Wikipedia

User:Joopercoopers/eds

< User:Joopercoopers

Nominations by Peter Damian

edit

Invitation templates

  1. !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 83d40m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Amandajm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Antandrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Anthony_Appleyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Athanasius1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Awadewit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. Carcharoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  17. Carptrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  18. Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  19. Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  20. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  21. Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  22. Cplakidas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  23. Cynwolfe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  24. dave souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  25. David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  26. DavidRF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  27. Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  28. Diliff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  29. DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  30. DVD R W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  31. Dweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  32. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  33. Elonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  34. EricBarbour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  35. Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  36. Eusebeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  37. Ewulp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  38. Folantin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  39. Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  40. Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  41. Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  42. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  43. Gnangarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  44. Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  45. Hesperian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  46. Hurricanehink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  47. infrogmation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  48. Iridescent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  49. J Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  50. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  51. JackofOz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  52. JNW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  53. Joelr31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  54. Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  55. Joopercoopers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  56. Kafka Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  57. Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  58. KD Tries Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  59. Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  60. llywrch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  61. Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  62. Magicpiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  63. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  64. Mark Dingemanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  65. Mathiasrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  66. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  67. Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  68. Minkythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  69. Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  70. Nemonoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  71. Nev1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  72. Opus33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  73. Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  74. Paul August (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  75. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Withdrawn]
  76. Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  77. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  78. PKM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  79. Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  80. Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  81. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  82. Savidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  83. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  84. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  85. Smerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  86. Smoddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  87. Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  88. Ssilvers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  89. Tagishsimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  90. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  91. Tony the Marine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  92. Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  93. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  94. TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  95. Tyrenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  96. Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  97. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  98. Warofdreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  99. WesleyDodds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  100. Wetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  101. WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  102. Wrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  103. Yannismarou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  104. YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  105. Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  106. Yomangani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  107. Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Withdrawn]
  108. Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
  109. GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
  110. Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Accept. As per BigDunc: let's see how this pans out. I hope we can A) have participation in this group make being a Wikipedian a more interesting and rewarding hobby, and B) make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Regrettably, I withdraw. For reasons articulated here in an RfC over this association. I think it is a good idea and wish you luck, but I don’t look forward to watching this organization become a victim of mob rule. Greg L (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  111. Hans Adler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
  112. Ian Spackman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
  113. Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declined
  114. Mandarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Withdrawn] Less than an hour after I accepted, I saw this incivility. I almost withdrew then, but I decided to wait and see what developed. Further posts such as this have convinced me to withdraw. Good luck. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  115. Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[Declined]
  116. Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
  117. Realist2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
  118. Thatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  119. TimVickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]

