User talk:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors

Nominations by Peter Damian

Invitation templates

1. !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 83d40m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Amandajm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Antandrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Anthony_Appleyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Athanasius1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Awadewit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Carcharoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. Carptrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Cplakidas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. Cynwolfe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. dave souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. DavidRF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. Diliff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. DVD R W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. Dweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. Elonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. EricBarbour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. Eusebeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. Ewulp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Folantin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
40. Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
41. Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
42. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
43. GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
44. Gnangarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
45. Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46. Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
47. Hesperian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
48. Hurricanehink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
49. infrogmation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
50. Iridescent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
51. J Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
52. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
53. JackofOz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
54. JNW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
55. Joelr31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
56. Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
57. Joopercoopers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
58. Kafka Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59. Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
60. KD Tries Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
61. Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
62. Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
63. llywrch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64. Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
65. Magicpiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67. Mandarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68. Mark Dingemanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69. Mathiasrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71. Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72. Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
73. Minkythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74. Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75. Nemonoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76. Nev1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77. Opus33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
78. Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
79. Paul August (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81. Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
82. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
83. PKM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84. Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85. Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87. Savidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
88. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
90. Smerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
91. Smoddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92. Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93. Ssilvers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
94. Tagishsimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
95. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
96. Tony the Marine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
97. Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
98. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99. TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
100. Tyrenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
101. Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
103. Warofdreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
104. WesleyDodds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
105. Wetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
106. WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
107. Wrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
108. Yannismarou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
109. YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
110. Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
111. Yomangani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
112. Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Withdrawn]
113. Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
114. Hans Adler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
115. Ian Spackman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
116. Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declined
117. Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
118. Realist2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]
119. Thatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
120. TimVickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Declined]

