Jump to content

User:Joopercoopers/eds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Joopercoopers

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joopercoopers (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 22 June 2009 (→Some question for Peter Damian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nominations by Peter Damian

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. User-multi error: "Vintagekits" is not a valid project or language code (help).
  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

Acceptances

    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

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

Puzzled

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

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

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)

Neutral point of view is not itself a point of view. That is fundamental to Wikipedia. That is all there is to say. Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, all of this is simply Peter's idea of what it might be about - other members may well have differing views - it's rather up for grabs as far as I can make out. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That is correct. I nominate a small group of seeds, they have nominated others, the rest is up to them. Peter Damian (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, just get approval from the community for the general principle that we need anything doing regarding content using a closed shop of self-elected members. What you are essentially trying to do is set up a content arbcom, and the only approval you want to be able to do that is a yes vote from the people that are going to be in it or benefit from it. It's not rocket science to then see that views such as DreamGuy's of the form 'if you don't like it, don't join' is not going to fly as any sort of endorsement. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 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)
It's all whether you think that the 'support systems' you advocate involves block voting, de-facto preferential treatment based on membership alone (and not individual record as does happen now), or sanctioned incivility against non-members or worse. Getting preferential treatment happens already for certain massive drama sink users just because they are 'good contributors' in the eyes of enough rogue admins, and yet, you want this abhorrent behaviour codified, just because there are POV pushers on the site as well. The two problems aren't linked, people are quite able to come to the pedia, not qualify for this ridicuolus association , and still shock horror, not turn out to be a Scientology pushing freak. I have a very strong idea, and this is based on everything Peter has already written himself about it, that violation of core policies is indeed very likely if this is ever constituted. I've asked Peter how it can't end up this way, all he can come up with is a restatement of the supposed problems, and vagueness about communism and governments etc. He failed to answer above how this closed shop intends to solve content disputes without violating policy, that is in any way different way to our existing systems. The last comment about not asking to join has pretty much a glaring error, you don't ask to join at all, you are nominated, and then elected form within. Not even arbcom are as corrupt as that. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Correct. I don't see any policies in Wikipedia that prevent such an association. What is disturbing is this idea that Wikipedia is some sort of social movement. It is a project whose aim is to build an encyclopedia that is comprehensive and accurate.Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You are inventing a social process right here. What else do you call mobilising people into a 'union'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 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)

