Encyc:Examples/Established Editors

User:Peter Damian/Established Editors[edit]

We don't need an exclusive group for users who've edited for a long time. All this says is that users who have edited for a longer time are somehow "better" and will get more support just because of this. There are already enough "cliques" on Wikipedia. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have not yet made up my mind about this. But I will say a close reading of the page seems to indicate that this has to do with more than just being established, or a good article writer. "Editors who have been blocked on the grounds of incivility and who, in the view of the Association are making a positive contribution to the content of the encyclopedia, will be defended, and efforts will be made to have them unblocked." seems to stand out to me to be a secondary(perhaps primary?) objective of the group not related to quality of editing or level of establishment. Chillum 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment well we don't need an exclusive group of teenagers who hang about in chatrooms either. Peter Damian (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we don't... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about Peter? Chillum 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete - per nom, per precedent established by Esperanza amongst others. //roux 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment - after thinking on it more, the emphasis on blocked editors and admins who have unblocked vocal editors indicates that this is not about content-building, and is in fact much more about some sort of political posturing. Given the history of the originator of this association, and the interesting nomination list, this strikes me much more as largely a group of people who feel they were blocked unfairly, giving them some sort of a club where they can reassure each other of how right they were. In fact, Peter Damian's recent commentary on the talk page of the association indicates that this is solely a reaction to some perceived IRC cabal and is built out of his antipathy towards the same.
- While I may have loved Moni3's comment below for sheer hilarity, I don't feel an MfD on this is stifling discussion in any way; indeed, the very nature of an MfD is that discussion is required. The history of groups like this on Wikipedia shows the same trajectory each time... good intentions (though even that is highly arguable here) which quickly mutate into some unwieldy beast that has to be put down. See the [MFD for Esperanza] for more info, as well as WP:AMA. Even more basic than the above concerns, though, is a very simple one: Wikipedia is--or strives to be--largely inclusive and (theoretically) non-hierarchical. In theory, any user can contribute in any way to any page hosted on WMF servers. We do not have exclusive clubs. Yes, there are admins--openly voted by the entire community at large. Ditto crats, ArbCom, etc. The difference between those groups and this--and why I find Nev1's comment so very perplexing--is that they are necessary to the functioning of the project. This sort of club is not only not necessary to the project, it is actively antithetical to the inclusive nature of Wikipedia. It is a walled garden where admittance is predicated on the approval of those already within, and the comment about block voting at RFAs is beyond troubling. //roux 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep "We don't need an exclusive group for users who've edited for a long time". Ok... so what about administrators? I may not support this idea, but it has merit in adding checks and balances to the currently one-sided balance of power while firmly supports administrators. Nominating this for deletion is the wrong course of action, people are allowed to discuss the matter and while I am unconvinced about whether it can work I see no reason to delete it. Nev1 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance of power? Is this a Wiki-political thing? What power does this group think it has? RxS (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a rhetorical question. RxS (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete in the view of the Association? No need for splinter groups that hold different standards for what an established editor is. RxS (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
We may not need an exclusive group of anyone, but this AfD is silencing discussion. Balls to that. That's my vote. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- We don't interact much, but sometimes I see your comments and it makes me want to have your babies. You fucking rock.</small?//roux 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment On what grounds is this placed for deletion WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria for deletion. BigDunc^Talk 15:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep for now while we work out what to make of this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep at the moment. Sam, I thought better of you than this. This is as blatant a "someone said something I disagree with" MfD as I've ever seen. If/when people have discussed it and rejected the proposal, then it can be marked historical. Please withdraw this. – iridescent 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, no one is proposing it, just implementing it on their own. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Stong delete. Wholly undermines the core policy of uniform expectations of civility, and only exists to elevate its member's interest over the Project's. There are no vested contributors. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete if we want to save time, otherwise just allow it to fail on its own This recent requirement for the club added by Peter: "A willingness to defend the rights of content contributors. This might include block voting in RfA, or at least participation in RfA" seems to indicate this association attempts to work in a manner inconsistent with our ideals of consensus. A whole group that is required to vote the same way on issues, now that is a cabal. Another issue is that Peter has referred to this group as a "separate association" from Wikipedia, if that is true then they should host if through their own web provider not through Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for things that are about Wikipedia, not separate from it. Chillum 15:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you read this properly, you will see that these were suggestions. The criteria, and the objectives and purpose would be decided by those nominees who accepted nomination. It is not up to me. Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

