Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2010

Election dates

I have setup the coordinators page as well as the election page. We can't let this get too close to the end of the year as people will be on Christmas and end-of-year holidays. Is the election perios from 1–14 December OK with everyone? – S Masters (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be better than the second half, due to the holidays. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Six months?

Do you want to go with a one-year commitment right from the start? WP:MILHIST started out with six-month tranches. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, 6 months might be good at this stage, as we are doing this for the first time. – S Masters (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to six months. – S Masters (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Set questions

Do you want to have a set of questions for all candidates to complete? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? We can leave it open so that voters get to ask the questions. I don't mind either way. – S Masters (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the first one, we could just have each nominee write a paragraph and see how it comes out. We could try set questions for the second one, if we don't seem to be getting a lot of info drawn out. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Hopefully, it will not be anywhere near as torturous as RfA! :-) – S Masters (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Open discussion

Should we link to these pages on our main page to open discussion further? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's settle two main things first. First being the dates, and second, how many coordinators do we need/want? Once we have these agreed, we can open it for further discussion to everyone. Otherwise, we may not be able to please everyone and it may take a longer time for everyone to agree on these items. – S Masters (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. People trust us and we can present it in a week or so (or even less), to open it up for nominations. I was thinking three coords, including the lead, but only becasue that's what MilHist has. You put four on the thingy. Four might be good. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok great. We could probably open it up in a few days time so that there's at least 1 week for discussions and 1 week for the nominations to come up before the voting starts. MilHist started with 3 but they now have 14. I'm thinking at least 4 in case people get busy (as has happened during some of our drives). – S Masters (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this gives more people who have the experience for the future. I hope you know what I mean because I can't think how to re-word this. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I do know what you mean. :-) Ok, it look like we are all set to go. Do we need to wait for The Utahraptor? There's a note saying that he's busy at school until 10 December? If not, should we go ahead and announce it? – S Masters (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he has been on the wiki for a little while each day, so let's wait a day for his input. OK? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, sure. I wasn't sure if he was on or not. We'll wait a day or two for him. – S Masters (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that The Utahraptor has had a look at all this and has started a new discussion, can I archive this first bit and alert this discussion to the whole Guild? – S Masters (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, will get this going. – S Masters (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues that must be addressed

I thought I would start this thread to get some discussion going.

Number of coordinators

One of the issues that must be addressed is the number of coordinators that we are selecting. In the past, we've had a coordinator and two co-coordinators. I believe that, with the growing reputation of the Guild, we will probably need at least one more coordinator, maybe more, to handle everything. Below are three possible choices that I have prepared. Note that you are not limited to these choices; you may propose a new idea in the designated area below. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea 1: A coordinator and three co-coordinators

Who is in support of this idea?

Support

1. This is personally what I think should be done. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree with this option. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Seems reasonable. Derild4921☼ 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
4. As this is the first time we are doing it, this sounds like a reasonable start. If anyone resigns we can co-opt others to join along the way. – S Masters (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Another vote for the A-team. Might the non-lead coordinators be called 'assistant coordinators' or simply 'coordinators' (the first being distinguished by 'lead')? Co-co seems redundant to me (I almost put 'unnecessarily redundant', which is the same problem lol). –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

   Excellent point. It should be Lead Coordinator and Coordinator as it currently appears on the Coordinators page. – S Masters (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Looks good to me. Aaron north (T/C) 23:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
7. You have my support. dtgriffith ^[talk] 19:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Who opposes this idea?

Oppose

Idea 2: A coordinator and four co-coordinators

Who is in support of this idea?

Support

Who opposes this idea?

Oppose

Idea 3: A coordinator and five co-coordinators

Who is in support of this idea?

Support

Who opposes this idea?

Oppose

Further ideas

Propose your further ideas here.

Election dates

The second issue that must be addressed is the dates that we choose new coordinators. I think we should probably hold elections during either the first or last part of December. The first part of December would seem more conventional, but as some of the Guild members are still in school, an election over Christmas break could prove more successful. A drawback to that, though, would be if we ever had a drive in January. The coordinators would barely have enough time to get anything done. Below are the two options I suggest. Again, don't feel limited; feel free to supply any further ideas you may have. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea 1: December 1-14

Who is in support of this idea?

