Jump to content

User talk:Eloquence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 634: Line 634:


[[User:Mahitgar|Mahitgar]] ([[User talk:Mahitgar|talk]]) 13:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Mahitgar|Mahitgar]] ([[User talk:Mahitgar|talk]]) 13:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ping|Mahitgar}} I've responded there. :-) --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:40, 6 November 2015

I will respond to messages on this page. Please check your contributions list ("My contributions") for responses. If there is a response, your edit is no longer the "top" edit in the list.

Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old revisions are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments, please use the "Page history" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

WP:TROUT

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Consensus is important. People are here to work together and earn a voice in the vision; not to mindlessly write articles for their Foundation Overlords. extransit (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging extensively with the subject matter at hand and reaching an informed, thoughtful conclusion.--Eloquence* 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK. extransit (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For standing up for newbies, even in the face of great trollitude. Ryan lane (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thanks, also for engaging in the discussion from the start. It's a hairy issue and I hope we'll be able to find common ground.--Eloquence* 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question re division of authority

Mr. Möller: Following up on our exchange in the Signpost yesterday, I started looking around on Meta for a (non-essay) policy document which defines the division of operating authority between the WMF and the various WP project communities and could not find one. Does it exist? There seems to be a considerable presumption that we here at the projects have, in keeping with the wiki ideal, the ability (admittedly, not the vested right) to determine our own destiny through the agreement of WMF as the "owner" to keep hands-off below a certain level of authority. Is there some document which defines that level, or does the Foundation simply only keep, or mostly keep, hands off on a case by case basis, having made no promises, agreements, or policies that it will not change things by fiat whenever and wherever it sees fit? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I've asked Maggie Dennis for her comments on this as well as Community Liaison. TM[reply]

First, as I said on the Signpost talk page, framing this as a WMF vs. community issue is an oversimplification and likely to add more heat than light to the conversation. There were more than 100 people who expressed opposition to restricting new page creation in the original RFC; in the face of strong minorities like this, it's very much in the tradition of our project to consider alternatives and work further towards consensus.
But, to answer your question, there's no formalized definition of when and how we would or wouldn't engage. About 8 years ago, long before being involved in WMF in any way, I started this essay, which has been further developed into a reflection on the various governance norms and processes that exist in Wikimedia projects. There's also m:Founding principles, which is particularly worth considering in the given context. And of course there are many examples e.g. of Board resolutions that have directly sought to effect change in Wikimedia self-governance or established high-level policy principles.
In general, Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with the Wikimedia communities to achieve our mission. This is expressed also in the WMF values:
We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
This is why we haven't simply said "no, there will not be a trial for restricting new page creation", but have tried to help identify and pursue alternatives before implementing new restrictions, as I noted in more detail here. But it is not true, and has never been true, that WMF will execute any request that has sufficient community support (by some definition of sufficient) unquestioningly.--Eloquence* 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to allay one concern, I'm not interested in roiling the new page patrol issue with the authority question. As I said in my post, I was only a weak supporter of the autopatrol solution and I like the Article creation workflow solution reasonably well (with some reservations). I also thought your response to my comments and questions have been stand-up, open, and worthwhile, and I thank you again for them.
I'm more concerned about the degree to which this has illustrated that this could happen and am concerned and a bit alarmed that there is no formal Foundation policy in place which defines the boundaries of the relationship between the Foundation and the editing communities and sets protocols to be followed when those boundaries are to be crossed (from either side). I've not been around as long as some and there may have been other instances in which the Foundation acted in a manner such as this for other than legal reasons, but this is the first one I've encountered. In short, I'm concerned about that independently of the NPP / newcomer retention issue. Thank you for clarifying it for me. Dunno at this moment what, if anything, I'm going to do with that information, but it's good to have it. Would you say that there is an informal sense or accepted practical understanding about the issue among the staff and/or trustees, and if so what? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general shared understanding and belief that we operate on is that we're all working together to advance the Vision and Mission of our projects, and that this requires continued, serious, honest and deep engagement regarding the key challenges we're dealing with. WMF employees are here because they have a strong passion for what we're trying to do, many of us have long histories as Wikimedia volunteers, and everyone here works beyond the call of duty to help us succeed.
In my experience, when there is a high degree of tension, pausing, discussing, looking at data, and considering various alternatives is usually the right thing to do. While I do believe in the importance of improving and clarifying governance and process, I also think we have a strong tradition of case-by-case flexibility (cf. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) that's important to maintain. I've seen plenty of online communities get bogged down in bureaucracy and the development of "constitutional" documents at the cost of losing focus on the core objectives. Some degree of tension, frustration, and anger is unavoidable, but we have a shared responsibility to move conversations back into constructive spaces as quickly as possible.--Eloquence* 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After sleeping on this issue, I've decided not to take it further because to do so at this time would be more likely to feed the trolls than attract editors to the issue who, like me, are deeply committed to the project but who are concerned about what this incident may imply for WMF-user community interaction and relations. Thank you once again for being so forthcoming. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

