Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Giving Out Barnstars

Do you have to be an administrator to give out Barnstars? WereWolf 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No...Anyone can just a word of advice don't give them to every single person you come across or they won't be special anymore.--Seadog 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And they don't have to be barnstars to be appreciated either. User:Pedant 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator

  • Strong Oppose Despite the need for one, i do not believe evrik is a good candidatethuglastalk|edits 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*Neutral Already accepts the responsibility, committed and knowlegeble on the subject. Seems to have it 'out' for new rewards and archives rewards despite lots of support. Moody. thuglasT|C 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Serious Concerns - WikiProjects are intended to work by consensus. Above, Evrik said he sees the position of coordinator as: "one or two designated authorities". While he obviously has enthusiasm for the project, I believe Evrik has been acting rather authoritarian and ignoring consensus. After I disagreed with some of his decisions, and made a comment in the RfC, he posted to thirteen people's talk pages complaining about me (and about others who've questioned his behaviour) and canvassing !votes on the proposal I've been involved in (See contribs, 22:57 - 23:01, February 28, 2007). This is really odd and inappropriate, imho. In some recent exchanges he's shown a tendency to either ignore questions or bite when questioned. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment After some thinking, I oppose until the RFC gets cleared up and a common ground is found. If you are being questioned for your 'unilateral' decisions i dont believe it is fair that you receive a position of more authority/responsibility. After that my vote will be neutral.thuglasT|C 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator referendum

This poll is open to all for one week. Please indicate by signing below how you feel about the following question:

Do we want to keep Evrik on as coordinator?
Yes
No
  • Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC) - entire position should be scrapped.
  • --Fredrick day 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) no the position should be scrapped --Fredrick day 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • AzaToth 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC) unnecessary position
  • ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Unecessary position. Like other WikiProjects, should be run collectively, and all interested Wikipedians invited to participate.
  • Punk Boi 8
  • Anas Talk? 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Evrik can still look over things though, as an interested user, not a coordinator, which now seems kind of authoritarian to me.
  • Raystorm 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Came here through the Pump (btw, it is not rallying posting a message about a vote about a wikiproject, it is informing the community). This project is way too small to have a coordinator, and I am very concerned by the ownership vibes I get reading this talk page by one or two editors who seem to oppose consensus. Coordinator position serves no purpose at this time and should be scrapped. Please note this is not a reflection on User:Evrik, who I do not know, just on the position.
  • Doesn't need a coordinator, much less one decided through edit-warring and vote-removal.Proabivouac 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No to the position. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think Evrik should be coordinator, but I also don't think anyone else should take his place. Smomo 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral on Evrik, but No on having a coordinator in general. Wikiawards are expressions of appreciation among the community at large and I support an anrchistic view regarding the creation of awards. I've created numerous awards for specific occasions or editorial decisions, I don't support any means of restricting the creation of awards, the use of awards, or anything of the sort. To me that would be like supporting rules against waving to people in passing cars, and introducing yourself to strangers. More process creep means less WikiLove, less WikiLove means more friction, Wikipedia needs more lubrication and less friction. User:Pedant 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral*A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC): unnecessary position, No on position existing at all, nothing against any user individually just see position as, at the very least, disruptive to the project, based on what I have seen thus far.
  • Moved position from "No" to "Neutral."A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Evrik but No to the position. If there is a position - my experience with Evrk indicates that he would be the best person for the job, but the whole position seems kind of sketchy - especially if a controversial issue comes around.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This poll is open to members of the WikiProject as of this moment sorry? you are saying that wikipedian of good standing are excluded (if they are not already members of the project) because ???? and that poll is loaded anyway - I would get rid of the co-ordinator position and that needs to be an option. I agree with the edits of Dev920 that I have seen here - there is a vibe of WP:OWN about this project. --Fredrick day 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The administration of Awards is a matter relevant to the wider community, not just this project. The discussion should be open to all editors in good standing. It should also address whether a project coordinator is needed and, if so, what role coordinators should play. I also think it should be linked to from the Village Pump so that input from univolved members of the community can be maximised. It is important that steps be taken to address and minimise any WP:OWN concerns. WjBscribe 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but there has been some dissension within the wikiproject about leadership. Setting a limit on who can vote (for the time being) is only fair. It prevents vote stacking. Membership has been open for months, and anyone can join now if they so choose. There is even a second and maybe third coordinator job available. --South Philly 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Authority is not given to you to deny the return of the king a voice to wikipedians in good standing. Wikiprojects by their very nature have to inclusive or they SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN. --Fredrick day 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Its unfair not to include others in the vote thuglasT|C 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Award do affect the community as a whole. Anyone should be allowed to vote. I can think of very few WikiProjects that have/need a coordinator, from what I have read above there really hasn't been a reason given as to why a coordinator is really needed on such a small WikiProject. Would Oppose if I weren't being excluded.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you read the rubric, the voting is open to all. I have also advertised this poll on the Village pump. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh, what is this crap? Co-ordinator? Who needs it. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no point in a coordinator, and this entire poll is styled like a democracy, which Wikipedia is not. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I allowed to vote? --evrik (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. It's kinda inappropriate to vote where you have a COI. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay im not involved in this but evrik gets to vote are you f-ing insane. I agree its open to all, but you cant say someone cant vote on their own status - if thats the case you cant vote either dev thuglasT|C 18:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

well we don't allow people to vote on their own positions anywhere else on wikipedia? why would we here? --Fredrick day 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well thats stupid. Okay sooo ALL wikipedians EXCEPT evrik? Fine ill re-state my vote. thuglasT|C 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you see it like that, it's pretty standard in the west, that people don't get to vote for themselves! :0 --Fredrick day 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? --evrik (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it's not difficult to understand people generally don't get to vote on their own positions as there is a clear conflict of interest. it's standard practice in the western world and on wikipedia. --Fredrick day 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

Trying to look at this objectively, despite what Dev920 says, there was a general agreement that some coordination was needed, but there was no consensus on how to do this. I was nominated to coordinate here, which I then accepted. I was also listed as the coordinator – and there was no objection for a couple weeks. Is that consensus?

The next month, Dev920 summarily removes me. From there that page has gone back and forth about whether or not there is a coordinator.

A poll was started, and then that too has gone back and forth.

There has been a lot of opinion about this whole thing, but there has been almost no recitation of policy. So I have five questions.

  1. Is there a policy about how a wikiproject determines who will lead or guide it (besides consensus)?
  2. Is consensus achieved from lack of opposition? If so, how long does a question have to sit?
  3. Is there a policy on the removal of such a person?
  4. Is there a policy about polling people?
  5. Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll?

I thought I was nominated to be coordinator, and was WP:AGF. My concern at this point is that rather than build consensus among the project members, Dev920 just acted, without even building consensus. If you look at the history, Dev920’s consensus to act was an agreement of two users. This started over disagreements on how two awards were handled. It should be obvious that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking, and disagree with Dev920 – but I’d like to get some objective answers to the five questions listed above.

Thanks. --evrik (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking - are you accusing editors of acting improperly in saying that the role of co-ordinator should be removed? why are they stacking votes? Why do you feel that normal wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this project? You accept that it is standard wikipedia process that ANY editor can have a say about a project?

