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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Strong Delete per above. Ande B 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Freply and Drini.--Sean Black 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with FreplySpang, who puts it better (and more politely) than I ever could. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above. Another bureaucratic solution in search of a problem. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Failing that, suggest Rob Church as Prosecutor-General. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Quite honestly, I would have more respect for your opinion if you would have stated that opinion on our talk page instead. (^'-')^ Covington 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Delete as per my policy on not violating Confuscian standards. Bongout 10:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First edit this week. (^'-')^ Covington 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one too many noticeboards.--MONGO 11:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 11:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep let's try the concept out instead of nipping it in the bud.  Grue  11:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep. I'm persuaded by the comments of NoSeptember and Rossami. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Yes indeed, that is a good point. However Hughcharlesparker also makes a good point here: [1]. --bainer (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Strong Speedy Keep ILovePlankton 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, why? You know what "speedy keep" means, no? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (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)[reply]