Hi Eloquence. I saw you created that category, so I suppose you can answer a question. In es:wiki we don't have a Category:Article Feedback Blacklist yet. How can a equivalent of this category be created ? I mean how to make such a category be functional in non-English Wikipedias? Thanks in advance. Gustronico (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a request in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ against Wikimedia → Site requests, title "Set article feedback blacklist for <name of wiki(s)>", and state in the bug description the desired name of the blacklist category or blacklist categories. Add me to the CC list to help expedite things. (Yes, this should be easier and arguably part of the internationalization of the feature, but it requires a manual configuration change at this point in time.)--Eloquence* 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eloquence. I've noticed that a request is already in progress in bugzilla:32182, but the name of the category is being discussed right now at eswiki. May be you can attend bugzilla:29903 instead. Excuse me, I don't know your e-mail address to add you to the CC. Best regards, Gustronico (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bildfilter schlägt weitere Wellen in der FAZ

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/filter-fuer-wikipedia-welches-weltbild-soll-es-denn-sein-11523047.html

Pünktlich zum Fundraiser ist die WP wieder in der Presse. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke fuer den Hinweis, EK.--Eloquence* 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Eloquence. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter.
Message added 11:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your message! Minhnt2000 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your prebuilt tips for article feedback response....

I think they are good and save quite a bit of time for common questions.... I have two suggestions:

leave the greeting off the top of the note so the editor doing the -subst- can put their own salutation there.
expand the list of them

Thanks for your work, Ariconte (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. Will tweak them further over time. Feel free to modify them as you see fit, as well. :-) --Eloquence* 08:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Eloquence,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:8btheater.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:8btheater.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUW test results

Hi Erik, since you were interested in the new file upload mechanism, I thought I'd keep you updated about this: Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard#Statistics after first week of test run. I'll get back to you about that offer regarding user testing too; haven't forgotten about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 9 if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HighBeam Research collaboration (similar to WP:CREDO)

Hi! I've recently started a discussion with HighBeam Research, who is interested in donating some accounts for Wikipedia editors to use. I see you were involved with the Credo project and wanted to get your feedback on a few issues:

  • What did the Credo project do right? Wrong?
  • Were you too lenient in giving out accounts?
  • Could you have limited account usage duration?
  • Could you have centrally managed passwords?
  • Should you have assigned accounts randomly not on a first-come basis?
  • Who decided which editors got accounts?
  • How was the project promoted?
  • What rules did editors follow for using and referencing non-free sources in articles?

I have read over the talk page discussions and archives for the Credo project and am formulating a loose idea of what might work better. Right now it would include:

  • minimum of 1 year, 1000 edits
  • demonstration of experience doing research and intent to use the service
  • announced ahead of time
  • randomly selected after a week
  • maximum duration of 1 year, after which people can reapply

I'd love to get your feedback. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback dashboard???

It looks like the Feedback Dashboard has disappeared; I get "No such special page" when I try to access. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wide image

Template:Wide image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikiquote

Template:Wikiquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FB dashboard rate limiting gripe :-)

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:New_editor_feedback#Rate_limit and the linked bug report. Thanks, Ariconte (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for the CSS fix to replace watchlist boldface with dotted underlines. I much prefer the dotted underlining to the way it was before. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I like the effect on Recent Changes, too! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. :-) --Eloquence* 07:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki config

Howdy; I'm interested in checking some values set in the Mediawiki LocalSettings.php file for the English-language Wikipedia please - specifically $wgDefaultRobotPolicy, $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies and $wgArticleRobotPolicies. Would you be able to oblige ? Many thanks. - TB (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the configuration options for all wikis at http://noc.wikimedia.org/ - we don't use "LocalSettings.php" in production; config is split over two files, CommonSettings.php and InitialiseSettings.php. These files are versioned in git.--Eloquence* 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - exactly the info I need. - TB (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania Barnstar

Wikimania Barnstar
It was great to see you at Wikimania 2012! --evrik (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :-) It was nice to meet you as well.--Eloquence* 18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EduWiki Conference 5-6 September in Leicester, UK

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwd: Licensing of gadgets and user scripts

Hi!

Do you know if anyone at WMF should be aware a suggestion about the licensing of gadgets and user scripts?

Best regards, Helder 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Unreported-world-rio.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Unreported-world-rio.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WIGU example.png

Hi. Would you mind please commenting at commons:User talk:Dbenbenn#File:WIGU example.png regarding licensing/OTRS? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn

Respect the bunny!

This is a rather unfriendly message. Even for someone who has been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. The location is very obstructive. This will scare of a lot of people. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page.--Eloquence* 02:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it's not very friendly. It was there before, they just moved it from below the edit box to de-clutter the edit interface and ensure that people see it before they start making an edit. See mw:Micro Design Improvements for details. I think it's the correct positioning, but I wish the text was friendlier and, provided legal agrees that's sensible, dismissible once you've seen it. The former is easy if folks can agree on alternative language; the latter requires code. See Template:Bugzilla--Eloquence* 02:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hop talk pages. Only cute bunnies are allowed to hop onto my talk page ;-)
Happy to hear that people are working on improving this! Multichill (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the bureaucrat policy that alters what you were told at the time of your decratting. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the bureaucrat user right. This includes inactive time prior to your decratting if you were decratted for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFB. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Erik,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Random comment

Hello Eloquence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.130.162 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Random stuff.--New test friend 843 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

