Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:25, 3 February 2009

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Home	Discussion	Related projects	Members	Templates	Statements	Ballot page
Project main page	Discussion	Related projects	Members and moderators	Useful templates	Statements on the problems	Also: Intro text and position statements
Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion is moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom, which currently consists of User:Edokter and User:SebastianHelm. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure. (See #Moderation box)

Shortcut

WT:IECOLL

General and housekeeping

	Archives
	Nov 08 - Jan 09

Moderation box

I copied the core of the moderation box from WT:SLR to the top of this page. If there are any objections, please discuss here. — Sebastian 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further change: Since I believe that it is important to take a rest of the individual options of the Ireland naming question until we agree on a procedure, I will add a note to that effect there. — Sebastian 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we highlight the moderators in the members list some how Gnevin (talk)

Sure! For things like this, which are unrelated to any controversy, I'd encourage every project member to be WP:BOLD (or more specifically, follow WP:BRD) and just do it. You might also want to add it to the box on top of this page. — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just go ahead and do that myself. I will also change the wording from "Members can moderate the discussion ..." to "Moderators can moderate the discussion ...". Once we resolved the Ireland naming question, this needs to be changed back, unless members decide to elect moderators from among them. I also put the note "Please consider using {{OT}} for clarity." in a comment, because moderators know this already, and it's not necessary in the box, which addresses everyone. — Sebastian 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators

Resolved

ArbCom now officially announced moderators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Admin moderators:

If I may make a suggestion: Would the members of this project agree with having the third moderator from this project? I would like to propose Gnevin. While Gnevin is not an admin, I don't see why that should be a problem. What we need to consider is if the community can trust a moderator to be moderate. This seems to be the case with Gnevin; their contributions here so far all show a sincere desire to resolve this issue fairly, and I haven't noticed any controversial edits by this editor. Are there any objections? — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is expecting three uninvolved administrators. From Remedies, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names: "If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." Two so far. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I've seen that one before. ;-)

That's not a problem. If the community agrees, then why should ArbCom be against it? (I mentioned it in a half sentence in a mail before, and they didn't object.) I haven't asked Gnevin himself yet, so this may be moot. I, for one, would like to have him as a moderator; it's not easy to find good moderators for this case, and I rather work with someone who's dedicated than with someone who had to be talked into this. Since we'll be three moderators, we'll watch over each other, so I'm not afraid of much going wrong. But if you're concerned about anything he did before, then I will respect that. (You can also send confidential e-mail to Edokter and me.) — Sebastian 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest while I would love to help out here. I have already voted on this issue at least twice and while I'm not saying I wouldn't be able to be neutral. This issue has gone on for so very long I want to be sure of a closure everyone can agree on without one section or the other claiming a systemic bias in the resolution by my involvement Gnevin (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your involvement is welcomed. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That of course settles my suggestion. But just for the record, it is certainly possible to have an opinion in conflicts and still work as moderator. (An example for that is user:Taprobanus, who just received the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award from all sides of the conflict.) — Sebastian 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

Status

ArbCom now officially announced moderators at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Admin moderators. — Sebastian 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting for a third moderator. — Sebastian 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goals and expectations

Clarification of the title: "expectations" refers to where we want to be, not how to get there. For the latter, pls refer to the specific sections, such as #Options for decisionmaking above or #How to get there? below. — Sebastian 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I rushed this initially, before finding out what everybody's expectations are. All we know for sure is that ArbCom wants this settled somehow. But what are the priorities for people here? Is it more important to be fast, to avoid discussions, or to include everyone and every viewpoint - or some other important criteria, which I forgot? Are there any goals that we should set ourselves? Please let us know; you're the experts on this issue! — Sebastian 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A final solution that as many people as possible are prepared to defend should be the goal. Trying to resolve the problem quickly will end up leaving out some people and will make the final choice harder to defend. All views should be taken into account and all options, but the aim should be to find the least controversial / offensive / unacceptable option. When trying to decide which is the best option, the amount of strong opposition to a certain choice should be taken very seriously otherwise theres going to be many people who will find it hard to respect the result. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BritishWatcher, [remainder of message moved to #How to get there?.] --Snowded TALK 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Options for decisionmaking

Let's collect what options we have. So far, I'm aware of the following:

Voting (e.g. with 50% majority.) Concern: Tyranny of the majority
Consensus of Collaboration Project members. This actually works surprisingly well at WP:SLR. I think the main reason why it works is that we do not accept mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections. All objections have to be reasons, based on logic and existing consensus decisions (which includes WP polices, and the decisions of our project members).

