User talk:Eloquence

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:

• Removed all comments prior to Jan 2003. --Eloquence 04:42 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to Feb 2003. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to March 2003. --Eloquence 21:19 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to April 2003. --Eloquence 08:14 25 May 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to May 31 2003. -Eloquence 19:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to June 21, 2003. --Eloquence 18:58 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to July 3, 2003. --Eloquence 21:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to July 22, 2003. --Eloquence 09:07 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to August 28, 2003.—Eloquence 02:11, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to October 15, 2003.—Eloquence 22:39, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 5, 2003.—Eloquence 15:17, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 20, 2003.—Eloquence 12:42, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to February 23, 2004.—Eloquence 23:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to April 2, 2004.--Eloquence* 09:12, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to June 3, 2004.--Eloquence* 12:07, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 24, 2004.--Eloquence* 11:25, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to June 15, 2005.--Eloquence* 05:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 8, 2005.--Eloquence* 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to July 5, 2006.--Eloquence* 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to July 5, 2009.--Eloquence* 07:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to September 19, 2011.--Eloquence* 05:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for engaging extensively with the subject matter at hand and reaching an informed, thoughtful conclusion.--Eloquence* 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. extransit (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

:-) 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)