Do you notice the discussion on disallowing promotion of GFDL-only licensed images as Featured Pictures in EN:WIKI? Could you or any Wikimedia policy expert help us in this regard? JKadavoor Jee 16:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Eloquence; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PageHistory Example.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

triggering

Sue, thank you for your comment!--Eloquence* 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik I too will use this new functionality to invoke you, so that you will see this notification whether or not you visit your userpage. I wonder if signing my own name will trigger a notification to myself. 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if I actually signed my name LOL Sue Gardner (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sue, only mentioning someone else's username in a signed comment on a talkpage will trigger a "mention" notification.--Eloquence* 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about making a comment on someone's talk page? Will that trigger a big, noticeable thing—like, across the whole page, and in a bright color—to let the person know something really important has just happened? I think that would be a great feature. See if you can get someone working on the code for that. It shouldn't be too difficult. (Quite seriously, is there any reason we can't have the big orange bar back? At least temporarily, until you clowns get something similarly in-your-face worked out?) Ignatzmice•talk 20:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to take your point and make it into an attack? Why do you think referring to the development team as "you clowns" is going to aid your words being taken seriously and not dismissed? --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ninety-two people asking for the orange bar back hasn't done a lot to change your minds. Maybe this will get more notice. Can we have it back? Like, now? Until you get whatever replacement you're working on rolled out? Seriously—and I assure you, I am being dead serious here, and other people have asked this as well—is there any technical reason we can't have the bar back temporarily? Because if there isn't, you guys are making me very annoyed. Ignatzmice•talk 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing OBOD gadgets

Rah rah rah.--New test friend 843 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whee!--New test friend 843 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woo!--New test friend 843 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View stats crashing on some pages

Hi. I and a number of other members of m:Wiki Project Med are about to launch a drive aimed at recruiting professional medical associations to review our medical content. This is why it matters to me that new editors get our messages, and why I would very much appreciate it if you could arrange even a short-term fix, so that newly-registered experts are loudly notified when we leave a note on their talk page.

We will have a better chance of success in this endeavour if we can point to high page views on target articles but I have noticed recently that a number of important articles have suffered a precipitous decline (two thirds to three quarters) in page views over the last month. E.g., Schizophrenia, Cancer and Depression. Is the technical team able to shed any light on this? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, this is Diederik from the Analytics Team @ WMF. We are looking into this issue and I will report back once I have a satisfactory explanation. Drdee (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As promised, I would come back with an explatation regarding the pageview drop for https traffic. As mentioned before, we turned off the https/ip6 webrequest logging stream to webstatscollector back in March because we inaccurately concluded that we were double counting those pageviews. But in fact, by switching of that stream, we stopped counting of all https/ip6 traffic. Our apologies for this mistake.
We took the following steps to correct the situation:
1) As of May 14, 18:44 we re-enabled the https/ip6 stream to webstatscollector (see https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Server_admin_log). Within the next hour or two, the pageview counts for articles that Google has indexed using the https protocol, should rebound to similar levels as they were before we switched off this stream.
2) One of the reasons we switched of this stream, was that the https/ip6 stream has a non-functional implementation of adding sequence numbers. Because these sequence numbers are off, our packetloss monitoring is incorrect. We fixed this situation by submitting patchset: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/63220/
Please let me know if there are still lower than expected pageview counts in a couple of hours from now. Drdee (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt fix Drdee, and your very diplomatic handling of the social aspects of the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove AF

Hi, Erik. I was pung after using the WikiLove extension tonight. After looking into Special:AbuseFilter/423 I was told there is another metric for WikiLove usage. Can this AbuseFilter effectively be disabled? Killiondude (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wikilove_log table logs everything (and more) than what the current filter does. Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eloquence, ping. Killiondude (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Killiondude, Legoktm: The wikilove_log table doesn't actually tie the submissions to specific revisions. Be that as it may, if you want to cut down filter conditions, I'm fine with disabling the edit filter for now. A better implementation on our end would probably use tags directly in the extension, in the same way that the mobile extension and Wikipedia:GettingStarted are doing.
Pinging User:DarTar and User:Kaldari just in case. Kaldari - does the above sound right to you? If so I'll add a bug to BZ so we can get to that at some point.--Eloquence* 09:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we would need to tie the log entries to specific revisions. We record everything possible about the WikiLove action in the logging table. This was to avoid having to do queries against the revision table. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: The value that I see of tagging the specific revision is to make it easy to see the comments in context (more for qualitative rather than quantitative analysis).--Eloquence* 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eloquence: Makes sense. I'm fine with that. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I guess this is your talk page so I don't need to mention you :) It's already a habit. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about tying the event to the rev_id, but I don't have objections if others see a good use for it, I agree that a tag is a more elegant implementation. --DarTar (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[1]. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Your user page

Hello, I found your user page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 12:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Boon Lankershim

Thank you for fixing this. I was asking someone from WP California to help me when I realised you'd done it [2]. Do you know why it wouldn't get wikified? I find the new editing process very confusing and I would like to use the old one if possible. Thanks again.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: Sorry for the confusion. :( The new edit interface is called Wikipedia:VisualEditor; if you use it then you don't need to enter markup (like "== Headline ==") but you can just use the buttons to format, etc., like you would do in a word processor. If you enter markup, it'll think you wanted it to render as-is, and wrap it in <nowiki> tags for that reason. I think that's what caused the layout to be messed up.
There's a more detailed user manual for the new editor at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide, or you can always edit any page in the old mode by clicking "edit source" instead of "edit".
HTH,--Eloquence* 05:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pakeha Party for deletion

Hi Eloquence, just letting you know since you reverted vandalism at Pakeha Party and appeared to do a cursory review of the content, that there is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakeha Party. Thanks in advance for giving your opinion. Dcoetzee 09:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a way to turn off VisualEditor globally. Please give us a way.

