Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 1

message: I removed quite a few wikilinks, as I felt they were unnessecary, being rather common concepts. In the case of fair and just, fair's disambiguation linked to Justice for the meaning we want. Also, there were multiple links to Community, so keep this in mind if you decide to restore the links. - Pureblade | Θ 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing some links 

message: Does this project actually need formal governance at the moment? I believe until some formal intent is formed and some structure is necessary we shouldn't worry about it. --Alf melmac 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance 

message: I was invited here to take a look by Alf. I'm a bit skeptical. Our goal, put very simply, is to make the community more fair and just towards all of its editors.. My goal's to write an encyclopedia. Fairness and justice are entirely secondary; if someone's acting detrimentally toward the encyclopedia, I don't care if it's fair or if it's just; I want them gone until they can contribute positively, and I want them gone quickly. Once the issue of "fairness" arises, we run into issues such as "It wasn't fair to boot XXX; he's got Someoranother Syndrome and that makes him act like a jerk a lot of the time." Wikipedia is not therapy. Our policies are pretty clear, and if it seems like there's insufficient clarity in the policies, they need to be improved.
Every individual in our community has the right to express their own opinion, and we all should be allowed to do so in an appropriate manner. No, not really. We don't really give a damn what your opinion is here. Wikipedia isn't a chat room or a BBS or an online forum. It's certainly not any sort of "free speech forum". 
So, that's my halfway devil's advocate/Wikipedia hardass response. Controlling civility is a bitch, and people disagree honestly about what constitutes civility; one admin got into a bit of slightly warm water because he decided that the use of the term "fuck" in itself constituted a personal attack; I noisily disagreed. Other people have basically driven one editor off of Wikipedia, and a large part of their attack was based on things the editor said on her User talk page, usually in response to what she considered racist attacks and/or cluelessness. My position (see Wikipedia talk:Civility#User talk:) is there is exactly one place that constitutes a free speech zone, and that's one's own User talk: page. 
I await further discussion and distillation of the purpose of this "Community justice" concept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to note the next line (infact, they should probably all be one line: "unless by doing so they breach the Wikipedia's policies." I believe that the idea is that outside of wikipolicy, and outside of the encyclopedic namespace, justice should be the main priority. That Is what I feel it's about anyway. Ian13ID:540053 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ian. ComputerJoe 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justice? 

message: I've started giving out a few s, and people have taking a little note from them, as you can see here . However, I think, from the tone the message is on, he's mocking me. We need people to take these seriously. ComputerJoe 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't thin experenced editors like the whole blocking aspect. Ian13ID:540053 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  and  should be changed to reflect that admins can't actually block for WP:CIVIL violations, except in extreme circumstances. -- SCZenz 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Ian13ID:540053 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ian! ComputerJoe 08:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings Tags 

message: When is this council to be started i would like to join!
--Dr. Mahongany 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both seats have been granted - you are now part of the temp. council. Ian13/talk 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Granted. Computerjoe 18:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council 

message: I'm waiting for someone to ask for a higher post, or to join, in the council. If you do, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Computerjoe 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for your reply Computerjoe. If you are still looking for additional councillors I would like to volunteer my services.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Currently, we have a temporary council - as we haven't had enough members to hold elections. We are about big enough to have an election now. If you wish to have the post - I'll call an election. I want an election. :P Computerjoe 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel it would be better to wait until we have, lets say, 30 members, because with the amount of posts, it could be hard to get a good spread of votes otherwise. Recruit! Ian13/talk 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm for an election, but we need more members first - • The Giant Puffin • 15:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it shan't be done until we reach 30 members. Computerjoe 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or there abouts, yes - • The Giant Puffin • 22:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: I created a new template, and listed it (along with the existing userbox) at the bottom of the page, here. They are intended for userpages, and should hopefully help spread the word about the project - • The Giant Puffin • 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. This is really cool! Computerjoe 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve ;) Well done! Ian13/talk 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I just nipped into the IRC channel to get a couple of answers, but there was no one there, so I'll pose them here. Thanks in advance. Rob Church 01:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some basic questions 

message: Allow me. The project aims to promote civility throughout the Wikipedia. The current way in which we are tying to do this is by templates warnings or reminding users to remain civil. Due to Ian's good wording, these templates do not enfuriate. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the project ''do''? 

