Jump to content

User talk:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 97: Line 97:
== Discussion ==
== Discussion ==


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. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Two things. 1. Organisations like this rarely go down well in wikipedia. They remind people of cabalism . 2. One of the editors you nominatoed, Allstarecho, has recently been blocked for extensive copyright violations. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]] [[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 10:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
: Thank you I will withdraw that nomination. On whether such organisations go down well, yes I can see that. I prefer a two party state, to a one-party state, that is all. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 10:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::That's funny. Blocked or not, I'm still an established editor. '''-''' [[User:Allstarecho|'''A'''LLST'''✰'''R]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] @'''</sub> 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This sounds much like the rightly dismantled [[WP:Esperanza]]. Cabals are not good. --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 10:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
: Think of it as a writers' trade union. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No thanks, see longer comment on my talk page. And I am not sure why you invited Orangemarlin. I only know him as someone who reverts without explanation and rarely engages in meaningful discussion on talk pages. If you really want him, you should track down his current incarnation. The last one known to me stopped editing about 2 weeks ago when I left a message on his talk page. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 11:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
: I understand your concern about OM. Abrasive good editors, as well as other kinds of good editors, are welcome.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 11:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::Because I want to make sure I have a fair picture of OM: Can you point me to an article where he has added several paragraphs of new text other than through a revert? --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::: I nominated OM because of his fight against pseudoscience and cruft. As I point out below, these are only ''nominations''. Members will be elected by those who agree to be elected.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There was an organization with almost exactly the same methods and goals, [[WP:AMA]]. The story of its downfall and demise may be enlightening. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] - [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

: Seems to me like a terrible idea for a number of reason. Limiting myself to one: surely any clued-up administrator seeing support for a controversial member of this group, which emanated from another member of the group, would simply discount the support. [[User:Ian Spackman|Ian Spackman]] ([[User talk:Ian Spackman|talk]]) 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, this is true. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]], its [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza|MfD]] and the equivalent pages for [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates|the Association of Members' Advocates]] should be enlightening. [[WP:TINC|there is no cabal]]. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 13:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:: The articles state there has to be ''consensus'' before a controversial member gets support. ''Very'' controversial members might even be expelled. Thank you for the comments. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::But on the face of it only controversial editors would need support. My point was that the support they got from recognised good editors would be undermined by the joint membership of the cabal. [[User:Ian Spackman|Ian Spackman]] ([[User talk:Ian Spackman|talk]]) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: It depends why they were controversial. A lot of people are fed up with the civility laws and being effectively governed by teenagers elected from a chat room. Please suggest another way to change this. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Your initial nomination list includes users who have edited for less than two years and/or have been permanently blocked for violating [[WP:Civil]]. Besides the problems mentioned above with a group like this, the fact such users could even be nominated shows a complete lack of standards. [[User:Otebig|Otebig]] ([[User talk:Otebig|talk]]) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:Or standards different from yours, at any rate. However, I have no interest in encouraging the formation of yet another power clique, no matter what the standards for joining it may be. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::I just meant by the standards Peter Damian set for this project. He nominated people who have been on for less than two years. Why nominate someone who by your own rules can't be elected? [[User:Otebig|Otebig]] ([[User talk:Otebig|talk]]) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Again, these are simply nominations. If you want to be nominated, please ask. Then you can vote. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:These are simply my nominations. Once nominees have agreed to stand for election, there will be an election from within the agreed nominees. The standards will be roughly the same as for an RfA. Anyone who violently disagrees with these can always nominate themselves. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::If it goes ahead with the backing of at least 20 people, I'm willing to join, although I think there's a serious flaw in the model as you propose it. I would much rather have an informal "club" for article writers ([[WP:Article writers' noticeboard]]?) where people can trade ideas and thoughts, than a de facto cabal. At the moment, an unhealthy combination of [[WT:FAC]], Wikipedia Review and Sandy's talkpage fills that role, which is not at all ideal; a lot of significant article writers (notably Giano) don't have much to do with FAC, Wikipedia Review are getting heartily irritated at being flooded with Wikipedia users using them as a chatroom, and I'm sure Sandy is sick and tired of people having discussions on her talkpage that don't relate to her. As this is currently proposed, it's going to ''look'' like a formal self-appointed elite and an attempt to recreate Esperanza, regardless of whether it ''is'' or not.