Support

1. I support this date range. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Better timing with all the vacation going on. Derild4921☼ 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
3. This would work; we can always extend it a bit into the holidays if need be. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Many of us will be very busy in the run-up to Christmas and New Year's. The early part is much better IMHO. – S Masters (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
5. I'll jump on this wagon, too. I'll be less accessible (WP will be less accessible to me) the other date windows proposed, and holidays seem more a constraint than school schedules (though I, myself, am subject to such a schedule). –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
6. This range seems to be the best available. Aaron north (T/C) 23:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Who opposes this idea?

Oppose

Idea 2: December 20-30

Who is in support of this idea?

Support

Who opposes this idea?

Oppose

Further ideas

Propose your further ideas here.

Discussion

Discuss current ideas here.

Just a note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify is hoping to alternate their drives with ours, which means we would host drives in odd-numbered months and they would host in even-numbered months. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Noted. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In a way, this kind of ends our debate on whether we will have a drive in January or not. It looks like we have no choice, as any changes will completely disrupt the schedule for the remainder of the year. Personally, I do not see this as a negative thing. I feel that we should plow on regardless of personal schedules. We will never be able to please everybody. – S Masters (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well put, it's not like all Wikipedians are in school. Derild4921☼ 01:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination period

The third issue that must be addressed is the nomination period. We need to give enough time for people to think about whether they can commit their time, and if they are willing to serve as a coordinator for this project. I propose a nomination period from 19–29 November. We cut-off the voting nominations on the 30th (we are also all busy on this day as we end our November Drive) 17–30 November a 2-week period, and a 2-week voting period starts after that. – S Masters (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is in support of this idea?

Little confused, correct me if I'm wrong. Nov. 19-29 nomination time. Nov. 30 cut off voting (What does this mean)? then two weeks to vote. So what does it mean by cut off "voting"? Derild4921☼ 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say, cut-off the nominations. – S Masters (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Provides for a level playing field and gives enough time for a candidate to answer any questions that may be asked during the election period. – S Masters (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Now that it has been explained to me in-depth, I have no reason to oppose. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Weak Support as I was originally going to oppose for the fact we cut off the nomination period after November. Then I realized the time period we all have so we shouldn't miss any candidates who want to nominate themselves. Derild4921☼ 14:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
4. I support this format. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Looks good, though it is a bit confusing when you say 2 weeks (14 days?) to vote here, and we are talking about 10-day periods in the issue further above. Aaron north (T/C) 23:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. We will make it both 14 days. – S Masters (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose this idea. While it's not necessarily a bad one, I would prefer voting to start immediately after the nomination is posted, as is the case at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I think the nomination period should begin on December 1, the same day voting starts. Perhaps we could end the nominating on December 710, and end voting on December 1014. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... RfA is very different, in that a candidate is not in competition against anyone else–it is a solo effort. Where there is a group of people competing, like in real-life elections, there is normally a nomination period followed by the election period, usually done in a day. The reason for suggesting this is that it provides for a level playing field for all candidates. For example, as per your suggestion, setting a final nomination date on the 10th, four days before the close of the polls, would significantly disadvantage anyone coming into the race that late. Early voters may not come back to vote again. And given that a candidate may have to answer questions, it does not provide enough time for this process to take place. Hence, my suggestion for a nom period before the "race" starts. – S Masters (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved to support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Something that should be brought up

On the coordinators main page, it says that the coordinators hold their position for six months, but elections are held every twelve months. Should the coordinators hold their position for twelve months as opposed to six? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the original, where the coordinators would serve for a year. I will change the voting to every 6 months, although this may change in the future. – S Masters (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should vote every six months. I think coordinators should serve a year and elections should be held once every year. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I suggested originally but Diannaa thought that as this is the first time we are doing it, we could trial it out for an initial period of 6 months first. This is probably not a bad idea, as it will allow us to make any modifications or changes to the system. Six months is a very long time in Wikipedia. – S Masters (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess, for a trial, we could do six months. Then after the first year we make a final decision. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST did six-month tranches for four years, and only with their Sept 2010 election switched to one-year terms. (and you know we are copying them like crazy, right? ;)) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We'll see how things go for our project. After all, it could wind up different. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First election date

