- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was there's only about six users who want this page kept as a concept. There another few who wanted more time for this page to develop, to see what would happen with it, but the concers of the delete side, particularily the links pointing to misunderstandings of the scope of this page, rebutt those arguments in my mind. A substantial portion of the keep side does not want the page to be in operation, so there's actually very little support for the concept itself. Those conclusions, as well as the two-thirds numerical majority of the delete side, make me close this complicated debate as a delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard
This page serves only to fragment discussions, complicate issues and spread conversations across multiple locations, none of which is good for our project. It encourages solution shopping. It attempts to establish specific editors as arbiters of civility. This will make dispute resolution more difficult, and may even have a paradoxically inflammatory effect. FreplySpang 00:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: I have 'concordified' this page by moving it to
Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility noticeboard, since there was certainly no consensus to introduce this procedure into the main project space.
The Land 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:Computerjoe has seen fit to move it back. The Land 18
- 50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that this is making dispute solving more difficult, people are taking Concordia as "civility experts" whose opinion has more value than others -- Drini 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above. Ande B 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Freply and Drini.-- Sean Black 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with FreplySpang, who puts it better (and more politely) than I ever could. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per comments above. Another bureaucratic solution in search of a problem. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Failing that, suggest Rob Church as Prosecutor-General.
Mackensen
(talk) 00:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- String support for this proposal :P – Gurch 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
KeepMany of the arguments above are concerned with the problems it 'may' cause ... I'd like to see it fail before deleting it. -- ∞ Wirelain 00:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- Comment You may want to re-read the above comments in support of deletion. The concern is that it is already causing problems, not that it might do so in the future. Given the current activity, we can expect that it will continue to be problematic.
Ande B 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this is nothing more than "community justice" renamed, and it's been already being used to fuel disputes by users arguing these "experts" dictamined an statement was uncivil or not -- Drini 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It does not seem fair to judge this page's worth five hours after it has been created. Nothing is perfect the first time around. (^'-')^ Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If nothing else this does bring up the issue of rampant incivil out of control editors. At the very least Rejected, I'm only not flipping to delete to try to stop future incarnations. -- ∞ Wirelain 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You may want to re-read the above comments in support of deletion. The concern is that it is already causing problems, not that it might do so in the future. Given the current activity, we can expect that it will continue to be problematic.
Ande B 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete
FreplySpang has it about right I think. In any case the group isn't nearly stable enough, there was all sorts of push back about changing the name and the constant assurance that there wasn't any mediation involved. Then all of the sudden the name changes and a new dispute resolution component added. The Deletion Noticeboard
WP:DN should go as well.
Rx StrangeLove 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me here (please correct me if I am wrong) that your argument stems from your opinion that Concordia's leadership is unstable. Esperanza's leadership also had problems recently, yet all their programs have not been nominated for deletion.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a part of it, but I think it's a matter of degree. I'm not in charge of what's getting nominated for deletion. I'm not going to nominate any of their programs because I'm not familar enough with them to know if that would be a good idea or not. In any case there are more reasons than just that for this deletion. For example Concordia's own members are not really being all that civil so I would be concerned about them setting an example for others. Rx StrangeLove 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me here (please correct me if I am wrong) that your argument stems from your opinion that Concordia's leadership is unstable. Esperanza's leadership also had problems recently, yet all their programs have not been nominated for deletion.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whether a good idea or not, this does seem to be a good faith offering. The appropriateness of the page should be discussed and decided on the page's Talk page. If it turns out to be a bad idea, keep it with a {{
rejected}} tag. That way, we will be able to learn from our mistakes.
Rossami
(talk) 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that discussion is taking place right here. For my part, forking the dispute resolution process is often a bad thing, especially when the leadership is demonstrably unstable.
Mackensen
(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it happening here? A discussion on the Concordia talk page would be less divisive. It does not seem right to call this for a full-fledged deletion before expressing your concerns on Concordia's talk page.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If someone showed up on the Concordia talk page and said "pack up your tents, your project is pure bunkum", they'd be well-received, yes? It's not a case of how Concordia can be improved; it's a case of how we can get rid of it before it causes any serious trouble. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it happening here? A discussion on the Concordia talk page would be less divisive. It does not seem right to call this for a full-fledged deletion before expressing your concerns on Concordia's talk page.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a demonstration of a lack of good faith. Even if motivations were suspect, the request is not unreasonable and appears to be getting a full discussion right here rather than on the less visible talk pages urged by Rossami.
Ande B 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, my intent was to get greater visibility from the community. I believe that the Concordia/CJ talk pages are insular. Other people have raised concerns there and not much has happened. FreplySpang 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that discussion is taking place right here. For my part, forking the dispute resolution process is often a bad thing, especially when the leadership is demonstrably unstable.
Mackensen
(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I would urge the people involved with this page and CJ (or whatever it's called this week...) to put their effort in answering civility related requests on the Village Pump, the Admin Noticeboard, and/or RfCs. We could certainly use the help, but dividing the discussion is less than helpful. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Sandstein 04:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there is work for this to atleast be tried out. People complain CJ/CCD does nothing - then try and delete everything it does.