You seem to be under the massive misconception that admins settle content disputes. They don't (unless the concept of winning the dispute is to be the last man standing after the blocks). That seems to be the root of most of the problems you are inventing above, for this new body to solve. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm labouring under no misapprehensions. 2 items of my personal 8 point agenda relate to content disputes. Tim Vickers put it rather well the other day "One of the long-term problems with administrative enforcement of policy is that content policies are not as easy to enforce as behavioural policies". To me this an argument for more admins with good content creation skills (yes I recognise Halham 2 CSEs will be perfectly adept at the behavioural aspects of WP:AIV or WP:AN3) but my perhaps misguided perception is expert admins are rather thin on the ground in comparison to the common or garden gnomish variety. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Admins can't enforce content policies like WP:RS or WP:MOS any better than ordinary peons. They can block/ban people who tendenciously ignore community consensus over the interpretation of content policy in specific disputes, but other than that, I am at a loss as to your apparent perception of what admins can and cannot do in a content dispute that is over and above giving an opinion the same as anybody else who can read the policy in question. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree (actually in many respects I sometimes think admins are worse at interpreting RS than ordinary peons). Admins are however often called upon to deal with behavioural issues which have RS at root. To effectively judge the dispute and balance whether some of the behaviour displayed might be justified or mitigated, I'm arguing that being able to spot patent nonsense or extreme fringe material, or having some grounding and empathy in what's required of academic writing might just be a useful skill to have when apportioning warnings and mediating. Impartial mediation of course is always easier while holding a big stick and is much more likely to be more effective. The problem with content disputes is they're rarely policed at all before the behaviour gets spikey, and often the blind insistence on behavioural standards simply serves to further antagonise the parties because it denies the root cause. Everyone gets wound up and before you know it, it's another case before arb com. I'm struggling to see where your objection is coming from if a group of experienced content editors want to sit around and dream up ways in which that situation might be improved. I'm further at a loss as to which of the 5 pillars you think might be breached that would require an immediate punt up to ArbCom for a ruling. Are you always this conservative in nature? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well again, you seem to simply not be aware that nobody 'polices' content disputes, except you and everybody else involved in them. You also seem to be unaware of the existing mediation and request for comment systems, where no content 'experts' are prohibted from participating if they feel they have experience in Wikipeida, so again, I fail to see how this manufactured closed shop solves any of your pretty much invented problems. The common theme it seems to me in your comments and Peter's earlier statments is, that when people get annoyed and act dickish in a content dispute, their status as a memeber of this group should get them a free pass from basic expectations such as civility, which is a pretty big part of one of the pillars being violated right there. I'm not being conservative, I'm trying to stop this before it actually becomes a real problem that someone actually has to 'police', with all the inherent problems of trying to kill something defended by a group of vested contributors. MickMacNee (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As you don't seem to have actually read or understood a word I have written, I shall write no more for you. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had understood you perfectly. I guess the failing must be my idiot status as a non-member. MickMacNee (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tried these processes many times. If you ask an admin for help, they will start looking for things like civility and behaviour and so on, rather than examine the key issues. This inevitably leads to frustration. When you go to mediation, the result is pretty much the same. Then it goes to Arbcom who then restrict or block or ban everyone concerned, no matter where the fault lies. I have carefully looked at the Arbcom process , and I see no evidence that the committee has actually looked at any of the evidence. It is just a disorganised mess. Anyone who has been through this recognises that the system is broken. If there a group of editors who everyone trusted because their credentials had been verified, these could be of help in resolving such disputes. Again, look to the real world to understand how these things are resolved. Rather than bring a mob in to give their opinion, you select a small group of trusted people to give a systematic judgment and recommendation. Peter Damian (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The real world has zero relevance, this is Wikipedia, we are not a democracy or a beaurocracy, you don't have any credentials. I fail to see how a body that decided itself who is 'trusted' and elects itself, is any better than the supposedly flawed arbcom, that was elected by the entire community. "Rather than bring a mob in to give their opinion, you select a small group of trusted people to give a systematic judgment and recommendation." - that is a perfect description of what arbcom already is, for intractible disputes. I cannot resolve how you keep dismissing the idea that wikipedia is a not a social experiment but an encylopoedia, yet you seem bent on implementing a social structure to deal with what you think is wrong (have you for example, ever done an Rfc to actually back up any of these sweeping claims of systemic failure so that people might verify your claims?) I find it odd by the way that a sitting arbitrator is actually one of your nominations. How did you come to that decision, given the above statements? MickMacNee (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I meant: I am not basing my proposal on some idealised version of human nature (the 'social experiment'), but from practical real life experience of quality control, organising and managing peer review, and so forth. Peter Damian (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility

In addition to the criteria mentioned on the project page, I'd like to see a requirement to have been a lead editor on at least one Featured Article and have fully participated in the process of getting that article promoted to FA. This process gives an editor a much greater understanding of what high-quality, well-referenced content really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that would rule me out! I have always religiously avoided GA and such things. But whatever the 22 agree upon, is what we get (see below). Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Per WP:OWN there's no such thing as a lead editor. I think that whether someone gets an article to FA or not depends largely on only a subset of skills that makes an editor an "established editor" and is partly dependent upon having an interest in articles with topics that are less under dispute than others. I personally think having dealt with articles that are targets of frequent and overwhelming attacks of editors with agendas to push is just as valid a background, and those kinds of articles are lucky to end up just adequate instead of awful, which is a victory in itself. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
By lead editor, I mean one of the editors who actively responds to the comments at a successful FAC. In order to do this, one needs to be able to get along well with other editors, gracefully receive criticism, and understand the MOS, proper use of WP:RS, neutrality and image guidelines; and be able to evaluate and write clear prose. The exercise is extremely useful, and I encourage anyone who has not done it to do so. BTW, plenty of controversial articles succeed at FA. See Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree with you as well. A lot of people (including me) have serious issues with the FAC process and don't submit articles there regardless of quality. (I've broken my own rule and submitted a few recently, as under the new system 1⁄3 of articles on a topic need to be FA status for a topic to be listed at WP:FT, but prior to 2009 I'd never once nominated an article at FAC.) Quality isn't something that magically appears when something gets a yellow star; it's something one knows when one sees it. – iridescent 14:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Having played a significant role in improving an article to FA level does demonstrate familiarity and competence with content production and the issues it entails, however as demonstrated above by Irisdecent, not many people see the merit of FAC so don't always bother with it. Since content editing is an important facet of this Established Editors idea, how about proposed members highlight an article (or several) which demonstrates their abilities. That way, we get the proof and there doesn't have to be an arbitrary line at FA or even Good Articles. Also, limiting the membership to those with Featured credits means this group would just be a rehashing of WT:FAC, which seems a bit pointless. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree and I did just this on my little 'CV' on the user page next door. Peter Damian (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless everyone on Wikipedia is eligible, shouldn't this association have its own web hosting instead of using Wikipedia's? There are few sites out there that provide free wikis for private projects. Chillum 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely everyone is eligible to join. They merely have to be active here for a certain period to show commitment to the project, to show themselves capable of writing at least a paragraph of joined up writing, and to demonstrate understanding of the principles of reliable sourcing, WP:DUE, NOTABLE and so on. I don't see the problem. Peter Damian (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

