Jump to content

User talk:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)

Archive

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Thanks for the suggestions above. As well as many virginal ones, there are some stupendous block logs up there. What is the deal with Dreamguy? Peter Damian (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy's block log is a good example of why most admins should not have the block option. لennavecia 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am closing this down for now. I was shocked at the threats, both explicit and veiled, and at the attempt to muzzle this and to scare any potential members from committing to something like this. I am maintaining the list, however, and many thanks for the nominations. Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that discussions have been removed with the comment that the proposal has been shut down.[2][3] What is the status of this and are discussions allowed? If this is an ongoing project then I suggest that the previous discussions be restored and future discussions be allowed, so long as they follow general standards for civility, of course.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I prefer to remove excessive clutter, and the previous discussions are still there (as per your links). Note this is still in my userspace. As advertised, if the number of nominees who have accepted reaches 20, I will move this to a project page, elections can begin, and I will take a back seat. Peter Damian (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of adding your name to the nominees. Presumably you'll be part of the first election too, rather than an automatic member.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would not have participated otherwise. Peter Damian (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

[edit]

Hello. I received an invitation to join this, via my user talk. I'm flattered, but I don't understand what it is, given that the page that defines it only defines it by eligibility. The only comment about it's purpose is "The purpose of the association is ...". So, to reveal the flagrant truth of my stupidity, what is the purpose of the association? --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi if you look at this previous version of the page you will see what it used to be. However this caused a great deal of dispute, and I removed the proposals. The idea is that if 20 people commit to the principle that there shall be such an association, elected from within and not from the community, then there will be a discussion of what the objectives of such an association should be. If you have any ideas, please suggest them. For example:

  • representing the interests of such editors
  • a sort of 'trade union' to support editors
  • settling disputes (typically neutrality disputes) that are beyond the remit of Arbcom

Peter Damian (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, just what exactly is your envisaged system of recognition going to be? Are you actually giving out free beer or what? MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the membership list is the only recognition, I'm afraid. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lame. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. Very useful Peter Damian (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to leave this invitation open forever then Damien? Why don't you just drop the required number from 20 to 10, and you could get started straight away (assuming you have beer). It's not as if a group of 10 is going to have any more or less credibility than a group of 20. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It stays at 20. Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've enumerated your nomination list. You are going to need membership numbers for you laminated membership cards.... :) MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, although this is an odd and probably not a very useful idea, there is no need to poke fun at Peter for trying something new. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so he wasn't being serious then? And Tim, the idea of forming an association with clearly determined criteria of membership, in order to represent the interests of members, you are saying is an odd idea? Which planet do you live on? Or are you saying there clearly are so few problems with Wikipedia, and the relationships between administrators and the content producers is so harmonious and happy, that there is no need for such a thing? Again, which planet? Peter Damian (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I'm not at all impressed that you responded to me trying to help you by being rude. I won't comment on this page in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you were helping by saying the idea was odd. Balancing different but complementary interests is a method that underlies all parliamentary democracy, all corporate governance of limited companies - nearly every successful organisation except Wikipedia. A system like Wikipedia is only found in the old communist countries. Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty helpful to say "there is no need to poke fun at Peter for trying something new", I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Dweller

[edit]

I have replaced the section about the purposes of the Association. There should be a clearly stated purpose, after all. Peter Damian (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very good questions - let me answer tomorrow. Good night! Peter Damian (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Exclusivity of membership is the prime currency, and the driving force, behind this thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this can be resolved by having a seniority listing, but making it open to all? --Kleinzach 01:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, these questions were meant for Peter Damian to respond to. Thanks for your understanding. Brothejr (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Eligibility

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Concerns about association objectives

[edit]

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)[reply]

I think we can discuss these concerns within the process that Peter Damian has suggested. --Kleinzach 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Objectives

[edit]
  • To achieve this by representing the interests of all established editors (not just members of the association)\
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)[reply]
  • To campaign for reform in Wikipedia
    • Support Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lack of support for the Wikipedia:Five Pillars?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Other people are sensitive to the name. I'll start a new section. --Kleinzach 00:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Maybe do it in the 'Motions' section? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, see here. --Kleinzach 00:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Time to reflect