You ask one really one relevent question:

#Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll? the answer is summed up in one sentence "wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit". People get confused what wikiprojects are, they are just another set of community pages with a specific function, they work by the agreement of the those who share the goals of the wikiproject. However this is sometimes confused to mean that the people within the project have some special powers over the project pages - they don't. Those are community pages and thus South philly has ZERO authority to try and prevent any wikipedian in good standing, offering suggestions or saying "no this post of co-ordinator is not required". Membership of a project might be desirable to some but it is NOT required for a wikipedian to comment, offer suggestions or take part in any discussion that impact on wikipedia policy or process. Any attempts to prevent wikipedians having their say will be strongly resisted. At the moment, the co-ordinator poll could be closed as WP:SNOW - it's not wanted. --Fredrick day 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think that Dev920 has acted improperly, but I already said that. As for anyone else, well I think think this whole thing has spun out of control.
Look, most of what you wrote is hyperbole - but I'll answer (as succintly as I can). If I was to be removed then a poll should have been done - a poll was done to keep me, and that has turned into a circus. There are precedents within the community for limiting suffrage. As far as I can see, you cited no policies, but I appreciate you stating your opinion. --evrik (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikiprojects are covered by guidelines, those are trumped by policy - such as WP:CON - A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.. Regardless of the fact that you thought you had consensus for being co-ordinator (and I don't actually agree that you did) - policy is pretty clear there - what is the community saying about the position? well it's saying "it's not needed". you can wikilawyer all you want, the community is being pretty clear about this - the co-ordinator post WILL be going, people WILL have their say. --Fredrick day 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus looks like the position is not needed. Nothing against Evrik, but very few WikiProjects are actually led by anyone.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally using polls and voting is frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, its a guideline not policy, but then again nothing is really set in stone around here.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I would say that if this position goes ahead, against consensus, that this project should be deleted.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look guys, I'm not going to argue this any more, because it is clear to me that this whole thing was a violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and that relying on WP:CON is simply justification after the fact. Hugs and kisses. --evrik (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The edit warring stuff maybe. Ignoring consensus is not a dispute.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell one person nominated Evrik, and discussion mostly centered around the position existing at all, current discussion concludes that the position is not needed. I think consensus is clear here, and like I said, it's nothing against you Evrik. I haven't been around here long enough to know anything about any of the users but I do that the creeping buro that this project is experieincing is anti-Wiki in spirit.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There was never any consensus that a coordinator was needed. When I look above, I see a few "Yeah, organisation is cool", but the majority of editors were "No, a coordinator is not needed". In spite of that fact, Southphilly nominated Evrik to the position (which was never agreed upon). This was then opposed by every subsequent editor. I can understand Evrik genuinely believed he was nominated, because he was. What I don't understand, is how Evrik came to believe that 0% support somehow formed consensus. However, he was added to the page regardless. No-one objected because no-one ever bothered to look at this place until I started editing - it was Evrik's domain, largely. Which is fine, cos no-one else cared, whatever. However, when I joined, it seemed as obvious to me then, as it does to everyone now (except Evrik and Southphilly, apparently) that consensus was not only never reached, but the proposal was actively rejected and that it was thoroughly unwikipedian to begin with. Unsurprisingly, I decided to remove it.

The fact is, Evrik and Southphilly's reverts of all my edits were based on some demand that I submit everything to a vote. I find this strange, given they are both members of other WikiProjects, that they could ever believe this is standard procedure among the Wikipedian community. Wikipedia is based on people going forth and improving the wiki as they see fit. Only when objections are raised is the edit halted and discussion held. Which is exactly what I did for my overhaul of the main page in response to editors' criticisms, and you can see it here. Unfortunately I was attacked for "vandalising" the page, and it was some time before I could actually get sensible discussion about what exactly they objected to in the edit (beyond me making it), which boiled down to problems with the members section, which has recently reached consensus both here and on the AN/I I filed, and which I will be trialing shortly. I have been backed up on this consensus issue by every single editor who is not Evrik or Southphilly on every page this has been raised on, and many words have been written about what exactly the community thinks of a project with less than 5 active members who try to introduce coordinators against the will of said members. Funnily enough, I thus do not consider I have acted improperly. In every case I have tried to reach consensus, and where it has been reached, to enforce it. Should the current consensus change, I will not like it, but I will abide by it, as I have abided by the will of WP:LGBT regarding tagging guidelines, though I disagree with them, even though I am the elected Coordinator for that project. Consensus is consensus, and no-one has the right to subvert it, regardless of what edits they have made or what title they bear.

Thus, when consensus was reached that because of the nature of the project, this latest poll (which should never have been opened in view of its clear unambiguous parent discussion, IMO) should be opened to all editors, a discussion I did not initiate, I changed the poll and advertised it on the Village Pump. Southphilly reverted me several times, apparently on the basis that opening it up could lead to votestacking. I have no idea how allowing anyone whatsoever who's interested to vote, including people I do not know, have not asked and have no connection with them nor foreknowledge of how they would vote, could somehow be construed as votestacking. Evrik and Southphilly, meanwhile, canvassed the same people they canvass every time, "the braintrust". Unfortunately for them every braintrust member who has voted has opposed a coordinator position, let alone evrik. They thus turned to simply reverting me without edit summaries and I listed their efforts on AN/I, where the entire debate has been rightly labelled silly, but everyone has come down firmly on my side regarding this. One may note that after an administrator reverted Southphilly's unilateral edits against the will of everyone else and forbade him to do it again, both he and Evrik turned once more to attacking my credibility. Which is irrelevant in this debate, because one voice, as I am sure everyone else is very aware of now, is not consensus.

This dispute has taken up an inordinate amount of my time, and the only reason I have continued to enforce consensus is the potential catastrophic effect on every Wikipedian if WikiProject Awards was effectively shut to newcomers. All of us have barnstars, and so everything that happens here indirectly affects all of us. I hope that, now consensus has been made super ultra mega clear on pretty much everything, everyone will abide by it and WikiProject Awards will become a useful project that contributes to the wiki. This is an important project and it needs to do its work well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The king is dead, long live the queen

Has anyone else noticed that now that Evrik has been removed, Dev920 has taken over? This was really about power, not about consensus. Dev920 wanted power and she got it. --South Philly 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost users

Dev920 drove away thuglas from wikipedia. --South Philly 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Not good. --evrik (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not important. Please keep this to yourselves. I am not a 'supporter' of Dev920 but neither am I a 'opposer'. This kind of talk is NOT useful and does not help get us out of our current situation. Smomo 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It is important - people need to know that our actions here affect others. --South Philly 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, enough with the wikidrama. There was a vote according to Wikipedia policies, it did not go the way you or Thuglas desired (WP:SNOW) -get over it. I hope Thuglas returns one day (wikibreaks are an excellent way to de-stress, after all), but if he believes he can no longer contribute usefully to Wikipedia, we'll respect his decision and move on. Certainly nobody made him go away. And posts like the ones above are both unhelpful and unnecessary, as Smomo pointed out. I'm not even going to comment about MfD'ing this project in retaliation for the vote results, but I honestly believe it's high time people start contributing to this project and seeking consensus on issues instead of crying 'Dev920 is evil!' :-) Raystorm 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating a Barnstar

Does anyone know how to make one? I really want to, if you know how to, show me how to on my talk page, or else I will forget to go back here and find out an answer. Thanks, Coocooforcocopuffs 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • check out the proposal page. --evrik (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you give a barnstar to yourself? 65.102.35.249 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What for? It would mean nothing. As noted in a movie once, honor can never be taken. It must be earned. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Found two new BS pics to be moved to commons