There are now 22 accepted nominations, and the conditions have been met. I will be fairly busy for the rest of this week, but will have some time at the weekend. At some point I will move this user page onto WP:EEA or something like that. Then the nominees who have accepted will discuss and vote on

  • The purpose and objectives of the assocation
  • Membership and eligibility criteria
  • The process for election

Best Peter Damian (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you going to move it Peter ? I'd keep it here for now, until we've defined some objectives. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For one thing - it's difficult to see how we might have a sensible discussion between ourselves. At least in user space there is a custom that one can remove as one see fit - there's seems to be quite high level endorsement for that principle. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about association objectives

I am concerned that the stated purpose of this embryonic association is to champion the interests of its members only, not the interests of the Wikipedia community as a whole. Especially as it proposes to set its own membership criteria and elect new members by internal voting within the group. Does anyone share these concerns ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can discuss these concerns within the process that Peter Damian has suggested. --Kleinzach 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really, as he seems to be proposing a closed discussion between the accepting nominees, and I am not one of them. That's why I raised my concern here in an open discussion forum. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the current version of the article states "The purposes of the association are to represent such content contributors in the Wikipedia community". There may be content contributors who are not members. Furthermore, the articles themselves are up for discussion. Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) As a so-called 'accepting nominee', I'd be delighted to raise Gandalf61's concerns on his behalf. --Kleinzach 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Kleinzach - thank you for your offer. Peter Damian - the phrase "such content conrtibutors" seems to be vague and open to misinterpretation. If your intention is that the association should represent non-members' interests as well as those of its members, may I suggest that the wording
"The purposes of the association are to represent all established editors in the Wikipedia community ..."
would be a clearer and better expression of this. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I would be so anodyne. As I understand it one of the issues here is good practices wrt sourcing and referencing of material; that is emphatically a content issue and an important one at that, both in terms of substantiation as well as the larger credibility of the project. Eusebeus (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so my reading of the "Objectives" thread below is that the idea that the association should attempt to represent the interests of established editors who are not members has met with significant opposition. So I would like to restate my concern in the form of a question. If, as seems probable, the association only intends to represent the interests of its members, and if new members are nominated and elected by existing members (rather than some more inclusive and objective membership criteria), how exactly does that further the interests of the Wikipedia community as a whole or the aims of the project ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Objectives

  • 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)

Is there any chance you could make these any more vague? I mean seriously, these proposed 'objectives' are utterly meaningless as written. No.1 is just the Wikipedia mission statement, No.2 means absolutely nothing (what is editor representation on Wikipedia exactly?), No.3 is simply vague. So far we have had, reform arbcom, reform admins, reform policies, fight scientologists etc etc. Just why do these 'reforms' need the backing of a self elected self serving group? MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I liked Damian's earlier suggestion that we wait to come up with specific objectives after this has moved to its own page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Mick - noted. Perhaps you might come back in a week and see what's been worked out - its all rather foetal at the moment. It may be the case that a lot of your concerns are shared by the people here. I'm not exactly over joyed about being described as a self-serving, self-elected elite. For me a simple group of non-functionary, non-admins who can write a coherent paragraph will suffice. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Peter, cart before the horse if you don't mind me saying. I admire the get-going attitude, but can we be a bit reflective here first? I've a lot of questions. Who are we? What do we agree on? What do we think is most important? How might we help or hinder? There are half a dozen names on the list I recognise and a few I know well, but perhaps a period where we get to know each other first, before launching into manifestos? I'm going to make some bold changes to the page.........--Joopercoopers (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My concern with this one is that detractors and those who fear the worst from an association will point to this objective and fear-monger. “Change” is never without controversy on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but anybody doing anything worthwhile in life is going to have naysayers getting on their case. We can't let the fear-mongers make us afraid. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of support for the Wikipedia:Five Pillars?