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Peer-Review System

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, I've noticed the exact opposite. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [4].
I guess this is a better description of the same problem: User:DreamGuy#The eternal struggle. Hans Adler 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RFC on this group

[edit]
  • Precisely the kind of mindless, authoritarian, premature idiocy that has probably inspired this group in the first place. Congratulations, I feel more entrenched than ever. So much for moderation......--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • You've been nominated Pericles, so you can advocate that on the main page. Peter has made some suggestions about how we might elect members and what the composition of that might be, but I don't see it as set in stone. If we choose to open it up, then fine. I urge you to stay.
Ah yes, s/he's nominated, so s/he gets to be heard. Good to know that you think the rest of us aren't able to formulate thoughts worth to be heard. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia. Any editor in good standing should be allowed to comment, not just those who have joined an unofficial club. Of course this is still in Peter Damian's userspace, so he can do with it as he likes. But if this is intended to ever become more than a user-page discussion then good faith editors should not be excluded. If folks want to have a private club there are plenty of other hosting sites, IRC channels, etc.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I've withdrawn, it is perhaps not my place anymore. If someone here likes my suggestion, though, feel free to post it on the main page. I think this issue is worth debating, but I'll leave that up to you guys. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This project page and its Talk page are copyright violations, since they are copy and pasted from Peter Damian's User space, not a move, and therefore the entire edit history is lost. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. BencherliteTalk 22:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

[edit]

Apologies, but I'm not 100% on this. You're creating a group of editors (seemingly selected by one user) who are better than others, yet those others have had no say in it. A group whose goal is to improve Wikipedia without the help of the rest of the community? Is that not just one massive middle finger being pointed at everyone who isn't a member? It seems like you've taken the idea of making an elite, and then removed anything remotely democratic about it. And we're supposed to sit back and accept that it's in our best interests to be eclipsed by a group we have no say in? I can accept the elite of one man, because he's a special case. But a whole group who I had no say the choice of? Ha! Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for these comments. I began by nominating a small number of people, and then those people nominated other people and so on. So I am responsible for only a small number. I would have continued the process but the personal attacks made it too emotionally difficult. After I blanked the page, there was some criticism because of that. The fairest thing to do is to hand it to the 'community' and see what they make of it. Peter Damian (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I was more concerned about the whole "middle finger to the world" thing rather than the selection process. Thanks for the reply, but can I ask when it stops? Editors invite editors who invite editors... At what point do you think "okay, we've got enough. Let's close the doors and barricade ourselves in." And still comes that nagging question, what does this group do? Support each other? Protect the elite? Sounds fairly self-righteous if I'm honest. Greg Tyler (t • c) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the idea was that once enough people had accepted, there would be elections from within that group. Thereafter, all election would be by members, rather like a club. You make it sound very devious and wicked, but it is based on the principle that experts are generally very good at recognising other experts. The elections would not be based on popularity (as RfA I suspect is) but on the 'substantial and enduring' aspect of content contribution. The group would not have any authority on the project if anyone who simply contributed content were allowed in. On the 'middle finger' aspect, well I have edited here since the early days of the project (June 2003) and never applied to become an admin because I never saw the point (since I am here to create content, not block or ban people). But there seems to be a great prestige attached to being an admin and they have great authority and in general content creators are treated as a second or third class or worse, so, what's wrong with a group that represents their interests? Read some of the comments on this talk page if you want to understand the hatred and revulsion that most people on the project feel towards those who are actually building the raw material of the project. Sorry, end of rant. Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your believe that these elections will not be about popularity, but RfA elections are. I think it's the other way round. The reason being that RfA allows everyone to vote, from all areas of Wikipedia. A group of elites will only vote for people they like. They're not going to turn against familiar editors because of a lack of experience or vote strongly for someone helpful who they don't personally like. Whilst making no accusations at particular members involved, in-voting is consistently less effective than letting everyone have their say - ask forum moderators. (And yes, I'm aware I've opened the floodgates for people to say "Ooo, my forum's different." Generalisation aren't meant to be perfect, so drop it.) Greg Tyler (t • c) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A group of elites will only vote for people they like. " This is not true, in my RL experience. People can be friends, but in the end it is expertise they choose. Believe me. Peter Damian (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuserfication

[edit]

Would anyone object if I moved this page into my userspace, as this is still very much under construction and not really ready for WP space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2009