Any others? — Sebastian 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil, in general and more so in relation to the Irish issues. That is why I stopped watching the discussion. Voting in the manner in which it has been carried out in the past has only served to highlight the differences and contrasts between the 2 sets of editors. I think this Collaboration would be wise refrain from any voting , straw polls or what ever name you want to call it and instead discuss issues .

Polls should be used if needed only after a agreed time limit.
All users would agree to the abide by the poll
All users would agree to not repoll for a set period again .
Also that users who where not involved in the discussion votes be ignoredGnevin (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would work well with my proposal #2 above. I could agree with most of your points, but I want us to think about if we need that level of detail. I prefer KISS over instruction creep. Remember that the vote is only the fallback, and we may never need it. We might even say "let's cross that bridge when we get to it". In my experience, we always could solve our problems without votes. But admittedly, it sometimes took longer than two months. Remarks to your individual points:

The time limit is a neat idea! It might be a good way to address the situation here, where there seems to exist some impatience with the process so far. Only question is: How do you agree on the time limit?
This may not be necessary, as we are backed up by ArbCom.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I'm afraid this would backfire: It serves as an incentive to increase the discussion by people who may not have anything new to contribute. I can very well see myself under such a pressure. Imagine, you already expressed my opinion perfectly in a certain discussion. I now would have to chime in, to avoid - in case it comes to a vote - me not having suffrage. — Sebastian 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was a typo meant All users would agree to not repoll for a set period again . Basically what often happens is that we have poll , a result is declared , then a other poll is opened right after either asking the same question or demanding a revert back to the status quo. I agree with you re 4 . Gnevin (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this message is improper, please delete it. I was the editor who proposed one of the detailed procedures for arriving at a decision, and it is from my proposals that the evidence tables were drawn up. I made use of a variety of techniques I had had experience of using in an academic context to decide between different possibilities in somewhat similar circumstances. I did not spell out the detailed decision-making process, as I thought it was important to provide a well-defined structure within which to obtained evidence for the different issues thrown up by analyzing the nature of the dispute in the ways I suggested in my proposal on Talk:Ireland. In the prior uses of this technique, the detailed examination of the evidence in the structured and teased-out manner I describe often led to an obvious solution, so that little if no formal decision making between parties who had differing opinions at that time was required. In the other cases, the situations had been sufficiently well-analyzed that a consensus view was reasonably quickly obtained, and all was well. Of course, if the full procedure, or a modification of it, were adopted here, then we cannot guarantee that this dispute will be so tractable, but it could well be that asking for consensus, and, if that is not forthcoming, some outside considered opinion may be the way forward (I think voting would see people merely falling back into entrenched positions if they knew that voting was "on the cards" at some point, so to speak.) Sorry for this intrusion, as I said, if it is improper, please delete it and carry on as if I hadn't posted this message. DDStretch (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by any means, this is not improper at all. I am very happy with the “Solution table for problem(s) Mk II”, and I appreciate your role in creating them. It was my plan to, as soon as we agree how to make decisions, to move this toward being agreed. (If decisionmaking consist of having ArbCom make the decisions, I planned to propose it to them. If it is up to the panel, then Edokter, myself, and the expected third person would discuss this among ourselves. If decisions are to be made by the community, I would post Mk II on the project page (WP:IECOLL) as a motion, and go from there.)