Image:Bs-1.jpg and Image:Ubs1.png.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bitch star I just received

I just received a 'Bitch star' from a troll (it can be seen on my userpage or my talk page!). I am proposing we make it into a barnstar for troll reversion RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahahaha. MS paint. JPG. Support! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indolences (talkcontribs) 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose This does not promote wiki civility. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some ID hoping troll stole you'r bi*ch star and sent it me lolz ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused about approval process and archiving

I helped propose the Copyeditor's Barnstar. I thought we basically had consensus, then talk died down. There were a couple of dissensions. Does it have to be unanimous? I don't understand why it was archived with no resolution. It looked to me like it was a go... (the discussion and design were moved here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive15) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This was proposed as a barnstar and not as a wikiproject award. While there was initial support, it died down after the first wave. The image doesn't fit with the rest of the barnstars, nor with the bulk of the wikiproject awards - that's why I archived it. Any wikiproject can use whatever award it wants (and you can list it on the PUA page. If you want it to go up on the other awards pages then resubmit is as a wikiproject award. If you disgree, then ask some of the other people who are part of the WikiPorject Awards to comment. --evrik (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


education

I think an 'education' barnstar should be added to the list of catagory barnstars. what does everyone think? Kiran90 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


good sport

I also thought of a 'good sport' barnstar. this could be awarded to someone who bounced back from warnings/blocking, learnt from their mistakes, and took it in good stead. Kiran90 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Two of Same Barnstar

I award a user a barnstar, and later, I found out that the user had already the same barnstar. The user was awared it three days earlier. Can we do that? WereWolf 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar v. other award

I am looking and looking for rules regarding this proposed award. I think it would be a GREAT award, but am unsure what the ideas behind each "level" of award is. Please comment under this subject on this page; I'll look here for your guidance. —ScouterSig 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ribbons

I wasn't sure how to go about this but I created three ribbons, one for the DYK Medal, and one each for two WikiProjects, Ghost towns and Illinois. I'll post them here. Do they have to be approved to go on the main page here?A mcmurray 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate page on Ribbons, just post them them under a heading where it says your username. That's it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I deleted the images here. :)A mcmurray 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my asking a dumb question!

Pardon my asking a dumb question . . . but I'm totally confused about the process and standards for a WikiProject award. I keep reading different things ("a project can do anything it wants as an award" but: "Awards should be in the shape of a star" but: "Barnstars should only be used for barnstars") so I'm confused!

  • Is there already an ABCs primer on what are the visual standards for WP Award? (must it be in the shape of a star?) if so, could you steer me to this ABCs page?
  • What are the visual standards for a WP Award? (can they be barnstars? must they be in the shape of non-barnstar star? WikiProject Aircraft is not in the shape of a star for example)
  • Do all WP Awards have to be approved on the Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals page? (can a project develop its own award independently?

If you could take a moment and explain this to me s-l-o-w-l-y, that would be much appreciated! EspanaViva 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

BoNM Spain

This is not a dumb question ... part of the problem with the awards is that everything has been done by consensus ... so it is at timnes incomplete or confusing. Let me just say a few things that I hope will guide you. Any WikiProject can develop their own award - however if they want it listed on the page, then they have to adhere to the vague guidelines set out by this group. Most of the exceptions to whatever rules were developed before most of the awards listed here. The guideline for the image is that it is reviwed by the community. The whole issue about the shape has never been formally spelled out. There is a higher threshold for barnstars than there is for WP Awards. If many of the Barnstars that are posted today been subject to the same vetting as is now done, many of them would not have made it.

Looking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spain#Spain-related "barnstar" I have one comment ... so far there are few geographically related awards. I can explain this at length another time, but I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Barnstars/Barnstar_of_National_Merit. --evrik (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel illuminated! Let me take this discussion back to WP Spain, and let them know. ¡Muchas gracias! EspanaViva 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


What is the purpose?

I don't really understand the purpose of this? Do you want to get rid of all of those "awards" you just linked to the Proposed Changes page? --Cyde Weys 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No. I don't necesarily want to get rid of any of them. I wanted to bring attention to the fact that people have been throwing awards up onto the page without going through the 'process.' I think that letting people just add stars to the page defeats the whole idea of having a process. there are a number of stars that have been rejected as proposals. It's about fairness.
    • If you don't "necessarily want to get rid of any of them" then why do you put all the individual awards to a vote and then actually voted against some of them? Face it, you DO want to get rid of some of them. It's not "all about the process" as you state here. Rosa 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also hope that by doing this, there will be some more interest in helping to clean-up the pages, which are right now rather chaotic. evrik 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Does there really have to be a process? What's wrong with WP:BOLD? We shouldn't feel like we have to burden down every part of Wikipedia with bureaucracy. User awards are a frivolous thing; we shouldn't need to be so strict on an exact process. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • If they're frivolous, why do them at all? "Anything worth doing is worth doing well."Michael Dorosh 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a process, that was devloped by consensus. I'm all for being bold, but it's also a question of fairness, and I think that the pages do need to be cleaned up. evrik 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I just think it'd be easier to go through and clean stuff up than put every single one to a vote. --Cyde Weys 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the awards can be grouped. What is really needed is a reorganization of the page. Personolly, i think that that any award that makes it through the vetting should be a barnstar (especially the wikiproject stars), and the PUA page can be as anarchic as it wants to be... but before any chnages are made there should be a ... consensus. evrik 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there was a tacit consensus in the community to let a frivolous matter as PUA be essentially free of regulation burdens until you single-handedly started to stir things up by unnecessarily putting all the awards into a vote and bringing up all this discussion about all the PUA having to go through a process, which isn't true in fact. If you read the Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals page, it clearly states that those are "guidelines...not strict rules" hence it's NOT MANDATORY that PUA go through a process in all fairness. Rosa 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • When the guidelines were proposed, that was the exact intention. If somebody wants to hand out an image as an award, that's fine, it's just not the same as one of the "community" awards. Not better or worse, just different. – ClockworkSoul 15:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rosa, I think you're taking this too personally. I wanted to generate some discussion on the issue. I would like to see the pages reorganized and have the wikiproject awards (given to users working on a theme) get more vetting. evrik 15:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The concensus formed at the original establishment of PUA is that anybody can ADD things onto it directly, and nobody should delete them without discussion. I think proposing a batch reform is kind of assuming bad faith. --Deryck C. 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Assuming bad faith? That's funny. No, I think that if the PUA page is going to be open for anyone to creat anyhting, than that needs to be clearly stated on the Barnstar Proposal page. It seems unfair to have someone propose an Award for the olympic wikiproject, have that proposal rejected, and have someone else just create an award (like the Il Divo) and place it on the page. this isn't about bureaucracy, or rigidity, it's about fairness. evrik 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some BAP admins are not familiar with the PUA rules, or mistaken the PUA proposal as a BS proposal. By custom even if something is rejected from BS BAP anybody can put it onto PUA. --Deryck C. 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That is exactly true. – ClockworkSoul 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Ribbons

I wasn't sure how to go about this but I created three ribbons, one for the DYK Medal, and one each for two WikiProjects, Ghost towns and Illinois. I'll post them here. Do they have to be approved to go on the main page here?A mcmurray 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate page on Ribbons, just post them them under a heading where it says your username. That's it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I deleted the images here. :)A mcmurray 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my asking a dumb question!