Ian13/
talk 08:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not complaining that whatever CJ is called this week "does nothing". I've seen what you've tried to do, and that's why I want it killed with a stick. Get rid of it. Bury it in quicksand. And if, in twenty years time, anyone says "hey, remember whatever CJ is called this week and all its derivatives? Were you involved in that?", lie to them.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why should I lie? Why should I be ashamed that I participated in a project whose aim was to encourage and spread civility among people? Why are you (and others) judging all people involved by the mistakes done by others and the bad kind of people the project attracted? Misza 13 T C 11:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not complaining that whatever CJ is called this week "does nothing". I've seen what you've tried to do, and that's why I want it killed with a stick. Get rid of it. Bury it in quicksand. And if, in twenty years time, anyone says "hey, remember whatever CJ is called this week and all its derivatives? Were you involved in that?", lie to them.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep These need rephrasing to make them sound more seperate to CJ, but they were requested by many users - and are being used.
Computerjoe
's talk 08:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being used by people who don't know what they're talking about, pretending to be the final authority on civility, and being cited as an alternative to ANI et al. No, no, thanks.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where is this cited? We (not best word to use) are not a final authority but merely a way to point someone in the correct direction.
Computerjoe
's talk 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here's at least one example. CN looks like a forum for people who've received answers they don't like from cluey users and/or administrators to go to less-cluey people and say "hey, back me up here". That in itself is reason enough to bury it, without the scary vigilante feel of the supporting project. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where is this cited? We (not best word to use) are not a final authority but merely a way to point someone in the correct direction.
Computerjoe
's talk 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being used by people who don't know what they're talking about, pretending to be the final authority on civility, and being cited as an alternative to ANI et al. No, no, thanks.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Everyone moans that we dont do anything, so we make a big change to Concordia and open up some programs, and you go and nominate it! Its only been there for one day and youre already jumping to conclusions. Most of your reasons for delete are things that may happen. Why dont you give it a chance first? It will turn out well - • The Giant Puffin • 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per my policy on not violating Confuscian standards. Bongout 10:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep This page was nominated for deletion five hours after its creation. Five hours is not a reasonable time to determine whether a good faith effort warrants deletion. Those of who do not like what we are doing could go to our talk page and express their opinions before taking it out on an AfD. Better yet, join us and improve Concordia. Let us hear your ideas and let us prove ourselves before labelling us as a candidate for deletion.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see anyone say delete Concordia (unless this is all it is), I'm not sure what the length of time has to do with it, the key objections I can see stand if it is 1 minute or 1 year old and are pretty fundamental to the idea, i.e. is not a matter of tweaking. If you only need 5 hours to see something is a bad idea better to deal with it then. --
pgk(
talk) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say "delete Concordia", then I would say so explicitly. And, no, thanks, I'm not going to join the group either. "Doing something" is not a good thing if the "something" is bad for Wikipedia, as I believe this to be. Pgk is correct. My aim is to stop this before it further complicates, divides and inflames dispute resolution, which it was already starting to do within hours of creation.
FreplySpang 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say that you wanted to "delete Concordia", then I would have said so exclusively. I did not use the phrase "delete Concordia" in my above response because I understand that this discussion is about this very page, not Concordia itself. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't claim I said something that I did not say.
(^'-')^
Covington 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You say "Better yet, join us and improve Concordia. Let us hear your ideas and let us prove ourselves before labelling us as a candidate for deletion", The first sentence seems to identify "us" as the group Concordia, the latter part refers to us throughout, I've not seen an individual page referred to as "us" before. It then seems a reasonable conclusion to me that you believe the votes are for deletion of "us" aka Concordia. Apologies if I misunderstood. -- pgk( talk) 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say that you wanted to "delete Concordia", then I would have said so exclusively. I did not use the phrase "delete Concordia" in my above response because I understand that this discussion is about this very page, not Concordia itself. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't claim I said something that I did not say.
(^'-')^
Covington 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say "delete Concordia", then I would say so explicitly. And, no, thanks, I'm not going to join the group either. "Doing something" is not a good thing if the "something" is bad for Wikipedia, as I believe this to be. Pgk is correct. My aim is to stop this before it further complicates, divides and inflames dispute resolution, which it was already starting to do within hours of creation.
FreplySpang 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see anyone say delete Concordia (unless this is all it is), I'm not sure what the length of time has to do with it, the key objections I can see stand if it is 1 minute or 1 year old and are pretty fundamental to the idea, i.e. is not a matter of tweaking. If you only need 5 hours to see something is a bad idea better to deal with it then. --
pgk(
talk) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I've alredy seen this being quoted as authoratiative. And per FreplySpang the general concept of another channel which enables soloution shopping is flawed, as JesseW if the Concordia people are interested why not work within the existing framework. -- pgk( talk) 10:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This duplicates existing pages, such as WP:PAIN and the generic WP:ANI. Agree with nom as to the risk of forum shopping. Suggest that if Concordia really want this, they have it on their project to make clear that it is part of that project and not one of the usual noticeboards. -- bainer ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. And who ever said it's only the Concordia members that are allowed to react there and voice their opinion? CCD only maintains it and plans to be most active there. Misza 13 T C 11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete one too many noticeboards.-- MONGO 11:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep let's try the concept out instead of nipping it in the bud. Grue 11:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While another noticeboard is not needed and the early discussions are disappointingly misdirected, there is no good reason to kill it. Let it die a natural death or else grow into something useful.