One develops habits as a long-term wiki editor. And some of us have special needs - but I'll get to those in a minute. Long story short, the VisualEditor tab is where the old "edit" tab was. In early days, you had to hover over it to get the edit source tab. I do a lot of tasks that VisualEditor can't support. I'm heavily involved in both images and templates, and, even when VisualEditor supports images better, I'll still be better off using Wikitext, because I do image restorations, and, for example, a rather common situation is that someone, four or five years ago, went to the Library of Congress, and grabbed a low-resolution copy of an image, because the high-resolution images there are TIFFs, and no indication is given that the TIFFs are higher resolution than the JPEG. So I take the high-resolution version, do some restoration, upload the restored copy with a consistent filename system (the older uploads to commons generally have rather non-descript filenames), and then... I have to put it in wikis to replace the low-resolution image. It's far easier to use the "find" tool on my browser to locate the filename of the image I'm replacing, then pasting in the new filename, than it could ever be to look for the image in VisualEditor, delete the old one, copying the caption, add the new one, pasting in the caption, and rescale the new one to the same size as the one being replaced.

Similarly, when one of the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates is promoted, an edited image sometimes gets promoted. One step of promotion is to replace the old image with the edited one. For some widely-used images, this could be dozens, and VE will never do anything but get in the way.

And I think you'll agree that's not a problem with VE. It's simply not a function VisualEditor can, nor should, support; it's just far more practical to use Wikitext for those purposes.

So, long story short. Some of us should almost never use VisualEditor. But your mouse automatically goes to the "Edit" button, because it's gone there for the.. let's see.. seven or so years you've been editing Wikipedia. And so it's better to shut it off. Unless someone can make a gadget that puts the link to VE somewhere safe, like over in the left hand column or something. And even when not doing image work, I can often type out long-memorised template names, ref tags, and the like faster than I could ever use an automated tool, if using the tool meant I had to keep lifting my hands off the keyboard to use the mouse.

It's fine to launch new features, but when rearranging the site interface, muscle memory is going to get screwed up, and, remember, when launched, you had to hover over edit for a bit to get the edit source button.

That hovering over "edit" to get the "edit source" button - and, yes, of course it's gone now - was particularly bad in muscle memory terms.

If VisualEditor wasn't right for you, the least disruptive thing you can do was turn it off so you could stop complaining, and let those it was meant for have the benefits. But that seems to be precisely what the WMF is trying to prevent. Why do you insist that for those of us who VisualEditor simply is never a good idea, must have it anyway?

Further can turning off VisualEditor will be a globally-supported user preference? Because file replacement in the manner described above isn't always one wiki, and whilst we have bots for that, CommonsDelinker has regular periods of downtime. It's hard enough finding the edit button on Wikis that use a language you don't speak, some of which are right-to-left languages, without needing to avoid the VisualEditor edit button as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks for the thoughtful note. Some initial thoughts -- I'll jump in more when I can, but also pinging Oliver and Whatamidoing who can help with clarifications.
Our overall concern, and the reason we did not offer a preference, is that "out of sight, out of mind" makes it very hard for us to address the kinds of efficiency issues you mention. It makes it too easy for us to ignore the needs of users such as yourself as we improve VisualEditor. I actually do not agree that the kind of task you describe needs to be inherently less efficient in VisualEditor, but I do agree that it'll take us a while to make VisualEditor a good tool for that case.
I really would like us to be increasingly scientific and systematic about this -- enumerate the types of tasks that users perform frequently, and measure the relative task performance in VisualEditor and source mode. I will personally not be satisfied with the product until we can exceed task efficiency in the vast majority of cases.
If you've followed the deployment a bit, you'll note that even this week, we've made some changes to improve task efficiency for templates and images. Inserting an image used to take two clicks; now it takes one. Filling in a template used to require manually selecting all parameters; now required parameters (as defined by templatedata) are pre-selected, and it takes a single click to add a new parameter. Etc.
So, in other words, we do care, a lot, about making this not only an easy-to-use tool, but an efficient one. Many of us at WMF are Wikipedians, and we hate tools that don't do the job. Where VisualEditor doesn't get the job done, we need to know. Our hypothesis is that we can build a tool that's both powerful and discoverable, not just a nice UI for newbies.
And to be honest, we made the mistake of offering a quick and easy "out of sight, out of mind" preference before. When we did the Vector skin rollout in 2010, we offered a trivial "Take me back to the old look" option -- which lots of users took. Almost any change to a user interface will be met with resistance and objections. As a recent non-WMF example, did you see the reactions to Flickr's design change? I've rarely seen so much hatemail for a company in one place.
By making it easy to switch back, we effectively created two generations of users: the pre-Vector generation and the post-Vector users. Pre-Vector users, by and large, stayed with Monbook; post-Vector users stayed with Vector. There may have been legitimate efficiency reasons to stay with Monobook - things we could have improved in Vector, but didn't. In our drive to increase usability, we didn't pay sufficient attention to the needs of advanced users. And because of the "out of sight, out of mind" effect, we didn't have to.
To avoid this effect, with VisualEditor, you can't make it disappear completely without resorting to gadgets or user scripts. You don't have to use it, but we encourage you to give it a try every once in a while to see the improvements and changes, and to point out those annoying bugs which we should have long fixed and haven't. And to the extent that there are things about the new default user experience that we have to fix to not interfere with normal editing (the current section editing behavior is definitely still not ideal), please keep us honest and remind us about it.
I hear you on the subject of muscle memory and confusing edit tabs. There are a couple of things I'd say right now which may help mitigate this issue going forward, and I'd appreciate your suggestions as well.
1) We can reduce the issue by avoiding inconsistency between "Edit" and "Edit source". I believe this is already on James' agenda, and there was some community energy around this as well on WP:VPT. What I mean here is that right now, some namespaces still use wikitext by default. If those namespaces consistently had the tab labeled "Edit source", visually scanning for the right tab to click would be a lot easier. (Having VisualEditor on all Wikimedia projects, as it soon will be, will also help with those consistency issues.)
2) This is more of a personal tip for you: To support muscle memory, we ensured that VisualEditor does not take over the existing keyboard shortcut for editing in source mode. If you've never given keyboard shortcuts a try, I strongly suggest it; they should work in all modern browsers. When you mouse over the tab, it gives you the shortcut indicator. So, I can just press Alt+Shift+E on any page to edit, and it will always edit in wikitext mode (Alt+Shift+V will edit in VisualEditor).
Finally, on the earlier point of measuring task efficiency -- this is something anyone can help with. We may do some specific community outreach around this, but any efforts to document "It takes me X steps/seconds to do this in VisualEditor, Y steps/seconds in wikitext" helps a lot. It's worth noting that VisualEditor has its own set of keyboard shortcuts, which can help with common tasks such as linking (which I actually already find faster in VE). And I do think tasks like updating image links should ultimately be well-supported in VE (even if it's by means of plugins), so we should start tracking these types of use cases in Bugzilla.--Eloquence* 07:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My computer takes about 10 seconds to load a page in VE, and about 2 seconds to scroll. It's going to be a long, long time before VE is at all suitable for older computers.
I suppose about the only way I'd be likely to use VE regularly is A. if it became hugely more resource-efficient, and B. if it was changed to fully incorporate Wikimarkup (a.k.a. you could type Wikimarkup into the editor, and have it turn it into graphics.) I've been using Wikipedia since 2006. I'm very, very quick to type Wikimarkup, and having to lift my hand from my keyboard to touch the mouse will slow me down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, may I point you to Wikipedia:VPT#.22Opt_out.22_of_VE_needed_under_preferences, which has literally unanimous support for the feature you want to block? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To start with a semi-asside, even though the Vector roll out was about 3 years ago, many power users still regard it as inferior to monobook. That's not just a case of not liking change, but of actually genuinely finding the old skin more suited to their use cases/preferences. I suspect that same will be true in years to come for VisualEditor.
The real problem isn't the model you've adopted for the roll out, that's good. The problem is that the roll out has been significantly premature. VisualEditor will be great, but it isn't yet. There are too many missing features and there are too many bugs that might not be blockers from a technical standpoint are causing content corruption on the live wiki and massively disrupting the work flows of many people. Had you waited until it was feature comparable to the source editor and didn't break for the average editor doing everyday things then the rollout model would have gone much more smoothly. As it stands however you have alienated, and are continuing to alienate further, the very people who should be on your side - the content editors and maintainers who will benefit from the efficiencies and ease of use that VE will bring. The reason for this is that as far as they can see is that right now Visual Editor makes their life harder both directly (by breaking things an by needing to work around missing features and temporary UIs) and indirectly (by making them clean up the mess it leaves of other people's good faith edits). Most people don't care that it will be good in a few months time, and they are not interested in helping you find and fix bugs - they want to use software that works now. Most of them couldn't care less about the tools they use to edit Wikipedia, all they care about is the content they are writing or creating and the visual editor gets in the way of that. Far from encouraging more editors, the present state of Visual Editor will drive away the very people we want to keep and recruit - "Wikipedia is broken, oh well I'll find something else to do". Many of them wont come back.
Please understand this is not hyerbole, it is not sour grapes, it's not a bad reaction to change. I want the VisualEditor to succeed and I'm volunteering my time to doing what I can to make it so - just look at my contributions to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback, search for "Chris McKenna" on bugzilla. On my own I'm discovering bugs at a faster rate than the devs can fix them, and there are people like PamD who are discovering more than me. For the sake of the project switch off VE as the default editor for everyone now. Encourage people to opt in to test it. When you enable a new feature or make significant changes to the way something works, reach out to specific groups of people and encourage them to test it. Then, when you have feature comparability with the source editor, all the bugs that cause content corruption or which editors regard as mission critical have been fixed, turn it back on with great fanfare. Allow people to make an equal choice between the visual and source editors for each edit and people who want to use it will use it and those who don't wont. Allow people to disable it if they want - as long as you have to maintain two editors it doesn't matter in the slightest whether 1% or 99% use the visual editor. What matters is that the people who create the content and the people that curate and maintain that content have tools that let them do that without breaking anything.
Your job as a developer is to ensure that the people who create and maintain content and those that read the content produced have the systems they want to edit, maintain and read that content. Ideally most people shouldn't be aware you exist - just like a WikiGnome. Normally most of the time I devote to Wikipedia is taken up by doing things that enable people to find the content they want to read - redirects, hatnotes, disambiguation pages and the like. It's exactly the same philosophy - if the redirects and hatnotes didn't exist people would complain they couldn't find what they were looking for and Wikipedia would be far less useful but when it all goes right then people don't think about how it goes right or who caused it to happen - it just works. And that's the problem with VisualEditor at the moment - it doesn't just work. Heck a lot of the time it doesn't work at all. What you have done with rolling it out at this stage is that you have come out from making things work behind the scenes, you have stood directly in their way and shouted at them "We want to do something new! You must help us make it!" Not only has this scared people, but it has angered them, and instead of backing down and saying sorry you are angering them by standing there and continuing to insist you are more important than they are, that you know best about what they want. Take a step back and actually listen to what people are saying - they're not saying visual editor is bad, they are saying "Visual Editior is not ready. Don't just tell them again and again that you need lots of eyes on the project, listen to them when they point out that you have too many eyes on the project because problems are being found faster than they can be fixed - and you haven't even fixed all the problems that were found with just a few eyes looking at it.
You have two choices now, and only two:
  1. Turn visual editor off by default and let people disable it if they want to. Fix the outstanding bugs, add the missing features, then come back when it is ready for the prime time. People will use it then. including many of those who disabled it now.
  2. Proceed as scheduled, reality be damned, and lose good editors. People will find out how to disable it, whether you let them or not, and they wont come back to it - in a large part because they wont believe you when you tell them it is now ready, because you have been saying that now when it clearly isn't.
It's not often when about 50 Wikipedians unanimously agree on anything, and they're all asking you to choose option 1. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Thryduulf, some old editors are opposed to the idea of a VisualEditor. Some of them have said that they are specifically opposed to the idea of anything that makes it easier for a new person to edit pages. There have been a lot of comments about attracting the "wrong kind" of editors, e.g., people who aren't "dedicated" enough to learn wikimarkup. The community does not have just one opinion.
Adam, I think that you really need to learn the WP:Keyboard shortcuts. For what you're doing with images, you should not have to touch a mouse ever. It's Control+⌥ Option+e in Firefox; the meta keys vary by browser. Find yours and skip the whole problem with clicking any tabs at the top of the page. But if you do choose to keep reaching for that inefficient mouse, then I think you should remember that 'muscle memory' normally retrains in no more than a few weeks. I don't even remember the last time I misclicked an edit tab when I wanted the old editor. I think it really only took a couple of days before I was automatically headed to the editor that I wanted. The existence of two edit tabs has not caused me anything like the amount of disruption I've experienced with the loss of ⌘ Command+click to open the edit window in a new tab. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use a PC, and, in any case, that doesn't help me edit sections of an article. All VE does at the moment, if turned on, is make it far harder to edit sections in the manner that's currently functional, because VE does not currently work with older computers without massive lag. My computer isn't even that old: 3-4 years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know the worst part? According to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Some_performance_notes, even the people VE was made for don't like VE. About 2/3rds of new users choose to edit in Wikimarkup, and almost 9/10ths of anons. All the premature VE launch is doing is teaching people how to avoid editing in VE, which is training highly likely to persist into such time as VE finally does become a good product. At least if you give people a way to turn it off, you can turn it back on for them again later, when it's a better editor. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you said above, you're using the "find" tool on your browser to locate the filename of the image you're replacing, then you don't really need to be editing sections for this task. Try using the keyboard shortcuts for a day or two. I really do think you'll find that they save you time compared to any option involving a mouse. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all tasks are amenable to find. Sometimes, you're adding images into articles that don't have any, for instance, and, in some obvious cases - a biography, say - this can still be quite multilingual. Of course, in most cases, those images will be at the top, admittedly. Of course, this is just referring to multilingual work. On en-wiki, VE screwing up section editings is a complete blocker for me.
I really don't see why making it easy not to use a feature that won't be right for you for a long time, if ever, is a controversial idea. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik; though you state that your primary userpage is on Meta, it seems that there is far more activity here, and now I discovered this thread, so... just as a pointer: I also felt compelled to post some musings regarding the issue "Visual Editor and experienced editors", which I did on your Meta talk page (in German - it's my first language as well, if I remember correctly, yours) :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to compare tasks in VE to the same task in the/a source editor tool, be sure to have some of the edits be done to busy pages where edit conflicts occur. See how efficient it is for the VE user to do the job over from scratch, vs the source editor user to save his changes to his/her PC clipboard, and paste from the clip board when the edit is lost in an edit conflict. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template hack