Group's Purpose

[edit]

All right, so I think one thing that is fairly clear is that, before dealing with anything else, we need to figure out just what the purpose of the group should be, and what it should do. What are people's thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, other than serve as a lesson in what not to do, on top of every other attempt to create any distinction based on "establisment". There can never and will never be any sort of association on Wikipedia that is based on any sort of establishment or credentials. This is not mere suggestion, this is policy. Legalized meat mobs have no place on wikipedia, and will be fought tooth and nail by the community. Let this thing die, and move on to things that actually have a chance of becoming something. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask that if people are not interested in this group, or think it is a bad idea, to just leave it be. Let those of us who are interested develop the idea, and then, if/when we have something concrete together, we can discuss whether it should be kept or not. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding that. This is beginning to look like harassment. Note that WP:GAME says nothing about groups like this. WP:TEAM possibly does, but that is not policy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose: there is nothing wrong with a group that simply represents its members' interests. What are the interests of someone who has over 1,000 substantial edits to articles, and who is absolutely committed to the core principles of Wikipedia. Well, just that. Peter Damian (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is wrong about such a group, it's the politicizing of Wikipedia, legalized gaming, meatmobs, and the preferential treatment of a self-elected clique. Wikipedia is not about the championing and defense of the interests of its members, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be deleting any further nonconstructive comments. When we actually have something, we will present it to the community. People are free to rip into it as much as they like then. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