To invite

edit

Acceptances

edit
    1. One of the 39 Rules I Live My Life By is to always say Yes unless there is a compelling reason to say No.
      I don't see one here. Carptrash (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    2. In principle. I thought the MFD was a disgrace, and very much share Tony1's view on this[1]. Given the personalities, I would think block voting is highly unlikely. A centralised discussion forum free of non content political airbags would be appealing. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    3. The attempt of contentfree editors (check their User contributions) to delete this page is reason enough to accept.--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    4. Conditionally. As per my previous comment, if you can get at least 20 people (so it's not just a tiny clique), I'm willing to make it 21, but with the proviso that I am not going to get involved in block voting (there may be occasions when I agree with the "party line" and vote accordingly; there may be occasions where I think and do the opposite). The way to counter IRC-marshalled voting blocs is not to set up another equal-and-opposite bloc; it's to fix the systemic failures in Wikipedia's administrative structures. – iridescent 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    5. I would rather see this as a forum for raising issues affecting content editing than a Defence Union, but let's give it a go. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    6. As Gary Gilmore said Lets do it....Modernist (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    7. I accept the nomination and consider it a compliment. ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    8. Conditionally, along the lines of iridescent. This will be a meaningless institution unless it upholds the highest standards of policy compliance within wikipedia. It needs a level headed sense of professionalism and so any suggestion we're going to be block voting etc. needs throwing out now. I'd be keener to see us thinking about policy change than bending existing policies. That said, together with Tony1's AdminReview process, this idea acknowledges a need to encourage the interests of ordinary editors and could be very useful in giving us a stronger voice. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    9. I accept let's see how this pans out. BigDuncTalk 11:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    10. Let's see how this goes. I'll accept the invitation to the party. There is beer, right? Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    11. I accept. Is there a page we should watch? UPDATE: I am concerned by the various goals for this group articulated by Peter Damian. If the purpose of the group is to focus on and try to improve content, then I would like to join. If the purpose will be to defend members against the dispute resolution safeguards already in place here at Wikipedia, then I would doubt the usefulness of the group. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    12. It'd be good to have a place where editors who want this to be a real encyclopedia instead of a social experiment or whatever can discuss things and compare notes. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    13. Conditionally per Iridescent and Joopercoopers. User:Peter Damian should be congratulated for identifying a significant gap in the Wikipedia edifice. Perhaps called the Veteran Editors Group? Functioning rather like a combination of the Bot Approvals Group and the Bot owners' noticeboard? Perhaps with a seniority listing (Wp start date), but allowing all to join (newbies at the bottom) to avoid exclusivity? --Kleinzach 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    14. Per Iridescent and JoopersC. Peter Damian (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    15. If this is the place where you are supposed to accept or decline the invitation, then let it known that I accept, thanks Guettarda. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    16. Accept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    17. Accept.--Thanks for the nomination. Let me know if there is a page I should be watching. I'll play the membership by ear. I'm honored by the nomination, but I'm also not big on setting up any sort of editorial pecking order among us non-admins.DavidRF (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    18. Accept. This is an interesting idea and I'd like to see how this plays out. As with others, I'm in agreement with Joopercoopers and iridescent. freshacconci talktalk 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    19. Accept. Let it be so. Let's try something different. Let's acknowledge the people who build this thing. Antandrus (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    20. Accept. Something is needed as a support for long-established good content editors. This may work or it may not, but it is worth trying. Ty 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    21. Accept. It sounds like a very valuable idea, and I'd be eager to help out with it. It might be good if the length of membership requirement reduced, however. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    22. I will gladly accept. Thank you for consideration.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    23. Accept. A very good idea in my opinion and I am happy to see this is supported by a number of editors for whom I have profound respect. Eusebeus (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    24. Accept. I'm still uncertain, but I don't have a better alternative to offer. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    25. Accept. Thank you for thinking of me - as for accepting - who forbids it? --Smerus (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    26. Accept. I would look forward to a forum for sharing views with other content-oriented WP editors. Opus33 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Other nominations

edit

If this is not to devolve into a mere club, I'd suggest the following additional dependable contributors of sound content (in those areas where I'm competent) who also are consistently collegial (not code, in this case, for "buddies", for many of the following are feroces nec atroces if harassed): User:Johnbod User:Amandajm User:Paul August User:llywrch User:Joopercoopers User:Srnec User:Charles Matthews User:Ian Spackman User:Anthony_Appleyard User:Mathiasrex User:Carcharoth User:83d40m User:Cynwolfe User:Carptrash User:Mathsci User:Antandrus User:Savidan User:Tagishsimon I notice now that none of these editors employ rainbow colors in their signature. Must be something in that...--Wetman (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be hilarious to see a sitting arbitrator join this Union. Should make civilty remedies interesting reading MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Awadewit, User:Ceoil, User:Folantin, & User:Kleinzach should certainly be asked. There are plenty more, but I'm not sure of their 2-yr status. User:Modernist & User:Tyrenius should be ok. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:infrogmation got me to register a user name and deserves an invitation. If recognition of good and hard working editors is the objective, I have no initial objection to the concept, per se. I'm not much of a joiner, however, preferring to work on articles and have little time for discussion although I will defend and debate my edits so long as doing so does not degenerate to irrationality and remains germane. If other editors become tedious, intractable, or abandon reason -- I usually move on to something that is more productive. Regarding the "club" concept, I would not support another editor without adequate reason or knowledge of a topic and I prefer to stay out of ego-spats. Please let me know if the concept survives -- not sure what you mean with the acceptance section, does that mean that only those who accept, remain on the list? So if one does not remove a user name from your list they accept? Please advise... ---- 83d40m (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:DVD R W has been quietly beavering away doing exceptionally sterling work on architectural subjects for years. I also think you should invite User:Bunchofgrapes and User:!! - both left the project with bad tastes in their mouths; some recognition might sweeten the pill of return a little. User:Diliff is one of the project's foremost photographers. User:dave souza another architect, level head and gentleman. Also, User:Warofdreams for similar reasons. User:Nemonoman‎ a writer trying to balance academic accuracy in the field of Mughal history against some rather unsavoury Indian/Pakistani politics --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I nominate User:JNW and to concur with User:Johnbod's nominations above in particular User:Tyrenius, User:Ceoil and User:Awadewit...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sniff. Yet another way to make useful content editors feel unwanted; this time by one of their own. Nice. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Clarification: this comment is not aimed at Modernist. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the above names, I see a bunch I would have recommended. I think Casliber and WLU are conspicuously absent from my neck of the wiki. DreamGuy (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • :-) (shelter from the storm? genetic diversity? a more varied diet? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wasn't sure if I got my point across... every instance of an animal he found. I'll give you shelter from the storm. :-) Outriggr (talk)
  • If I missed it, sorry, but One Night In Hackney is a glaring omission, though I'm not sure he would respond. Also, again sorry if I missed it, Sarah777 and The Fat Man?. InspectorSands (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

edit

Puzzled

edit
I don't think that the kind of people you're nominating should have representation as a group or by a group, any more or less than any other good faith editor. And I'm unclear where any mandate for settling disputes would come from.
I don't think I could sign up to those points as a purpose for the group. I also don't think I could sign up to the group unless and until its purpose was formalised. It seems a bit backwards to me, to create the solution and then look for the problem it's going to address. So, this is a "thank you, but not now" from me. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the problems are clear to many. (1) There is currently no system to recognise the contributions of good editors to the project. (2) There is no assocation to represent the interests of such editors (3) The current system of judging content disputes by civility is not working - there is a vast and growing amount of cruft and fan material on the project (4) There is no real quality control. None of this mattered when Wikipedia was a small project. Now that many millions of people recognise Wikipedia as a sort of brand, and unwittingly accept that the balance and accuracy of its content in some way resembles a real encyclopedia, it is a matter of real concern. Were it not for this public health hazard aspect of the project, I would have left long ago. This article about Wikipedia in the London Review of Books precisely captures the problem (see the section on Ayn Rand). Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Some question for Peter Damian

edit

I have some questions for Peter Damian:

  1. What is your reasoning and history behind starting this group?
  2. What do you expect this association to be able to do?
  3. How do you expect this association to interact with other editors who are not part of this group?
  4. You mention a couple times in the association page: "made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for at least two years" what is the reasoning behind this qualification and how would you judge substantial and enduring contributions by what standards?
  5. What do you mean that established editors must "Uphold the good reputation of the association?" Does this mean that editors within this association must come to the defense of another editor no matter what the circumstances? Could you please expand on this?
  6. Lastly, what do you mean "Having an established identity on Wikipedia for this period." Could you please also expand on this.