Pardon my asking a dumb question . . . but I'm totally confused about the process and standards for a WikiProject award. I keep reading different things ("a project can do anything it wants as an award" but: "Awards should be in the shape of a star" but: "Barnstars should only be used for barnstars") so I'm confused!

  • Is there already an ABCs primer on what are the visual standards for WP Award? (must it be in the shape of a star?) if so, could you steer me to this ABCs page?
  • What are the visual standards for a WP Award? (can they be barnstars? must they be in the shape of non-barnstar star? WikiProject Aircraft is not in the shape of a star for example)
  • Do all WP Awards have to be approved on the Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals page? (can a project develop its own award independently?

If you could take a moment and explain this to me s-l-o-w-l-y, that would be much appreciated! EspanaViva 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

BoNM Spain

This is not a dumb question ... part of the problem with the awards is that everything has been done by consensus ... so it is at timnes incomplete or confusing. Let me just say a few things that I hope will guide you. Any WikiProject can develop their own award - however if they want it listed on the page, then they have to adhere to the vague guidelines set out by this group. Most of the exceptions to whatever rules were developed before most of the awards listed here. The guideline for the image is that it is reviwed by the community. The whole issue about the shape has never been formally spelled out. There is a higher threshold for barnstars than there is for WP Awards. If many of the Barnstars that are posted today been subject to the same vetting as is now done, many of them would not have made it.

Looking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spain#Spain-related "barnstar" I have one comment ... so far there are few geographically related awards. I can explain this at length another time, but I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Barnstars/Barnstar_of_National_Merit. --evrik (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel illuminated! Let me take this discussion back to WP Spain, and let them know. ¡Muchas gracias! EspanaViva 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


What is the purpose?

I don't really understand the purpose of this? Do you want to get rid of all of those "awards" you just linked to the Proposed Changes page? --Cyde Weys 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No. I don't necesarily want to get rid of any of them. I wanted to bring attention to the fact that people have been throwing awards up onto the page without going through the 'process.' I think that letting people just add stars to the page defeats the whole idea of having a process. there are a number of stars that have been rejected as proposals. It's about fairness.
    • If you don't "necessarily want to get rid of any of them" then why do you put all the individual awards to a vote and then actually voted against some of them? Face it, you DO want to get rid of some of them. It's not "all about the process" as you state here. Rosa 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also hope that by doing this, there will be some more interest in helping to clean-up the pages, which are right now rather chaotic. evrik 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Does there really have to be a process? What's wrong with WP:BOLD? We shouldn't feel like we have to burden down every part of Wikipedia with bureaucracy. User awards are a frivolous thing; we shouldn't need to be so strict on an exact process. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • If they're frivolous, why do them at all? "Anything worth doing is worth doing well."Michael Dorosh 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a process, that was devloped by consensus. I'm all for being bold, but it's also a question of fairness, and I think that the pages do need to be cleaned up. evrik 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I just think it'd be easier to go through and clean stuff up than put every single one to a vote. --Cyde Weys 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the awards can be grouped. What is really needed is a reorganization of the page. Personolly, i think that that any award that makes it through the vetting should be a barnstar (especially the wikiproject stars), and the PUA page can be as anarchic as it wants to be... but before any chnages are made there should be a ... consensus. evrik 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there was a tacit consensus in the community to let a frivolous matter as PUA be essentially free of regulation burdens until you single-handedly started to stir things up by unnecessarily putting all the awards into a vote and bringing up all this discussion about all the PUA having to go through a process, which isn't true in fact. If you read the Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals page, it clearly states that those are "guidelines...not strict rules" hence it's NOT MANDATORY that PUA go through a process in all fairness. Rosa 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • When the guidelines were proposed, that was the exact intention. If somebody wants to hand out an image as an award, that's fine, it's just not the same as one of the "community" awards. Not better or worse, just different. – ClockworkSoul 15:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rosa, I think you're taking this too personally. I wanted to generate some discussion on the issue. I would like to see the pages reorganized and have the wikiproject awards (given to users working on a theme) get more vetting. evrik 15:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The concensus formed at the original establishment of PUA is that anybody can ADD things onto it directly, and nobody should delete them without discussion. I think proposing a batch reform is kind of assuming bad faith. --Deryck C. 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Assuming bad faith? That's funny. No, I think that if the PUA page is going to be open for anyone to creat anyhting, than that needs to be clearly stated on the Barnstar Proposal page. It seems unfair to have someone propose an Award for the olympic wikiproject, have that proposal rejected, and have someone else just create an award (like the Il Divo) and place it on the page. this isn't about bureaucracy, or rigidity, it's about fairness. evrik 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some BAP admins are not familiar with the PUA rules, or mistaken the PUA proposal as a BS proposal. By custom even if something is rejected from BS BAP anybody can put it onto PUA. --Deryck C. 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That is exactly true. – ClockworkSoul 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed PUA discussion section

I went and "speedy-supported" all PUA's. See the primary page for my reasoning. – ClockworkSoul 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the the move was hasty. They should have all been left up to let more people discuss the issue. For example, the babel tower duplicates an award that already exists. Having said that, I think that the three pages need some more organization. I also think that the PUA page needs a better explanation as to what it is. evrik 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree, the move was necessary to avoid any further conflict of interests. It was also unnecessary to discuss the issue since it's on the nature of PUA's to give the users freedom for designing and using them. For example, the creator of the babel tower PUA has every right to create that award, it's his or her personal award an it doesn't matter if another one already exists for that purpose. Please, present your ideas for organizing the pages...if they're worthy I'm sure the community will love to discuss them. The PUA page is a record of personal user awards created by individual users in Wikipedia. It's purpose is to let the community know these awards exist and that they can be given to to other users. Rosa 03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conflicts of interest? There were no conflicts of interest. The discussion was necessary. I think the the move was hasty. They should have all been left up to let more people discuss the issue. The babel tower award already exists (the Rosetta Stone). I think that the page needed to be celaned up. Discussing the awards was appropriate. evrik 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem

Whatever happened to some proposed barnstars?

I know they're in the archives... but some of them seemed to be fit for real barnstars...

(Neuroscience, text star, Hong Kong barnstar...) Dark Ermac 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Hong Kong one went up on the WP Awards page. The other two didn't receive enough support to go forward. Renominate one that youy like ... --evrik (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikihalo

Okay . . . I have some questions regarding my Wikihalo award. First off, I have no clue who nominated me, and I would really like to know. I also want to know who voted for me and such, since nobody let me know about this either. The only thing I do know is that the person who gave me the award got blocked. Any help would be great. Thank you. WereWolf 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (PS, please relpy on my user talk page.)