Actually, it's not that I'm unhappy with the state of Visual Editor. Your engineering team has done an excellent job, and with the single overwhelmingly glaring deficiency of not having included a full table editor, had gotten closer than I expected them to get. The round-trip problem alone is something that I would have just written off as an impossibility. In another year, it will probably be product that your engineers can be extremely proud to have worked on.

What I am unhappy with is the attitude that supports keeping it deployed in its current condition. When managing a major software product we all face the ugly situation where things blow up in our face or the rollout doesn't go as planned, and this a classic case of it. Your A/B testing still hasn't been completely analyzed, but when the product was released, the data that was available from the A/B testing indicated that it actually hurt your target group instead of benefiting them. At this point, the results of the test have been changed (something which will always get people suspicious of data doctoring, no matter what the truth of the situation is), but even those changed results say that at best we can say about VE is that it doesn't hurt new editors very badly.

Faced with those kind of test results, the blistering blowback you have received, a lack of adoption by your target audience, and a known set of deficiencies that may require some structural work to your foundation the thing to do is to pull back. You fix it, and you try again later. Done properly, you can have a supportive community that wants to help fix the bugs, and having seen how close it came, many of us would want to.

As it stands now, though, you've basically told us that you don't care what we think, you are going to proceed. Yet, despite the fact that you don't care what we think, you think we should be eagerly volunteering to rework all the documentation we have about how to do things to match your product, even though none of us use it. Given the way we've been treated, most of the people that might have used it probably won't now. No matter how good your product ever gets, all people will remember about it are the bugs. All your newcomers that might have benefited from it won't because there will be no documentation on how to format things with it to match existing articles, and we will relentlessly and consistently revert their edits when they don't match. When they ask us for help matching the formats and interworking with the rest of Wikipedia, we will do so in terms of the source editor, because it's the only one we will have ever learned.

Ignoring your existing editing base is the surest and simplest way to be certain that people that match your vision of a new editor base never stick around.

You've still actually got time: if you rolled it back now and apologized, I bet most of the community could actually be won back. Keep going on this path, and the breakage will be irreversible.—Kww(talk) 06:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot the other glaring deficiency: cut-and-paste. I don't know what workflows you were contemplating where cut-and-paste wasn't the first thing that needed to work.—Kww(talk) 06:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I'd just like to make you aware of the automated account creation that had been going on here. Could you please look over the research and give your approval / disapproval? Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Page curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi Erik. Further to our discussion in Hong Kong, I'm just pinging you here on two current discussions: the pre-talk on further possible development, and (FYI) a closely related RfC which contains suggestions pertaining to the main project. If the project development gets underway, it may be necessary, as we discussed, to consider some form of liason/coordination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

User:Crisco 1492/YGM

Cold?

Best wishes
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creeps

In case you don't know... the creeps on Wikipediocracy have been talking recently about trying to have you hassled on your way to Wikimania. :( I thought they were mostly Americans, but apparently they think Britain still should have no place for anyone who honestly believes that "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press". They mentioned that during some prior discussion you'd once said you looked at something legal in Germany but not in the UK - I hope that's not really anything that customs would care about. I fully support your position, but please be careful and ensure that confidential Wikimedia user data cannot be compromised by any inspection at the border. I understand if you prefer to delete this without response. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I wouldn't take these things super-seriously. :) Thanks for the note though.--Eloquence* 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN notification