::There is a systemic problem with self-appointed groups block-voting on Wikipedia, as anyone who's watched the IRC group at ANI or RFA, or the Defender-of-the-Wiki admins who endorse each other's dubious civility blocks, can testify. I'm not sure what the solution to this systemic problem is, but I don't think setting up using another group to establish a mutual assured destruction balance of power – which is how this will be perceived – is it.

::Also, your current list of nominations is going to cause a serious problem right from the start. If it goes ahead with the names you propose as the initial electors, one of the first actions is going to be the blackballing of Jimmy Wales, as there's no possible way he meets any article writing criteria (while I certainly give him credit for a lot of hard work behind the scenes that isn't sufficiently appreciated, and tireless work promoting Wikipedia and the wiki model, I don't think he's ever written anything more than a couple of sentences long). This will mean that from the very beginning, the proposed project will have a vocal group of people who are outright hostile to it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font> 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::: On the nomination of Wales, no one can stand for election unless they have ''accepted nomination''. No one has accepted yet. This will be a long process. On the idea of an article writers' noticeboard, perhaps it could be just that. But there are other things, like more participation in RfA's, weeding out the obvious chat room candidates and so on. And thanks for reminding me of Sandy. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I like Iridescent's idea of an Article Writer's Noticeboard so much I almost started it myself just now. Maybe we're going in the wrong direction here, and I feel bad about trampling on Peter Damien's idea since a few of mine have turned up as mulch under horse's hooves, but perhaps we should take a hard look at the appropriateness of WP:Consensus. Was it designed to be easily manipulated by off-Wiki forums? --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: A mere article writers' noticeboard would not be enough ''reward'' for doing hard work on articles. The point is to have an association, membership of which is determined by ''merit''. Those who contribute significant content can't be an administrator, since administrative work is not what they want to ''do''. WP's reward system is thus slanted towards vandal fighters, civility policing and so on. The net result is clear: general dissatisfaction with the policing system, and frustration that this system, which is solely based on judgments about civility, is not dealing effectively with the many problems that afflict this project. So there ''has'' to be a criterion for admission - which is little more than a good record of content contribution for no less than two years. Quite a low bar, actually, much lower than GA or FA, for example. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 15:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Much work goes thankless indeed, but I question the need for a "reward system". Wikipedia is (or should be) a professional working environment, not a social club. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::: No, IRC and admins are the social club. To get into this club does not require popularity and schmoozing: just hard work. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm with Julian Colton on this point. Article writers generally are rewarded by well-written articles. No further external rewards are necessary and tend to attract editors who are more concerned with collecting things than being persistent in achieving high quality material. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: Well then abolish all admins. I'm all for that. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) What does the election process entail will it be along the lines of an RfA? <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the process is as follows:

* I nominate a group of people at the top. Anyone is welcome to email me or leave a message requesting nomination. My judgment is broadly based on contribution record, or admins who have been bold about unblocking outspoken editors.
* Nominees ''must'' accept nomination if you want to participate in the election
* Once 20 nominees have agreed to stand, there will be an election from among these nominees only.
* Criteria are up for discussion when it happens, they should at least include
** A solid record of contributions
** Two years ''identity'' on Wikipedia. This would cover those such as Giano who have used different accounts
** A willingness to defend the rights of content contributors. This might include block voting in RfA, or at least participation in RfA/
* The criteria for successful election should also be for discussion, probably 70% of votes.
[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::I am confused, I thought this was about being an established editor with a strong history of contribution. What is all of this about block voting? What does that have to do with contributions and being established? [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Hi there Peter, just a comment and suggestion, another one of the users that you nominated, [[User:TungstenCarbide|TungstenCarbide]] has also been indef blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:TungstenCarbide as per block log] since 3 March 2009. I'm wondering if you checked if the users were blocked before you nominated them, and how thorough your checking was, as for example that user had an "Incivility after block"? Thanks, [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] 16:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: Hi, I am not sure he should be there either. As I said, nominees will determine the outcome of the election process, not me. I deliberately put some contentious ones there. I quite liked TC's brand of incivility, I must say. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
*I would like some clarification as to exactly how the initial election would work. You say when 20 people have accepted nomination, an election will be held. Who votes in that election? Those 20 users, the community at large, just you, or what? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