Wikihalo changes

Excuse me, what do right do you have to simply delete awards whenever you feel like it? There is no consensus to dleist the wikihalo whatsoever: cease immediately. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If you were paying attention, you would see that the award hasn't been delisted, nor has it been deleted. I just removed all the extraneosu crufft that dealt with nominations and voting. --evrik (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikihalo/Nav

Evrik has no right to do this as there is no consensus to delete on the proposed removals page, and in fact the discussion was archived some time ago until Evrik unilaterally decided to reopen and speedy the pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No one has ever liked the way this award was administered ... and the fact that it was voted on made it even worse. I was just making the long overdue edits. --evrik (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikihalo Administration

Evrik has no right to do this as there is no consensus to delete on the proposed removals page, and in fact the discussion was archived some time ago until Evrik unilaterally decided to reopen and speedy the pages. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No one has ever liked the way this award was administered ... and the fact that it was voted on made it even worse. I was just making the long overdue edits. --evrik (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

People need to step forward

The fundamental flaw with this wikiproject is that no one is stepping forward to help out - except Evrik - so becomes the point person for all the abuse by people who don't get their award approved. If people were, and if this committee actually worked, you wouldn't have posts like this one by Dev920. --South Philly 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I dont think this is an appropriate post seeing wikipedia is not our job. Secondly, i dont think that this is the problem with that particular post. Thirdly, i have been helping more recently and intend on doing so in the future. Perhaps doing your own best is the right message to be aiming for not insulting others calling them lazy. If evrik is the only one helping (which i do not believe is true) why arent you helping? thuglasT|C 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that post was civil. In any case ... I find wikipedia aggravating (as i do now) and only post when people ask me to comment. I've been busy, but that is no excuse is it. --South Philly 15:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe its a good excuse. Do you know how many people use wikipedia and never contribute? I dont think anyone who has contrubuted (a period for that matter) should be told they are not helping enough. thuglasT|C 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW my post was civil, you just didnt like it because it was pointing out the hypocrisy of your own uncivil post thuglasT|C 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments may not have been nice, but they were, nonetheless, true. There is no committee, there are no coordinators, with the simple consequence that everyone sits around assuming someone else will promote their award. That someone is evrik, most of the time, with the equally simple consequence that awards evrik does not like are archived. Maybe you can possibly explain why evrik archived a Barnstar that had over 90% support.
I am willing to help out with these proposed awards on the guarantee that evrik will not simply revert me, as he usually does other people who attempt to work here. As I recall, the one award that was not dealt with by evrik, the LGBT barnstar, you proposed for delisting because it was "forced through without a lot of support" which I can only assume meant "evrik didn't do it". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have considered getting more involved. Here's some feedback: The project page as it stands right now is not inviting to new members. Other WikiProjects I belong to have places to sign up. The way the members list is structured now it is unclear whether new members are even welcome. So I ask now, are you really looking for help and new members? Because some of the things that have happened recently don't convey that. I'm not trying to be snide here, really, I'm asking an honest question. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The project, as with most (or all) wikiprojects, is always looking for new members. Sign your name up! thuglasT|C 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. This is the THIRD place I have found discussing barnstars. Please can we use this page only. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Redone.

I've rewritten the page to reflect what the wikiproject actually should be doing and to make it more user-friendly. It should be easier to attract new members now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I haven't had a chnace to digest all the unilateral changes you made. I know that you must have accidentally changed the particpants section, so I fixed it. --South Philly 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And you know perfectly well that is a lie. The wikiproject has now been cleaned up, so we can get on with our job of maintenence. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making it more user-friendly, Dev. I think the confusion about the order of names in the participants' list is due to perhaps Dev not seeing the note that said --please place names in alphabetical order--. I'm not attached to alphabetical order vs date when joined the project, myself, only that we go with one format and stick to it :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just squashed all the cats together. In my experience, incoming users always put their names at the bottom anyway, and someone else has to sort it alphabetically, so ultimately its pretty but kinda pointless. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point, people do tend to just sign up on the bottom of the list. It's fine with me if you want to put it back into the order of when people joined. But then you have to figure out what to do with the names that have no datestamps ;-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest reverting your own hypocrisy. Unilaterally doing things is not the right way to go. I understand that evrik does this sometimes which is probably not a good thing, but on the other hand, hes done alot for the project. Think about this: when wikipedia started... was this awards page the way it is today? No. Someone must have made it. Take a look at the pages history - something i should have done long before i started my own argument with evrik. Yes you can become a member and your vote is worth as much as anyones - but if your going to change stuff around like that that someone else has made - please use the talk page and vote on it before making yourself look like a moron thuglasT|C 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And im pretty sure when i speak for everyone when i say this is long past childish. If this isnt sorted out when i get back im going to RFC the page or something. Id do it know if i knew how. thuglasT|C 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thuglas, I am concerned about your wholesale reversion of the various changes to the project page. Discussion has been happening here about whether new members feel welcome, and whether it's really appropriate to have Evrik as the coordinator. And, indeed, whether we even need a coordinator. Your reversion also removed the addition of new members to the project, as well as the welcome to new members. Did you mean to remove us from the project? While I think it is helpful to list people who can help with graphics, for instance, I think the version you have reverted to is rather unwelcoming. I don't think the changes were "childish" at all. Are you saying you want a Request for Comment done on the project? On individual editors? I am willing to help you set that up if you like, but I think we can discuss it here. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Im glad your willing to work with me Kathryn. My reversion did not intend to remove any participants - only to reinstate the catagories introduced by evrik. Im not going to argue that these edits are not welcome - but they must be discussed first. Evrik has put in a great deal of time into the project if you looked at the history as i instructed. Perhaps the wikiproject does need a make over, but please DISCUSS. If newcomers could just come in revamping everything in wikipedia, we wouldnt have much of a website now would we? I believe a RFC should be done on the project because it has become quite childish - need i cite dev's comments on evrik? However, if Dev does not revert his changes, i might have one on him too. Im sure evrik or south philly would be thrilled to write one up. While i am aware evrik has a few attitude problems, this has been an unfair 'ganging' up on him by new users. Assume a little bit more good faith on his part, and discuss changes, especially large ones, unless you want to be a hypocrite (this has been the third time ive used this word today). Hopefully we can find something that includes users eager to help like yourself and dev and make things a little bit less biased in the project without insisting evrik has a mental disability as dev has done. As for you being bold Dev. Read the entire article before you cite it to support your case. Large changes as you have done should be discussed. Im going to revert this once more (last time for me). Perhaps you should think about it, and discuss before it turns into an edit war. thuglasT|C 06:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to welcome you both to the project. thuglasT|C 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thuglas. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I welcome diverse viewpoints. I appreciate thuglas' commentary, Can we stop the wholesale changes and reverting? --evrik (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, will you stop going on and on about what an apparently dreadful person I am because I said Evrik hates barnstars? Evrik DOES hate barnstars, he's never denied it. I am fed up with you reverting me because you have a personal grudge against me. I made large changes yes, to the improvement of the project - what you should do now is not complain, but DISCUSS, as you keep telling me to do. What exactly is wrong with my version that you need to revert me wholesale? What is wrong with the page as I have edited it. You seem to be objecting because I made the edits and not that the edits were made. I am willing to work with you on this but you seem to be more interested in edit warring. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think you should apply that entire paragraph to yourself. Your being bold is pretty disruptive. In any case, I do like barnstars, and that referenced post was pretty incivil and insulting. --evrik (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Im willing to discuss as i have done with Kath. I just think because people have worked on this site they should get a say before you go and change it on them. Thats all. First off - I dont have a personal grudge against you. Where did you get this from? I did not once insult you (arguable in a deterrence sense) I just dont agree with your self-proclaimed 'bold' moves. Not to mention what youve said about other wikipedians - i dont think ive ever even noticed your comments until after i read what you said about evrik. Take a look at the history I reverted once), I was going to revert a second time, but i decided that it would make me just as hypocritical as yourself (I did make a minor change where you removed alphabetical listing). You reverted twice (or more, i havent checked). You are the one reverting, not me. Finally, you need to rethink what you are saying about other people for the last time. Following your logic, i must be a barnstar hater too, seeing as ive never denied it. Heck, with this algorithm, youve also proven i am infact a walrus. If you wish to follow this post up by putting more words in my mouth. (i.e. that i have a grudge on you) please move it to my talk page. thuglasT|C 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the smart way to do this now would be to start thinking about how to work together to make it a nice page. together. thuglasT|C 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As for pro-development things - 1. you didnt really re-write the article. you just deleted useful information. Perhaps putting it on smaller pages with links on the main page would be better. 2. Catagories. I kind of liked being able to sign up as graphical support rather than conceptual support. Im a pretty good photoshopper, and i have pretty good taste (subjectively of course). I dont really understand the entire process yet. I argued with evrik about my own star being a topical when it should have been a WPA. Im starting to get the hang of it, but i still preferred the former set up. 3. Removing evrik's vote to become co-ordinator. I understand that evrik did not base his coordinator status on a vote - but hes done so with his edits - you dont have to be voted into a wikiproject - theres no rules on that kind of thing. Evrik wanted an opinion and noone else stepped in. Why not evrik - he has contributed alot and he continues to do so. This doesnt make his vote any better than yours. It does not give him adminship in the field of barnstars.. whynot? I actually opposed until his RFC was figured out - I think you should reopen the discussion and if you wish, vote against - as im sure deleting a discussion could be considered as vandalism. thuglasT|C 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Im going to ignore large parts of that post because responding is clearly futile. None of that information was useful, the stuff that was, I kept. Kathryn pointed out that the way the current particpants section was hard to figure out so I rearranged it - if you want to point out you specialise, why not simply add to your name? Finally, evrik appointing himself coordinator is disgraceful. No Wikipedian may claim to assert authority over another. Ever. If there are posts which give titles to users, than they must be voted on, not simply taken on "because Im a great contributor". The only thing I care about is improving this encyclopedia - my edit improved the page, and I would appreciate it if you would actually consider it. Kathryn liked it, so clearly I did something right. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • UMMM ...I was nominated, and I accepted. I would appreciate it if you would strike the more virulent of your criticisms. --22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
...Right. You were nominated by Southphilly in the face of opposition to the idea of having a coordinator at all, every subsequent voter opposed your election... and then you added yourself as coordinator to the page. You think that constitues consensus? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Im going to ignore large parts of that post because responding is clearly futile. - That speaks for itself. If your going to ask me to discuss things - please reciprocate instead of ignoring my comments - if you cannot do this because ive made a good point which makes any response 'futile' then i guess im right arent i? You are proving yourself wrong through the use of poor language skills. 2. 'if you want to point out you specialise, why not simply add to your name?' - BECAUSE I LIKED IT THE WAY IT WAS. You asked me to work things out, i tried - you are clearly not reciprocating or offering any compromise. Im trying to work with you but if your going to tell me my that my opinion doesnt matter to you and i should just add my name... maybe you just add your name to the version before, instead of changing everything that i liked? Also, im sure Evrik is more capable of defending his own actions because i do not know specific details and im probably doing him more harm then good. On one point though - since when does coordinator mean he has authority. It means responsibility - which he has taken into his own hands. The difference between you and Katheryn in this situation is she is being understanding and wishes to talk things through rather than calling people names and forcefully doing things. I dont think i have assumed bad faith on you once throughout this whole ordeal - aside from what you have proven yourself by ignoring wikipedia guidlines/policies by 1. Personal attacks on Evrik and myself, 2. Making largescale decisions without properly discussing them first 3. Not only failing to assume good faith - you are assuming bad faith on evrik for 'hating' barnstars' based on the fact that he has not publically denied this and on myself for having a grudge against you after i have clearly stated i do not. 4. You have stated yourself you are ignoring my comments. Im going to ask you one more time to work with us on this. - listen to my comments and we will listen to yours. Evrik has stated he welcomes diverse viewpoints, i have aswell. Katheryn has accepted to work with us. If you agree to this we wont have a problem! thuglasT|C