We already have the second election date worked out (noms from Nov. 17-30, voting from Dec. 1-10), so let's get the first election date worked out. I would suggest we do the election after the May drive. That way, the coordinators would've coordinated three drives. After the May/June elections, coordinators serve for the July, September, and November drive. This evens things out pretty well. I would suggest something similar to the second election date (noms from May 17-30, voting from June 1-10). Thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the votes were all for 1– 14 JanDecember? S Masters (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Won't we be busy with the drive then, though? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, am tired today, I meant December. S Masters (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If we vote for coordinators in December, their term expires after the May drive. I thought we should hold another election after the May drive to choose coordinators for the next three drives after the May drive. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The voting is in December, the term runs January–June. The drives will be held in Jan, Mar and May. The July drive will be run by the next elected coordinators (elections to be held in June). Also, I want to point out that the coordinators are for the Guild itself (it is a lot more work than just running drives). The drive coordinators may or may not be the same folks, it is up to the new coordinators to decide. They can appoint others just to run a particular drive. This year, some drive coordinators were not involved with the administration of the Guild. – S Masters (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Voting?

Has there been a discussion yet about how the voting will proceed? Will people be able to vote for more than one candidate? It would make sense to me that if we have a total of 4 positions, then any one person should be able to cast up to 4 votes. Also, how will it be decided who the lead coordinator will be? I think the voting procedure should be explained to members in the next newsletter at the conclusion of this drive. --Tea with toast (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Voting instructions will be given at the top of the voting page. In the section "How are we selected?", it states: "The candidate receiving the highest number of votes becomes the lead coordinator...". I think the newsletter will be too long if we include all this information. We will put this at the top of the voting page so that it is clear for all. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We're sending out a notice to all Guild members about the voting before we send our newsletter. Voting begins today at 0:00 (UTC). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion

This seems like a pretty poor idea to me. Doesn't anyone remember WP:Esperanza? And the MfD that concluded "This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similar fate as Esperanza." Gigs (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean having coordinators would be a bad idea? I disagree. Milhist has successfully used elected coordinators for many years, and I don't see why this project would be different. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is in no way overly hierarchical, just as The ed says above, many large and active Wikiprojects have a few coordinators who help run the project. This is like adminship, not a promotion, just a way of showing a certain user has experience in this field (copyediting in this case). Derild4921Review Me! 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Right, Milhist were kind of grandfathered in, having been doing it before the Esperanza blow-up. Anyway, just something to keep in mind I guess, and I wish you all luck. (Added after e/c -- comparing it to adminship is exactly the kind of thing you don't want to do!) Gigs (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...I agree with your second part, Gigs. Coordinators should not be like administrators in any sense of the words. They organize drives and do the maintenance that keeps the project running. They cannot 'do what they want' or act in such a way that they could be accused of cabaling or powermongering (like many admins), or it undermines their only "power": the respect of the majority of the project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that, just happened to be the first thing that came to my mind for a comparison... Derild4921Review Me! 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea, and the poor writing on the mainpage "... many elements for the setup was borrowed from there" makes the project look absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple mistakes. Are there any others you would like to point out? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be the copyeditors, not me? Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We are, but not all of us are perfect. Help is always welcome. Derild4921Review Me! 02:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you ask, does this make sense to you? "Any project member in good standing may nominate himself or herself, who may serve as many times as they wish." Wouldn't something like "... and may serve as many times as they wish" make more sense? I ought not to have to be correcting the grammar on a GOCE page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Derild said, nobody here is perfect. Thank you for the suggestion. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I find your version better, but the previous version perfectly readable. This is just to inform people, not a FA! Derild4921Review Me! 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You claim to be copyeditors, yet your page contained elementary errors of grammar. Does the irony escape you? And then there's the style: "The Utahraptor, who was a co-coordinator of the November Backlog Elimination Drive, was also invited to participate in the initial discussions before the launch of the GOCE coordinator program." Why "also", when nobody else has been mentioned as being invited? Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. The Guild normally copy edits articles. As Derild said, this is an information page, not an FAC. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's your shop window, it ought to be at least grammatically correct. FAC has nothing to do with it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not FAC, but when you have obvious grammatical errors on a high-visible page in your project, it better be pretty embarrassing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Post election

Firstly, I want to congratulate my fellow coordinators Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast, for being elected. You can pick-up your shiny badge from {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Userbox}}. Should we have a Noticeboard type page for coordinators? We need something where we can post To-Do Lists, issues, etc. – SMasters (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should. That way, our jobs could be done more efficiently. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the to-do list I added above sufficient? -Tea with toast (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I think this should do nicely for now. – SMasters (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE welcoming committee