message: The council is there to decide which way the project should be heading, and to help think of new ways to promote civility and this organisation. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the council for? 

message: Many thanks to Computerjoe, Purblade, and Wikibarista, who created and edited the  template. I think it is the best one here yet.  
I've used , , and the like in the past, but I find them vaguely impolite often too overbearing; I wonder if that is why people ignore their instructions. So, I will be recommending and using the calm talk tag instead for the time being to see how that goes. I wish someone would add the elements of Calm talk to those controversial tags, and try to tone them down a notch or two in the process with more polite language. 
Anyway, good job! --James S. 01:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks James! I shall put it on the project page as a task. I think it would be good as well. Computerjoe's talk 16:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]] for the Calm talk tag 

message: Until the end of the month, I'm going to be very busy. Therefore, I've chosen an acting chairman and acting chief executive for this time. I shall still check in. Computerjoe's talk 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak 

message: ...ask why you think I made a personal attack on anyone? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking in regard to this edit Computerjoe's talk 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I... 

message: I'm asking all of our members, especially councillors, to participate in our wikimeeting. You can view the agenda, add to it, and discuss the items on the agenda at Wikipedia talk:Community Justice/Meeting.
Minutes will be published next week. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished. Minutes are at Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting. Computerjoe's talk 13:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First meeting 