I fully intend to continue ignoring your fixation on my opinions on evrik - they are not relevant to this discussion and when I made my comments, they were on a user talkpage. You insist on referring to them in every post you make, this is irrational and so I am not going to pay attention to them anymore, because it is pointless. Evrik has made his thoughts on what a coordinator does above "I think we need one or two designated authorities", "I don't want to be a sole authority, but I am willing to help coordinate." He sees it as an office of power, which it is not. I don't want him to take responsibility "into his own hands", because that is utterly against the principles of Wikipedia - and everyone who has discussed the topic of a coordinator, with the exception of evrik, who brought it up in the first place, and southphilly, who nominated evrik, has agreed with me on this issue, including you! I am forcefully doing things because otherwise you will "discuss" for several months, as you have been doing, and the end result is usually what evrik wants it to be, because, to his credit, he actually does stuff instead of talking about it ad nauseum. I do not want Wikipedia:Awards to become "Evrik's awards" because you would rather argue than work. I am trying to work with you but you keep veering off on tangents attacking me. Either start discussing my edit (seeing as we have only addressed the participants section so far, and that was only WP:ILIKEIT rather than any actual discussion as to utility) or stop posting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring usssssually means you dont respond to something, or fixate the majority of your post on it.. anywho, discussing your edit - .We should be able to reach consensus very quickly as there is not too many participants and - now that more people are chipping in - it shouldnt be only evriks work being approved i dislike the new participants - perhaps we can work something out thats user friendly and maintains catagories? As i said, i felt the info you removed was useful. Maybe relocating it within the article would be a good idea? Sound good? as for the rest, to watch and complain about your edits - its your responsibility to propose what you plan to do and see if it reaches consensus thuglasT|C 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the 'i like it' thing does not apply because we arent talking about encyclopedic content. We are talking about the layout of a project - which probably wont have any sources. Not to mention its an essay, not a guideline/policy. thuglasT|C 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary (sub-)section break

I would like to discuss what additions or subtractions of text folks would like to see from the project page. In the back and forth of yesterday, I really lost track of what people want to change vs hang on to. Thuglas, could you clarify what you mean by "i dislike the new participants"? Two options I see right off hand: we can leave it as the version it was at last time I looked, where we have a list of general participants, and then also a list of those who can contribute graphics skills. Or, less easy to parse if we get more members, we could just do what most WikiProjects do and have one list, where people indicate their strengths and areas of interest after their names. I am not attached to either. One thing I would like to change is some things with the layout of the page, so we have some text up top before the nav. box, and some of the sections compressed so there's a shorter nav box. For instance, I don't think we need an entire section for project name. I'm willing to do some reformatting of the project page for visuals, but not till there's a bit more calm and consensus about content and priorities. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I am going to take the weekend off. I'll see you all on Monday. --evrik (talk)