Acceptances

• 1. One of the 39 Rules I Live My Life By is to always say Yes unless there is a compelling reason to say No.
     I don't see one here. Carptrash (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. In principle. I thought the MFD was a disgrace, and very much share Tony1's view on this[1]. Given the personalities, I would think block voting is highly unlikely. A centralised discussion forum free of non content political airbags would be appealing. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. The attempt of contentfree editors (check their User contributions) to delete this page is reason enough to accept.--Wetman (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Conditionally. As per my previous comment, if you can get at least 20 people (so it's not just a tiny clique), I'm willing to make it 21, but with the proviso that I am not going to get involved in block voting (there may be occasions when I agree with the "party line" and vote accordingly; there may be occasions where I think and do the opposite). The way to counter IRC-marshalled voting blocs is not to set up another equal-and-opposite bloc; it's to fix the systemic failures in Wikipedia's administrative structures. – iridescent 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. I would rather see this as a forum for raising issues affecting content editing than a Defence Union, but let's give it a go. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. As Gary Gilmore said Lets do it....Modernist (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. I accept the nomination and consider it a compliment. ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Conditionally, along the lines of iridescent. This will be a meaningless institution unless it upholds the highest standards of policy compliance within wikipedia. It needs a level headed sense of professionalism and so any suggestion we're going to be block voting etc. needs throwing out now. I'd be keener to see us thinking about policy change than bending existing policies. That said, together with Tony1's AdminReview process, this idea acknowledges a need to encourage the interests of ordinary editors and could be very useful in giving us a stronger voice. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. I accept let's see how this pans out. BigDunc^Talk 11:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Let's see how this goes. I'll accept the invitation to the party. There is beer, right? Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. I accept. Is there a page we should watch? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. It'd be good to have a place where editors who want this to be a real encyclopedia instead of a social experiment or whatever can discuss things and compare notes. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. Accept. As per BigDunc: let's see how this pans out. I hope we can A) have participation in this group make being a Wikipedian a more interesting and rewarding hobby, and B) make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. Conditionally per Iridescent and Joopercoopers. User:Peter Damian should be congratulated for identifying a significant gap in the Wikipedia edifice. Perhaps called the Veteran Editors Group? Functioning rather like a combination of the Bot Approvals Group and the Bot owners' noticeboard? Perhaps with a seniority listing (Wp start date), but allowing all to join (newbies at the bottom) to avoid exclusivity? --Kleinzach 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per Iridescent and JoopersC. Peter Damian (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. If this is the place where you are supposed to accept or decline the invitation, then let it known that I accept, thanks Guettarda. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. Accept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  18. Accept.--Thanks for the nomination. Let me know if there is a page I should be watching. I'll play the membership by ear. I'm honored by the nomination, but I'm also not big on setting up any sort of editorial pecking order among us non-admins.DavidRF (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  19. Accept. This is an interesting idea and I'd like to see how this plays out. As with others, I'm in agreement with Joopercoopers and iridescent. freshacconci talktalk 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  20. Accept. Let it be so. Let's try something different. Let's acknowledge the people who build this thing. Antandrus (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  21. Accept. Something is needed as a support for long-established good content editors. This may work or it may not, but it is worth trying. Ty 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  22. Accept. It sounds like a very valuable idea, and I'd be eager to help out with it. It might be good if the length of membership requirement reduced, however. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  23. I will gladly accept. Thank you for consideration.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  24. Accept. A very good idea in my opinion and I am happy to see this is supported by a number of editors for whom I have profound respect. Eusebeus (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  25. Accept. I'm still uncertain, but I don't have a better alternative to offer. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  26. Accept. Let's see what happens.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• User:Awadewit, User:Ceoil, User:Folantin, & User:Kleinzach should certainly be asked. There are plenty more, but I'm not sure of their 2-yr status. User:Modernist & User:Tyrenius should be ok. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:infrogmation got me to register a user name and deserves an invitation. If recognition of good and hard working editors is the objective, I have no initial objection to the concept, per se. I'm not much of a joiner, however, preferring to work on articles and have little time for discussion although I will defend and debate my edits so long as doing so does not degenerate to irrationality and remains germane. If other editors become tedious, intractable, or abandon reason -- I usually move on to something that is more productive. Regarding the "club" concept, I would not support another editor without adequate reason or knowledge of a topic and I prefer to stay out of ego-spats. Please let me know if the concept survives -- not sure what you mean with the acceptance section, does that mean that only those who accept, remain on the list? So if one does not remove a user name from your list they accept? Please advise... ---- 83d40m (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:DVD R W has been quietly beavering away doing exceptionally sterling work on architectural subjects for years. I also think you should invite User:Bunchofgrapes and User:!! - both left the project with bad tastes in their mouths; some recognition might sweeten the pill of return a little. User:Diliff is one of the project's foremost photographers. User:dave souza another architect, level head and gentleman. Also, User:Warofdreams for similar reasons. User:Nemonoman‎ a writer trying to balance academic accuracy in the field of Mughal history against some rather unsavoury Indian/Pakistani politics --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I nominate User:JNW and to concur with User:Johnbod's nominations above in particular User:Tyrenius, User:Ceoil and User:Awadewit...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• User:Alansohn is another editor I would nominate... ---- 83d40m (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:Raul654, User:Yannismarou, User:Yomangani, User:Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), User:Mandarax - a few more content contributors....Modernist (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• A few that will certainly spice things up, but all of whom certainly qualify: BrownHairedGirl, Dweller,Hurricanehink, Karanacs (a particularly glaring omission), Realist2, TonyTheTiger,Vintagekits, YellowMonkey (another glaring one). – iridescent 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes that will really spice it up, but why not. Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and another one which will really make you choke on your Coco Pops – but undoubtedly qualifies and might have some interesting things to say – is User:Elonka. – iridescent 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Tony the Marine, User:Joelr31, User:Hesperian, User:Gnangarra, User:Casliber, the participants in the Wikipedia:WikiCup, the top people in this list...just to name a few people who come to mind as real article contributors. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• The Village Pump post says people can nominate themselves, and since it looks like nobody mentioned me yet I guess I'll do so. A lot of my edits are anti-vandalism/spam etc., but I also regularly work toward better sources and getting rid of POV among other other improvement efforts. DreamGuy (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the above names, I see a bunch I would have recommended. I think Casliber and WLU are conspicuously absent from my neck of the wiki. DreamGuy (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest WesleyDodds, Mattisse, Amandajm, PKM, Fowler&fowler, Wrad, and, he, DreamGuy off the top of my head. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:PericlesofAthens?--Yannismarou (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Self-nom. I'd also suggest User:Yllosubmarine. Checkout Wikicup for more names. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:Freshacconci, User:Ewulp, User:Ethicoaestheticist - 3 more contributers...Modernist (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recommending: DavidRF, Eusebeus, JackofOz, Michael Bednarek, Magicpiano, Opus33, Smerus. --Kleinzach 01:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) + Noetica --Kleinzach 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) + Wavelength --Kleinzach 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:Utgard Loki. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hi, PericlesofAthens here. I would like to suggest User:Nlu as an eligible candidate.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly recommend User:Snowded. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

• Archive

Discussion

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

Dreamguy's block log is a good example of why most admins should not have the block option. لennavecia 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am closing this down for now. I was shocked at the threats, both explicit and veiled, and at the attempt to muzzle this and to scare any potential members from committing to something like this. I am maintaining the list, however, and many thanks for the nominations. Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that discussions have been removed with the comment that the proposal has been shut down.[2][3] What is the status of this and are discussions allowed? If this is an ongoing project then I suggest that the previous discussions be restored and future discussions be allowed, so long as they follow general standards for civility, of course.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I prefer to remove excessive clutter, and the previous discussions are still there (as per your links). Note this is still in my userspace. As advertised, if the number of nominees who have accepted reaches 20, I will move this to a project page, elections can begin, and I will take a back seat. Peter Damian (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding your name to the nominees. Presumably you'll be part of the first election too, rather than an automatic member.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would not have participated otherwise. Peter Damian (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled

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

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

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

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

I don't think that the kind of people you're nominating should have representation as a group or by a group, any more or less than any other good faith editor. And I'm unclear where any mandate for settling disputes would come from.

I don't think I could sign up to those points as a purpose for the group. I also don't think I could sign up to the group unless and until its purpose was formalised. It seems a bit backwards to me, to create the solution and then look for the problem it's going to address. So, this is a "thank you, but not now" from me. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problems are clear to many. (1) There is currently no system to recognise the contributions of good editors to the project. (2) There is no assocation to represent the interests of such editors (3) The current system of judging content disputes by civility is not working - there is a vast and growing amount of cruft and fan material on the project (4) There is no real quality control. None of this mattered when Wikipedia was a small project. Now that many millions of people recognise Wikipedia as a sort of brand, and unwittingly accept that the balance and accuracy of its content in some way resembles a real encyclopedia, it is a matter of real concern. Were it not for this public health hazard aspect of the project, I would have left long ago. This article about Wikipedia in the London Review of Books precisely captures the problem (see the section on Ayn Rand). Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just what exactly is your envisaged system of recognition going to be? Are you actually giving out free beer or what? MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Being on the membership list is the only recognition, I'm afraid. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lame. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Very useful Peter Damian (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mick, although this is an odd and probably not a very useful idea, there is no need to poke fun at Peter for trying something new. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh so he wasn't being serious then? And Tim, the idea of forming an association with clearly determined criteria of membership, in order to represent the interests of members, you are saying is an odd idea? Which planet do you live on? Or are you saying there clearly are so few problems with Wikipedia, and the relationships between administrators and the content producers is so harmonious and happy, that there is no need for such a thing? Again, which planet? Peter Damian (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'm not at all impressed that you responded to me trying to help you by being rude. I won't comment on this page in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see you were helping by saying the idea was odd. Balancing different but complementary interests is a method that underlies all parliamentary democracy, all corporate governance of limited companies - nearly every successful organisation except Wikipedia. A system like Wikipedia is only found in the old communist countries. Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was pretty helpful to say "there is no need to poke fun at Peter for trying something new", I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Dweller

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

Some question for Peter Damian

I have some questions for Peter Damian:

1. What is your reasoning and history behind starting this group?
2. What do you expect this association to be able to do?
3. How do you expect this association to interact with other editors who are not part of this group?
4. You mention a couple times in the association page: "made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for at least two years" what is the reasoning behind this qualification and how would you judge substantial and enduring contributions by what standards?
5. What do you mean that established editors must "Uphold the good reputation of the association?" Does this mean that editors within this association must come to the defense of another editor no matter what the circumstances? Could you please expand on this?
6. Lastly, what do you mean "Having an established identity on Wikipedia for this period." Could you please also expand on this.

I am asking these questions to help out clarify what this association will be for. Thank you in advance for taking the time to both consider and answer these questions. Thanks, Brothejr (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good questions - let me answer tomorrow. Good night! Peter Damian (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question (related to #3 above): What is the purpose of excluding editors? Why not just have this open to anyone who wants to participate, like with Wikiprojects, instead of voting on admission?   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Exclusivity of membership is the prime currency, and the driving force, behind this thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be resolved by having a seniority listing, but making it open to all? --Kleinzach 01:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, these questions were meant for Peter Damian to respond to. Thanks for your understanding. Brothejr (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for these questions. In reply

• What is your reasoning and history behind starting this group?
  • Rationale: a long-standing concern about the neutrality of the project, and the pervasive influence of special interest groups and cults. Also a worry that the present administration is fundamentally corrupt, and that it is the current system of election that is responsible for this.
  • History: I have been fighting this sort of corruption for a long time. I had an epic battle with Arbcom about the influence of the Neuro-linguistic programming cult, which was successful. I have another problem with the Ayn Rand related articles which was not successful. I thought the recent ruling about Scientology was a step in the right direction, however.
• What do you expect this association to be able to do?
  • To settle content disputes, at least where they relate to reliable sourcing. I don't expect the association to have special powers, nor should it have. It should be a place where admins and editors should come for advice and help about such content disputes.
  • On 'powers' generally, this initiative is fundamentally about the 'separation of powers'. I don't think the present administrative system should be dissolved. I'm a conservative, not a revolutionary. I believe the best way to fix a broken system is to add to it, not to dissolve it. In any normally functioning governance system there is a distinction between 'initiation', 'authorisation' and 'implementation'. I don't believe we need anything so complex in Wikipedia, but we do need some separation of power between those who 'bear arms' (i.e. the block), and those whose arguments are perceived to carry weight, and who should not 'bear arms'.
• How do you expect this association to interact with other editors who are not part of this group?
  • See above. The association should help ordinary editors, and it should encourage them to join, where they meet the criteria.
• You mention a couple times in the association page: "made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for at least two years" what is the reasoning behind this qualification and how would you judge substantial and enduring contributions by what standards?
  • Rationale: requiring qualifications is no good because Wikipedia is fundamentally anti-expert. And in any case, experts generally aren't very good at coping with Wikipedia. Anyone who has been able to survive putting in solid content work for 2 years clearly is the right sort of person for such a group.
  • Judgment: 'Enduring' means lasting, so that is easily proved. 'Substantial' means having substance, not being superficial fan-crufty material, being generally 'encyclopedic'. It shouldn't be confused with quantity or having 20,000 edits, by the way. Nor necessarily with the quantity of 'barnstars' handed out.
  • I will add 'properly sourced' to this. Neutrality, as stated above, is probably my biggest concern.
  • There were questions above about why editors would be 'excluded'. No one should be excluded, so long as they could satisfactorily demonstrate that they had made substantial and enduring and properly-sourced contributions to the project, for the minimum period. That condition is essential - how otherwise would the association have any natural authority in content disputes. If I seek advice from a doctor, I want to know that they are qualified to provide advice. No?
  • Note, someone has placed a message on my talk page saying "most of my content edits aren't addition but subtraction--I'm constantly trying to cut out fringe nonsense, nonnotable and nonencyclopaedic material. " I regard such contributions by deletion as possibly more substantial and potentially enduring than contribution 'by addition'.
• What do you mean that established editors must "Uphold the good reputation of the association?" Does this mean that editors within this association must come to the defense of another editor no matter what the circumstances? Could you please expand on this?
  • Quite the opposite. Having the reputation as a club for bullies would be disastrous. I would expect members of the association to have higher standards of civility than the average editor. But someone must address the reasons for incivility, and the methods of dealing with it. Having a bully command you to be polite is quite different from having a friend whisper to you that 'you are not helping your friends by being rude'.
• Lastly, what do you mean "Having an established identity on Wikipedia for this period." Could you please also expand on this.
  • To accommodate those who have had different, serial accounts, or who edited for some time using an IP. It should be enough to prove they are the same person. Multiple accounts is not the same as abusive socking, by the way, i.e. simultaneous use of multiple accounts in order to gain the advantage in editorial disputes. That should be grounds for immediate expulsion, if uncovered.

Peter Damian (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely failing to see how you can possibly believe that having a select group of members solves neutrality disputes, without resorting to canvassing or block voting, or insisting your views should carry more weight simply because you've been here for two years. Why is this special club necessary as opposed to using the existing dispute resolution systems? Why should people come to this club for advice rather than just posting on a noticeboard, or using the million and one other neutral systems we have for identifying experienced Wikipedians who might be able to help people? As soon as this gets to 20 nominations, which depressingly, it seems it will eventually, I think I'm going to kick it straight to arbcom for a ruling, as it represents a fundemental challenge to the standard policies and procedures of Wikipedia, which is not dealable with through any of the lower dispute forums, as the previous Mfd sadly shows (quite obviously none of them had a clue that this association was being set up to fight Scientologists etc). If you want fundamental constitutional change on the level this represents, and you plan on actually holding elections and all that rubbish, rather than just being an open collaboration project like the ARS or Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, then you are going to have to argue your case to the arbitration committee that this actually benefits Wikipedia. The only thing I see it benefiting is your own POV that you are more equal than anybody else, and your 'membership status' should reflect that in admin/arbitration decisions or when weighing up consensus in disuptes. Attractive as that may seem to prospective members, it is no different really to other flawed perrennial proposals for changing the fundementals of Wikipedia, such as a blanket ban on IP editting, or ironically as you seem to recognise, giving weight to real world qualifications. It is hard really to see this proposed special group as being any different to the practices and beliefs of the 'cults' and POV pushing groups that you ironically purport to want to combat, as they also just so happen to claim they are trying to uphold the sites core policies on NPOV etc. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is not itself a point of view. That is fundamental to Wikipedia. That is all there is to say. Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, all of this is simply Peter's idea of what it might be about - other members may well have differing views - it's rather up for grabs as far as I can make out. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. I nominate a small group of seeds, they have nominated others, the rest is up to them. Peter Damian (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just get approval from the community for the general principle that we need anything doing regarding content using a closed shop of self-elected members. What you are essentially trying to do is set up a content arbcom, and the only approval you want to be able to do that is a yes vote from the people that are going to be in it or benefit from it. It's not rocket science to then see that views such as DreamGuy's of the form 'if you don't like it, don't join' is not going to fly as any sort of endorsement. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Existing dispute resolution systems are largely broken, and steps should be taken to try to fix them, through the propoer channels. There's also no real support system for editors who have demonstrated a history of good edits improving the encyclopedia instead of those using the site to push an agenda or to socialize. From what I've seen, those are the prime motivating factors at work here. I don't get how you could seriously suggest that this would be against policies and practices here. If you disagree with the founding principles, don't ask to join. Simple, right? DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all whether you think that the 'support systems' you advocate involves block voting, de-facto preferential treatment based on membership alone (and not individual record as does happen now), or sanctioned incivility against non-members or worse. Getting preferential treatment happens already for certain massive drama sink users just because they are 'good contributors' in the eyes of enough rogue admins, and yet, you want this abhorrent behaviour codified, just because there are POV pushers on the site as well. The two problems aren't linked, people are quite able to come to the pedia, not qualify for this ridicuolus association , and still shock horror, not turn out to be a Scientology pushing freak. I have a very strong idea, and this is based on everything Peter has already written himself about it, that violation of core policies is indeed very likely if this is ever constituted. I've asked Peter how it can't end up this way, all he can come up with is a restatement of the supposed problems, and vagueness about communism and governments etc. He failed to answer above how this closed shop intends to solve content disputes without violating policy, that is in any way different way to our existing systems. The last comment about not asking to join has pretty much a glaring error, you don't ask to join at all, you are nominated, and then elected form within. Not even arbcom are as corrupt as that. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I don't see any policies in Wikipedia that prevent such an association. What is disturbing is this idea that Wikipedia is some sort of social movement. It is a project whose aim is to build an encyclopedia that is comprehensive and accurate.Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are inventing a social process right here. What else do you call mobilising people into a 'union'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts about what it could be about:

1. I've no problem at all with being radical in thought and speech, but I'm not going to be part of something, flagrantly disregarding policy, by block voting, supporting the indefensible behaviour of my colleagues etc. I will retain my independence of thought and action and if membership mean relinquishing that, I'm not interested. Changing policy however and becoming a strong persuasive voice is another matter.
2. Wikipedia, in my opinion is now too large to effectively and efficiently implement, refine or dream up policy because of the cacophony of threaded discussions that usually ensue. Therefore the creation of such a body, can dream up and refine policy ideas and innovations more efficiently. It can serve as a think tank for new ideas, which can then be put out to other groups for consultation - admins, arbs etc. for refinement before being put to the general community.
3. Admins are a defined and cohesive group in wikipedia with power, rights and responsibilities. As Established editors we seek a similar cohesion and will propose rights and responsibilities of our own to better serve our members.
4. Per my comments on Tim Vickers page, we might think about how to get more expert admins, who can deal with the necessities of content dispute.
5. We might also declare admins incapable as a body of dealing with content disputes and serve as a body of experts to more properly deal with them - lots of problems in that, re. qualification etc. but worth a discussion I think.
6. I'm personally very against how the 'power elite' at wikipedia retain those privileges and powers after they have left office. Checkuser and oversight particularly. There are some welcome moves to reform the use of these, but I'd like to see the idea embedded at all levels in wikipedia that you only hold on to the nuclear codes for as long as you're president - when you resign or your term is up, you hand them in. If we need people with special powers, they'll be elected.
7. I'd personally be happy to see the established editors body widened to open voting, but excluding any admins, bureaucrats, checkusers, stewards, founders, gnomes etc. - it is possible to be rank and file and democratic, but then I'd like to talk about qualification and eligibility.
8. Block reform - frankly 95% of admin abuse concerns the block button. People can put their hands on their hearts at RfA and promise to hardly ever use it but there's absolutely nothing stopping them once they have the tool. I'd like us to think about whether admins should be restricted to blocking IP's only for the first year or so of their adminship for instance - or what other measures might be looked at to improve the use of the tool.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be under the massive misconception that admins settle content disputes. They don't (unless the concept of winning the dispute is to be the last man standing after the blocks). That seems to be the root of most of the problems you are inventing above, for this new body to solve. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm labouring under no misapprehensions. 2 items of my personal 8 point agenda relate to content disputes. Tim Vickers put it rather well the other day "One of the long-term problems with administrative enforcement of policy is that content policies are not as easy to enforce as behavioural policies". To me this an argument for more admins with good content creation skills (yes I recognise Halham 2 CSEs will be perfectly adept at the behavioural aspects of WP:AIV or WP:AN3) but my perhaps misguided perception is expert admins are rather thin on the ground in comparison to the common or garden gnomish variety. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins can't enforce content policies like WP:RS or WP:MOS any better than ordinary peons. They can block/ban people who tendenciously ignore community consensus over the interpretation of content policy in specific disputes, but other than that, I am at a loss as to your apparent perception of what admins can and cannot do in a content dispute that is over and above giving an opinion the same as anybody else who can read the policy in question. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree (actually in many respects I sometimes think admins are worse at interpreting RS than ordinary peons). Admins are however often called upon to deal with behavioural issues which have RS at root. To effectively judge the dispute and balance whether some of the behaviour displayed might be justified or mitigated, I'm arguing that being able to spot patent nonsense or extreme fringe material, or having some grounding and empathy in what's required of academic writing might just be a useful skill to have when apportioning warnings and mediating. Impartial mediation of course is always easier while holding a big stick and is much more likely to be more effective. The problem with content disputes is they're rarely policed at all before the behaviour gets spikey, and often the blind insistence on behavioural standards simply serves to further antagonise the parties because it denies the root cause. Everyone gets wound up and before you know it, it's another case before arb com. I'm struggling to see where your objection is coming from if a group of experienced content editors want to sit around and dream up ways in which that situation might be improved. I'm further at a loss as to which of the 5 pillars you think might be breached that would require an immediate punt up to ArbCom for a ruling. Are you always this conservative in nature? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well again, you seem to simply not be aware that nobody 'polices' content disputes, except you and everybody else involved in them. You also seem to be unaware of the existing mediation and request for comment systems, where no content 'experts' are prohibted from participating if they feel they have experience in Wikipeida, so again, I fail to see how this manufactured closed shop solves any of your pretty much invented problems. The common theme it seems to me in your comments and Peter's earlier statments is, that when people get annoyed and act dickish in a content dispute, their status as a memeber of this group should get them a free pass from basic expectations such as civility, which is a pretty big part of one of the pillars being violated right there. I'm not being conservative, I'm trying to stop this before it actually becomes a real problem that someone actually has to 'police', with all the inherent problems of trying to kill something defended by a group of vested contributors. MickMacNee (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As you don't seem to have actually read or understood a word I have written, I shall write no more for you. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had understood you perfectly. I guess the failing must be my idiot status as a non-member. MickMacNee (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried these processes many times. If you ask an admin for help, they will start looking for things like civility and behaviour and so on, rather than examine the key issues. This inevitably leads to frustration. When you go to mediation, the result is pretty much the same. Then it goes to Arbcom who then restrict or block or ban everyone concerned, no matter where the fault lies. I have carefully looked at the Arbcom process , and I see no evidence that the committee has actually looked at any of the evidence. It is just a disorganised mess. Anyone who has been through this recognises that the system is broken. If there a group of editors who everyone trusted because their credentials had been verified, these could be of help in resolving such disputes. Again, look to the real world to understand how these things are resolved. Rather than bring a mob in to give their opinion, you select a small group of trusted people to give a systematic judgment and recommendation. Peter Damian (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The real world has zero relevance, this is Wikipedia, we are not a democracy or a beaurocracy, you don't have any credentials. I fail to see how a body that decided itself who is 'trusted' and elects itself, is any better than the supposedly flawed arbcom, that was elected by the entire community. "Rather than bring a mob in to give their opinion, you select a small group of trusted people to give a systematic judgment and recommendation." - that is a perfect description of what arbcom already is, for intractible disputes. I cannot resolve how you keep dismissing the idea that wikipedia is a not a social experiment but an encylopoedia, yet you seem bent on implementing a social structure to deal with what you think is wrong (have you for example, ever done an Rfc to actually back up any of these sweeping claims of systemic failure so that people might verify your claims?) I find it odd by the way that a sitting arbitrator is actually one of your nominations. How did you come to that decision, given the above statements? MickMacNee (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant: I am not basing my proposal on some idealised version of human nature (the 'social experiment'), but from practical real life experience of quality control, organising and managing peer review, and so forth. Peter Damian (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility

In addition to the criteria mentioned on the project page, I'd like to see a requirement to have been a lead editor on at least one Featured Article and have fully participated in the process of getting that article promoted to FA. This process gives an editor a much greater understanding of what high-quality, well-referenced content really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that would rule me out! I have always religiously avoided GA and such things. But whatever the 22 agree upon, is what we get (see below). Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Per WP:OWN there's no such thing as a lead editor. I think that whether someone gets an article to FA or not depends largely on only a subset of skills that makes an editor an "established editor" and is partly dependent upon having an interest in articles with topics that are less under dispute than others. I personally think having dealt with articles that are targets of frequent and overwhelming attacks of editors with agendas to push is just as valid a background, and those kinds of articles are lucky to end up just adequate instead of awful, which is a victory in itself. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

By lead editor, I mean one of the editors who actively responds to the comments at a successful FAC. In order to do this, one needs to be able to get along well with other editors, gracefully receive criticism, and understand the MOS, proper use of WP:RS, neutrality and image guidelines; and be able to evaluate and write clear prose. The exercise is extremely useful, and I encourage anyone who has not done it to do so. BTW, plenty of controversial articles succeed at FA. See Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

There are now 22 accepted nominations, and the conditions have been met. I will be fairly busy for the rest of this week, but will have some time at the weekend. At some point I will move this user page onto WP:EEA or something like that. Then the nominees who have accepted will discuss and vote on

• The purpose and objectives of the assocation
• Membership and eligibility criteria
• The process for election

Best Peter Damian (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you going to move it Peter ? I'd keep it here for now, until we've defined some objectives. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about association objectives

I am concerned that the stated purpose of this embryonic association is to champion the interests of its members only, not the interests of the Wikipedia community as a whole. Especially as it proposes to set its own membership criteria and elect new members by internal voting within the group. Does anyone share these concerns ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Not really, as he seems to be proposing a closed discussion between the accepting nominees, and I am not one of them. That's why I raised my concern here in an open discussion forum. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the current version of the article states "The purposes of the association are to represent such content contributors in the Wikipedia community". There may be content contributors who are not members. Furthermore, the articles themselves are up for discussion. Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) As a so-called 'accepting nominee', I'd be delighted to raise Gandalf61's concerns on his behalf. --Kleinzach 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach - thank you for your offer. Peter Damian - the phrase "such content conrtibutors" seems to be vague and open to misinterpretation. If your intention is that the association should represent non-members' interests as well as those of its members, may I suggest that the wording

"The purposes of the association are to represent all established editors in the Wikipedia community ..."

would be a clearer and better expression of this. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure I would be so anodyne. As I understand it one of the issues here is good practices wrt sourcing and referencing of material; that is emphatically a content issue and an important one at that, both in terms of substantiation as well as the larger credibility of the project. Eusebeus (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Objectives

• To help Wikipedia to become a comprehensive and accurate reference work
  • Support Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• To achieve this by representing all established editors (not just members of the association)
  • Support Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think we should be "representing" established editors (where?). We can be a forum for communication among experienced editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• To campaign for reform in Wikipedia
  • Support Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We can discuss reform, but the word "campaign" concerns me. We can brainstorm, but I don't think we can be an advocacy group. First of all, we will not agree on all matters. Even where we achieve broad agreement on a reform idea, the most I think we should be doing is making proposals, after which it is up to individuals to support or oppose those proposals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• To support reform in Wikipedia

Is there any chance you could make these any more vague? I mean seriously, these proposed 'objectives' are utterly meaningless as written. No.1 is just the Wikipedia mission statement, No.2 means absolutely nothing (what is editor representation on Wikipedia exactly?), No.3 is simply vague. So far we have had, reform arbcom, reform admins, reform policies, fight scientologists etc etc. Just why do these 'reforms' need the backing of a self elected self serving group? MickMacNee (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I liked Damian's earlier suggestion that we wait to come up with specific objectives after this has moved to its own page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MacNee can you stop being an idiot? These are perfectly clear, succinct proposals, not meaningless at all. For example, if 1 is meaningless, why do you then say it is the same as the Wikipedia mission statement? Are you saying the Wikipedia mission statement is meaningless? Peter Damian (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)