message: Just a thought, while the organization is still young and potentially malleable, but for me "Community Justice" invokes images of vigilantes with clubs taking the law into their own hands.  Might you consider if there are better naming possibilities?  Dragons flight 22:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Haveing read their page taking whatever the wikipedia equiverlent of the law into their own hands appears to be their intention. Still at least they will probably cause an original form of trouble.Geni 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dragons flight.  The name has got to change.  This counds like a lynch mob rather than a civility-awareness organization.  Perhaps Community Respect or Civil Society.—thames 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be changed to a proper noun,like Society or Commission or something like that. For some reason, I like the sound of Civility Commission. - Pureblade | Θ 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of work rewording this would be quite high though. Computerjoe's talk 06:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Civility Commission" or "Civility Society", but it would take quite a bit of editing to accomplish this. Maybe we could bring this up after the elections? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the name that's the problem, it's the concept, as espoused under "Our Goal". "Civility police" is one thing; that's a fine endeavor. Politenessman would approve. The rest? Either wrong or meaningless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more than willing to take care of any of the editing required to go through with the change. I still have the original photshop files of my edited logos that I can change and upload. I still think that Community Justice reminds me of some fanatical corrupted sheriff's posse or something. - Pureblade | Θ 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first elected council should vote on the issue. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should go with that, yeah - • The Giant Puffin • 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Please drop this idea. Possibly the very worst single feature of wikipedia is that one's user page can be covered in unfair attacks, such as these templates, and one is supposed to accept it, and is abused further if one has the temerity to remove these personal attacks- which unlike everyone else one has to look at over and over again. CalJW 23:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not a bad idea. They are useful just to remind and editor they are been a little incivil and then to warn them. They can be removed, as they have no official meaning (you can't be blocked after . Computerjoe's talk 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I really like the idea of these tags but I have to say that I also agree that some may take it as a form of personal attack, sadly.  -  K a s h  Talk | email 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that are a form of personal attack, but thay are a bad idea. They don't have any official meaning and can be removed at will. But not everyone knows that...and since most of these types of templates do have a real meaning you're going to mislead those that don't know about this group (which is most people). And this on the judgement of a single CJ member. Why can't you just write a note if you think someone is being uncivil? It's not like vandalism warnings where speed is an issue... Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they may not be official wiki tags does not mean that they don't have a valuable function, they are an effective way of trying keep potentially heated exchanges civil. The point you raise about people not realising what the CJ is about, they are pretty self explanatory and also thats why the tags link back to the project page to provide any info the user may want on this new community. Secondly your comment which implies that the tags are not valid because they are posted on the judgment of one CJ member, it's exactly the same criteria as posting any tag, CJ or WP. Finally I believe writing a note could be more easily misinterpreted as a personal attack rather than a carefully worded tag. Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that they will be misinterpreted as an official warning. And there's nothing that says they aren't. I really don't see how a canned template is better than a real note from someone if you really want to help. I think it's within everyone's capacity to ask someone to remain civil without turning it into a personal attack. Even if the personal note is just the text from the template, it shows someone took the time to write a note. You can also customize the note to the situation to whatever extent you feel necessary. Impersonal, canned reminders to be civil aren't very likely to help when someone is feeling stressed. But, do what you need to do I guess.  Rx StrangeLove 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this on the judgement of a single CJ member. - As far as I know, any registered person can give official vandalism warning templates at their discression. Ian13/talk 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can, but I'm talking about civility reminders, not the vandalism warning templates. Those are a totally different kettle of fish!  Rx StrangeLove 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that it should include the CJ logo in the civil tags. -eddie 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This would associate too much. Anyone can issue one - not not CJ members. Computerjoe's talk 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates are useful, and can be used by anyone. If you take offence from a template simly asking you to remain civil, then you should go live in cotton wool. They are polite, and are not personal attacks. If you dont agree with them, dont use them, or make your own version and submit it to CJ - • The Giant Puffin • 19:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That was the point I was trying to make, a note will be more effective (and engaging) than a canned template. Rx StrangeLove 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And perhaps a personalised message for each vandal? Computerjoe's talk 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, sometimes vandals can be calmed down with personalized messages and careful research into what's causing them to vandalize.  But people who make personal attacks or incivilities are very often serious contributors, and they deserve a personal note—and they will respond much more positively. -- SCZenz 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be used against blatant trolls though. Computerjoe's talk 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true. It could be used for that.  -- SCZenz 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The warning tags are a form of personal attack

message: It makes the warning look too official, and seems frankly to be a form of advertizement, neither of which is appropriate for a reminder about civility that an individual chooses to send.  I don't think these should be used at all, but if you're gonna use them, they shouldn't misrepresent themselves. -- SCZenz 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I am happy to remove the link. A comment maybe wise, though. Computerjoe's talk 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, sounds fine. -- SCZenz 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to be bold and wikilink the "Community Justice Member" and "User Commnity Justice" templates; they are meant to be forms of advertisment, surely? Batmanand | Talk 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they not link to WP:CJ on the WP:CJ page, in the table at the bottom? I have just spent the last ten minutes fiddling around with it, but I cannot do it. Any suggestions? Batmanand | Talk 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've removed the CJ link from these templates 

message: Didn't know this page existed, but a while back I created , and recently  has also been created.  Thought I'd mention it. Hiding  talk 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! Mind if we add it to our templates? Computerjoe's talk 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it as you wish, that's why I mentioned it. Hiding  talk 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work. May I suggest adding a smiley face to the "nice" template? (^'-')^ Covington 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit it as you wish. Hiding  talk 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice templates. Could come in very useful - • The Giant Puffin • 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assume good faith templates 

message: I added CJ to the list of Wikipedians' organisations at Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Hopefully, more people will now stumble across us (just as I did). Batmanand | Talk 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More publicity 

message: It could include things such as recent updates, incidents, ect. Would it be a good idea?--TBC???  ??? ??? 21:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the ESP one, yes. Computerjoe's talk 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely. I wonder if we can borrow the MiszaBot; I like the idea of having it posted on my talk page. (^'-')^ Covington 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the ESP one is quite useful, and a newsletter for CJ would help keep our members informed, and remind them to come back and at least check the page reguarly - • The Giant Puffin • 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a good idea. But I think we're rushing a little. Let's get the elections down first, finalize the name, then do a newsletter. --Osbus 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Justice newsletter?