I preferred the older version - I can deal with whichever - im not too set on reverting the changes, but its the principle that voting is how large changes get made. As far as i see it, people wanted to get involved in the project, and i encoraged it. But that doesnt mean you can change the whole layout of the project without consulting others first. It also seemed like revenge edit (which i still believe was atleast some motive), which bothered me even more. thuglasT|C 03:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a break is a good idea for me too thuglasT|C 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all quite tired. I'm not even sure which version we have now, after all the back and forth. I did some minor re-arranging. I put the opening text up above the nav box, and put the project details and goals above the members lists, as I think what we're trying to accomplish is more important that who is here. Many other projects list the participants on a separate page, actually; I don't think we need to do that, as we don't have a lot on this page, but I do think moving the names down might help with some of the issues. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
And of course, instead of joining the discussion, Evrik just reverted the changes. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I did make a comment, and i did it here. I didn't place my name as the coordinator, that was done by another user. The serious objections were made after the fact by people who had nothing to do with the project prior to a couple of days ago. I agree that the "project desperately needs a broader base of input," and have said so all along. I had to laugh when you said i've been 'biting people' or making decsions without consensus - as that what both you and Dev920 have been doing. In any case, if you don't like what i've been doing - take it to a vote. You keep make a lot of inaccurate statements and i hope that you start srking some of the falsehoods.--evrik (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Evrik, posting on one person's talk page is not the same as joining in the discussion here, where all members of the project, and Wikipedians interested in joining the project, can join in. Multiple editors have removed your name as coordinator and replaced the whole "coordinator" section with text to the effect that the project welcomes new members, who should feel free to sign up. As long as you keep reverting those edits, and removing the text that says new members are welcome, ill will is going to continue to spiral around the project. You are seriously driving people away, trying to WP:OWN the project, then complaining when you wind up with a huge workload, then complaining that your work isn't appreciated. This is a huge problem, imho. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Page edit

I assure you, there is no revenge motive in my edits to the main page. I did exactly the same thing to WP:LGBT here. Bold changes are fine on Wikipedia, as long as objections to content by other editors are addressed. So what I'm going to do now, in view of all the negative stuff above, is go through my edit and explain why I did it. Hopefully we can then agree over what parts should go back and what can be improved:

  1. . I created an introduction from stuff that was in the scope which wasn't anything to do with scopes.
  2. . I deleted the scope section because it was then redundant and moved the Goals section into it's place because it had been placed near the bottom, for whatever reason. People need to see our "mission statement", no?
  3. . I deleted the parents section and added them to the similar wikiprojects section because it looks tidier, and most established projects end up removing that anyway. It has no use as far as I can beyond showing users looking at new project where it fits in.
  4. . I removed the coordinator section because the discussion linked above showed that virtually no-one was interested in a coordinator, and when evrik was put forward, everyone opposed him. I thus considered that the addition was inappropriate. There are, so far as I know, only two WikiProjects with coordinators, WP:MILHIST and WP:LGBT, (though WP:BIOGRAPHY is gearing up for them too) - in each case the project had over a hundred members and lots of complicated fiddly tasks that required an overseer. This is simply not the case here.
  5. . The membership section seems to be the contentious one, but the reason I did it was so that it would be easy to add one's name. At the moment the lists are duplicated by interest. Perhaps it would be better to have a normal list and specify what areas you are interested in after your name? Also, maybe we should switch to {{User|example}}? It would make it easier to contact people.
  6. . I removed the braintrust because either someone is a member or they aren't, I don't know why that's there.
  7. . I took out the major overhaul page because discussion has shifted to our talkpage, and that is where it ought to be kept, that being precisely what our talkpage is for).
  8. . I've also removed all references to the aims of the WikiProject being to "discuss" anything. Talkpages discuss, WikiProjects DO. Yeah, we discuss stuff here, but the idea is that that will turn into action at some point.
  9. . I removed the related pages section because the links do not exist (and IMO never should). I similarly removed non-existent categories.

That outlines my thought process. I've numbered them so you can object to specific parts and we can discuss improvements. But I hope you will agree that the basic principles behind my edit are sound. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Most WP thati have seen use a scope. Also - braintrust is a good idea whether it was working or not - newbies who want their barnstar to go through can message others who are aware of the barnstar process, but are not neccesarily involved in the project at the moment. Its a way of making consensus faster. i agree with the User:USER thing thuglasT|C 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't they contact current members? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

They can - but there isnt many. Really most of those should be considered in the braintrust area because few of them are involvedthuglasT|C

So, why would you contact someone who has little to no involvement in the project at all then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if noones voting you need consensus to approve a barnstar and if noones voting this is a problem. - dont do it unless you have more support - my dissaproval is enough to keep you from changing that section - quit arguing with me. thuglasT|C 22:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit arguing with you? Excuse me for asking for more than "Well, that's just the way it is". As Kathryn and that chap below and me don't want it, your call is not law. What I'm going to do now is put my edit back, but without the members stuff changes and then ask for for wider consensus from everyone else, as this is really all that's bugging you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't working with me - i told you why and you continued to insult my idea - "So, why would you contact someone who has little to no involvement in the project at all then? ", "Why can't they contact current members?" These are obvious problems - No you do not have the go ahead - Katherine said she liked your ideas - she did not say she does not agree with me. I dont know which chap you are talking about, but i know one person questioned the four levels of barnstars... anywho, i just think if someone does not want to create barnstars, there should be a section for people to put there name incase more people are needed for dispute settlement if there is a tie or draw or something - this would make an option avaliable for newbies who do not have many friends on wikipedia to help draw attention to their star and get more votes.

For example - right now we have probably 4-8 participants. Most of the participants do not contribute or work on the project. Say if someone makes a star and 3 people agree and 3 people disagree. Does this mean the star sits there and waits for 4 months for someone to vote? No, it means someone who dislikes it, or likes it (as you have accused evrik of this this idea should be appealing to you) will campaign his friends to come vote for or against. What braintrust does is when we have stalemate or a disagreement, we can break it by involving more wikipedians into the project. thuglasT|C 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why you're coming from with this. But you seem to be saying that the braintrust is basically a roster of people who you call on to help make decisions, which makes no sense - what exactly is it that separates them from being actual members? If we need outside input, what's wrong with the conventional method of posting on the village pump or community portal for a specific proposal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that not many people understand what should become a PUA, what should become a topical, wpa, etc. They dont know the difference - while i know all barnstars should be avaliable if anyone can just throw one on here, we'll proabbly end up with around 30000 barnstars with 30 being used, or unattractive images made as jokes. If someone has been here before, then they likely know whats up with the awards will contribute to the classifcation of the barnstar. the difference between them and another person on the list? some people i know who were on that board did not want to sign up for a participant if they were not going to participate as much as others. I dont see why this is such a big problem i tried not to complain about most of your edits. thuglasT|C 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand how leaving graphics and braintrust makes people less likely to join the regular list??thuglasT|C 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's more confusing. Two people in the past two days have commented as such. Also, if the braintrust is there to give advice on the boundaries between Barnstars and WPAs, isn't that the purpose of guidelines? Anyway, I started a specific participants section below to which Kathryn has replied, so you may wish to continue this discussion there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

For your consideration:

Original Barnstar.png This user is a participant in WikiProject Awards.