=== The Cabal fights back ===

This page has already been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=296182223&oldid=295372923 nominated] for deletion. I didn't expect that ''so'' quickly.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:Are you saying Shappy is part of a cabal? Have you considered the possibility that Shappy was action on his/her own initiative? Do you have any indication to the contrary? [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3AShapiros10%2FUnder-18%2Cdon%27t_give_a_damn_about_it_Cabal&timestamp=20080625232550 (Cough)] <small>(admin only, I'm afraid)</small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font> 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Comment ===
Peter, I really don't care if you want to start some club to fight the injustices you perceive as having occurred. However, I have to say that the way this proposal is framed, and the standards you use to define "substantial and enduring contributions" and "hard work", are frankly kind of insulting to a large percentage of the editors on this project. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you care to characterize adminship as some sort of social club or so-called "reward". Speaking for myself, I don't really see abusive messages, off-wiki attack pages, and an endless stream of vandals as a "reward" anywhere outside of an S&M club. Why, you might ask, do I do it then? Because, despite what your proposal suggests, I believe it ''is'' "hard work" that also forms part of a "substantial and enduring contribution" to the well-being of the project. Brilliant prose won't look all that great if no-one makes the effort to keep it that way, and a hand-picked crew of cantankerous writers whose actions drive off other potential "substantial contributors" won't help in that regard. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


== Meta-wiki ==
== Meta-wiki ==

Revision as of 08:55, 14 June 2009

Nominations by Peter Damian

Invitation templates



Acceptances

This section is only for those who have been nominated, and would like to stand for election. Please leave your username without comment.

Other nominations

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

Discussion

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)[reply]

Meta-wiki

Maybe it could be good idea to post it in meta-wiki, as a former association. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . --  13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested sections

Since you have a "benefits" section, you may want to have a "disadvantages" section so that folk are more aware of the possible consequences of membership, both good and bad. Good luck with your project. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages would be being blocked by teenagers on instruction of internet chat room. I think most people will see this. Peter Damian (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? I don't see the connection. I don't see anything in the proposal that would lead to being blocked. Perhaps the connection is not as obvious as you think. Can you explain what you mean Peter? Chillum 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why I suppose those who lounge about chatting in IRC will dislike those who form a separate association, and will perhaps try and block them under some spurious pretext, Chillum. Peter Damian (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I did not criticize this proposal at all, I have yet to form an opinion. I have certainly not even considered blocking anyone. As far as I know nobody has expressed such opinions on the IRC channel or anywhere else. Why suppose such a thing? Please explain your reasoning. Chillum 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what makes this association any more separate than any other group on Wikipedia? Chillum 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be a formal entity established by election, just like the IRC club of admins here, Chillum. I thought you knew about this sort of thing. Peter Damian (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I think I have been read different bed time stories. I have been in that channel for about two years, if there is a cabal they are not operating out of there. Chillum 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Now I have formed an opinion. It seems this has less to do with being established or a strong contributor, and more to do with politics unrelated to such things. These references to block RfA voting and defending incivility really have nothing to do with the stated goals. Chillum 16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to those who accept nomination to decide on the core goals and purpose, Chillum. I note you have not been nominated. Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as well I am not nominated. I don't participate in cabals. Chillum 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're an administrator aren't you? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? Chillum 20:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article writers' noticeboard

Iridescent suggested this above, and I think it might be a better way to go about this. Format it up technically with the same structure/layout essentially as WP:ANI, and have it be shout board for help on writing issues: I need copyediting help (I would love that!); sourcing help; "extra eyes" on a content dispute; etc.