I would like to head the Guild's welcoming committee. How is this going to work? Do I pick committee members or are they picked in a different way? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I think we should have a "Membership" tab. There you will be listed as the head of the Welcoming Committee, and the page will contain information on how to join – currently a multi-step process which we may have to review. There you can invite any Guild member to join the committee. We should also inform committee members what they need to do as well as list all templates that will be used for this purpose. These are my initial thoughts. – SMasters (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I will volunteer to join. I have created an invite template here: {{GOCEinvite}}. Please let me know what you think and what improvements can be made. I think we should also create a welcoming template to post on people's talk pages once they list themselves as a participant. I think someone else also mentioned starting some sort of mentoring program for new users. We should probably create a new subpage on our WikiProject page for welcoming users. --Tea with toast (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Can we change the colour to the Guild's blue "branding" colours? Also, do you think the copy will look better if aligned left rather than centered? Please go ahead and do a draft for a welcome template to put on the talk pages of those who have signed up here and here. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the blue "branding" colors. Please feel free to edit the template yourself. --Tea with toast (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Most WikiProjects adopt some kind of colour scheme for their project. Ours happens to be that baby blue that you see throughout the Guild, as well as out notices and newsletter. Will try to have a look later when I have some time. – SMasters (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Before creating a draft for a welcome template, I think we should first decide on what we can offer them. Is there going to be some sort of mentoring program? --Tea with toast (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• We need to move along with this. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Members to discuss how we can proceed. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring programme

My idea for the mentoring programme was that more experienced editors could be paired with people who want tutoring. They could work together on articles during the months when we don't have a drive going on. For example the tutor could go over the copy edited material and give a critique and rationale for any further improvements. SMasters was the originator of the mentorship programme, so he may have a diferent concept of how the programme would work. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The mentoring programme as described by Diannaa above is exactly what I had in mind. Secondly, I think it will be very useful to have a step-by-step guide on how to copyedit. We already have a section on how to copyedit, but it is probably a bit daunting for newcomers, and it may seem overwhelming. Having a checklist of some sort will also be very useful. – SMasters (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a checklist—it would be useful for newbies and veterans alike. I think creating a step-by-step " how to" guide would be the most useful thing to do right now. I think we should have that done before the next drive (not much more than 2 weeks away!) --Tea with toast (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a good starting point at Wikipedia:Basic copyediting that we could modify. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent find! I think we can just have a very basic step-by-step guide, with links to other more detailed resources for further reading. – SMasters (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. When I get the time, I'll prepare a basic step-by-step guide in this sandbox. Anybody is welcome to help in the guide's development. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I got started on the new guide and actually got quite a bit done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple bookings

I am wondering what to do with Skamecrazy123, who has agreed to copyedit three articles, but has not edited since 14 December. I am aware that has Diannaa contacted Skamecrazy123 regarding this [1], but there has been no activity since. I have put a note asking members not to book multiple articles. In the meantime, we have these three articles stuck at the top of the backlog. Any ideas for a solution? – SMasters (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A typically gracious note on Skamecrazy123's talk page with a clear explanation of the ground rules and a deadline? Lfstevens (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 has not edited at all since 14 December. Not sure how long they will be away, and with Christmas around the corner... – SMasters (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 seems to edit mostly talk pages and not articles so I am doubtful the work will be completed in a timely fashion. I know he asked at least one of the posters whether there was any rush. Perhaps a firm deadline: get started on at least one of the articles in the next week, or we will have to take the work. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

After much though, I feel that we have already given him more than enough reminders and have also contacted him on this, with no further progress. I think for those of us who can, we should start on his articles. Something along the lines of, "{{doing}} I will assist with this." We should start from the oldest.When archived, we do a shared credit. – SMasters (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have already made a commitment to do a Manga article (shoot me now), but I will start on one of the three as my next task when it is done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidents

I have received a complaint regarding the actions of one of our members on my talk page. What are your thoughts and what do you suggest as an appropriate course of action? – SMasters (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't stop them from copy editing, but at the same time, we can't let them continue to cause trouble in the community. In addition, it will be difficult to make a decision without hurting feelings. If we were to remove this member from the Guild, they would be upset, but if we kept them in the Guild, they could cause further controversy. Why don't we attempt a consensus vote to see whether or not the community believes that this user should continue to be in the Guild? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do is to assure User:Fæ that the work and attitiude of Lihaas are not representative of our group. And I think we need to frame a message for Lihaas as to expected standards for copy editing and possibly behavior. Then if we see no change in behavior we could ask them to drop their Guild membership. Tea with toast has not edited much in the last few days. I am putting a talkback on their user talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds better than my plan. Let's go through with it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with Diannaa's suggestions. Will wait to hear from Tea with toast. We should also let Fæ know that we have over 500 members and we cannot be responsible for all of their individual actions. Somehow, I am quite disturbed with Lihaas' contributions in talk pages in terms of grammar, etc. I mean, how can a copy editor start sentences with lower case letters, lower case "i", missing apostrophes, etc. It does reflect very poorly on his/her care regarding quality. – SMasters (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should send Lihaas a message telling him/her about copy editing. We could send Lihaas the copy editing guide in my sandbox. We could also give some specific directions, such as informing him/her to capitalize the first word in a sentence. What do you all think? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Took me a while to find, but I think the ANI mentioned by Fæ is here. Someone pointed out that Lihaas inserted information into the Lesbian article that defined the term as someone who comes from the Greek island of Lesbos (into the lead). I'm not sure how to advise Lihaas – how do you tell someone that every new sentence on a talk page should start with a capital letter, and that the pronoun "I" should always be capitalized, without sounding condescending? – SMasters (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the GOCE have an insurmountable problem, in that anyone can sign up even if they can't write in English, never mind grammatically? There is a great resistance in wikipedia to groups who select their members. The wikway is to allow anyone to copyedit, no matter what their degree of incompetence may be. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've sent Lihaas a message asking him/her to read the tips in my sandbox on how to copy edit. Malleus, you are correct, but the quality of a copy editor's work is based on how well the copy editor can speak (or write) in English. The Guild focuses on quality as well as getting the job done. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that's the focus of the guild, but its members don't always seem to be able to deliver. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Requests page and the "This WikiProject is the worst" incident? I think somebody said earlier that a lot of our members had real life affairs to attend to, and that's why the Requests page was backlogged. But if you look at the Requests page at the end of our May Backlog elimination drive, you'll see that it was completely empty. And if you compare the current backlog to what the backlog looked like prior to the May drive, you'll see that almost 3,000 articles have been removed from the queue. So perhaps we do tend to slack in some areas, but when the Guild focuses most, if not all, of its attention on something, the job gets done thoroughly and efficiently. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just the GOCE that faces this problem of competence, Malleus. Anyone with a computer can write an article about their village in India, and we have to keep the article, because all villages are notable. It's an incredible state of affairs. We see some terrible sights, as we work at the other end of the spectrum from you a lot of the time. @SMasters, there was a more recent ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Sets of eyes for an inactive/involved admin that is only slightly more coherent than the talk page posts, and does not set the bar very high behavior-wise. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of capitalisation is likely explained by them editing from a cell phone or mobile device. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "we work at the other end of the spectrum from you a lot of the time"? I work all over the spectrum. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I thought you mostly worked on FA candidate reviews. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do work on some of those, but I don't restrict myself to them. I've done a fair bit with GANs as well and even with DYKs. And even with new page patrolling, so I think I've seen the spectrum. Malleus Fatuorum 04:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Thanks Diannaa for the link. Oh, that hurt my eyes! Malleus, I do agree that we have a problem in that anyone can join the Guild, and we can't stop them from doing so. Copy editors make fixes of spelling, grammar, WP:MOS issues, consistency in style and content, mistakes of known factual errors, etc. It does not include major content changes. This is no longer copy editing. This is a full editing role, and does not come under the scope of the Guild. The problem with Lihaas is that he is making major content changes. This is fine as his work as an editor, but as a representative of the Guild, this becomes an issue. Let's say that there is a project called WikiProject Coding, whose purpose is to improve scripts and coding. Editor X joins, but is not an expert coder by any means. This is all fine until Editor X causes a commotion on an article because his coding is seen as nonconstructive and even plain wrong. Then, perhaps to show some sort of authority, he puts the WikiProject Coding banner on the article. What should WikiProject Coding do? By the way, during our drives, we do have