It is a new idea to me that the table itself may already reduce the need for formalized decision making. That may be worth a try. This will be one of the first things we will discuss among the panel. — Sebastian 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been a little unclear in what I wrote: the evidence table is important, but my view was (and still is) that it must be embedded in a set of procedures that systematically organize and search out, and then critically evaluate, evidence for the various claims of arguments that underpin each possible solution. What I suggested is that this could be done within the framework I outlined in Talk:Ireland#An Alternative Proposed Process which might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's good suggestions. It could be taken on it own, or combined with a related set of proposals by MickMacNee. It would minimize the amount of uncoordinated presentation of solutions with support of differing and uncertain power in which all kinds of spurious claims and counter-claims could easily go by and be accepted uncritically, thereby resulting in a sub-optimal solution to the overall problem or problems. So, the context in which the various tables were placed and proposed to be used should be taken into account: they only appeared at that stage in the discussion to give an idea of what would be required and that the stages seemed feasible, though we did not progress too far in "roughing out" the technique. DDStretch (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MKII proposal table from the other article is a good one to use and covers all of the options available. I still think asking people to vote on the option they most strongly oppose or ranking each of the options in order of preference is the only solution. A simple support vote for one of the options will be a waste of time as it will be completly divided like on many occasions before. paragraph deleted BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted off-topic discussion, as this is the section for "Options for decisionmaking", and not about who prefers what name. Please wait till we get to that, and then repost in the correct context. — Sebastian 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An option has been overlooked so far. Some confusion is encountered in relation to statistical info on the republic. People are presenting statistics that are specific to the Republic of Ireland as specific to Ireland. This appears like so:- Ireland. "Ireland" superimposed over the link to the ROI title. As set out in Irish law, describing the republic is best done without ambiguity. Discussion on preference does little to address this so far. ~ R.T.G 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth i found the evidence tables very helpful and it something i would like to see more of Gnevin (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Form of discussion

Another option I have been contemplating is the form of a closed debate; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Methodology. Please reply here with your thought. — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements

Upon rereading the above, I see a common thread among all messages posted here so far. Is my impression correct that all agree on the following:

A1 We want to avoid voting.
A2 We want to make decisions in consensus.

To make this workable, we need to say when consensus is reached, and what happens when consensus is not reached. When I mediate, I am fortunate enough that people usually trust my judgment on this. However, since we are a panel now, we may need to write some rules for that, too. I will propose it on /Panel. Since there was no objection to the Mk II procedure when it was proposed at talk:Ireland, it seems that there is agreement, too. I therefore propose the following:

A3 We will first follow the Mk II procedure.
DDStretch, or any other member who is up to the task, can you please copy the procedure from talk:Ireland to our project page WP:IECOLL, with the preliminary note "proposed procedure", so people see what they're agreeing with?

Also, the following is a combination of Gnevin's and DDStretch's ideas, with some addition by me:

A4 Upon request, (when someone fears that consensus may not be reached within a reasonable time), the moderator panel will set an appropriate time limit, after which some outside considered opinion will decide the question.

Finally, I would like to see if there is an objection to the following agreement:

A5 A unanimous decision by moderator panel counts as outside opinion.

— Sebastian 08:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with A1 and A2. There is opposition to voting because of the way votes have been conducted in the past on this issue which have not produced any results as its always been divided. The MKII proposal table lays out all the options and gives us a way of ranking all the options in order of preference as was proposed by someone on the Ireland talk page some weeks ago. If we ranked the options then it would make progress, unlike a simple support vote for which one has the most support that is never going to work as so many feel strongly against two of the options.

It is going to be impossible to reach a consensus through discussion on this matter, its been gone over so many times in the past people have nightmares on this issue. If theres not going to be some form of voting or ranking then we may aswell just skip to A4 and A5 to let the moderator panel decide. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not the same. You're overlooking one important difference. We will not accept opinions or simple contradictions. I am planning to propose (pending the other moderator's approval) to evaluate the arguments based on their value in the pyramid to the right. Seeing how often people accused each other of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, that will make a substantial difference. If you need more evidence that it is possible, consider that we have employed a simple version of this for two years with about 80% success rate at WP:SLR. We shall see what the other moderators say, but I think I refuted your objection. It will not be impossible. — Sebastian 10:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i hope you are right, There are strong arguments on both sides for two of the options. Holding the discussion is going to help inform the moderators panel on which option is the best solution so i agree it needs to be done, ~~but i still think consensus will not be reached and we will have to wait for a ruling by the panel unless we can eliminate the two highly controversial options.~~ BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out part of the statement that is a pure personal opinion, which is not backed up. — Sebastian 11:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, time will tell i guess. My comment was based on the past debates and attempts to resolve this problem which have always shown strong support and strong opposition to two of the options. Anyway im not against the method you suggested i think its just going to end up having to go to A4/A5 but perhaps im too pessimistic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading levels of agreement