NoSeptember
talk 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Update my vote. This page should be kept as a subpage of Concordia so that Concordia members will have the responsibility to handle any trolling that goes on there, NoSeptember talk 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm persuaded by the comments of NoSeptember and Rossami. -- Tony Sidaway12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- For what it's worth, I agree that Rossami makes a good point. I wouldn't object to this thing hanging around as the equivalent of a rejected policy, so long as it was made clear that it is, in fact, rejected.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, that is a good point. However
Hughcharlesparker also makes a good point here:
[1]. --
bainer (
talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't tend to be impressed by "you didn't dot the is and cross the ts!"-type arguments as a rule. If what you're doing is the Right Thing, then there's nothing wrong with being
WP:BOLD.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nor should you be, but I think there's a valid point: skipping directly to the implementation, on something with this intended scope, would seem to be ill-advised. More careful consideration, debate and fine-tuning from the whole community (not just one project), which a proper proposal would have brought, may well have produced a more robust result. -- bainer ( talk) 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't tend to be impressed by "you didn't dot the is and cross the ts!"-type arguments as a rule. If what you're doing is the Right Thing, then there's nothing wrong with being
WP:BOLD.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, that is a good point. However
Hughcharlesparker also makes a good point here:
[1]. --
bainer (
talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree that Rossami makes a good point. I wouldn't object to this thing hanging around as the equivalent of a rejected policy, so long as it was made clear that it is, in fact, rejected.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (changed opinion, old one struck out). Having seen it in operation, I now think it's inevitably troll-bait. -- Tony Sidaway 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If I understand
Wikipedia:How to create policy correctly, this needs to be proposed, not just implemented. FreplySpang is right, and so is JesseW--
HughCharlesParker (
talk -
contribs) 14:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of removing that silly vote icon. xfD is not a vote, and the icons have no place here. Feel free to scream at me if you feel I was out of line to edit your comment.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It add's nothing but a bit of colour, but it takes nothing away. I don't see the problem, but if you're happier without - meh, OK. --
HughCharlesParker (
talk -
contribs) 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Much happier, thanks. As a closer, I find the presence of the image distracting; as an editor, I see the presence of things which encourage the misconception that xfD is a vote all too often degrades the quality of a discussion. That's why I object to them. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It add's nothing but a bit of colour, but it takes nothing away. I don't see the problem, but if you're happier without - meh, OK. --
HughCharlesParker (
talk -
contribs) 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of removing that silly vote icon. xfD is not a vote, and the icons have no place here. Feel free to scream at me if you feel I was out of line to edit your comment.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::How is xfD not a vote? The decision gets made based on consensus, which is a vote. Am I missing something? — Nathan 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- You're missing something fairly fundamental: consensus is not a vote. See Wikipedia:Consensus. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 15:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Speedy Keep because it could be very useful if you gave it more than a day to be worked on.
ILove
Plankton (
L) 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Um, why? You know what "speedy keep" means, no? fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- (Wracks brain for the correct school playground language) I think it means "keep, skinch and no getties back." -- Tony Sidaway 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good grief. Do you think you could please try to simplify your signature a little? fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rossami — Natha n ( talk) 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's hardly had time to take shape, lets give it a chance before deleting it. -- Scot t 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry to be so negative about this new notice board. I know the intentions are good. Strongly feel that there are too many notice/discussion boards already. Duplicate discussions are a waste of volunteers time. They also make it difficult for administrators and editors to find the relevant discussion pertaining to a problem user. Please, let's eliminate this duplicate board ASAP. FloNight talk 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep – for a few days at the very least. Project pages intended for collaborative processes don't work like articles – they have to be used before you can really gauge how useful they are. It may not be particularly effective, or it may turn out to be wonderful and save everyone heaps of time, but we don't know yet. Yes, it should have been implemented as a proposal, but now it's here, there's no point deleting it just because it wasn't. Those who don't want to use it, treat it as if it were a "trial run" of a proposal, and ignore it. If it becomes apparent that it's not helping anyone, we can re-list it, and have a more informed discussion – Gurch 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - All I see there is non-admins who think they know better than admins and are trying to overrule them on policy decisions. --
Cyde↔Weys 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I see are admins who think they are better than non-admins trying overule the consensus.
ILove
Plankton (
L) 19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This may well be true but that doesn't mean that maintaining this board is a good answer to such problems. It just adds to difficulties. Ande B 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I see are admins who think they are better than non-admins trying overule the consensus.
ILove
Plankton (
L) 19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I highly suspect those who wish to delete this noticeboard. -- Nikitchenko 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- Suspect what?
Computerjoe
's talk 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note User Nikitchenko will not be able to respond to this question because he has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Ande B 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nikitchenko might want to review the notion of "Assume Good Faith." It is best applied when considering opinions that differ from one's own. Ande B 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Suspect what?
Computerjoe
's talk 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Bainer. This largely duplicates existing procedures in an unhelpful manner. That said, productive discussion about introducing something similar, would be a good thing. The Land 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and echoing NoSeptember, let's keep an eye on its future development. Initiatives tending to improve the levels of civility and harmony within the comunity are always worthy of testing. Should it end up degenerating into something different than helping the community, it can always be re-submitted for deletion.Changed to delete upon further review. While I still believe that it is a good initiative by itself, a deeper analysis of the way this noticeboard is being used concerns me. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- Delete please. Phaedriel, it has already degenerated. I'm sure users of good will are involved with this page, but it's bound to also function as an invitation to trolls and malcontents who'd like to turn it into our very own Wikipedia Review. For example: at the moment it's dominated by rather vengeful posts by User:Nikitchenko, just now indefinitely banned for in fact linking to Wikipedia Review, and for little things like being an abusive reincarnation of a banned user. You can see him "highly suspect" his opponents above. Me, I'm cynical, I thought it was bound to turn out that way. Over and over, if we keep it around. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC).
- Move to subpage of project.-- Rayc 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This page can be and already has been easily abused as a vehicle to defame an editor or administrator on wikipedia. -- Fahrenheit451 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Fahrenheit451. Th e Gerg 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Propose it as a board under WP:AN? -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rossami and NoSeptember. -- Ter e nc e Ong 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep: Much needed venue with a great potential for inducing simple, preemptive means to address immediate problems quickly, perhaps a less divisive way to nip problems at the bud and to confront oppressive stakeholder groups before more onerous processes divert too much attention from the more productive task of editing. Ombudsman 06:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Encourages forum shopping, is likely to result in less civility rather than more of it. Let's focus on the encyclopedia and use existing forums and procedures for the more serious civility disputes. Civility is nice but we can all be grumpy at times and sometimes the best response to a grumpy person is to be extraordinarily nice to them, not to go shouting off about it. --
kingboyk 10:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could not have said it better than -- User:Kingboyk Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but reject as we do not remove things just because they didn't work. That being said, the tone of this and community justice I find deeply disturbing. Quote from the talk "When do we start enforcing this?" Eeek. - brenneman {L} 11:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - i just posted to it hoping to find help for a serious poblem that has me on the verge of not only quitting WP, but letting the world know what a f*cked up place it is -- and here it is already slated for delation only FIVE HOURS after being created. What kind of safety does that provide me, the new user who posted looking for advice because i am being called a vandal, unfit editor, crap editor, garbage editor, and so forth by a clique of religious treu belivers who don't want it known by the world that their guru published many racist statements. Sure, go ahead and delete it. I'm out of here. Catherineyronwode 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)(Comment reinserted and struck out after initially being removed from the page by Catherineyronwode. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC))- Sorry that you've had a bad experience -- but the point that many of the people voting delete in this discussion are making isn't that there shouldn't be a place to bring problems with civility, but that such places already exist. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 13:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Randy 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice. Ral315 ( talk) 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There are already places like it that can actually do something. This just confuses new users. --
mboverload
@ 22:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to mboverload: Adding to the confusion of newcomers has apparently already happened, with unhappy effect. Note Catherineyronwode's experience: well regarded in her field, she faces problems and doesn't know where to turn for resolution and ends up at the Civility notice board, possibly mistaking its purpose and this action. Just get rid of the thing before it causes more problems. Ande B 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but re-Concordify Keep this, but I recommend re-Concordifying it. -- Shultz IV 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My God. Does this do anything but attracting trolls? Dr Zak 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The experience of User:Catherineyronwode above says it all. This is a page without a process behind it. Publicise the existing processes . Dont create a dead end for people needing help. Lumos3 09:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: duplication of efforts and wastage of our resources - suitable mechanism already exists for such issues. -- Bhadani 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Where the instruction creep ends, RfC and the other existing dispute resolution facilites begin. We don't need this. BigBlueFish 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Based on my experience: I was targeted by
User:Nikitchenko for alleged incivility on
Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. Computerjoe placed a post on my
talk page stating A post regarding your civility is on
WP:CN - there was no mention of Concordia, and as the page is named as the Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard I assumed it was an official reporting board and was being handled by sysops. As such when I saw replies (by the board officials) to Nikitchenko's claims such as "he needs a serious wikibreak before he gets kipped out of Esperanza" followed by "Yes, it seems discussions are taking place over this here." I began to draft a long explanation of the full picture and the tone in which the edits were made, as well as the history of personal attacks and what others discribed as wikistalking by Nikitchenko (now permanently banned) towards me. I did this because I thought I may be blocked by those responding to his claims. To discover that this board is not anything close to official nor has any administrative power has thoroughly frustrated me as I have worked on a full reply. -
Gl
e
n
T
C
(Stollery) 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are no board officials.
Computerjoe
's talk 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry "Councillors". -
Gl
e
n
T
C
(Stollery) 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- But it isn't ran by CCD, just frequented. Computerjoe 's talk 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry "Councillors". -
Gl
e
n
T
C
(Stollery) 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are no board officials.
Computerjoe
's talk 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete trollbait. -- Doc ask? 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; this was created with good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
Opabinia regalis 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- With frozen door-to-door insurance salesmen, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
- Delete, or keep as rejected per Rossami. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I share the opinion that WP:ANI can be a black hole. --
HResearcher 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- WP:Civility noticeboard: "This is not a formal step in dispute resolution, but a way for editors to get advice on how to proceed."
- Comment Advice from people who may not have a very clear picture of guidelines already in existence, of whom some have themselves been accused of incivility? And if ANI is a "blackhole," is it not because of a lack of people to watch it? Would not the effort being put into monitoring the civility noticeboard not be better spent watching those we already have? Why then the warning templates? What would the advice be if the template messages were ignored? :) Dlohcierekim 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- WP:Civility noticeboard: "This is not a formal step in dispute resolution, but a way for editors to get advice on how to proceed."