People can click on the link and judge for themselves. I think the motives here are clear, this is an attempt to form a lobby group. Chillum 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No different to the way FlyingToaster was elected. But in this case, election would be determining by solid contribution record, not being a 'nice person'.Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep as my comment above I dont like it is not a reason to delete. BigDunc^Talk 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The nomination is premature. This project should be given a chance to grow into something useful. If the project is not successful, it can be nominated for deletion later, however, to start an MFD just a few days after the project was created is wrong, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep It doesn’t matter if I agree with the views expressed by that page, nor whether I want to be a member. It is a page in userspace, not articlespace, and generous latitude is afforded in such cases. If someone disagrees with the notion of a special club for established users, then speak out against it. The proper response to bad speech is better speech, not trying to silence someone else. Greg L (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Way too early for MFD, smacks of "I don't like it". If it turns out to be something beneficial to wiki, great. If not, then, like many other schemes, it'll die out. Minkythecat (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So its a self-appointed group, with no control whatsoever by the community (except for nominations?) which has a stated purpose to support each other in content disputes (where consistent with the principles of the association, which aren't really stated, except to support each other) and to support its members when they get blocked? So its like the AMA, except it isn't open to everyone and its stated goal is to resolve disputes by supporting one side of a content dispute. Rather than at least making an effort to help new users like AMA was supposed to, this would openly hostile to them by guaranteeing that if they got into a dispute with a member of the association, that the new user would quickly be subjugated. The stated goals of the proposal include supporting each other in disputes and block voting. It clearly would be in contradiction of at least one of the criteria for canvassing (partisan audience) and possibly the others as well. Why would we want to give that a chance to succeed? Mr.Z-man 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Save Freedom of Speech.png

Very good Z-man, you endeavored to employ better speech to respond to what you perceive as bad speech. Debate is all about standing up, speaking your mind, and trying to rally others to your point of view. I think that is a much better way of behaving than running to the city council, hoping they will censor someone else’s right to speak up in their own userspace. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I don't see this as a way to speak up. If Peter wants to do that, he's free to write an essay. A group designed to support each other in content disputes and block-vote on RFAs goes much farther than "speaking up." Mr.Z-man 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Then shame him by pointing out how what he is proposing is “naughty” in your view. Like BigDunc wrote, “WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria for deletion.” Greg L (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to do that in my 6 sentence comment above. If all you saw was "I don't like it" I don't know what I can do to change your mind about that. Mr.Z-man 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a discussion about the merits of such a group. This MfD is to delete the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{rejected}} tag would be better Moni? Chillum 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when editors have had more than 2 hours to hold a discussion. I just got up and saw this on my talk page. I'm skeptical that this system will work, but I think it has some merits to it. An entirely different system may be created from this to solve the widening chasm between content editors and gnomes and admins. The issue at hand here, is that this MfD attempts to shut down the discourse to bridge that chasm and recognize that content editors face enormous stresses that are allowed by the current system. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The village pump is the place for proposals. This 'union' is already holding elections by the looks of it, that is not a discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No the purpose would not be to support one another in content disputes. The article says "support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake." I had in mind a principle that would exclude special interest groups such as Scientologists, proponents of fringe science, Objectivists and so on, whose interest is not neutrality at all. I'm sure re-wording could make this clearer.Peter Damian (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And the block voting on RFAs? Or the support in block discussions? It doesn't take much to win most arguments. If even half the people nominated become members, they would be basically be guaranteed to win every dispute they involve themselves in. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep and trout slap the nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of only swinging a trout about, how about you address the concerns brought up by those suggesting deletion. Your argument carries little weight if you don't make one. Chillum 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one of the deletes have mentioned any deletion policy in their !votes i dont like it is not a reason to delete. BigDunc^Talk 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one mentioned that it seems that their stated goal is to perform group voting, and that this goes against the spirit of consensus. Is this not a valid reason to you? Chillum 16:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly valid reason to reject the idea not a delete reason. BigDunc^Talk 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I have amended my opinion to allow for the alternative to allow for it to fail on its own. It seems like a terrible waste of time, effort, and drama to me though. Chillum 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Again very possibly. BigDunc^Talk 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Read mine again then Duncan. I don't what more reason you need than 'encourages the ignoring of a core policy.' MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum. See my above picture. Instead of waiting your turn to rally others to your point of view with calm, reasoned talk that has unassailable logic, would you be in the back, trying to shout-down that guy? Peter Damian has an idea he is pitching. If it is a bad idea, it won't gain traction in the community. But Peter has a right to throw the idea out without you saying he doesn't, jumping his bones, and wrapping duct tape over his mouth. Greg L (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, he is not 'pitching an idea', he is already implememnting it. The fact that most of the invitees, having been canvassed with nomination papers, are turning up here to defend it, is evidence of that. You could say the skewing of this Mfd is the first act of this Union enacting its own self-interest. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be commenting in the discussion to reject it, but the page and discussion does not appear to be set up as a proposal, just as a "we're doing this, do you have any comments?" There's no {{proposal}} or straw poll or wording that suggests the association's existence is dependent on community support for it. Mr.Z-man 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not shouting. I just think that a group that encourages others to go against policy is only going to get people in trouble. I think you are exaggerating things a bit, there is no yelling, wrapping up or jumping going on here. Just rejection of a bad idea. It is not Wikipedia's job to entertain notions that go against its goals of civility and consensus. We are not a venue for free speech. Chillum 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chillium; I posted my response to Z-man, which included the picture of the man in the crowd speaking his mind. Then you vandalized my post by inserting into the caption “WP:NOTFREESPEECH”. I think I understand your style now and feel soiled. I will no longer respond to you. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized? Soiled? That is a bit over dramatic I think, please assume good faith. I was simply pointing out a relevant policy regarding free speech on Wikipedia. Chillum 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@MickMacNee cant find that reason in the deletion criteria and for the record the name is not Duncan. BigDunc^Talk 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions", we don't have a list of valid reasons for deletion. We have some examples on some pages, but they are not exhaustive. There is nothing invalid about the arguments Mick or I made, even if you don't agree with them. I think that it is reasonable that I ask COM to address these concerns or at least present and argument of some sort. Chillum 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep: 1. It has no operation to malign yet. As a category, it is merely a category. 2. "Undermining civility" is absurd on its face and is an intellectually bankrupt argument, as "civility" is not blocking, and "established editors" have been argued by other people in other contexts as different from new editors when it comes to blocking. 3. Creating categories to recognize editors who have been substantial or substantive contributors to content is certainly neither without precedent nor without merit, and anything has got to be better than the randomness of barnstars. The delete arguments, and indeed the deletion nomination, seem to come out of personal vituperation, if not incivility. Would they have been so quick had a different editor come up with the idea? Would they have showed up in such force and volume? If not, then they are, in fact, showing faction and factionalism, and that is the way to break down civil function. I'm not a joiner in projects, but you "delete" and "civility" people are awfully hypocritical and irrational. Geogre (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep: a ready-made list and an avowed purpose has potential use in measuring putative cabal action. It is, of course, chosen solely from the numbers of our most active content contributors. 273 featured credits and thank goodness I'm not nominated Durova^Charge! 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is far more than a list. Its a lobbying group. Mr.Z-man 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:AWN Isn't this a bit early to be nomming a proposal for deletion? Anyway, see here. I think the best idea would be to morph it into Iridescent's idea for an WP:Article writers' noticeboard, which to be honest sounds like a good idea and is, uh, overdue, considering that's the main reason this site even exists. "Writing articles". rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any indication that this was intended as a proposal. Mr.Z-man 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Nev and Geogre. This MfD continues a well-oiled practice by admins of stomping on anything that even vaguely looks as though it might question whether all admins are always behaving according to policy. To start with, can the nominator please specify exactly which items in the deletion policy are at issue? Tony (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Mailer Diablo's closing statement from the Esperanza MfD seems like it needs to be reiterated here: 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 similiar fate as Esperanza. Note 'open and transparent to all editors at all times', which this club would most assuredly not be. //roux 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) after ec, note to Tony1: despite your usual hyperbole and ranting against admins, you'll note that Shappy is not an admin, and indeed most of the admins who have voted here have said to keep. Just thought it was worth pointing that out, as it's generally a good idea to get your facts straight. //roux 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)