I’d like to suggest a simple description of a “cascading” process for decision making that might be helpful. The cascade is straightforward. If you can’t achieve the highest and most desirable outcome, you go on to the next one, et seq. until a decision is reached. From top down the sequence is;

a) Unanimity. The most desirable outcome. Highly unlikely in the present circumstances, but included for completion.
b) Consensus of Collaboration Project members. Now, the trouble here is that Wikipedia:What is consensus? seems to carefully avoid being specific about what this means (as opposed to what it doesn't mean). In my experience it tends to involve anything over a 60/40 majority being so described. For the purposes of this collaboration, something more specific may be helpful.
- b i) I have seen a definition along the lines of – “consensus is reached when everyone either agrees that the proposal is the best outcome, or, although not being so minded, agrees to go along with it”. Let’s call this “full consensus” for the lack of an obvious shorthand.
- b ii) A definition more in line with the spirit of WP:Consensus but more rigorously defined might be “consensus is reached when 75% of those taking part can support the proposal.” Note that this does not necessarily mean the 75% all think it is the best idea, and that more than one proposal could, in theory, reach this threshold. We might call this “consensus”. The 75% figure is in some sense arbitrary, but it would mean that any minority view would have to be outnumbered 3:1 (rather than by 1%) for any proposal to pass.
c) A majority voting. I include this for completeness too.
d) Arbitration i.e. determined by the moderator panel. Clearly unanimity here would be ideal and command the greatest respect, but in principle the same cascade above could apply.

The above is a broad description. To summarise my own view, the process could be:

1) Unanimity, failing that
2) Full consensus, failing that
3) A consensus of 75% level of support, failing that,
4) Arbitration.

Sebastian above suggests that the mediation panel decide when consensus is reached. I think that’s fine when it comes to deciding what does and does not count as a valid input, because there may be all kinds of nonsense such as sock-puppetry and name-calling going on, and I’d be more than happy to accept this. However, I’d like to know a bit more about the basis on which this consensus might be defined. I accept that 75% could be some other preferred number, and that ideally this should not be a numbers game, at all. However, I think clarity is helpful, otherwise there is a lot of room for confusion and contributors experiencing what was being described as consensus as just arbitration by another name. Ben Mac Dui 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see two related problems with this list:

It does not take into account the discussion above, which yielded in proposal to consider outside opinion.
Most of its options are votes, which does not address the overall unease with votes here.

I agree that I was not clear about how to use Graham's pyramid to assess "consensus", and I understand that that caused you some pain, trying to get a hold of what "consensus" means. It just occurs to me that, given the confusion about the term "consensus", it would be better if we gave a distinctive name to consensus achieved by assessing reasons. Let me call it "reasonable consensus". I will initiate a discussion about this in a separate section #Reasonable consensus later today. (Past midnight UTC, I'm afraid.) — Sebastian 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I have misunderstood something, arbitration = consider outside opinion.
It is not in any way an attempt to be a comprehensive description of the process, but rather of how decisions are reached when that is required.
To be clear, I am not (currently) experiencing pain - rather I am trying to avoid any for all concerned in future by attempting to find a greater degree of clarity than may currently exist. I look forward to reading the "reasonable consensus" material in due course. Ben Mac Dui 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not disappointed, as there isn't much to write about. It’s basically just that people trust me when I say "this is not a reason, it's just an opinion. Please provide a reliable source for it." That is only possible due to the mutual trust we enjoy at WP:SLR. That grew organically over the course of at least a month before we even started the project, and then it took two years until the last person came aboard. Of course, since we don't want to wait months or years, that is not an option here. I was hoping that I'd enjoy similar trust here due to ArbCom's recommendation, but that may not be the case. (See #Should I step down? above.) I'm still thinking about how to formalize this; maybe the best would be to use Graham's pyramid; what do you think? — Sebastian 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pyramid is a potentially very valuable tool. If it has a disadvantage it may be that what is my well-sourced refutation might be your poorly researched and largely irrelevant comment. As I am sure you can imagine, it is possible that this is the sort of territory it may be necessary to negotiate. To me, the advantage of being more objective about what we mean by "consensus" is that it may then be harder for those who don't subscribe to it to cry "foul". Perhaps not. I am not attached to any of the above, which I offer purely in a spirit of attempting to be helpful. If it isn't so, feel free to ignore it. Ben Mac Dui 12:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this is a potential problem, and it deserves further consideration. Please remember, though, that we won't have the old "he-says-she-says" anymore. We're here as moderators. I think I can say for both of us that we're honestly trying to be fair. My hunch is that it is hard for any group to agree on specific criteria for terms such as "well-sourced", "refutation", and "relevant". We have a better chance for success if we make best use of moderators: Use moderators' judgment as a first approximation, and ensure that moderators remain accountable. I am, as an admin, already open for recall, and I am just as open to take back any individual decisions I make here. I promise to examine every criticism, and I ultimately submit all my actions to the scrutiny of the other moderator(s) and ArbCom. — Sebastian 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity / notice