- Delete also kill, ablate, and devote efforts to making existing systems work. Midgley 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Concordify Will ( E@) T 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Glen's experience. Rockpocke t 07:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Remember, kids, only you can prevent ForestFires!" -- Smokey the Bear, as channeled by Ashibaka tock 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Quite possibly the stupidest page ever created on wikipedia - akin to throwing out a welcome mat for trolls. Raul654 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Raul654 Naconkantari 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom We need to use processes already in existence, not go making up new ones. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - we have way too many noticeboards, my watchlist is getting too big -- Tawker 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - per above. -- GeorgeMoney T· C 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per Raul654. Instruction creep at its finest and without bothering to check community temperature first. Shell babelfish 06:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Khoikhoi 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was there's only about six users who want this page kept as a concept. There another few who wanted more time for this page to develop, to see what would happen with it, but the concers of the delete side, particularily the links pointing to misunderstandings of the scope of this page, rebutt those arguments in my mind. A substantial portion of the keep side does not want the page to be in operation, so there's actually very little support for the concept itself. Those conclusions, as well as the two-thirds numerical majority of the delete side, make me close this complicated debate as a delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard
This page serves only to fragment discussions, complicate issues and spread conversations across multiple locations, none of which is good for our project. It encourages solution shopping. It attempts to establish specific editors as arbiters of civility. This will make dispute resolution more difficult, and may even have a paradoxically inflammatory effect. FreplySpang 00:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: I have 'concordified' this page by moving it to
Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility noticeboard, since there was certainly no consensus to introduce this procedure into the main project space.
The Land 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:Computerjoe has seen fit to move it back. The Land 18
- 50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that this is making dispute solving more difficult, people are taking Concordia as "civility experts" whose opinion has more value than others -- Drini 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above. Ande B 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Freply and Drini.-- Sean Black 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with FreplySpang, who puts it better (and more politely) than I ever could. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per comments above. Another bureaucratic solution in search of a problem. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Failing that, suggest Rob Church as Prosecutor-General.
Mackensen
(talk) 00:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- String support for this proposal :P – Gurch 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
KeepMany of the arguments above are concerned with the problems it 'may' cause ... I'd like to see it fail before deleting it. -- ∞ Wirelain 00:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- Comment You may want to re-read the above comments in support of deletion. The concern is that it is already causing problems, not that it might do so in the future. Given the current activity, we can expect that it will continue to be problematic.
Ande B 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this is nothing more than "community justice" renamed, and it's been already being used to fuel disputes by users arguing these "experts" dictamined an statement was uncivil or not -- Drini 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It does not seem fair to judge this page's worth five hours after it has been created. Nothing is perfect the first time around. (^'-')^ Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If nothing else this does bring up the issue of rampant incivil out of control editors. At the very least Rejected, I'm only not flipping to delete to try to stop future incarnations. -- ∞ Wirelain 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You may want to re-read the above comments in support of deletion. The concern is that it is already causing problems, not that it might do so in the future. Given the current activity, we can expect that it will continue to be problematic.
Ande B 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete
FreplySpang has it about right I think. In any case the group isn't nearly stable enough, there was all sorts of push back about changing the name and the constant assurance that there wasn't any mediation involved. Then all of the sudden the name changes and a new dispute resolution component added. The Deletion Noticeboard
WP:DN should go as well.
Rx StrangeLove 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me here (please correct me if I am wrong) that your argument stems from your opinion that Concordia's leadership is unstable. Esperanza's leadership also had problems recently, yet all their programs have not been nominated for deletion.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a part of it, but I think it's a matter of degree. I'm not in charge of what's getting nominated for deletion. I'm not going to nominate any of their programs because I'm not familar enough with them to know if that would be a good idea or not. In any case there are more reasons than just that for this deletion. For example Concordia's own members are not really being all that civil so I would be concerned about them setting an example for others. Rx StrangeLove 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me here (please correct me if I am wrong) that your argument stems from your opinion that Concordia's leadership is unstable. Esperanza's leadership also had problems recently, yet all their programs have not been nominated for deletion.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whether a good idea or not, this does seem to be a good faith offering. The appropriateness of the page should be discussed and decided on the page's Talk page. If it turns out to be a bad idea, keep it with a {{
rejected}} tag. That way, we will be able to learn from our mistakes.
Rossami
(talk) 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that discussion is taking place right here. For my part, forking the dispute resolution process is often a bad thing, especially when the leadership is demonstrably unstable.
Mackensen
(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it happening here? A discussion on the Concordia talk page would be less divisive. It does not seem right to call this for a full-fledged deletion before expressing your concerns on Concordia's talk page.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- If someone showed up on the Concordia talk page and said "pack up your tents, your project is pure bunkum", they'd be well-received, yes? It's not a case of how Concordia can be improved; it's a case of how we can get rid of it before it causes any serious trouble. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it happening here? A discussion on the Concordia talk page would be less divisive. It does not seem right to call this for a full-fledged deletion before expressing your concerns on Concordia's talk page.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a demonstration of a lack of good faith. Even if motivations were suspect, the request is not unreasonable and appears to be getting a full discussion right here rather than on the less visible talk pages urged by Rossami.
Ande B 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, my intent was to get greater visibility from the community. I believe that the Concordia/CJ talk pages are insular. Other people have raised concerns there and not much has happened. FreplySpang 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that discussion is taking place right here. For my part, forking the dispute resolution process is often a bad thing, especially when the leadership is demonstrably unstable.
Mackensen
(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I would urge the people involved with this page and CJ (or whatever it's called this week...) to put their effort in answering civility related requests on the Village Pump, the Admin Noticeboard, and/or RfCs. We could certainly use the help, but dividing the discussion is less than helpful. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Sandstein 04:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there is work for this to atleast be tried out. People complain CJ/CCD does nothing - then try and delete everything it does.