checkers who randomly audit our members' work, and sloppy work or any cheating is penalised. – SMasters (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Penalised? In what way? Is this some kind of game? Malleus Fatuorum 08:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Utahraptor, for taking the initiative and contacting Lihaas. However, I think the issue has less to do with the fact that he neglects proper punctuation and capitalization and more to do with the fact that he is being disruptive and lacks proper etiquette. To address the idea of whether or not we should "revoke GOCE membership", that is tough to say since I agree with Malleus Fatuorum that WikiProjects consist of volunteers. I would think that a seasoned user like Lihaas would continue editing as he has regardless of whether or not we remove him from our list of members. This goes beyond the GOCE. However, the least we can do as a group is to say to such users in such cases somethings similar to what The Utahraptor wrote (but perhaps more direct): "Some of your recent edits [link] have been found to be disruptive and/or non-compliant with GOCE guidlines. The tone of your posts on talk pages [link] do not appear to follow wiki-etiquette. Please read links [x] and [y] so that you can improve your edits and further improve the content on wikipedia." --Tea with toast (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And what do you do when he ignores that admonition? Expel him from the guild? How? Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what we need to figure out. Membership in the Guild consists of placing a user box on your user page that says one is a member of the Guild. That places the user in the category of membership. I suppose we could ask them to remove the user box from their talk page and not purport to be editing on behalf of th guild any more. But if they refused to do so it would be difficult or impossible to enforce. Who knew copy editing could get political? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea with toast, he will probably ask where he can find these guidelines, and exactly which rule/s he broke. – SMasters (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This whole issue has fallen on our lap because he put the {{GOCE}} tag on the article's talk page. If he didn't, it would be seen as a normal content dispute situation. But because he has chosen to put the tag on, he has dragged the Guild into this. We should have some sort of rule that says that editors who becomne involved with articles beyond the scope of copy editing, should not put the tag on those articles. Instead, they should request for an uninvolved GOCE member to do the copy editing. – SMasters (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not GOCE guidelines we would have to cite, but the usual Wikipedia behavioural guidelines. There were other ANI reports, including ones in September and October and various trips to the 3RR noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=lihaas&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+all+administrators%27+noticeboards+and+archives&fulltext=Search It is unlikely we will be influencing this person into having an epiphany about their behaviour anytime soon. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Utah has placed a good neutrally worded initial message on their talk. Has anyone contacted user:Fæ yet? A message should be sent from by SMasters as head honcho explaining we are aware of the situation, the behaviour is not typical of Guild members, and we will monitor this user in the future. And then we will have to keep an eye on this user and ask them to turn in their user box if they continue to behave poorly whilst purporting to represent the Guild. Sorry if I sound bossy; I am getting tired. I have to work in the morning so I will be logging off now. Malleus, if you are still watching and have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could look over the little guide we are trying to develop for new copy editors, and see if you have any suggestions for improvements. Here is the link: User:The Utahraptor/Sandbox 1. If you have time. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look it over, please remind me if I forget. But I will also say that the guild's idea of copyediting and mine are poles apart. Malleus Fatuorum 08:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not to say that the guild's members don't do valuable work, they undoubtedly do, just that it's sometimes insufficient when it comes to GAN and FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 08:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the real world, there are several levels of copy editing. Copy editors employed in newsrooms work like they are in a factory. They check for basics, and churn the articles out. They are not there to ensure award-winning feature stories. Those who work at Feature Desks, magazines, journals, and those who work on books, have more time. They get involved with the authors, check references, sources, etc. They may even help with research. They work on a lot of the writing, spend time crafting wonderful prose, etc. The same is with Wikipedia. There are several levels of articles here. Some are short and sweet, and will never ever be GAs or FAs, while others deserve to be. One should not put a blanket judgment on the work of the Guild, as we have several levels of editors, who all work on different types of articles. I find that some editors asking for help from the Guild are really looking for authors, not copy editors. So, you are right, the scope of the Guild is limited. It is limited to basic copy editing. – SMasters (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that ought to be made clearer to supplicants and members. I have not infrequently seen FACs where a reviewer's suggestion for a copyedit has been inadequately met by a cursory visit from one of the guild's members. Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is very true, but we are hoping to change that. Right now I am pretty sure we don't have any editors good enough to polish an article to the FA level, myself included. But it is early days yet, and we are hoping some of our initiatives will help imporve the level of work being done. Thank you for your ongoing interest. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Polishing an article to the FA level" doesn't just demand a degree of competence, it demands a degree of commitment that's incompatible with the points mean prizes mentality. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

