signatures. I never had a good grasp of how members of Concordia aimed to encourage civility, other than by being civil in their own actions and reminding others when their civility is lacking. I don't know how many people decided to join these three groups out of a similar belief in certain ideals. --Kyoko 13:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had certain members  who thought CJ was a vigilante organisation, which gave more established Wikipedians the wrong idea about us. Community Justice/Concordia goal was to see the 5 pillars of the Wikipedia being followed, specifically the civility one. Computerjoe's talk 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should develop Concordia's philisophy to prevent a few from ruining it for everyone, and more established Wikipedians should know better than using the actions of a couple as an excuse to stop Concordia. --ElectricEye (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind maintaining Concordia, since the User who started it left. It seems to be a nice organization, and shouldn't have been left to die. Just my two-bits. Peace. Out. Bushcarrot Talk to me! 03:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future? 

message: I read in the newletter that the council was trying to relaunch Concordia. I'm all for it, but how would this be done? -- THL 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relaunch 

message: Maybe we should work for admins being fair. 
Geo. 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complaints about administrators not being fair/misbehavior are usually reported to WP:ANI.--Húsönd 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As they should be, but it's best to work it out with the admin themselves if you can.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrators 

message: Here's another idea for the list. Instead of "trading userpages", we trade articles that are too close to our hearts for us to edit in an entirely constructive manner, or simply upset us to do so. It's not necessary to know about the topic - just a willingness to learn and a basic understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
We could have this project be open-ended, but I would prefer that all projects have an end-date (1 month, 3 months, whatever) to prevent burnout and create smaller, obtainable goals that will encourage us. If we wish to "re=up", we can do so, but I think a bit of a rotation would be best. We could create a notification-bot (we minus me:) ) to help us with this. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think everyone agrees a FAQ should be set up. I would do it myself but am a little unclear about how to make a page outside of the article namespace. Anyone who knows how, go for it! Should probably be made at Wikipedia:Concordia/FAQ.An important topic to cover is how are we different from the  Harmonious editing club. I'm glad this project is starting up again!--Banana04131 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . . .and no one has disagreed with a civility mentorship program either. Maybe located at Wikipedia:Concordia/Mentorship. --Banana04131 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . . .Now that I am back from the help desk I am going to go ahead and be bold and make the FAQ. --Banana04131 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No clue either on the first topic. Second topic, GREAT!. Mentorship gets a bad rap, but people seem to like adoption - it shouldn't be called "civility" anything - it could sound pejorative. We simply adopt new users. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until we get the proposals page organized I have just started the FAQ at Wikipedia:Concordia/Frequently Asked Questions.--Banana04131 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm talking about, that's great. Thank you for your work, Banana.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposals page Ian¹³/t 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: another idea

message: I know that I'm not a member of Concordia, but I thought I could help out in some way. Everyone seemed to want a tempalate similar to the one Esperanza uses, so I made one. Please tell me your opinion on this template. If you would like to put this template on your user page, simply type 
, but replace Username with your username and Character with the Character you would like to use for the template. Bushcarrot 
(Talk·Desk) 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Behold, your great big blue box of wonder, with bold, unmistakable fonts! Surely a thing of wonder! -- Okay, sarcasm and mirth aside, I like it but I think it makes unnecessary use of huge bold fonts. On my 1400x1050 screen, it takes up considerable screen real estate. Could you put it on a diet, perhaps? ,:)  David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks nice, but I thought that people were trying to remove the whole "green e" thing in Esperanza because it made ESP look like some sort of exclusive club. Correct me if Im wrong, but thats what I recall happening - • The Giant Puffin • 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent gesture of goodwill. Thank you.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the templet to Concordia's list of templets and images. --Banana04131 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:CCD]]

message: Smile to people and help promote wikilove!
 
Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!  Smile at others by adding ,  or  to their talk page with a friendly message. 
:Thanks mate. Dfrg.msc  1 . 2 . Editor Review 09:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks =) - • The Giant Puffin • 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smile 

message: At Concordia, we definitely should find ways to squelch uncivil commotion.  But that action should be kept at a minimum while we encourage involved parties by directing them towards productive efforts (the other Wiki organizations). So, I do not believe it is wise to promote that Concordia "support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect."  Can we change the wording? I like Húsönd's "outward" approach as mentioned above and I also agree with Computer Joe's ideas on focusing on the encyclopedia rather than the the community.  Those ideas should have more influence in our introduction. --ElectricEye (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So focusing on articles that have incivility issues or edit wars going on? --Banana04131 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that. Assisting with civility issues on those articles. But we don't have to focus on them. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The project was designed to foster a friendly and helpful environment to support Wikipedians confronted with incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.
--ElectricEye (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza will no doubt have an effect to CCD. Computerjoe's talk 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will probably have another MfD here before January is through - • The Giant Puffin • 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But people paint us with the same brush as ESP - • The Giant Puffin • 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh! I'm scared! --ElectricEye (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch out 

message: Saddam Hussein's talk page is pretty incivil. --Banana04131 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein too. --Banana04131 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this will be one of the most edited pages on Wikipedia in the next few weeks - • The Giant Puffin • 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Banana, thanks for your efforts in civility on your spare time. ^_^ Ppl who want to help foster a friendly and helpful environment in Wikipedia can do things like this, but you don't have to notify this talk page.  You just go and do it. --ElectricEye (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spare Time 

message: A simple way to make the Wikipedia be more civil would be to make all CCD members agree to an oath to be WP:CIVIL. While in itself it wouldn't be that important, it would be a gesture of good will by our members. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is a good idea.  But I think those breaking the oath should be given at least 2 chances (3 strikes and your out) or else we may breed further uncivility. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm bureacracy. We don't need to launch an internal affairs division :P . The consequence for being incivil would be determined by the severity of the incivility, and would just be done with a bit of discussion. Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oath to Civility 

message: I think we should use civility as our yardstick to determine membership.  The past has shown that questionably civil members have almost caused this effort to die.  So, there should be several levels of membership:
*1 typical
*2 time-honored
*3 elected leaders from (2)
New members default to 1 and may become 2 if they have not had civility issues in 6 months.  2 may drop in status to 1 if they exhibit civility breaches.  A user may be barred entirely from membership if he is known to have have a continuing uncivil history. --ElectricEye (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much bureaucracy and I dislike the whole rank structure. Computerjoe's talk 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That was one of our problems before - • The Giant Puffin • 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bureaucracy isn't the idea.  One of my concerns is that users with civility issues do not pose as members of Concordia.  If we can do this without bureacracy that would be great! ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We pretty much just expel those without too much bureacracy. Computerjoe's talk 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who expells who? --ElectricEye (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: These were some items that survived the discussions above (Wikipedia_talk:Concordia#First_Projector) such as:
# Set up a "civility mentorship" program
# Create a civility FAQ - streamline an existing FAQ and promote it on our user pages and main page
There were other proposals which we can also discuss if we think they are good ideas.--ElectricEye (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem logical to place it there - • The Giant Puffin • 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals