Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Community Justice First Meeting
The first Community Justice meeting took place between the 11th and 15th of April 2006 on Wikipedia talk:Community Justice/Meeting. At the same point various points were been made at Wikipedia talk:Community Justice. These minutes shall only cover the former.
Minutes
Review
Ian13 thought that a civility template is too vague, unlike vandalism warnings. Ian13 also believed that in order to do this, WP:CIVIL may need expansion.
Osbus found the templated to be too informal, and suggested they could be put in a box.
Xchrisblackx said that the templates don't always generate a positive reaction, and the editors don't always realise they are being incivil. Ian13 suggested rewording along the lines of some feel your actions could be seen as incivil. No further action was taken.
Progress towards our tasks and goals.
Computerjoe asked if members thought that only completing 2 out of 5 tasks in nearly 3 months was satisfactory. Osbus said that as we are new we shouldn't give ourselves too much pressure. Xchrisblackx found progress was good considering we were fairly new. The Giant Puffin seconded this, saying as we grow more progress would happen.
Batmanand couldn't really tell what our organisation's mission was. He was uncertain if we offered mediation, if we were planning to rewrite WP:CIVIL, if we simply created templates or if it was something else. Computerjoe stated that we do not offer mediation, though Ian13 said this could be an option at a later point. Computerjoe also said that in time we may rewrite WP:CIVIL, but currently we are creating templates. Covington suggested we wait until we have 30 members before we do something major, such as rewriting WP:CIVIL.
Our Role
Should we represent users, like the WP:AMA or otherwise remain in our current role simply encouraging civility, while maintaining a neutral point of view?
Computerjoe stated that when the organisation was started, the aim wasn't to represent a party.
The Giant Puffin said that if we take a more active role in maintaining civility, it would increase our memberbase. He said that this would improve our progress and our place in the community.
Pureblade said it needs to be our goal to make the entirity of the Wikipedia civil, not just what comes to us. He said, if anyone comes to us we should point them in the right path, while remaining objective (avoiding any claims of bias). This was seconded by Computerjoe and Nrcprm2026. Ian13 made a similar point.
Nightstallion said we shouldn't become an organisation like the WP:AMA. This was seconded by Osbus.
Nrcprm2026 said that in a recent dispute, it helped when a third-party stepped in to make brief (but personal) requests for civility. Computerjoe responded saying that in a dispute where he made such requests, personal attacks were made against him. Nrcprm2026 replied saying that this exposes incivil editors who are even willing to attack a third-party, and will therefore find it hard to refrain themselves from personal attacks and incivility in general.
He also said it would be good if there was a way in which to track how civility templates are been used (what links here doesn't work with template substitution) and that it may be an idea to create a civility noticeboard, to be used prior to a user-conduct RfC.
Publicity
Why It Is Important
Computerjoe said publicity is important as it's the best way to encourage civility. He also said that if we grow, we grow more and if we don't, not as many people will join.
How to Gain It
Computerjoe suggested the use of the Community Portal and Wikipedia:Signpost. However, he said that now isn't the perfect time to do it; he said it would've been better to do it when we were starting up. Wisden17 disagreed, and Computerjoe changed his mind; posting a notice about this meeting on it.
The Giant Puffin seconded Wisden17, but also saying we should work closely with WP:ESP. Computerjoe agreed with The Giant Puffin, but commented that he didn't think a merger would be a good idea. The Giant Puffin agreed; but said it's important to keep in contact.
Osbus has said he'll post a message on Wikipedia:Village Pump and Wikipedia:Wikizine. Ian13 also said that it would be good to get into the Wikipedia:Signpost. The Giant Puffin agreed. Wisden17 has said he's contacted them, and hopefully we'll be mentioned.
Also, Covington said we should put a link to us in the civility warning templates. Computerjoe notified him that there already was one.
Elections
Need For Elections
Computerjoe said that elections were necessary to allow member's views to be represented. This was seconded by The Giant Puffin and Covington.
When?
Computerjoe asked the members how many members would be required before a consensus for the elected councillors, chairman and chief exec. could be reached. Computerjoe also said he wanted them ASAP.
The Giant Puffin, Osbus and Pureblade said that elections should take place at around the 30 members mark. As this is coming soon, it will be necessary to begin organising an election.
Also discussed was eligibility for the elections. Computerjoe suggested a minimum of 2 edits to a Community Justice-related page (template, talk or actual page), one of those edits been registration. Osbus said 3 edits to the CJ page and 300 total edits as the minimum. Computerjoe said not just the actual CJ-page; but CJ related pages too. Nightstallion agreed.
Therefore, elections shall begin when we reach a minimum of 30 members and the eligibility shall be 3 edits to a CJ-related page and 300 total edits.
Any Other Business
Nope.