your more than welcome to take me off the oprject, i cant find how to do it and cant be bothered.

although, would like to ask what was wrong with the suicide of tyler clementi page?

It doesn't look like that article ever existed (unless you typed it wrong). Whether you leave the Guild or not is up to you, but we don't want you to leave. As I said earlier, Fae expressed his/her opinion that your recent edits are not up to a certain standard held by him/her. If you don't want to leave the Guild, you don't have to. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

your more than welcome to take me off the project, i cant find how to do it and cant be bothered.

although, would like to ask what was wrong with the suicide of Tyler Clementi page?

and as for the lesbian article other than the fact that it is 2 years old this is an encyclopaedia, not a compendium of modern western thought. i think youll find that articles like paedophilia can and are improved by talk and mutual discussion that all editors came through. maybe yall should bother to see BOTH sides than the whims of one editor (this is also a talk page and HM's english is hardly a pre-requisite). go back and take a look at the fae's article in question page and you will see that ANOTHER editor and me ARE in fact working together! that is outside the WP:OWN issues that fae's diktats demand w/o discussiing.

good bye and good night(Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

I don't think we should remove Lihaas from the Guild. A mere discussion of the subject has caused Lihaas distress, which we were attempting to avoid. I've looked at Lihaas's contributions to the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article, and while I agree with Fae on a couple things, I don't think Lihaas is a bad copy editor. Perhaps we could assign Lihaas a Guild mentor? If we did, I think it would satisfy both Fae and Lihaas. What does everybody else think? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're trying to fudge the issue. How many other of your members can't spell and have only a passing acquaintance with English grammar? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but look at the to-do list above. We're planning on creating a mentorship program for new contributors. While Lihaas isn't new, perhaps he/she could be the first member to be mentored? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, before your accusation you should look further rather than rusihign (does that piss you off? to blurt out.Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think, Lihaas? Do you want to be the first Guild member to be put on the mentoring program? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And while were at it instead of taking the word of someone sulking that he didnt have his way as gospel truth, perhaps it would help if yall did some investigation first and saw for example a barnstar by a FIRST-LANGUAGE english speaker for 2010 copiapo mining accident.Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I found this discussion by way of my involvement with the Tyler Clementi page, where I am going to try to help smooth things over, and I'd welcome help there from editors in this project too. But in the mean time, I have a suggestion that may be of interest to your project. I noticed during the dispute at that page that there were some hard feelings over the GOCE template. You may wish to consider removing the "user" parameter from the template. Although I can appreciate the spirit of wanting to give someone a credit for helping, I think that it runs against WP:OWN, in that it creates a sort of byline for pages. Here, I think it added to the user's feelings of pride, which made reversion by other editors more difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your very good suggestion, Tryptofish. This template was designed by a member of the old League of Copy Editors in 2008. The template as we now see it is a way to promote the Guild and its work. Not to promote individual editors or to get own-y about articles. I would support the removal of this parameter from the template. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thanks for your comments. You can hide the details of the banner, which will be revealed if you click on "expand/show". Having the user there is useful to us. For example, we have received repeat requests to work on articles which a Guild member already worked on recently. With the information, we can quickly determine when the Guild last worked on an article, and the person who did the work. This is also useful if there are any edits that need to be queried. You can quickly tell who was responsible. So, there's both pros and cons for the removal of this information. – SMasters (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas, your latest post had eleven spelling errors was poorly worded and punctuated. Then you corrected it but it still has two spelling errors, is poorly punctuated, and is poorly worded. Please do not claim to be working as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors until you get it together a bit better than that. If you wish to leave the Guild, the way to do so is to remove our user-box from your user page. Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And Lihaas, if you wish to work with one of our people as your mentor, please say so, and we can set it up. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are intersted

If anyone is interested, we at milhist penned a few words concerning coordinatorship and answered a few FAQs concerning the position as well; the culminated wisdom we have acquired is located in our academy at a page titled Being a coordinator. Its been helpful to past members, especially the new ones, so I thought I might leave a link here and see if anyone from this group thinks that salvaging some or the material for the GOCE would be worth it. Otherwise I wish you all luck with the adoption of the coordinator scheme, and as always if you need any help you are welcome to leave me a message or drop a line over at the milhist coordinator page. Good luck to you all, and Happy New Year! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. It's an interesting read. – SMasters (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)