message: 150px
Community Justice has its own superhero! :O--TBC???  ??? ??? 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe cool, shouldn't it be the woman in the logo though? Olaboy-
150px
Thank you for the suggestion Olaboy. Community Justiceman is now community Justicewoman!--TBC???  ??? ??? 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Justiceman

message: Hi,
Please reivew the edit I've made to the About Us section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_Justice&diff=48898434&oldid=48898139
I've tried to make it clearer; if you don't like my edit, either discuss here and/or do a revert. Thanks, T. J. Day 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, sounds pretty good --TBC???  ??? ??? 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work. (^'-')^ Covington 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice edit - • The Giant Puffin • 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The last sentence is a little wordy. But the rest is good, it clarifies. --Osbus 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit to About Us

message: Where should the tags be specifically placed? Only on user talk pages? Or also on Afd discussions and and article talk pages? --TBC???  ??? ??? 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by tags? templates? – Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm refering to the "be civil" templates --TBC???  ??? ??? 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says here what type of usage applies to each template - • The Giant Puffin • 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags?

message: I love the "Calm talk" template and think it was used to good effect on the Jesus article. The "civility" templates look too aggressive to me and I would be reluctant to use them. Often I find civility occurs when someone with a different view point from an established group of editors is failing to clearly explain their point. Each side is making a lot of assumptions about what the other really means due to preconceived ideas. Also communication purely in the written form is new to lots of people so unless they carefully read what they have really written they will not realise how it could be misunderstood. Cultural differences play a big part too. Things that are obvious to users from the USA will be unknown terms to the UK and vice versa. Weight given to certain words is cultural and age defined so some will not be offended by the use of certain words whilst others will. Anyone who has lived in a country other than the one they were born for an extended time will have come across all these things but so many will not that I think a template advising people on how to avoid civility in an international written project would be very useful. I learned the hard way years ago and it would be nice to save someone else from the rude e-mails responding to unintentionally terse messages from me. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why thank you. --Osbus 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm Talk

message: Been going through the CJ pages for the past few days, trying to get a hold on what exactly it has in mind... but beyond having created a few decent templates and proposing elections, I'm not seeing much direction here. Don't get me wrong, I like that the group is seeking to promote a more peaceful environment on WP (which is why I tentatively joined)... but now what? If you're throwing your hat in the ring for these elections, what are you promising to do? What plans do you have to move this forward? And what role is CJ filling that isn't already filled by other Wikipedia groups like Mediation? Tijuana Brass 11:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe my statement has a lot of the things I promise to do in. Also, Tijuana, we are not a mediation organisation. We try to ensure civility, we don't (currently) mediate. Some of my aims are to rewrite WP:CIVIL. Computerjoe's talk 14:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mediation reference was just an example of a group that touches on a related topic (in the sense of improving civility), it wasn't meant to imply that CJ was a mediation group. Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that before for some reason. Looking forward to going over it. Tijuana Brass 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My statement has some examples of what I would like to happen with Community Justice - • The Giant Puffin • 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since we're all fishing for votes, I'll add my two cents. While I understand  and support what CJ is and does, I am aware that many users don't. That is one of the main things I want to work on if I am elected (and even if I'm not)- to build our image. If other users don't recognize what CJ is, how will they take them seriously? That's also why I feel that if there was a time that I'd be most beneficial to CJ, it's now, and that's why I'm running. --Osbus 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions for nominees 

message: What about a civility and Community Justice barnstar? The first to be awarded for civility, and the second for those who've put extra effort into the project?
We need to encourage users to remain civil, not just discourage them from been uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 21:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea, I think we should run with it - • The Giant Puffin • 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel the same. Tijuana Brass 22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstars? 

message: Some new members act incivil from very begining so I have made a template to encourage them to be Civil: Template:WelcomeNewComer

Please tell me if it is a bad idea, and in other hand if you think it is good, feel free to improve it. 
Much thanks!
-- -  K a s h  Talk | email 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a little too specific, and some users may find it strange. ow about integrating some more general messages with it? Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea! It gets new members off to the right start - • The Giant Puffin • 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sure a little generalisation wouldnt do any harm - • The Giant Puffin • 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ofcourse I don't mind :) -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A great template, something that will be very useful. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much friendlier that the current warning ones. I think we must concentrate on using these to modify behaviour if possible. People respond much better if you understand why they are frustrated and then calmly explain why there may be a problem with how they are behaving. Maybe we could include some sort of "I understand wikipedia can be a frustrating experience but ...." with advice about the specific problems with a project of this kind that I mentioned above. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New members 

message: I've created  so we can see the placement of civility warning messages, even after subst'ing. Simply go to  and click What Links here to see it in action. This works with all newly placed warnings. Computerjoe's talk 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool - • The Giant Puffin • 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job, Computerjoe --TBC???  ??? ??? 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea! Just wondering, do these messages go away once the dispute is over? (^'-')^ Covington 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you refering to the civil templates, I believe they have to be manually removed. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I love it. Nice idea. Tijuana Brass 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracker 

message: It seems like CJ is a cool idea, but it also reminds me of Esperanza in some regards (even similar colors :D). Perhaps we can work closely with them in being an almost gentle enforcement buddy? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your first comment, CJ is similar to Esperanza in some ways, although we strive for civiliy, whereas they have slightly different goals. I think we should work closely with them to help both projects achieve their goals. As for your second comment, I dont remember anyone mentioning a term - • The Giant Puffin • 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the election page, the terms will be 6 months for each of the positions. Hope this helps. (^'-')^ Covington 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you for your replies. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esperanza is about community, CJ is about civility. In my opinion, these are two very different goals. --Osbus 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: It says allow them to do so in an appropriate manner, refering to wikipiedian free expression of opinion. If they aren't expressing there opinion in an appropriate manner do we refuse to allow them express their opinion? I understand we would use the civil tags in such case or follow suggestions from Wikipedia:Civility but that sentence seems to be saying that anyone who does not express their opinion in a proper mannner will not be allowed the express it. If this is true what would be the concequenes for such repeated actions, blocking? 
Also should I use the civil tags where the bad faith posts happen or just talk pages? – Tutmøsis (Talk) 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on consequences for inappropriate expressions of opinion: absolutely there can be such consequences, but in some cases they cannot be imposed quickly or without discussion.  In the extreme case where you count blatant trolling as an expression of opinion, blocking can certainly result.  If a user might or might not be trolling, but is continually disruptive in their expressions, a block might result, after much debate, if there was broad consensus among administrators.   In less clear-cut cases, either we can use words to convince people to behave reasonably, or go up the dispute resolution latter all the way to ArbCom—they can impose bans from specific pages or other consequences appropriate to the situation. -- SCZenz 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for replying SCZenz, it was very helpful but Also should I use the civil tags where the bad faith posts happen or just talk pages? just wondering... – Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They should be used on user talk pages.  on talk pages, the AGF templates on user talk pages. Usage is provided! Computerjoe's talk 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 questions 

message: Do we do Mediation type work where if a user is having trouble with someone hot headed, he can call on us to warn that user? – Tutmøsis (Talk) 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we don't mediate. Computerjoe's talk 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Mediation isnt one of our practices, no - • The Giant Puffin • 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call us when you need us 