I feel somewhat concerned at the lack of prime support for the Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Do you really intend to say that WP:Civility, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Copyrights may be ignored if they conflict with WP:RS, WP:NOR? I am concerned that people don't seem to realise that they're signing up to support a group that lists that as a principle they must be committed to, which if they were to act on would put them in breach of important Wikipedia policies.--Barberio (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no lack of support for the Wikipedia:Five_pillars. In my experience, WP:Civility is so rarely invoked except by perpetrators of unspeakable rudeness as a stick to beat opponents with, that few fastidious Wikipedians ever mention it: it is part of a code of conduct that is assumed: part of the very essence of Established Editors is collegial behavior.--Wetman (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, another official clique of people who stick by each other regardless of merit

Wikipedia should never be about who's been here longer, and no one should be able to form group which excludes people who don't "meet certain criteria". What's next, the Association of People who Wrote Feature Articles whose scope is to uphold the "good names of feature article writers"? The Association of People who Write Banners? The Association of People who Manages Wikiprojects? Exclusive cliques lead to groupthink. "Sorry, you've been here for 3 months, so you can't join our exclusive group. If you get shit on by someone of our association of superior people, we'll unite against you, so don't even think to accuse one of ours of being anything less than embodiment of all things good." This is bureaucratic creep at its worse.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
How about we wait and see if the potential problem you're describing actually happens, and then we do something about it? I could see this going either way. Friday (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Didn't we see those problems with the Esperanza project? It's not clear how this is substantially different from that failed and divisive effort.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd never heard of "Esperanza" til now: I have de-piped the link in the header above, seeing no purpose in disguising the link. So now I read "yada yada ...who made binding decisions about Esperanza on IRC." IRC is thoroughly discredited; are any of its denizens among the Established Editors listed above? I hear nothing of "binding decisions". Is this a red herring?--Wetman (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The proponent of this wrote of "immediate expulsion" of members found to use socks abusively. He didn't indicate what mechanism would be used, but presumably such an expulsion decision would be binding.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun and rewarding hobby. If the aims of a group (or, as the detractors are fond of saying: “clique” or “cabal”) are to get together and figure out how to improve the community’s adherence to the core principles of Wikipedia and better improve its articles (there are many that need to be improved—some, a lot), then that’s perfectly fine with me.

    The idea of limiting membership to established editors (and hopefully—in my view—to only those who are over the age of 40) is to exclude editors who have minimal experience and/or still edit from their mother’s basement. I don’t know about you, but I find it more enjoyable to work towards a common goal when I do so with individuals who share a similar world-view.

    I don’t find anything nefarious about Peter Damian’s goals. Please advise, Headbomb, if you witness evidence otherwise. Greg L (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the main thrust here is in improving Wikipedia as a reader's service. Established Editors are concerned with content. Everything proceeds from that.--Wetman (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting to know each other AA style (see Established Editors)

I've made some Bold changes to the main page. It seems all the 'articles of association' are really up for grabs. I thought we might be better, first introducing ourselves, and our concerns and hopes and then evaluating what sort of group we are and what aspirations for it we might have. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is 'slow track' (particularly compared to Peter Damian's 'fast track' approach) and a little too 'touchy-feely' for my taste (Re AA: I'm an unreformed alcoholic), but I will do the self-intro etc. However I hope we can avoid getting bogged down in random discussions, sniper repelling and general floundering around. I note we've assembled some of the most individualistic editors on WP. If we're not careful we're going to waste a huge amount of time and see the whole thing fall apart. Shall we concentrate on naming the group? (Most of the objections have simply been to the word 'association'). If we can successfully chose a name, then let's move to the new page as Peter has suggested. --Kleinzach 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok Klein - I'm no firebrand, if other are, so be it. I'm pretty uninterested in the name to be honest. Short of WP:Knitting Circle I'm pretty ok with whatever. WP:Established Editors Self Help Group? Wikiproject:Restore sanity? really, whatever :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Other people are sensitive to the name. I'll start a new section. --Kleinzach 00:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Maybe do it in the 'Motions' section? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done, see here. --Kleinzach 00:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