Charles Stewart suggested on my talk page that the group be open to everyone with over 1,000 edits to articles. However, it is open to any member to challenge the credentials of a candidate according to the core principles of the association, namely 'substantial contributions' and above else 'neutrality'. I support this. Peter Damian (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the editors who originally accepted nomination should be re-notified. I will help with this over the weekend. Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I actually don't think that making it self-electing is strictly necessary. I think to some extent only the kind of editors we want will sign up, especially if we put in a 1000 edit requirement. I would also consider changing the name to "Association of Content Editors." Besides giving us a nicer acronym, it is also less open to charges that we are attempting to establish a cabal, and more accurately describes what the association is about. In addition, members could claim expertise in a given area, which would not be required, and would be open to challenge. The other thing we have to consider is: how do we minimize drama within the group? I can see "expertise challenges" and trials and such becoming extraordinarily tedious and problematic. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are those from the WP:FRINGE therefore eligible? Is there some kind of commitment to NPOV, and are existing members able to challenge this commitment. If not ... Peter Damian (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should state right up front that commitment to NPOV is nonnegotiable. I think, though, that if someone is a serious fringe pov pusher the solution isn't this group, but administrative/community action. Besides, there are a number of editors with at least slightly fringe beliefs in one area or another who are nevertheless very good editors, capable of maintaining NPOV, and so forth. The main thing is, if someone is not committed to NPOV I think they would rapidly find that they were not welcome. I just can't help but be afraid that some kind of formal "challenge" process would be a feast for the Drama Llama. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK, but if someone like this [5], who nearly has the 1,000 edits, wanted to join, I personally would create a bit of drama. There should be some right of veto, even if not formal. Peter Damian (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggested that prospective members state an area of interest. There could be a standard list of topic areas; anyone can ask for new ones to be added, and if they correspond to an actual area of objective expertise, then they can be. To be more precise, my suggestion was 1000 edits within the stated area. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Charles btw are you interested in such a proposition? Peter Damian (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for butting in, but it seems like there are some contradictory ideas here. In my experience, the more folks are interested in a topic the less neutral they are about it. Has anyone seen a neutral single-purpose account with a 1000 edits? If there is a criterion requiring strong involvement in a single topic a requirement then that will tend to select editors with committed views. Of course neutrality isn't required for writing with the neutral point of view, but editors who are deeply committed to a viewpoint find it hard to use the NPOV. I suggest that if you're looking for the most neutral editors you should seek breadth rather than depth.   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am interested in philosophy and in particular medieval philosophy and I claim exception to your rule. I work on Ayn Rand because my specialist knowledge tells me that these articles are far from neutral. Similarly Neurolinguistic programming. Also, editors who have a really broad interest will not have enough specialist knowledge to enforce neutrality. There has to be some commitment to a particular subject matter. Indeed, that will really separate the wheat from the chaff. If I commit to this association per philosophical subject matter, there are many here whose application I would challenge. And rightly so. And that would show the principle was working. There may not be many neutral single-purpose account with a 1000 edits. But all of these should be welcome in this group, and all of the others should be challenged. (Nonetheless a good point Will, and thanks for contributing). Peter Damian (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another example would be User:TimVickers. While I find his enthusiasm about Wikipedia strange, there is no doubt his many contributions to the project are strictly neutral. Also Charles Stewart above, who is interested in logic. It is these users one would like to encourage Peter Damian (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Snowded. He is not an expert as far as I can tell but his commitment to neutrality is beyond question. Also User:TallNapoleon above, I think. Peter Damian (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And might I add in reference to Will Beback's comments, that's an huge lack of assumption of good faith. Editors who focus on one area are not only quite capable of being neutral or at the very least maintaining NPOV, they are essentially the backbone of Wikipedia. As someone who knows nothing about science, I rely on the science-focused editors to provide often excellent articles on science topics. Within each discipline, there are umpteen sub-disciplines with editors working hard to bring articles up to GA and FA status. Should all wiki editors be generalists with no focus on one main area? We would have far more stubs than we already have if that were the case. I work on visual art articles, with a specific focus on Canadian visual art. At this point, I am the only established editor regularly working on Canadian visual art topics. That may not be important to some, but I think overall it helps with the breadth of the whole project. We need breadth, yes, but we also need to encourage depth, and editors declaring areas of interest has nothing to do with neutrality or lack-of. As a rule I stay away from topics I know nothing about, save for minor edits when I catch them. I certainly am not going to butt into science articles, for example, with major content changes. I trust the regular editors of those article to maintain neutrality. freshacconci talktalk 12:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, User:Snowded is an expert in knowledge management. But I will freely admit that I'm not an expert in anything, except perhaps the slightly esoteric topic of EVE Online. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
are you interested in such a proposition? Maybe — well, certainly interested, but with doubts. My worry with the whole AEE plan, is that it looks quite capable of maximising the ratio of bad WP politics to good content-improving effects. There's infrastructure already there that is meant to tackle some of the AEE concerns: for neutrality, there is WP:NPOV/N and Category:NPOV disputes; for providing experts with subject-related fora, there are the wikiprojects. Wikiprojects like WP:WPMATH work well, because they have a high enough ratio of established expert editors to POV pushers (indeed the main problem with the project is a lack of active, non-expert participants, with the effect that the pages are strongly tilted towards redaers with a strong undergraduate education in the subject). But how is the AEE going to help? Is the idea that an expert-friendly forum will help reduce the numbers of expert editors who leave? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general idea would be to create a group and a forum where experts would feel more at home. I have tried over the years to encourage experts on board but they take one look and run screaming. They simply do not understand that they are meant to take seriously people who have little or no background in their subject, but nonetheless have strong views. Views that are generally held in inverse proportion to their knowledge of the subject. Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are easily counted. How is commitment to neutrality judged?   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This was precisely why I originally proposed a 'trust system'. It is very difficult to assess neutrality without considerable research. It takes about half an hour of working through edits to get a sense of how truly neutral an editor is (sometimes it can be quick). It is unreasonable to expect everyone in the 'community' to do this half an hour of work. But if someone we all trust puts in this small amount of time, then since we trust him or her, we will accept their judgment, and use that time for something else. That is the way the real world works. Propose that idea here, and we are accused of 'cabalism' or 'elitism' or something like that. Peter Damian (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That system would allow a member to blackball an applicant by saying that they believe them to be non-neutral. A more objective measure might be bringing articles to FA, as those articles are carefully screened for neutrality. (I recall someone suggesting this a while back.) Also, it's worth considering that editors can be neutral on some topics and non-neutral on others.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an objection would have to be carefully justified by reasoning and evidence, thus it would not be Blackballing (which is anonymous). On FA's, perhaps, but the quality of FA's is notoriously uneven. For example, the author of this stinker and others would qualify over me - I have no featured articles because I have never bothered to submit one. I think this would qualify for neutrality but it was never submitted for FA. Peter Damian (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TallNapoleon/Association_of_Established_Editors&oldid=1136136301"