message: HI ya.  I just thought I'd mention that on first inspection, the stated aim to "make the community more fair and just towards all editors" sets off the special interest faction alarms.  Reading more about your group, may I suggest you play up more the "promoting civility" aim.  The angle of "making" people treat editors more fairly, suggests you are out to avenge some past grievance, and that by "editors" you mean yourselves most of all.  If you feel this interpretation is based on bad faith, please note that I came across your group after following up on the user making this RFA vote, which struck me as being against the spirit of WP, and raised concerns about the Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt and this organization, which features prominently on the editor in questions' userpage.  Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia Supreme Court isn't one of our official ideas, it was invented be General Eisenhower without any discussion or consensus. I too raised concerns over General Eisenhower's contribution, which was prior to him joining the organisation. As for our goal, it has shifted. Perhaps we need to rephrase the whole thing, but this and the Supreme Court is something for after the elections. Computerjoe's talk 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [3 Edit conflicts!] Personally I would strongly oppose the Supreme Court, as I feel it is a bad direction for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law, contrary to what some trolls and vandals seem to feel - Wikipedia as a whole doesn't have to prove anything to ban users from private Wikimedia servers, and I think this could bring the wrong impression. I also think the 'promoting civility' should be pushed more, and the statement possibly rewritten - as once more it makes this community of editors seem somewhat official. We are a set of editors with no official power who want to contribute together to make civility more promoted. That's my view anyway. Ian13/talk 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont believe the adjective "making" was intended to mean that we were going to force people to be nice. I am not out to avenge anyone, and I do not know of anyone in this group who is -  certainly not any of the council. Esperanza want a more friendly community, a community which Esperanza's members are part of. Although I do not think they are doing it for themselves only, and that applies to CJ also. We are hoping to influence the community towards civility and fairness towards editors. Both our aims you mentioned are of equal importance and relavence. I hope this clears things up a bit - • The Giant Puffin • 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish you the best in promoting civility, and appreciate the responses. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for letting us know. See you around Wikipedia. (^'-')^ Covington 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Came here concerned 

message: This is ran by a CJ-member, and is claimed to be a CJ-project, though it has having a negative effect to the organisation and was created without consensus.
All those who object and support this being part of Community Justice are asked to comment below.
=== Support ===
*
=== Object ===
*This was created in good faith, though it is true to our original goals; it is impratical and detrimental to the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I sort of misinterperated what you said, --TBC???  ??? ??? 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt]] 

message: *This was created in good faith, though it is true to our original goals; it is impratical and detrimental to the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I sort of misinterperated what you said, --TBC???  ??? ??? 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object 

message: *I am interested - where does it state this is a CJ project? Ian13/talk 20:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I have done some rewritting to help it hopefully seems less forceful, and more promoting of civility per. certain users conserns. All are welcome to review and add anything they thing I have missed or rephrase. . :) Ian13/talk 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, it seems more friendly now - • The Giant Puffin • 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WD! Computerjoe's talk 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent work, Ian13. You have a talent for writing. (^'-')^ Covington 02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent! Now, could you please rewrite  accordingly? - Pureblade | Θ 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, but I don't like it being written in first person. Compare with WP:ESP, where third person is used. I find it more professional, but then again, maybe it's just me. Misza13 T C 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to make it third person, but i must have missed some - so please feel free to change. Ian13/talk 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-writting of the main page 

message: I've reorganized the template section in order to make it less cluttered and to let us find the appropriate templates more easily. - Pureblade | Θ 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, awesome work. (^'-')^ Covington 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work - • The Giant Puffin • 14:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template categorization 

message: Why not put the category in the userbox. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category :Category:User Wikipedia/Community Justice is in the userboxes. - Pureblade | Θ 04:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: This is a project, right? The page is more-or-less formed like a project page; it has members, tasks, and goals like a project; and it doesn't have any formal recognition as an "official" body. That's not to put it down (I haven't studied it, don't have an opinion one way or the other). If it gains acceptance through the energy, forthrighness, and wisdom of its members, it will have influence. And someday be a formal body, who knows. 
But for now, lt should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Community Justice, and categorized as a project, right? Does anyone object to this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 
:Me. We are not a project; we are an organisation. Computerjoe's talk 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object. We are not a project - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify: WikiProjects are groups of Wikipedians focused on a specific content of the encyclopedia. Conversely, Wikipedian organizations are groups that unite W'pedian in a common goal/under common standards. Misza13 T C 15:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Objection here as well; Misza makes a good point, that projects focus on the encyclopedia, whereas organizations focus on the Wikipedians themselves. - Pureblade | Θ 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK, right you are. Herostratus 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project 