I am asking these questions to help out clarify what this association will be for. Thank you in advance for taking the time to both consider and answer these questions. Thanks, Brothejr (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question (related to #3 above): What is the purpose of excluding editors? Why not just have this open to anyone who wants to participate, like with Wikiprojects, instead of voting on admission?   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

edit

Thank you for these questions. In reply

  • What is your reasoning and history behind starting this group?
    • Rationale: a long-standing concern about the neutrality of the project, and the pervasive influence of special interest groups and cults. Also a worry that the present administration is fundamentally corrupt, and that it is the current system of election that is responsible for this.
    • History: I have been fighting this sort of corruption for a long time. I had an epic battle with Arbcom about the influence of the Neuro-linguistic programming cult, which was successful. I have another problem with the Ayn Rand related articles which was not successful. I thought the recent ruling about Scientology was a step in the right direction, however.
  • What do you expect this association to be able to do?
    • To settle content disputes, at least where they relate to reliable sourcing. I don't expect the association to have special powers, nor should it have. It should be a place where admins and editors should come for advice and help about such content disputes.
    • On 'powers' generally, this initiative is fundamentally about the 'separation of powers'. I don't think the present administrative system should be dissolved. I'm a conservative, not a revolutionary. I believe the best way to fix a broken system is to add to it, not to dissolve it. In any normally functioning governance system there is a distinction between 'initiation', 'authorisation' and 'implementation'. I don't believe we need anything so complex in Wikipedia, but we do need some separation of power between those who 'bear arms' (i.e. the block), and those whose arguments are perceived to carry weight, and who should not 'bear arms'.
  • How do you expect this association to interact with other editors who are not part of this group?
    • See above. The association should help ordinary editors, and it should encourage them to join, where they meet the criteria.
  • You mention a couple times in the association page: "made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for at least two years" what is the reasoning behind this qualification and how would you judge substantial and enduring contributions by what standards?
    • Rationale: requiring qualifications is no good because Wikipedia is fundamentally anti-expert. And in any case, experts generally aren't very good at coping with Wikipedia. Anyone who has been able to survive putting in solid content work for 2 years clearly is the right sort of person for such a group.
    • Judgment: 'Enduring' means lasting, so that is easily proved. 'Substantial' means having substance, not being superficial fan-crufty material, being generally 'encyclopedic'. It shouldn't be confused with quantity or having 20,000 edits, by the way. Nor necessarily with the quantity of 'barnstars' handed out.
    • I will add 'properly sourced' to this. Neutrality, as stated above, is probably my biggest concern.
    • There were questions above about why editors would be 'excluded'. No one should be excluded, so long as they could satisfactorily demonstrate that they had made substantial and enduring and properly-sourced contributions to the project, for the minimum period. That condition is essential - how otherwise would the association have any natural authority in content disputes. If I seek advice from a doctor, I want to know that they are qualified to provide advice. No?
    • Note, someone has placed a message on my talk page saying "most of my content edits aren't addition but subtraction--I'm constantly trying to cut out fringe nonsense, nonnotable and nonencyclopaedic material. " I regard such contributions by deletion as possibly more substantial and potentially enduring than contribution 'by addition'.
  • What do you mean that established editors must "Uphold the good reputation of the association?" Does this mean that editors within this association must come to the defense of another editor no matter what the circumstances? Could you please expand on this?
    • Quite the opposite. Having the reputation as a club for bullies would be disastrous. I would expect members of the association to have higher standards of civility than the average editor. But someone must address the reasons for incivility, and the methods of dealing with it. Having a bully command you to be polite is quite different from having a friend whisper to you that 'you are not helping your friends by being rude'.
  • Lastly, what do you mean "Having an established identity on Wikipedia for this period." Could you please also expand on this.
    • To accommodate those who have had different, serial accounts, or who edited for some time using an IP. It should be enough to prove they are the same person. Multiple accounts is not the same as abusive socking, by the way, i.e. simultaneous use of multiple accounts in order to gain the advantage in editorial disputes. That should be grounds for immediate expulsion, if uncovered.

Peter Damian (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


I am absolutely failing to see how you can possibly believe that having a select group of members solves neutrality disputes, without resorting to canvassing or block voting, or insisting your views should carry more weight simply because you've been here for two years. Why is this special club necessary as opposed to using the existing dispute resolution systems? Why should people come to this club for advice rather than just posting on a noticeboard, or using the million and one other neutral systems we have for identifying experienced Wikipedians who might be able to help people? As soon as this gets to 20 nominations, which depressingly, it seems it will eventually, I think I'm going to kick it straight to arbcom for a ruling, as it represents a fundemental challenge to the standard policies and procedures of Wikipedia, which is not dealable with through any of the lower dispute forums, as the previous Mfd sadly shows (quite obviously none of them had a clue that this association was being set up to fight Scientologists etc). If you want fundamental constitutional change on the level this represents, and you plan on actually holding elections and all that rubbish, rather than just being an open collaboration project like the ARS or Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, then you are going to have to argue your case to the arbitration committee that this actually benefits Wikipedia. The only thing I see it benefiting is your own POV that you are more equal than anybody else, and your 'membership status' should reflect that in admin/arbitration decisions or when weighing up consensus in disuptes. Attractive as that may seem to prospective members, it is no different really to other flawed perrennial proposals for changing the fundementals of Wikipedia, such as a blanket ban on IP editting, or ironically as you seem to recognise, giving weight to real world qualifications. It is hard really to see this proposed special group as being any different to the practices and beliefs of the 'cults' and POV pushing groups that you ironically purport to want to combat, as they also just so happen to claim they are trying to uphold the sites core policies on NPOV etc. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Existing dispute resolution systems are largely broken, and steps should be taken to try to fix them, through the propoer channels. There's also no real support system for editors who have demonstrated a history of good edits improving the encyclopedia instead of those using the site to push an agenda or to socialize. From what I've seen, those are the prime motivating factors at work here. I don't get how you could seriously suggest that this would be against policies and practices here. If you disagree with the founding principles, don't ask to join. Simple, right? DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts about what it could be about:
  1. I've no problem at all with being radical in thought and speech, but I'm not going to be part of something, flagrantly disregarding policy, by block voting, supporting the indefensible behaviour of my colleagues etc. I will retain my independence of thought and action and if membership mean relinquishing that, I'm not interested. Changing policy however and becoming a strong persuasive voice is another matter.
  2. Wikipedia, in my opinion is now too large to effectively and efficiently implement, refine or dream up policy because of the cacophony of threaded discussions that usually ensue. Therefore the creation of such a body, can dream up and refine policy ideas and innovations more efficiently. It can serve as a think tank for new ideas, which can then be put out to other groups for consultation - admins, arbs etc. for refinement before being put to the general community.
  3. Admins are a defined and cohesive group in wikipedia with power, rights and responsibilities. As Established editors we seek a similar cohesion and will propose rights and responsibilities of our own to better serve our members.
  4. Per my comments on Tim Vickers page, we might think about how to get more expert admins, who can deal with the necessities of content dispute.
  5. We might also declare admins incapable as a body of dealing with content disputes and serve as a body of experts to more properly deal with them - lots of problems in that, re. qualification etc. but worth a discussion I think.
  6. I'm personally very against how the 'power elite' at wikipedia retain those privileges and powers after they have left office. Checkuser and oversight particularly. There are some welcome moves to reform the use of these, but I'd like to see the idea embedded at all levels in wikipedia that you only hold on to the nuclear codes for as long as you're president - when you resign or your term is up, you hand them in. If we need people with special powers, they'll be elected.
  7. I'd personally be happy to see the established editors body widened to open voting, but excluding any admins, bureaucrats, checkusers, stewards, founders, gnomes etc. - it is possible to be rank and file and democratic, but then I'd like to talk about qualification and eligibility.
  8. Block reform - frankly 95% of admin abuse concerns the block button. People can put their hands on their hearts at RfA and promise to hardly ever use it but there's absolutely nothing stopping them once they have the tool. I'd like us to think about whether admins should be restricted to blocking IP's only for the first year or so of their adminship for instance - or what other measures might be looked at to improve the use of the tool.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Objectives

edit
  • To help Wikipedia to become a comprehensive and accurate reference work
  • To achieve this by representing all established editors (not just members of the association)
    • Support Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I don't think we should be "representing" established editors (where?). We can be a forum for communication among experienced editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose My concern is that this *sounds* laudable, but we really can’t purport to represent those we are not in contact with. Greg L (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose per Greg L. --Kleinzach 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support (first choice) -- though to be more clear "established editors" might be better worded as "all those dedicated toward improving the encyclopedic standards of the project" or something along those lines. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To achieve this by representing the interests of all established editors (not just members of the association)\
    • Weak oppose My concern is that this *sounds* laudable, but we really can’t purport to represent those we are not in contact with. Greg L (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - Greg, if we open up the membership so any content editor of good standing can join, would that be ok?--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Joopercoopers: My opposition to the wording of this proposal isn't borne out any concern over who we nominate for membership or who could apply to join; it is over pretending to speak for the interests of others who aren’t members. For me, saying that we represent the interests “of all established editors” is presumptuous and invites people who disagree to say “they don’t reflect my views.” Think of PETA saying they represent all animal lovers. That’s sweet, but after they criticize President Obama for swatting a fly (and killing it, no less), it sort of highlights the fact that they can only really speak for—at most—their own membership. Greg L (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose per Greg L. --Kleinzach 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak support (second choice) - vague definitions of "established editors" and "interests" mean some established editors might have legitimate contrary interests. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To campaign for reform in Wikipedia
    • Support Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose. We can discuss reform, but the word "campaign" concerns me. We can brainstorm, but I don't think we can be an advocacy group. First of all, we will not agree on all matters. Even where we achieve broad agreement on a reform idea, the most I think we should be doing is making proposals, after which it is up to individuals to support or oppose those proposals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose I think this will increase the fear and suspicions of many Wikipedians. How can we expect someone who is an “outsider” and has not been nominated to be a member to assume good faith from an association that restricts membership and advocates change? Greg L (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support, I'm unconcerned with kowtowing to the fear and suspicions others may hold about me. I know my heart, and this place is crying out for reform.--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support (first choice) -- Many things here are simply broken, and the ways they are broken seem to be especially problematic for editors who want to focus on encyclopedic standards. We should actively work toward improving the situation instead of just being frustrated by it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To support (or: advocate) reform in Wikipedia
    • Oppose For reason stated above. Greg L (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support 1st choice--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support 1st choice-- preferable to 'campaign'. --Kleinzach 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support (second choice) DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To make the hobby of being a Wikipedian a more rewarding and interesting hobby by working towards a common purpose with like-minded, experienced editors. Said common purpose is to better adhere to Wikipedia’s Five pillars as we strive to improve Wikipedia’s articles and the processes by which we do so.
    • Support What they hay; I wrote it. Greg L (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Weak support Not really necessary. I don't think we need to list everything . . . --Kleinzach 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

meta

edit

Like others, I think this association is a bad idea, but while it is in user space, I think it is generating some good ideas. If this is pushed out of user space, I strongly recommend that it is pushed onto Meta, as that is a project intended to host these types of things. e.g. meta:Association of Metapedianist Wikipedians. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor Rescue Squadron

edit

I've long believed the block review process is wrong, but never had time to confirm my suspicions or dream up anything that would help, and also scale up to handle the number of blocks/unblocks that happen. Some of the points that Joopercoopers has raised above has got me thinking about this again. It seems to me that there are a group of established users here who are wailing about bad admins handing down back blocks. I would heartily endorse a "Block Review" WikiProject that focuses on reviewing historical unblock requests to see who is doing them, how often they are being handled well, and especially identifying which scenarios they tend to be mishandled. This would probably overlap with User:Tony1/AdminWatch, but it would be focused on only one aspect of admin activity, and would lead towards a more proactive role in the block review process. As well as retrospectively reviewing old blocks/appeals, this WikiProject could emulate the "Article Rescue Squadron" - an "Editor Rescue Squadron" (WP:ERS is free) that capable of:

  1. identifying when there is a "valued" editor at risk, and
  2. "manipulating" the system well enough to help that user get out of the bind in a way that everyone benefits.

My rough idea is that the WikiProject would have an open membership, be selective in which unblock appeals they "interrupt", and they would find unblock terms which satisfy the blocking admin and the community at large.

Where the block is related to a content matter, they may decide to thoroughly review the content dispute, seeking the assistance of relevant content experts, and try to accurately determine where the dispute broke down, who is "at fault" and how to repair the situation. While this content review is occurring, they might seek an unblock with the parties restricted from editing related pages to prevent further escalation.

John Vandenberg (chat) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you J. I think this, particularly the latter part, expresses very well the way in which this group could be useful. Most content disputes can be engaged in a way that does not require expert knowledge of the content in question (as opposed to expert knowledge of RS and other principles of NPOV). N.B. I have reworded your suggestion and included it in 'Membership commitments'.Peter Damian (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Bollocks! :-) There are plenty of disputes where two experts both use RS, and they both claim NPOV. It is impossible to figure out who was pushing NPOV and who wasnt, unless the reviewer is a subject matter expert. Currently our best solution is to block them both, because then we feel good about having "fixed" the user conduct problem. There is a small chance that one or both will realise that they need to act more appropriately in the next iteration of the dispute, but more likely they will either:
  1. repeat the same offense, and end up banned
  2. go to a different topic to avoid the pain, and watch the prior topic end up twisted into a mess
I think this association could be helpful to prevent these outcomes, and dont mind you swiping my ideas. :-) However I think a WikiProject with a few personnel dedicated solely to reviewing blocks/unblocks will be far more productive, many times over. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Imitation is sincerest form of flattery &c. The case where RS appear to disagree are always special cases of WP:Synth and WP:Due. In these cases the infallible recipe is to seek reliable tertiary sources like other encyclopedias. There should be absolutely no occasion when Wikipedia is saying something materially different from Britannica or Columbia. If Britannica or Columbia do appear to differ materially, then put both views in, regardless of what anyone thinks. If Britannica says that black is white, and Columbia says that black is white, then so does Wikipedia. There should be no exception. I have successfully used this principle in all kinds of disputes. If you can show me cases where RS appeared to contradict in this way, please take this up on my talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree with that. By the time something has filtered from specialists through several intermediate layers to get to Britannica, all sorts of things can go wrong:
  1. it may be simply out of date
  2. it may have got misunderstood
  3. views of 1 scholar may get treated as consensus
  4. &c
Policy says explicitly that WP articles are to be based mainly on secondary sources, not tertiary (or primary). (And, while I'm on the subject of policy, your statement above that neutral point of view is not a point of view is the exact opposite of what the policy page says.)
I agree that something needs to be done with WP, but I don't know what. I don't exclude the possibility that your group, or something like it, may have a contribution to make. Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But there has to be a 'tie breaker'. I stand by my point that nothing in Wikipedia should be a million miles from what it says in standard reference sources. Peter Damian (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New less established editors