This failed project has been mentioned many times. It's hard to find details on it, particularly the membership list, as it has so thoroughly been so thoroughly airbrushed out of the books. However these are useful

Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza

I have read through some of the archives. Note that 'Essjay' (I hope everyone knows who this person was) was a prominent early member. My impression is that the group did not have robust membership criteria, and was more of a 'wiki love' chat shop and support group than anything else. I have little interest in a chat shop. I am interested in a group that represents editors who have experience of Wikipedia, who can actually write and who understand the essential principles of sourcing, and which can help improve the project and reform its administration. Another problem with Esperanza was its bureaucracy. I have little interest in that either. This group should have a set of very broadly defined principles that ensures we have a common objective, and a flat structure (no 'senior established editors' or the like). Peter Damian (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A Wiki-love-in is pretty much my recollection of it. They gave out barnstars and had a 'featured wikipedian of the month' award/editorial - worthy but rather vomit inducing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"My impression is that the group did not have robust membership criteria". You list this as a problem, which leads me to think that you want this things to be even more bureaucratic/creepy than Esperanza.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Peter Damian is correct that one of the downfalls of Esperanza may have been its concern with bureaucracy, which this proposal avoids (at least so far). Since Damian mentions reforming administration, I'd be interested to learn more about what reforms he sees this group promoting.   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Avoid? There are membership criteria, eligibility criteria, nominations for joining this clique, talk of holding internal elections, advocacy/lobbying of the interests of its members, organized protection of its members at the expense of anyone else, proposal to rule on things beyond the authority of ARBCOM, and so on. It's bureaucracy embraced! Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
To 'Headbomb'. No, the criteria do not have to be complicated. 2 years involvement (easy to check). Plus election from within - equally simple to verify. Another virtue of the latter is that there are no issues of sockpuppets or IRC clones, scientologists &c turning up in droves to support the party line. Sockpuppets from within would be a problem, of course.
To 'Beback'. Reforms? We all have our favourites and I can't speak for the rest of the group. My personal hobby-horses are editing from IP's, and abusive multiple accounts. All but the most egregious cases could be solved by some form of unique identification. Another reform: separation of powers between those carrying the block weapon, and content creators. I would urge (another personal view) any admins who want to be part of this group to lay down their weapons. I support the idea of a police system of some kind, but most real life businesses strictly segregate the duties of the security guards from those who run the business. Another: Content editors should have the right of 'trial by peer'. Under the current system, admins punish common vandals, who are scum, in my view, and that is OK. They also punish editors who have worked on the project for many years, as though they are common criminals or vandals. That is shameful and disgusting and an affront to dignity. Content creators should have the fundamental right to be tried (and found guilty if necessary) by their peers, not by some thuggish security guard. Peter Damian (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
While I've lurked here quietly for several days now watching things develop, this comment is just really offensive. There is no call for comments that differentiate "content editors" from "administrators" or equate administrators with "thuggish security guards". With few exceptions, everyone is here to write the encyclopedia. There is also no reason why any particular editors should get preferential treatment when they violate policies. "Trial by peer" sounds all the more troublesome when you are talking about establishing a group that will act cohesively on behalf of individual members. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
To Peter Damian: Editing by multiple accounts is virtually forbidden already. Editing by IPs is almost a foundational issue. Changing those policies doesn't require a special society. "[T]huggish security guard" is a very harsh way to describe what I presume refers to an admin. I'm afraid that, like many proposals, the motivation for this may be found in the proponent's block log. However, if the intended reform is to change the blocking policy, that doesn't require a special society either. It's not even clear that everyone accepting nominations agrees to those changes. Maybe it'd be best to lay out the platform and then see who wants to rally around it.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to reflect