Ian13/
talk 08:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not complaining that whatever CJ is called this week "does nothing". I've seen what you've tried to do, and that's why I want it killed with a stick. Get rid of it. Bury it in quicksand. And if, in twenty years time, anyone says "hey, remember whatever CJ is called this week and all its derivatives? Were you involved in that?", lie to them.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why should I lie? Why should I be ashamed that I participated in a project whose aim was to encourage and spread civility among people? Why are you (and others) judging all people involved by the mistakes done by others and the bad kind of people the project attracted? Misza 13 T C 11:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not complaining that whatever CJ is called this week "does nothing". I've seen what you've tried to do, and that's why I want it killed with a stick. Get rid of it. Bury it in quicksand. And if, in twenty years time, anyone says "hey, remember whatever CJ is called this week and all its derivatives? Were you involved in that?", lie to them.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep These need rephrasing to make them sound more seperate to CJ, but they were requested by many users - and are being used.
Computerjoe
's talk 08:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being used by people who don't know what they're talking about, pretending to be the final authority on civility, and being cited as an alternative to ANI et al. No, no, thanks.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where is this cited? We (not best word to use) are not a final authority but merely a way to point someone in the correct direction.
Computerjoe
's talk 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here's at least one example. CN looks like a forum for people who've received answers they don't like from cluey users and/or administrators to go to less-cluey people and say "hey, back me up here". That in itself is reason enough to bury it, without the scary vigilante feel of the supporting project. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where is this cited? We (not best word to use) are not a final authority but merely a way to point someone in the correct direction.
Computerjoe
's talk 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being used by people who don't know what they're talking about, pretending to be the final authority on civility, and being cited as an alternative to ANI et al. No, no, thanks.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Everyone moans that we dont do anything, so we make a big change to Concordia and open up some programs, and you go and nominate it! Its only been there for one day and youre already jumping to conclusions. Most of your reasons for delete are things that may happen. Why dont you give it a chance first? It will turn out well - • The Giant Puffin • 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per my policy on not violating Confuscian standards. Bongout 10:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep This page was nominated for deletion five hours after its creation. Five hours is not a reasonable time to determine whether a good faith effort warrants deletion. Those of who do not like what we are doing could go to our talk page and express their opinions before taking it out on an AfD. Better yet, join us and improve Concordia. Let us hear your ideas and let us prove ourselves before labelling us as a candidate for deletion.
(^'-')^
Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see anyone say delete Concordia (unless this is all it is), I'm not sure what the length of time has to do with it, the key objections I can see stand if it is 1 minute or 1 year old and are pretty fundamental to the idea, i.e. is not a matter of tweaking. If you only need 5 hours to see something is a bad idea better to deal with it then. --
pgk(
talk) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say "delete Concordia", then I would say so explicitly. And, no, thanks, I'm not going to join the group either. "Doing something" is not a good thing if the "something" is bad for Wikipedia, as I believe this to be. Pgk is correct. My aim is to stop this before it further complicates, divides and inflames dispute resolution, which it was already starting to do within hours of creation.
FreplySpang 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say that you wanted to "delete Concordia", then I would have said so exclusively. I did not use the phrase "delete Concordia" in my above response because I understand that this discussion is about this very page, not Concordia itself. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't claim I said something that I did not say.
(^'-')^
Covington 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You say "Better yet, join us and improve Concordia. Let us hear your ideas and let us prove ourselves before labelling us as a candidate for deletion", The first sentence seems to identify "us" as the group Concordia, the latter part refers to us throughout, I've not seen an individual page referred to as "us" before. It then seems a reasonable conclusion to me that you believe the votes are for deletion of "us" aka Concordia. Apologies if I misunderstood. -- pgk( talk) 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say that you wanted to "delete Concordia", then I would have said so exclusively. I did not use the phrase "delete Concordia" in my above response because I understand that this discussion is about this very page, not Concordia itself. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't claim I said something that I did not say.
(^'-')^
Covington 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if I wanted to say "delete Concordia", then I would say so explicitly. And, no, thanks, I'm not going to join the group either. "Doing something" is not a good thing if the "something" is bad for Wikipedia, as I believe this to be. Pgk is correct. My aim is to stop this before it further complicates, divides and inflames dispute resolution, which it was already starting to do within hours of creation.
FreplySpang 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see anyone say delete Concordia (unless this is all it is), I'm not sure what the length of time has to do with it, the key objections I can see stand if it is 1 minute or 1 year old and are pretty fundamental to the idea, i.e. is not a matter of tweaking. If you only need 5 hours to see something is a bad idea better to deal with it then. --
pgk(
talk) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I've alredy seen this being quoted as authoratiative. And per FreplySpang the general concept of another channel which enables soloution shopping is flawed, as JesseW if the Concordia people are interested why not work within the existing framework. -- pgk( talk) 10:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This duplicates existing pages, such as WP:PAIN and the generic WP:ANI. Agree with nom as to the risk of forum shopping. Suggest that if Concordia really want this, they have it on their project to make clear that it is part of that project and not one of the usual noticeboards. -- bainer ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. And who ever said it's only the Concordia members that are allowed to react there and voice their opinion? CCD only maintains it and plans to be most active there. Misza 13 T C 11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete one too many noticeboards.-- MONGO 11:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep let's try the concept out instead of nipping it in the bud. Grue 11:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While another noticeboard is not needed and the early discussions are disappointingly misdirected, there is no good reason to kill it. Let it die a natural death or else grow into something useful.