edit

I've noticed that various editors in Wikipedia, especially established editors, don't think much for the newer editors. Also, there tends to be an arrogance of "I'm an expert or I know more then you so you should not be editing so and so article." How will this association help out new editors become more established? How will this association help combat some of the arrogance? (I.E. help defend an editor who may not claim to be an expert, but has some knowledge and interest in editing related articles that experts have staked out as their own.) Brothejr (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I've noticed the exact opposite. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As I also mentioned, then you haven't been looking or that you need to look at the situation form the other side. Brothejr (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to believe that you're attempting to set up strawmen. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about non-n00bs, but who are not yet "established". What about super-established editors? They need an association too, to protect them from the mobs of "established, but not as established as them, editors". Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think that "super-established" editors like you and I need any special provisions above those necessary to protect "established" editors. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, if someone is being too amateurish, inserting tons of errors by mistake or carelessness, or citing questionable sources for their edits, then it should be blatantly obvious. I don't think established editors should severely reprimand such new editors, but established editors should not put up with carelessness and stand firm where it is needed. I believe arrogance can swing both ways (i.e. a new editor thinks he or she has all the answers, when in fact the new editor doesn't know much at all about the topic he or she is editing). If a new editor is really that thin-skinned, as to walk away after one or two confrontations where they are proven wrong on any given subject, then it's their loss not to take some blows to learn how Wiki works. It's called tough love. I certainly had to deal with it at first when I did not know the ropes around here (not to make it sound too much like prison, lol).--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, many problems come from editors who don't realise when they are dealing with a person who knows more about the subject, or just pretend it's not true.
Three examples off the top of my head: (1) An editor with no knowledge of Latin, and reluctant to read even the English Google Books sources he presented himself, edit-warred against several editors from WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome because he felt his favourite author of dog books can't be wrong about the Romans. (2) Another editor is fighting a tireless one-man POV war against WP:WikiProject Mathematics for rejecting his original research. Apparently all the professional mathematicians in the project, including the logicians, are motivated by a strong bias against logic. (3) And then there are the "sceptical" editors who like to congregate around fringe topics to protect them against fringe advocacy and accurate description of the subject. After over a year I finally managed to make those at the homeopathy article understand that while high dilutions are typical, easily attacked as fringe, and vigorously defended by homeopaths, non- or moderately diluted homeopathic remedies are not at all unusual. Until recently our homeopathy article implied that homeopathic remedies are always safe because they are always extremely diluted. They were fixed only shortly before this [2].
I guess this is a better description of the same problem: User:DreamGuy#The eternal struggle. Hans Adler 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Another good example of this is the article Controversy over Cantor's theory which in a previous incarnation had been written by one of those usenet people in sci.logic and sci.maths who endlessly inveigh against Cantor and Godel and so on. There is absolutely no point in arguing with these people, and they are very persistent. Follow the edit trail and look at the talk page. Reliable sources won the day in the end but how many weeks of hard work did it take - to defend something that is part of elementary set theory? Peter Damian (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
These are excellent examples. This isn't merely about difference in opinion amongst credible sources and scholars on any given subject. It is the very difference between truly academic materials and non-academic materials. I too have run into this problem on numerous occasions. Tibet during the Ming Dynasty comes to mind.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My withdrawal; plus, I have a suggestion that might save this new group of yours from being classified as a "cabal"

edit

First, I would like to state that I think you have nothing but good intentions about Wikipedia (i.e. in making it a more credible encyclopedia). As the group stands now, I think it is a bit divisive, though. Look, everyone (i.e. us experienced editors) gets frustrated by newbies and novices, but instead of shunning them by forming an exclusive club that is de facto higher than them and will have more clout, I would humbly suggest that you consider a different approach of wholesale inclusiveness. By that I mean let everyone and anyone who wants to join the group be able to do so, but with conditions. By conditions, I would suggest that those members judged as senior members of the group should act as "tutors" for the newbies who join up. Perhaps you can split the two types of members under different headings or something. The senior members can show the newbies the ropes, how to edit a sound article, where to look for decent sources, etc. That way everyone is included, and you can still honor veteran members (see User:Nlu's talk page, he has some interesting ideas that are similar to this). I think the root of your problem with the recent RFC is that your group will be considered a cabal. That does not bode well, and I would hate to see this hard work you've done in organizing all of this go to waste. I hope that you will consider my proposal.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joopercoopers/eds&oldid=1136394711"