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Scott • talk 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MediaViewer RfC and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the above case is now likely to be accepted, it would be better for all (well, all but you) that you resign your admin tools on .en and promise never to grant yourself any permissions on this project. Probably better to resign in real life, but I don't like to see anyone lose a job, so I won't advocate that. Even so, as a nasty little bully you're probably (just) able to see how this will pan out. Resign with a shred of dignity. If it helps I'm going to bully you all the way through the case - because nasty little playground bullies only respect other bullies. I'm not one - but I'll play the part to get you booted off the project. Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I look forward to reading your evidence and any workshop proposals you may wish to present during the upcoming arbitration. However, an avowed approach of deliberately "bullying" another participant in the case will not be helpful to the arbitrators or the process, and you must not proceed in that fashion. Editors who seriously misconduct themselves during an arbitration case risk being excluded from the case pages. I hope this will not become necessary with respect to you or any other participant in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me that finds this reply quite ironic, given that the original charge of bullying against Eloquence is not only clear, but backed up by recent diffs? Pedro's request is not only quite reasonable but if responded to, might save the entire community quite a bit of wasted time. Black Kite (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find no fault with Pedro's conclusions or wording, and like Black Kite, see it as being fully substantiated and reasonable. The evidence is clear that a policy violation took place, a threat, and bullying was part of it. The only question is if Arb will be bullied or lawyered into overlooking it. So far, I'm hopeful since they have agreed to at least examine the case. A desysop, even if only symbolic, seems appropriate. Resignation of the bit would demonstrate character, but I'm not holding my breath. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm disappointed to see editors I respect endorsing direct threats - "I'm going to bully you all the way through the case"? Eloquence has apologised and yet is facing an arbitration case over his actions (or rather what they symbolise). Threats like the above are unbecoming of any community members, let alone administrators who are meant to hold themselves to higher standards. WormTT(talk) 14:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ignore this but I decided I needed to chime in. Saying you are going to bully someone is no better than saying you are going to desysop someone. FFS can the admins here act with a bit of mutual respect? People watch how we behave, this is embarassing. Chillum 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have we lost our collective minds? Pedro is incapable of "bullying" Erik. Erik has all the cards, he can desysop Pedro, delete his account, make him disappear and has already given the community the finger in saying there is nothing we can do about it. What can Pedro do? Talk? Pedro is using hyperbole in calling that singular comment "bullying". To take serious the idea that Pedro can bully him in this instance is laughably stupid. And you can't have "mutual respect" when one side has all the power and argues they are not subject to community review. He didn't get the admin bit at RFA, he gave it to himself, and I'm sure that even if desysoped, he would do the same again. All we have to combat this kind of abuse ARE words, and seeing two Arbs jump in and condemn Pedro doesn't reassure me that the case will be objective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a normal editor with no powers I share Dennis' concern. This is, in my opinion, about more than MV...it's about the community's ability (or lack thereof) to hold those with advanced permissions accountable for their actions. If we have a class of user that has what is in effect a "get out of jail free" card (due to a very wide discretionary role, no clear titling of WMF accounts, and what looks to be zero review of the granting of advanced permissions), that is troubling. If ArbCom is reluctant to view the conduct of those special users with the same lens that they view others, we have another troubling situation. Frankly, I've been disappointed at the amount of misdirection that seems to be growing around this. Intothatdarkness 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis is absolutely correct. Those with advanced permissions should, no must, have either passed a community method for gaining them (i.e. RfA), or they should not be using them, ever, for anything controversial. Threatening to block or desysop a good faith editor in an action which is not WP:OFFICE (which clearly this one isn't) does not fall under either of those scenarios. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before the discussion here goes too far, I'm going to point out that it would be more useful for those who will be drafting the case decision if the discussion took place on one of the case pages. I'm aware of some of these side discussions on user talk pages, but not all of them. What will really help is if all case parties and case participants centralised their discussions at the case pages and made concrete proposals that can be considered and discussed there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version will be posted after 11 August; you are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persönliche Größe

ist schon was tolles.--77.12.46.200 (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note

A discussion related to you is occurring on WP:BN, please see that page if you are interested. — xaosflux Talk 02:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bypassing the need for any more drama on this. — xaosflux Talk 18:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case has been suspended for sixty days and to be subsequently closed. In the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either at the request of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA. The motion notes the following:

  • Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia while an arbitration case was pending and may only regain administrative rights on their personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship. This does not prevent them from holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account.
  • From 15 September 2014, the WMF will require require staff to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts respectively, with work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
  • The WMF aims to improve working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question to UploadWizard Metrics

Dear Eloquence,

I've tried to extend the diagram File:Wikimedia Commons uploader statistics 2011-2012.png until now. This is impossible, because Wikimedia Stats has a bug and only states 100.0% at Perc. via wizard for every month. (http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#uploads_uploadwizard). May you investigate this?--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC closed

The Media Viewer RfC arbitration case is closed following a suspension period of 60 days. The following considerations were taken by the Committee:

  1. The WMF has introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. With effect from 15 September 2014, staff are required to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts, with the work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
  2. Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. While this does not prevent him holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account, it does mean that as he resigned the tools while an arbitration case was pending, he may only regain administrative rights on his personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship.
  3. The WMF has announced a number of initiatives aimed at improving working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Eloquence,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

Hi Eloquence, we appear to be experiencing some issues as a result of there being too many edit filters operational at the moment. Is Special:AbuseFilter/423 still needed or have the better tracking tools been developed? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: I think this filter can be safely disabled/removed, but I just pinged a couple of folks just in case anything still depends on it. Will let you know by tomorrow.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Moeller, have you found out if this filter is still needed? Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Sorry for the delay. It can be safely disabled.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks, done. Sam Walton (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

creat

it is truthful Alamgir-du (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious your opinion

I just posted here. Curious if you could weigh in on it? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U gots to updates yr profile info bra

Iz outdated Victor Grigas (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Eloquence. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi there! I have sent you an email, to your gmail address, about an article I am writing. I believe the article may gain a great deal of attention so may I please ask you to give it your most urgent attention?

Vordrak (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Quote

Template:Quote has been nominated for merging with Template:Quote. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements

You are receiving this message because you are listed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Former bureaucrats. Writ Keeper pointed out that these users were not directly notified of the community discussion ending August 2015, where consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

As of 1 October 2015, any former bureaucrat who has not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years that wishes their bureaucrat permissions restored will need to request reinstatement at RFB.

If you intend to return to bureaucrat activity, please request restoration of permissions before 1 October 2015 or three years passes since your last bureaucrat activity, whichever is later.


To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xenotalk 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

)

SanaSazi (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting guidance

Hi,

Season's greetings @ freedomdefined.org user talk page I have made a request for your guidance. Awating your kind response. Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahitgar: I've responded there. :-) --Eloquence* 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eloquence&oldid=689380024"