NoSeptember
talk 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Update my vote. This page should be kept as a subpage of Concordia so that Concordia members will have the responsibility to handle any trolling that goes on there, NoSeptember talk 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm persuaded by the comments of NoSeptember and Rossami. -- Tony Sidaway12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- For what it's worth, I agree that Rossami makes a good point. I wouldn't object to this thing hanging around as the equivalent of a rejected policy, so long as it was made clear that it is, in fact, rejected.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, that is a good point. However
Hughcharlesparker also makes a good point here:
[1]. --
bainer (
talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't tend to be impressed by "you didn't dot the is and cross the ts!"-type arguments as a rule. If what you're doing is the Right Thing, then there's nothing wrong with being
WP:BOLD.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nor should you be, but I think there's a valid point: skipping directly to the implementation, on something with this intended scope, would seem to be ill-advised. More careful consideration, debate and fine-tuning from the whole community (not just one project), which a proper proposal would have brought, may well have produced a more robust result. -- bainer ( talk) 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't tend to be impressed by "you didn't dot the is and cross the ts!"-type arguments as a rule. If what you're doing is the Right Thing, then there's nothing wrong with being
WP:BOLD.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, that is a good point. However
Hughcharlesparker also makes a good point here:
[1]. --
bainer (
talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree that Rossami makes a good point. I wouldn't object to this thing hanging around as the equivalent of a rejected policy, so long as it was made clear that it is, in fact, rejected.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (changed opinion, old one struck out). Having seen it in operation, I now think it's inevitably troll-bait. -- Tony Sidaway 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If I understand
Wikipedia:How to create policy correctly, this needs to be proposed, not just implemented. FreplySpang is right, and so is JesseW--
HughCharlesParker (
talk -
contribs) 14:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of removing that silly vote icon. xfD is not a vote, and the icons have no place here. Feel free to scream at me if you feel I was out of line to edit your comment.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It add's nothing but a bit of colour, but it takes nothing away. I don't see the problem, but if you're happier without - meh, OK. --
HughCharlesParker (
talk -
contribs) 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Much happier, thanks. As a closer, I find the presence of the image distracting; as an editor, I see the presence of things which encourage the misconception that xfD is a vote all too often degrades the quality of a discussion. That's why I object to them. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- It add's nothing but a bit of colour, but it takes nothing away. I don't see the problem, but if you're happier without - meh, OK. --
HughCharlesParker (
talk -
contribs) 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of removing that silly vote icon. xfD is not a vote, and the icons have no place here. Feel free to scream at me if you feel I was out of line to edit your comment.
fuddlemark (
befuddle me!) 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::How is xfD not a vote? The decision gets made based on consensus, which is a vote. Am I missing something? — Nathan 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- You're missing something fairly fundamental: consensus is not a vote. See Wikipedia:Consensus. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 15:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Speedy Keep because it could be very useful if you gave it more than a day to be worked on.
ILove
Plankton (
L) 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Um, why? You know what "speedy keep" means, no? fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- (Wracks brain for the correct school playground language) I think it means "keep, skinch and no getties back." -- Tony Sidaway 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good grief. Do you think you could please try to simplify your signature a little? fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rossami — Natha n ( talk) 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's hardly had time to take shape, lets give it a chance before deleting it. -- Scot t 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry to be so negative about this new notice board. I know the intentions are good. Strongly feel that there are too many notice/discussion boards already. Duplicate discussions are a waste of volunteers time. They also make it difficult for administrators and editors to find the relevant discussion pertaining to a problem user. Please, let's eliminate this duplicate board ASAP. FloNight talk 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep – for a few days at the very least. Project pages intended for collaborative processes don't work like articles – they have to be used before you can really gauge how useful they are. It may not be particularly effective, or it may turn out to be wonderful and save everyone heaps of time, but we don't know yet. Yes, it should have been implemented as a proposal, but now it's here, there's no point deleting it just because it wasn't. Those who don't want to use it, treat it as if it were a "trial run" of a proposal, and ignore it. If it becomes apparent that it's not helping anyone, we can re-list it, and have a more informed discussion – Gurch 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - All I see there is non-admins who think they know better than admins and are trying to overrule them on policy decisions. --
Cyde↔Weys 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I see are admins who think they are better than non-admins trying overule the consensus.
ILove
Plankton (
L) 19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This may well be true but that doesn't mean that maintaining this board is a good answer to such problems. It just adds to difficulties. Ande B 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I see are admins who think they are better than non-admins trying overule the consensus.
ILove
Plankton (
L) 19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I highly suspect those who wish to delete this noticeboard. -- Nikitchenko 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- Suspect what?
Computerjoe
's talk 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note User Nikitchenko will not be able to respond to this question because he has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Ande B 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nikitchenko might want to review the notion of "Assume Good Faith." It is best applied when considering opinions that differ from one's own. Ande B 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Suspect what?
Computerjoe
's talk 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Bainer. This largely duplicates existing procedures in an unhelpful manner. That said, productive discussion about introducing something similar, would be a good thing. The Land 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and echoing NoSeptember, let's keep an eye on its future development. Initiatives tending to improve the levels of civility and harmony within the comunity are always worthy of testing. Should it end up degenerating into something different than helping the community, it can always be re-submitted for deletion.Changed to delete upon further review. While I still believe that it is a good initiative by itself, a deeper analysis of the way this noticeboard is being used concerns me. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)- Delete please. Phaedriel, it has already degenerated. I'm sure users of good will are involved with this page, but it's bound to also function as an invitation to trolls and malcontents who'd like to turn it into our very own Wikipedia Review. For example: at the moment it's dominated by rather vengeful posts by User:Nikitchenko, just now indefinitely banned for in fact linking to Wikipedia Review, and for little things like being an abusive reincarnation of a banned user. You can see him "highly suspect" his opponents above. Me, I'm cynical, I thought it was bound to turn out that way. Over and over, if we keep it around. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC).