I am beginning to wonder what I'm doing here. I cannot endorse the offensive comments above. Administrators work hard, often its a thankless job and I cannot in any way shape or form either agree or endorse User:Peter Damian's opinion and comment. I am happy to work with admins and some are damned fine editors...Modernist (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If we want to focus on content, then I think this group is useful. It can be used to help build a consensus of experienced editors on content issues and perhaps content policies. I am highly skeptical of any attempt to engage in dispute resolution, for which there are already systems in place at Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

meta

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

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)

Peer-Review System

Here's a question/statement. I've noticed various established editors clearly break polices, especially core policies. Some have been rather rude and abusive, some have edit warred, some have been down-right arrogant. Yet, when they are called on their actions, a bunch of "friends" rush up to defend the editor and they get off free with no penalties for how they acted, thus enabling them to continue on, learning nothing from the experience. Where as a lesser editor with less standing/history would be slapped with block, bans, restrictions, etc.

How would a peer-review system help in this case? Would this association be willing to discipline (or bring discipline actions against) another established editor if it's clearly shown they are breaking the rules? Would the association be willing to go against one of it's own members if they break policy? Brothejr (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I've noticed completely the opposite. Let's remind ourselves as well that there ought to be no "imposition of penalties" going on at all here on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Then you haven't been looking because I can point out one rather prominent editor who has even been invited to this association who fits the above statement and there have been many others who have been able to slip by. Brothejr (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'experts' can be arrogant and condescending. This can be (a) because they are not in fact experts at all, but are pretending to be. This happens quite a lot and is one reason why there needs to be some sort of selection process for this group. (b) More commonly it is because the expert has battle fatigue and is very tired of dealing with well-meaning but deluded 'helpers' rather like 'Randy from Boise' who believes that the Peloponnesian war had something to do with skeleton warriors. My most recent experience of this was with the creatures who inhabit the Dark ages article page who refused to admit the existence of the Dark ages, despite the pages of scholarly evidence I presented to the contrary. I was not rude on that occasion but it was very tempting. On other occasions where I have been rude it was in order to ignite a flame at ANI. If you can cause a bit of a fuss, and preferably get blocked, this draws the attention of reasonable people to an issue, and it can often get solved that way. But there should be easier ways to write an encyclopedia. I do a lot of collaborative scholarly work and never have to resort to such techniques in that world. Why should Wikipedia be any different?

On the point about the 'friends' rushing up to help the editor, well, I would prefer a system where the help could have been obtained before the incident occurred, not after. I will be willing to help any established editor in this way. Peter Damian (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Should this group of ours really be in the business of "punishing" its members? Or for that matter (the opposite), be used as a means to rally people to support fellow members when they are in trouble? Disciplinary actions and decisions should be left up to official Wiki administrators, while disputes can first go through the ArbCom process. I would argue that this group is no place for such a thing. No place at all. Unless of course by "punishment" you mean building a consensus for simply removing a member from the group. That I could kind of understand.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The medieval church used to make decisions, but the secular authorities would enact punishments. Same idea. The group tries to persuade a recalcitrant member to put his or her own house in order (rather like friends restraining a comrade who has temporarily lost control). Such an informal system already operates, in reality. But there would be an extra sanction of expulsion from the group. Peter Damian (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Now this is starting to sound like "excommunication". Medieval Church indeed! If that is the case, I might be content simply being a member of the WikiProjects that I already belong to. I am not against your group and I hope your group thrives, but if this is the case then I don't have any desire to be a part of it. I am sorry to say it, but I will be withdrawing my membership. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pericles that any such "enforcement" has no place in this group. Pericles, please don't leave, but rather continue to give your excellent input into this process. Nothing about this group's activities has been decided yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would love to stay, and I might even rejoin if I see that the group has come to a consensus that fits with my views (and doesn't violate Wiki policy on cabals). I just think there are better ways to maintain the quality of Wikipedia without having to "gather the troops" of experienced editors against novice editors. I think it would be much better to have experienced editors act as guides, tutors, and teachers to novice editors. I think it would be best to invite anyone and everyone (novice or veteran) who wants to join the group. That way everyone can take part, while senior editors can still be honored and given recognition for their contributions. That is my 2 cents on the matter.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New less established editors

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"

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Joopercoopers/eds&oldid=297818214"