Could I ask the appointed mediators to widely advertise the existence of this project and more importantly the tasks at hand of deciding on a mechanism for Ireland-related-article-naming and following through on that mechanism till a decision is arrived at? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait with that until the moderator panel is complete and agrees on its task, because we're not really operational yet. I am sorry, it was my mistake to already announce this at talk:Ireland; I just thought I could take advantage of the momentum there and get this project going. I also don't see a need to advertize this much further than at WP:IE. My reason for that is that I believe that people who are really interested in Ireland have either the article or the project on their watchlist. If you disagree, please provide a reason that refutes this point. — Sebastian 11:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While probably most people will see it at WP:IE, the issue has previously been debated extensively in other places, including, off the top of my head, WP:IMOS and especially Talk:Republic of Ireland. If we're to have "closure" on the issue arising from whatever is decided, I believe we should have as many participants as possible. No problem holding off for the moment until the panel is complete. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Unless there are any objections, let's go with that. — Sebastian 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can we please have more formal and clear announcements? One of the problems with the last "polls" was that one of them was conducted in a obscure corner of WP. To the closing admin, it looked like it was a proper location and widely contributed to project but to the community it was a contested space.

This project was unknown of before the announcement that the Ireland/Republic of Ireland dispute would move on to this theatre (see: [1] and [2]). It didn't even have any members!

I am also worried about word above that discussion will only take place between the "members" of a project. As an IP-based contributor, by "membership" of a project would be a tenuous concept since I have no username to sign them membership list. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should start publicizing this already despite the panel not being complete. Are there any objections? Maybe we could have wording along these lines: "While the main process has not begun yet, as our panel is not complete yet, we would like to invite people to help in preparing and selecting the process."

However, please note that the past problems with votes won't repeat, since we won't be voting on this question this time.

About your name: You can also contribute with an IP address. But if you want to be a member, why don't you not sign up with a user name? Contributing with your IP address is actually even less anonymous. There are so many nice user names still available! How about User:Blarney Stone? I bet you'd become a very eloquent contributor with that name! — Sebastian 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hold fire until everything is in place. (re: User:Blarney Stone ... thanks but no thanks. I'd prefer not to.) --89.101.216.172 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's up to you. We're all volunteers here. But if you choose to not participate putting things in place now, please don't fire at them later. — Sebastian 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: I meant for us all to hold fire until the panel was complete. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to get there?

This section is for proposals how to achieve our goals, once we agree on the #goals and expectations. For now, I'm also moving a message here that was apparently posted under the assumption that we already have that agreement.

the following is part of a reply to BritishWatcher's message of 10:50, 2 February 2009:

Agree with BritishWatcher, but I would add that it is critical that Arbcom engage with the nature of evidence presented. This is not a matter of majority votes etc. The mediators also need either direct, or easy access to people with deep knowledge of the political and social history here who have not engaged so far. User:Alison and BrownHairedGirl come to mind, both admins, both disengaged from the debates but with knowledge of the subtleties. It should also be noted that we have some of the same issues (and editors) as resulted in Arbcom sanctions over the Troubles. --Snowded TALK 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your first sentence to mean that you want us all to consider evidence, as opposed to counting votes. This has been discussed at #Options for decisionmaking, and I think the consensus is clearly with you. By "Arbcom", I assume you mean moderators. To my knowledge, there is no plan for direct ArbCom engagement.

Thank you for the pointer to User:Alison and BrownHairedGirl. Ideally, I would like them to contribute here. It sounds like they would be good candidates for the open moderator position?

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. — Sebastian 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 :::::I'd hold fire until everything is in place. (re: [[User:Blarney Stone]] ... thanks but no thanks. I'd prefer not to.) --[[Special:Contributions/89.101.216.172|89.101.216.172]] ([[User talk:89.101.216.172|talk]]) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 :::::: Well, that's up to you. We're all volunteers here. But if you choose to not participate putting things in place now, please don't fire at them later. &mdash; [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::Clarify: I meant for us all to hold fire until the panel was complete. --[[Special:Contributions/89.101.216.172|89.101.216.172]] ([[User talk:89.101.216.172|talk]]) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 == How to get there? ==