- Move to subpage of project.-- Rayc 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This page can be and already has been easily abused as a vehicle to defame an editor or administrator on wikipedia. -- Fahrenheit451 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Fahrenheit451. Th e Gerg 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Propose it as a board under WP:AN? -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rossami and NoSeptember. -- Ter e nc e Ong 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep: Much needed venue with a great potential for inducing simple, preemptive means to address immediate problems quickly, perhaps a less divisive way to nip problems at the bud and to confront oppressive stakeholder groups before more onerous processes divert too much attention from the more productive task of editing. Ombudsman 06:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Encourages forum shopping, is likely to result in less civility rather than more of it. Let's focus on the encyclopedia and use existing forums and procedures for the more serious civility disputes. Civility is nice but we can all be grumpy at times and sometimes the best response to a grumpy person is to be extraordinarily nice to them, not to go shouting off about it. --
kingboyk 10:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could not have said it better than -- User:Kingboyk Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but reject as we do not remove things just because they didn't work. That being said, the tone of this and community justice I find deeply disturbing. Quote from the talk "When do we start enforcing this?" Eeek. - brenneman {L} 11:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - i just posted to it hoping to find help for a serious poblem that has me on the verge of not only quitting WP, but letting the world know what a f*cked up place it is -- and here it is already slated for delation only FIVE HOURS after being created. What kind of safety does that provide me, the new user who posted looking for advice because i am being called a vandal, unfit editor, crap editor, garbage editor, and so forth by a clique of religious treu belivers who don't want it known by the world that their guru published many racist statements. Sure, go ahead and delete it. I'm out of here. Catherineyronwode 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)(Comment reinserted and struck out after initially being removed from the page by Catherineyronwode. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC))- Sorry that you've had a bad experience -- but the point that many of the people voting delete in this discussion are making isn't that there shouldn't be a place to bring problems with civility, but that such places already exist. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 13:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Randy 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice. Ral315 ( talk) 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There are already places like it that can actually do something. This just confuses new users. --
mboverload
@ 22:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to mboverload: Adding to the confusion of newcomers has apparently already happened, with unhappy effect. Note Catherineyronwode's experience: well regarded in her field, she faces problems and doesn't know where to turn for resolution and ends up at the Civility notice board, possibly mistaking its purpose and this action. Just get rid of the thing before it causes more problems. Ande B 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but re-Concordify Keep this, but I recommend re-Concordifying it. -- Shultz IV 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My God. Does this do anything but attracting trolls? Dr Zak 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The experience of User:Catherineyronwode above says it all. This is a page without a process behind it. Publicise the existing processes . Dont create a dead end for people needing help. Lumos3 09:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: duplication of efforts and wastage of our resources - suitable mechanism already exists for such issues. -- Bhadani 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Where the instruction creep ends, RfC and the other existing dispute resolution facilites begin. We don't need this. BigBlueFish 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Based on my experience: I was targeted by
User:Nikitchenko for alleged incivility on
Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. Computerjoe placed a post on my
talk page stating A post regarding your civility is on
WP:CN - there was no mention of Concordia, and as the page is named as the Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard I assumed it was an official reporting board and was being handled by sysops. As such when I saw replies (by the board officials) to Nikitchenko's claims such as "he needs a serious wikibreak before he gets kipped out of Esperanza" followed by "Yes, it seems discussions are taking place over this here." I began to draft a long explanation of the full picture and the tone in which the edits were made, as well as the history of personal attacks and what others discribed as wikistalking by Nikitchenko (now permanently banned) towards me. I did this because I thought I may be blocked by those responding to his claims. To discover that this board is not anything close to official nor has any administrative power has thoroughly frustrated me as I have worked on a full reply. -
Gl
e
n
T
C
(Stollery) 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are no board officials.
Computerjoe
's talk 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry "Councillors". -
Gl
e
n
T
C
(Stollery) 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- But it isn't ran by CCD, just frequented. Computerjoe 's talk 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry "Councillors". -
Gl
e
n
T
C
(Stollery) 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are no board officials.
Computerjoe
's talk 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete trollbait. -- Doc ask? 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; this was created with good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
Opabinia regalis 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- With frozen door-to-door insurance salesmen, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
- Delete, or keep as rejected per Rossami. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I share the opinion that WP:ANI can be a black hole. --
HResearcher 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- WP:Civility noticeboard: "This is not a formal step in dispute resolution, but a way for editors to get advice on how to proceed."
- Comment Advice from people who may not have a very clear picture of guidelines already in existence, of whom some have themselves been accused of incivility? And if ANI is a "blackhole," is it not because of a lack of people to watch it? Would not the effort being put into monitoring the civility noticeboard not be better spent watching those we already have? Why then the warning templates? What would the advice be if the template messages were ignored? :) Dlohcierekim 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- WP:Civility noticeboard: "This is not a formal step in dispute resolution, but a way for editors to get advice on how to proceed."
- Delete also kill, ablate, and devote efforts to making existing systems work. Midgley 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Concordify Will ( E@) T 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Glen's experience. Rockpocke t 07:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Remember, kids, only you can prevent ForestFires!" -- Smokey the Bear, as channeled by Ashibaka tock 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Quite possibly the stupidest page ever created on wikipedia - akin to throwing out a welcome mat for trolls. Raul654 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Raul654 Naconkantari 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom We need to use processes already in existence, not go making up new ones. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - we have way too many noticeboards, my watchlist is getting too big -- Tawker 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - per above. -- GeorgeMoney T· C 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per Raul654. Instruction creep at its finest and without bothering to check community temperature first. Shell babelfish 06:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Khoikhoi 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.