One thing to be wary of isn't the Esperanza thing (I read that massive finale MFD many times, and I still don't get what the point of it all was), but the fact that some will lump this in with the negative connotations of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. But, if it has an approved defined focus, which doesn't include bloc voting on RFA--that probably has people already frothing, as a suggestion--then it could work. rootology (C)(T) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A noticeboard makes far more sense than an "association" that seeks to be independent from Wikipedia. As long as the goal of the noticeboard is to attract broad scrutiny to content related issues I think it is a wonderful idea, all too often content disputes end up at an admin noticeboard which is silly because admins aren't in charge of content. Chillum 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. As long as content isn't policy violating, we don't even have any authority about it. Although, and this is a fight for another day and another discussion, I still say that it's a fool thing that WP:NPOV vios can't be dealt with like 'any other' policy vio... rootology (C)(T) 16:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is a much better idea than a lobbying group. Mr.Z-man 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A noticeboard is merely a noticeboard. There needs to be an elected body where election is on the grounds of contribution record alone, and not popularity, or 'being nice' or whatever. All other purposes or objectives could be discussed. Peter Damian (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "authority" would the elected people have? By the way, have you ever seen WP:Article Rescue Squadron? rootology (C)(T) 16:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very productive step forward. Perhaps some good will come of all of this. Chillum 17:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to project space to get the ball rolling. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo?

As an aside to the Mfd, I just wanted to ask Peter, why on Earth you think Jimbo would think he needs to be in this Union? Quite apart from his special powers meaning he hardly needs anyone to rally to his defence, in some high profile incidents he is the only one prepared to stand up for equal application of civility to peons and vested contribuotrs alike, him having for example recently been the only person who stepped up to the plate to block Bishonen for a blatant example of gross incivility (who, btw, you've listed twice as a potential nominee, despite having walked), and is the mortal enemy of the one person who is known well to most of the nominees here as presumably the most shining example of deserving the mooted free pass this Union would be providing, and in whose image this union seems to have been created, if the comments about IRC cabals are anything to go by. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politeness. It seemed rude not to. Peter Damian (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo also has access to the admins IRC channel (he might even be an op), though he comes on IRC about as often as he makes a significant edit to an article. Mr.Z-man 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question or two

If say one of the editors who are part of this association is reasonably blocked, banned, or had an arbcom sanction applied to them, would they still be part of this association? Also, if an editor who is nominated to this association has had a block, ban, or arbcom sanction applied to them, could they still be part of this association? This group's purpose seems to be one to help improve Wikipedia and also work with other editor's by helping them. If an editor who is a member of this association acts consistently rudely to other editors, is very abrasive and does not want to discuss but to slam threw their points, etc, would they still be part of this association. Also, if a person is nominated to this association has had a past of being abrasive and rude, should they be accepted to this association?

Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as people who have been blocked, apparently not. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then if that is the case, what about this editor: user:ScienceApologist. This editor has a rather lengthy block list, has a couple bans against him, and has been involved with multiple arbcom sanctions? Brothejr (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bans and blocks are quite irrelevant. Frankly, I'm interested to see who's on any outstanding editor's list of outstanding editors of content. If I'm inspired, I might just link to my Userpage a personal list of editors who combine outstanding competence and literacy with modesty and a collegial approach. Makes me reconsider just what qualities make an editor stand out. I looked over the last 500 edits of several loudspoken individuals ganging togerther to get this page erased, and I was not filled with confidence.--Wetman (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

I mentioned this a few times on the MFD, but its clear that its nothing more than a dramafest, so I'll focus my comments here for now. I would ask the proponents of this association: Are you considering the wishes of the community at large in the formation of this group? If there is consensus against it, or no consensus either way, do you intend to proceed with the formation of the group as planned? Is this page a proposal for the community to discuss and either accept or reject, or is it only an announcement of your intentions? Mr.Z-man 03:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community at large has no right to stop Wikipedia editors from forming associations based on whatever standards they'd like. They can only attempt to force it off-wiki--which means more secrecy, more cliqueishness, and less transparency. In short it's a bad thing. If editors are interested in forming a group like this they should have every right to. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and such associations have been met with so much community appreciation in the past. There are no "rights" on Wikipedia other than the right to fork and the right to leave. If its on-wiki, it belongs to the community, even in userspace. Mr.Z-man 05:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TallNapoleon/Association_of_Established_Editors&oldid=296320918"