Simple, but should do the job. Code to type for this userbox: {{User WPAwards}} ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What to Type

How come on some of the awards in doesn't say what to type? (e.g. Wikipedia Motivation Award). Is there no template for some of the awards? C3322 03:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

It seems to me that we are overclassifying the awards. Four levels? Heavy investment in saying some proposed award should be (e.g.) a Wikiproject award and not a Barnstar? Why does it matter that much? Why do we need to divide them up to that extent? If someone wants to vreate an award and make it available for others to give, fine. If it overlaps with one that already exists, so what? If it says what it is for, and it is kind and civil and all things nice and none that are nasty, so be it. I don't think we need to have these extensive arguments which take much time to read, let alone participate in. The time spent doing that could be used in editing of articles - in actually creating and improving an encyclopedia. The rest is just window-dressing. Aleta 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that Barnstars are supposed to be very special, recognising exemplary work from a Wikipedian. They thus need to be broad in their purview and, ideally, sparingly promoted (which is what is happening at the moment). WPAs are much more localised, much more, "Hey! Thanks for that help on that article that helped me get it to GA!", with the result that they're given out much more. The ORAs are a mess between the two and IMO, many of them ought to be delisted (if we learnt anything from Wikipedia:Esperanza, it's encouraging anyone to beautify their userpage is a BAD thing), and the PUAs are just small tokens for specific edits (I tend to give them when someone has said something particularly nice, or helped me in a small but meangingful way). The gradations are there because, let's face it, receiving a wiffle bat isn't as meangingful as receiving the RickK Barnstar of Vandal-fighting. I do, hoever agree with you that extensive discussions about this and the boundaries between when a barnstar becomes a WPA etc don't really help - I think we would be better off discussing every individual case and allowing consensus to gradually emerge from that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And mine too

I am not a member of the project but poke around here sometimes. Just my two cents. This whole thing is way way way beaurucratic. Coordinators? Classifications of awards? What the heck? There are like ten members here. Just looking at this talk page makes me not want to join the project. What does braintrust mean around here, btw? It implies some special group. Anyway, the page does discourage new members with all that (seeming) beaurucratic nonsense. I know everyone knows what happened with Esperanza (sp?), would hate to see that happen here too. This whole thing is supposed to be informal (according to my understanding), why the push for so much formality? Projects work much much better without centralized authority. That just leads to someone saying "because I said so and I am the great leader, kiss my statue." (Crude ref to North Korea, haha?) Just my thoughts.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this version of the main page? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
At a glance I would say less beraucratic (I still can't spell that word). The guidlines are linked prominently which is importante. But what about the so called braintrust, are those members? What does that mean? I see it's gone in that version. So were they not members? Is there a cabal? ;)A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure myself. Apparently they're people who aren't involved in Awards anymore but can still be contacted about them - no, I don't know how that works either... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Participants section.

I really want to throw this one out to everyone: how should the members section be organised? As a simple list with comments from individual editors about their particular interests? Currently, users are duplicated, if we continue with the current system, perhaps we should remove members from the general section who are in another? Should we switch from the current [[User:Example]] to {{User|Example}}? And what about this braintrust thing, apparently made out of non-members without an interest in Awards anymore? Should we delete it and previous braintrustees can add themselves the full list? Should we keep it, or modify it in some way? I'd like to spark some wider dicussion on this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing in this discussion, I think we'd be best off to simply structure the participants list the way all the other WikiProjects I've worked on do: A simple list of all interested users, with new members signing up at the bottom and, if they like, adding a few words about which areas they feel they can help with. The linear order shows who has been around longer, and therefore gives some indication of seniority and who may know more about how the process works, without implying that anyone is the authoriteh or a closed cabal. I think the "braintrust" should be merged into the main list; more appropriately, the users on the "braintrust" list should be contacted and asked if they are still interested in participating in the project. Otherwise it looks like they are another sort of cabal, who should have more say in things than other Wikipedians, or who have more right to have their opinions sought out. I think casual participants can be in the same list as incredibly active ones, as in a healthy collective people take turns taking point, and workloads can shift around in an organic way as people have time and desire. Who's working the most this week might shift in two weeks, and back again a few weeks after that. In a volunteer project like this that sort of flexibility is necessary to avoid burnout. If more input is needed in a discussion on a proposed award, I think a general post to the whole community, such as at the Village Pump, is more in the Wiki-spirit than only contacting a specific list of users. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make the braintrust in a smaller link. I dont mean to give advice between boundaries or whatever but they would be there just because - perhaps theres an image - i.e. the angel halo. Its not a wikiproject award, obviously (it was not nominated for WPA but lets say it was.... But perhaps someone nominates it, and to get more users you use the village pump.. while its a nice image, its not really fit to be a WPA, but most wikipedians don't know the difference. This could cause weird layouts based on consensusthuglasT|C 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we just change the heading to "inactive members"? Then people can take themselves off if they aren't interested. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its the same thing. Perhaps instructions on how to use the braintrust would be a better idea. Most of the actual members were inactive anyway. thuglasT|C 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I say tht before anymore changes are made that the whole thing be done by consensus and by polling the people listed. Dev920, your actions are disruptive and bordering on vandalism. --South Philly 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As one of the people listed in the braintrust, I have no idea why I am listed there. Maybe because of the stuff I did in the past. Regardless, I been looking at this edit war with disgust. Awards are supposed to be no big deal, neither should this page. However, some of you decided to war on the layout. Don't make any more changes, go back to what it was before and discuss it here before the new version goes live. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No-one has actually opposed most of the changes themselves (and many have supported), and the one that was opposed I have put back and have been discussing to reach a consensus. Sorry, but I don't consider improving a WikiProject page vandalism. On this braintrust thing, Zscout, if you don't know why you were listed, I assume no-one else knows. If it exists to provide outside input, it may be a better move to simply get rid of it and announce issues that require external views on the village pump and community portal, rather than canvassing the same people over and over again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you intend to be the one educating the village pump on the subject at hand, and doing so in an unbiased way... thuglasT|C 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see an example of my latest announcement here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok, so what about removing the braintrust, and messaging all the people in it to add themselves as members if they still want to take part? This also goes with Kathryn's plan above. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont really care man do what you want ive decided to leave the project because this whole thing irritates me. thuglasT|C 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will go do that then when I get home. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll

Uhmf. I'm gonna ask a stupid question. Is it OK to keep a Barnstar awarded by a troll (not to say vandal)? I've got one on my talk page (although I got it much much before he was indef-blocked). --PaxEquilibrium 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah keep it - as long as it wasnt meant to be a joke - i.e. you didnt actually deserve it. thuglasT|C 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know: shortly, two groups of ultra-nationalist trolls and vandals were mass-destroying everything around them - I helped deal one of the groups, and a member of the other group of violent users awarded me a Barnstar just before I went to deal with that group. I think that he (now indef-blocked) might be regretful for giving me that barnstar... --PaxEquilibrium 12:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any traces of a barnstar on your talkpage, or you have removed it. When was it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The one from C-c-c-c. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they are on his userpage thuglasT|C 14:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is your call to keep it or not. Some people removed it, some keep it. I personally remove them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Joining the circus

I have decided to join the project, despite what I told Dev920 yesterday. This is because I really like the idea of barnstars, ribbons etc and I also believe that the goodwill and good faith of the editors here (who all obviously care enough about the community to have become involved in such a project in the first place) will easily be able to overcome any recent edit warring or conflict that has arisen on the page. Perhaps, as a neutral and observing party, I can help with that. I have been hanging around here for awhile now and am fairly familiar with recent discussions, I have also made sure to watch the voting process. I hope to help out where I can, closing discussions, helping out users who drop by the page with questions, etc, etc. If anyone thinks their are any useful links that could help me become better acquainted with the project (more so than I already am) please do leave them here or on my talk page. Anyway, looking forward to helping out the awards process.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! Looking forward to working with you. - Anas Talk? 11:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)