message: With the recent redesign of the template section of the main page, I've observed that  is a warning. I disagree, if it is a warning it's not a warning like . Computerjoe's talk 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see  as a warning. We should place it on talk pages of controversial articles, Userbox debates, etc. and hope that it does it's work and prevents at least some people from saying things they would regret later. Therefore, it should have as mild tone as possible, so that it doesn't aggravate people into more flaming. Misza13 T C 11:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Computerjoe's talk 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't most all of the warning/reminder templates meant to be used on talk pages? - Pureblade | Θ 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. By talk page I mean things in the talk namespaces. Warnings are in the user talk, which is a talk namespace - but in a different way. Computerjoe's talk 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is {{tl|Calm talk}} A Warning? 

message: I've suspended user:Ethnopunk due to the fact he has a history of personal attacks, and he made one on the CJ page . The user will be expelled or taking off suspension, per the ruling of the first elected council. Computerjoe's talk 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you can look at the statment two ways. What may seem to be a personal attack is maybe not. But yeah, I agree that he should be suspended indefinitely. --Osbus 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension of Ethnopunk 

message: This is the second draft of the civility barnstar. Your thoughts?
 Computerjoe's talk 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! Very very nice! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 14:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it, its very good, but I didnt see the first draft... - • The Giant Puffin • 15:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never really understood the whole thing about a cup of tea, and I don't think that symbol is widely understood as 'civility'. Perhaps hands shaking or people talking or something more recognizable and showing respectful interaction between people? - Pureblade | Θ 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan suggested that, but we decided it was too like mediation. Computerjoe's talk 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh the first draft is available on the file history at commons. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tea is good. But the pic looks too much like a coffee mug IMO. Herostratus 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any better images on the Commons? Computerjoe's talk 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG, despite its name, looks more like a teacup IMO. It'd have to be edited. Herostratus 19:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel uncomfortable using that as it Creative Commons; over public domain. Also, it's a photo. I'm after clipart. Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the scales of justice, perhaps? - • The Giant Puffin • 19:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We'll use that in our Community Justice barnstar! Computerjoe's talk 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe the mug is ok then - • The Giant Puffin • 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer the is tea recognised internationally for civility - tea is a world wide recognised ice breaker and is part of a lot of formal and informal ceremonies- try buying something in Turkey or Indonesia - so I like the multicultural inclusion of it too. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 10:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although a shadow-less cup would look better - • The Giant Puffin • 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lack PSDs or whatever. Computerjoe's talk 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, User:Misza13 has fixed this. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks perfect now - • The Giant Puffin • 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Thanks, you all. (^'-')^ Covington 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility barnstar 

message: The page format is screwed up. It could be because I'm at 800x600 (the last holdout?), but I've never had this problem with any other Wikipedia page.
The TOC is squeezed all narrow to the left, the Abraham Lincon quote is laid over the TOC rendering both practically unreadable, and because the TOC is so narrow it is long, leaving a large whitespace beneath the logo. It basically looks like hell. Anyway I tried to improve it but I got reverted, so whatever, if you really like it that way... Herostratus 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange and hopefully fixed. :D Computerjoe's talk 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya looks OK now. Herostratus 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page format 

message: Shall we? --Osbus 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it is getting a bit long - • The Giant Puffin • 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap, I accidentally moved the page intead of creating a subpage. Can anyone fix this? (I'm so sorry) .--Osbus 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive talk page