This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Mark historical, 28 February 2007, see discussion.
Closed by nominator, 2 January 2007, see discussion.
Withdrawn by nominator, 19 November 2006, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

Shortcut

WT:Concordia

Getting to work

I believe this is what we should do ASAP.

Create an oath to civility which can be signed by any Wikipedian (not just Concordians) who agrees to be civil.
Scrap membership to Concordia per the suggestions on the last archive.
Instead of giving tokens or barnstars to civil users, why not just give them a nice personal message? :)

Thanks Computerjoe 's talk 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to be very off topic and say User:NinaEliza who has been involved with the project has had her userpage and talk page deleated. Also I we were nominated for deletion again but I can no longer find the discussion. Back on topic, I agree with all of Computerjoe's suggestions. --Banana04131 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia (old nom) are the two discussions. --tjstrf talk 03:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, our discussion is not about that. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia is an archived debate of a proposed deletion. Please do not modify it. Any comments about the proposed deletion should be made on this talk page. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 and Number 2 seem interesting to try. It would make us stand out from other groups out there. However, I would like to see barnstars and tokens; there are still many hard workers as of now that have not been recognized yet, and users should have another option to reward their favorite contributors. It won't hurt, only help. (^'-')^ Covington 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda dislike 1, because everyone *should* be civil, and I fear that ifsomeone wants to 'victimize' someone who has signed this oath, it will be used against them. I see that it will only be divisive. I also am unsure about scrapping membership. Membership helps show who is interested, and who wants to be a part of a project - much like WikiProjects. Without membership, it will probably just be disregarded since we are not like a guideline or policy. As for the third - why not do both? :D Ian¹³ /t 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Some users don't appreciate barnstars though :P . T he first would be symbollic, and it could be used against them but rightly so. Losing membership would make us less bureaucratic. Computerjoe 's talk 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing should ever be used to make a user seem different or need to be treated differently, whether that is membership to a society, gender etc., or having admin or check-user powers. I think the bureaucracy is from the heararchy, and not solely from membership, but it is the multiple levels. Scrap lots of levels, and the effect is reduced/removed (only councilors and members seems fine to me, but we needn't remove members altogether). Ian¹³ /t 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does membership serve? The vast majority of members don't participate anyway. Computerjoe 's talk 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Membership here just shows support and doesn't mean any special rights or anything. Also, telling other users that you are a member sends out a message of promoting civility.

We don't fight incivility, we support civility.

~~I don't think we should scrap membership. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

We shouldn't destroy the idea of membership. But, we should not use this list when we can simply just have Category:Wikipedians in Concordia. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should also get to work on looking at the proposals and creating those ideas which have our consensus. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility oath draft

Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility oath.

Edit away :) Computerjoe 's talk 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would like a small part of it reworded just a little bit, but I don't have any clear idea yet. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please oh please comment and or edit more. I understand people are going back to school etc after Christmas but please help nonetheless. Computerjoe 's talk 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe have people start signing on talk page?--Banana04131 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN

A page of interest to our organization has been nominated for deletion. Everyone's welcome to voice their opinion: is it really of any use or does it encourage further incivility and bullying? I haven't ever really taken a closer look there, but I figured some of you might. Миша 13 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia help desk

There is a proposal that I like: The help desk. Such a feature will help us as individual to coordinate our efforts together. We don't need WP:PAIN or any civility noticeboard as long as we have a help desk. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too. --Banana04131 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council

Is Concordia like Esperenza in the sense that there is a "council" that governs it? There was a page that mentioned that Concordia had a council at one point; is the council going to come back? I strongly believe that Wikipedia should be led by the community, not self-appointed leaders. Greeves 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, the community does not want a council or any form of governance for Concordia. Cencensus should be enough to organize and keep the project running. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I may be joining in the near future (even without a member list). Greeves 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memberlist

We don't need a member list, it's extra-added beaurocratic paperwork. We have Category:Wikipedians in Concordia and it takes very little to no maintenance. We shouldn't tell people to sign this list, when they can simply use the category on their userpage. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, don't delete that memberlist yet, we need to archive it first, so we know who was interested. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've turned it into a redirect to the main page. Didn't delete it, so the history is still there. Миша 13 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can add the category to everyone listed or should we tell every single user to do it themselves? --ElectricEye (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone likes to use userboxes. --Osbus 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but people could also add the category direcly at the bottom of thier userpage, without the box. --24.20.69.240 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for userboxes, Category:Wikipedians in Concordia should be enough. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes have a nasty habit of getting deleted these days. A category should ne enough - • The Giant Puffin • 12:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A member list does not add much work, and many o us do not use user boxes at all, and some very active people do not even have much information on their user page. Most similar projects have lists. I would like to affiliate myself, and say so in public, but there's no place to do it. It proves a very convenient way of showing the scope and size of a project--if you want to attract new people to this project, you should put it back. I had no idea that the project was large until I came to the talk page and saw this discussion. There is a great advantage in taking the course others do for trivialities like this that affect the public face. DGG 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{civil2}} on TfD

See header. Computerjoe 's talk 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and civil0 through civil4 have all been deleted and I'm glad! Here is my proposal.[1] --ElectricEye (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osbus

I am leaving. Good luck in future endeavors, multus amor --Osbus 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpdesk?

What is the help desk going to be used for? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame

I request everyone's input regarding this idea, to create a hall of fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of rememberance and respect. This might be of particular interest to the members of Concordia. Rama's arrow 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, I'll have a browse - • The Giant Puffin • 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Proposals before deleting.

This is where Concordia members can propose new programs for Concordia.

Inactive proposals

To keep this page active, proposals should be moved here if no one has commented on them or taken any step in developing the program for three weeks.

Proposals being discussed

Civility mentorship

Pretty simple. Set up a "civility mentorship" program. Moved from Concordia's discussion page. Thoughts? --Banana04131 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple adoption with no "civility" banner attached would be better. It would be most helpful to new users who have had their first article or major edit deleted or reverted. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of "mentoring" civility, it implies someone is uncivil. Instead we should just have a Concordia guideline on what we do to I should have a Concordia guideline on what it means to "foster a friendly and helpful environment" and how we can do this. See the proposal: Concordia Guideline. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it does not evolve like the admin coaching did in Esperanza, then I dont see much wrong with it - • The Giant Puffin • 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

A letter in our signatures, similarily to the Esperanzanian green E, would get us more attention... It'd naturally be C (or something similar for C-less signatures), but what colour? Grey? —Nightst a llion (?) 11:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one using dark blue; it seemed to fit the color scheme used on the logo. I don't know how distinctive that would be on standard blue signatures, though. —C uivi é nen^T|C, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 16:03 UTC

I'm using a gray C. I seem to like it. Either dark blue or gray would work fine. Could we also have a little template like Esperanza too? Like when you click on the letter, it brings you to the special page... Polit i c a l Mind 12:31, November 12, 2024 (UTC).

I linked, since I am a Concordia fanatic! Mr C[[EO]] 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no C in my sig, so I just went to the closest one, which is "o", and linked it from there. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|^o ^n|it!> 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a dark blue C is really good. Although it would be a really good idea if this page showed up when you clicked it --Sakura Avalon 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I am using a gray I, since I have no other letters that are closer. Viva La V i e Boheme!

I like this idea. I'm using a blue "n". I don't think that it should be a set letter, but the color should be either be blue, dark blue, grey, or black. Zadern et 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can have signatures, but it isn't necessary and equates to group vanity in my opinion. Also, I don't like the way when you click on the blue letter it goes to a screen that looks copied from Esperanza. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plus people criticised the "green e" before because it made ESP look like some exclusive club - something I thought CCD was trying to avoid? I dont think this should become official or anything like that. It may end up being another nail in our future coffin - • The Giant Puffin • 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not promote this signature thing. Anyone who does the special signature is on their own. Concordia has nothing to do with it. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokens

In the last two weeks, I have received very touching messages from other Wikipedians, and I wished I had something to express my gratitude. I also noticed that people tend to be stringent on Barnstars. So I came up with ...

Wikitokens

For actions that warrant praise, but that do not meet the stringent requirements for Barnstars.

These are not meant to be seen as trophies, thus I recommend they be placed on talk pages only.

Token of Appreciation
Token of Gratitude - thanks
Token of Hope - good luck wish
Token of Good Will - end a conflict
Token of Generosity
Token of Civility
Token of Tolerance

Let me know what you think. (^'-')^ Covington 20:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about awards? Computerjoe 's talk 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted something more for day-to-day recognition, like Wikismiles. With awards, people tend to show them off or demand why they did not get one. (^'-')^ Covington 16:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something along the lines of wikismiles is a good idea...they always make me happy :) --Osbus 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a token of Mediation, for Mediators or Cabalists who successfully end a feud? Polit i c a l Mind 12:31, November 12, 2024 (UTC).

Could work, I guess. Computerjoe 's talk 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a community nomination? HawkerTyphoon 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the tokens could be exchanged for stock in Concordia? And each share gave a user a little more decision in the Concordia community? Mr C EO 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP doesn't work like that, nor does CCD :D Computerjoe 's talk 11:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new, aren't I? Mr C EO 11:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitokens are great, particularly for people who edit civilly on topics that are obviously close to them, yet they are in the minority. These people should be given particular appreciation and praise.

For example: There's a young man who is a Devout Christian that edits very civilly and pleasantly on articles relating to evolution and science (though he has his own doubts). I would love to give him a token. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Who's gonna design them, though? Any particular designs in mind? I think they should be shaped like a coin. We could also add more kinds of tokens.

My thoughts on the "weight" of them: I don't want them to be as hard to get as Barnstars, but they should still need to be earned somehow. The thought of them being trophies doesn't bother me. Zadern et 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Wikipedia:Esperanza's stress alerts to WP:CONCORD

Before I bring this one up to the overhaul of Wikipedia:Esperanza, because one of the main points here is to keep a cool head, the stress alerts could possibly be more relevant here than over at EA.

Being as CC just got put up for deletion as well, I'm not sure that would be worth it. - Che Nuevara 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this sounds like a great idea to me since Concordia was designed "to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect." --Electric Eye (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Esperanza claims to "help editors feel more appreciated, combat stress, and generally lend support to the hard-working people here who need it" -- six of one ... - Che Nuevara 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care for it much. It's too much like Esperanza. However, if people dig it, then so be it. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Wikipedia should not have alerts of individual stress. Besides, no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia, if they are stressed that is their personal problem and Wikipedia should make no effort along those lines. The user can take a break from Wikipedia. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can use use stress alerts. They might help us locate areas of Wikipedia that need our help, but I don't think we should provide any specialized individual stress relief. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that WP:ALERTS is a page of its own, we can adopt it, but the fact that it's appearent that WP doesn't want adopted projects. I'm not sure. --wL ^{<Speak · Check · Chill>} 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can use it, but for an entirely different purpose. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we use any ALERT, it should be not be an ALERT to stressed users. Instead we should have an ALERT to articles and discussions in Wikipedia. If we are alerted this way, we can then immediately work on fostering a friendly and helpful environment so those who are here enjoy it. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia help desk

Make a voluntary help desk to help resolve civility issues before the dispute resolution process.This one of the tasks listed on the front page of Concordia. Thoughts? --Banana04131 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This idea failed before. Computerjoe 's talk 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really a "help desk" the first time. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the idea of a HELP desk, but we should not offer any kind of "civility issue resolution". The Concordia Help Desk should not accept reports or requests for help on mediation. Our only response to the help desk should be to help by providing Concordia's spirit of "fostering a friendly and helpful environment" directly as individuals to the areas of Wikipedia that may need it. The help desk also helps us, it helps us find these areas of Wikipedia. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such ideas got deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. Computerjoe 's talk 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, what failed was the Civility noticeboard which is very different from a Help Desk. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk will be different. It only offers help, and NOT a place for reports or requests for mediation. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im all for it if it is purely for help - • The Giant Puffin • 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. SR - RE 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Guideline

~~I...~~ ...We should have a Concordia guideline on what it means to "foster a friendly and helpful environment" and how we can do this. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging uncivil users

The CIVIL templates have been deleted because the community agreed that the warnings didn't work and often made things worse. If someone is uncivil the wrong thing to do is tag them with a civility warning complete with stop sign. It more than often creates further bad reaction! A civility notice should only encourage people to be civil. It should remind them of actually contributing. And to reduce the problems of abuse of the template, a difference to the uncivil statement must be provided to be valid. If no diff is provided, anyone can remove the warning if they feel its so bad to be reminded in this way! (^_^) So, I'm proposing we create {{civil}} with this approach:

Re your comments: Please participate in a respectful and civil way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view providing free content. Please let me know if you have any questions about contributing. --~~~~

--ElectricEye (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. No stop sign! --Banana04131 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that not using a template at all would be a big step in the right direction. Personal messages are likely to be much more successful. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this argument has arisen in vandalism and reverting templates, but they do help ensure it is well worded and minimize mis-interpretation. It also saves time. Ian¹³ /t 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Concordia/Templates and images

The following are images and templates to be used for Concordia.

Images

Logo

Logo (without the cup)

Short logo

Userbar

Templates

These templates can be used for a variety of purposes by members of the project.

Userpage

Code

Result

Usage

Template for Concordia Members; Gives a brief overview of our mission

Members' userbox

Concordia - Working to promote civility in Wikipedia.

A small advertisement of Concordia

Warnings

Code	Result	Usage
{{agf0}}	Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.	A reminder to users always to assume good faith
{{agf3}}	Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.	A more forceful warning to assume good faith

Misc.

Code

Result

Usage

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Reminding users to be civil and to not cause conflicts on frequently-disputed talk pages

Please don't delete

Why would the Concordia thoughts on this page be deleted? The Chairman of Wikipedia appeals for kindness in May 2011,here, and ensuing discussion here. Anything which can help with the Chairman's vision should be preserved. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]