User talk:Fluffernutter

I'm tired. I'm tired of feeling like the community runs on high-octane rage and like every policy or content discussion is all that stands between us and the end of the world. I'm sick of seeing people talk to each other as if they're not speaking to another human being, because typing words on a page makes it so much easier to say things you wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm exhausted from trying, in a tiny way in a few tiny corners, to make things suck here a smidgen less, and mostly feeling like I've failed, when I can muster the energy to try at all.

This isn't a retirement message. I'm still here, and I'm still editing in my usual sporadic fashion. But I'm tired of the bad, and I want to hear the good. I would so, so appreciate it if anyone who stumbles across this message could leave me a note telling me what you love about Wikipedia. What you do or the community does that doesn't feel draining. What's gone right lately, for you and your work here, or for the project(s) themselves. Tell me something good that came out of your time here. Remind me why we put our energy into this thing in the first place. Show me somewhere on-wiki where people completely failed to be terrible to each other even though the chance was there. Show me editors being valued without being showered in the shiny baubles that make this feel a game of trinket collection instead of a collaboration.

Remind me of the good, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who's offered me their happy thoughts so far. Collapsing to keep the page from getting out of hand. Please feel free to continue to offer me your thoughts if you want! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I still edit enwiki at all is because of my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project, and the work that we are able to do. --Rschen7754 20:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC) It's the knowledge equivalent of crack. Go deeper my friend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Two responses. One not asked for: I readily appreciate your efforts on the "smidgen less" and do not think you have failed, at all, it is in fact a smidgen why I am still here. 2) Off-wiki, read something, explore it, and write content about it on wiki -- it is a gift to yourself and others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC) In times of trouble, Magic Word NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS comes to me. Speaking words of wisdom: 118,331 -- that's how many folks who made an edit in the last 30 -- and only a tiny portion end up on the dramaboards. By signing up for admin and oversight you've skewed your sample to see Worst-a-pedia, not Wikipedia. Many folks volunteer for free to contribute to the best general body of knowledge ever assembled in the history of human civilization. That's pretty awesome, that's what keeps me going. That and I'll go off-wiki for months if I need to. NE Ent 01:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I edit because Wikipedia is the main source of information for so many people, and I love that I'm improving it. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is the best thing on the internet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I just ran an edit-a-thon at a local library here in Chicago and not only was it productive, but it was great to be able to meet and interact both with editors that I'm familiar with and ones who I've never seen before. When I think of retaining editors, and generally having a good time volunteering with Wikipedia, I think events like these are a good approach and will go a long way to keeping attitudes about Wikipedia overall positive in spite of frustrations. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Kittens have the hereditary right and trait of being good and here in Wikipedia kittens are found aplenty, so they are one of the goods [pun intended]. You'll get one of those in a minute, you're lucky I never got one of those. Admins like you are good who left me a polite note when I needed one, I mean when I was new. What would new kids on-the-block do without good actions like those? I hope after brainstorming for an hour I have been able to come up with something to make you feel good and or remind that there is still something left in Wikipedia to rejoice over. Oh oh wait there are more! I am here, nah thats self-flattery [I am probably the first one do it ;)]. Who I am trying to kid? For me in the last couple of months, I have been accused of gaming the system by none-other than my mentor, I have been subject to retaliation, I have not been able to write single GA untill now, I edit bollywood articles [Indian films] which though get million views a year will turn wikipedia slowly but surely into a bollywood-info-paedia 10-15 years later. Look at me Fluffernut, not for inspiration but for the fact even after being buried under several layers of glum each and every day I rise, draw a smile on my face and keep on editing with a hope even though there is none. Where does that hope comes from? My imagination. I suggest you use yours too you'll feel a lot better. Sohambanerjee1998 10:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Fluff, I couldn't agree more. I've written about 60 fair sized articles and get criticised for not doing more, but I've run out of ideas and at the end of the day, I believe we should be left to write about the things we know about and are interested in. Being expected to write articles for the sake of wrting artcles defeats the purpose of voluntary collaboration. Nowadays, apart from watching over WP:WPSCH and cleaning up and expanding school articles for lazy creators, all I do is meta and admin stuff. Even there, I'm sick and tired of the constant bickering about admins and the tarring of them all with the same brush. While admins are expected to lead by example, some people hold them to ridiculously high standards and no matter what an active, front-line admin says or does, they are going to take flak for it. I've been on the verge twice this year of seriously considering handing my tools in, but the day I do that will be the day I abandon Wikipedia for good - and I will miss going to Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Hey Fluff. Don't hang out at your talk page often, so sorry about the tardiness of this note. The thing I've always found about Wikipedia is that it does split pretty nicely in two - the useful and the not useful. The "not useful", everything to do with the administration of the site, needs constant managing to ensure that the useful is done. That might mean things like arbitration cases over petty arguments, or admins stepping in to stop people acting horribly to each other. It takes a toll on those who do it, especially when you can see how life could just much simpler and no one will listen. The positive is out there though. Get out of the administration of the site and suddenly there's a world of Wikipedia, you can see the gratitude and the difference actually being made. I'm talking about places like the Teahouse, or the article review processes, or even the reference desks. People in Wikiprojects can be so grateful if you actually write articles. Socially, go to a meet up or two! The real people behind Wikipedia are the ones that make it for me, I've met dozens over the years and it's a whole lot harder to be angry when you meet them. I'll give you an example, I met User:Rich Farmbrough towards the beginning of the year, he appeared at a meet up, just after my first arbitration action - I expected retribution, an earbashing of immense proportions. Instead, I found a personable chap who was friendly and didn't appear to hold ill-will towards me. I've met a number of other banned users and found the same. I've met people who were trying to spam wikipedia, yet they were just people. Get yourself to meetups, you'll soon find what people love about Wikipedia. And if you ever fancy a chat, you know where to find me. WormTT(talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Well, since you asked, I'm just a lurker 99.99% of the time, but wikipedia is in my top 5 websites that I visit on a regular basis. I barely participate in the community, and usually feel like I'm not good enough or smart enough to contribute more than the occasional revert vandalism. Sometimes I'm just here for the "drama", but more than that, I'm here to learn. I learn about the subjects of the articles, but I also learn a lot about HOW the articles come to be...the wiki policies challenge me to be aware of my own assumptions and biases, and when things are working well, the discussions demonstrate just why we've been so successful as a social species: we can, with work, overcome our differences for a great good. I appreciate all of the hard work that goes into this project and I wish it weren't such a frustrating endeavour, but then...if it weren't difficult, anyone could do it, right?Quietmarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC) I write articles, in one fairly narrow topic area, at a snail-like pace. I'm fortunate to have such a quiet WikiProject to work in, but I'm well aware of the bitterness that's out there. I've had one nasty spat, and I read far more of the goings-on in the "central" areas of WP than I ever comment about (that's how I wander onto pages like this, where I've never been). Writing about my chosen subject is my purpose. It's not easy; I have to absorb huge quantities of information from the sources, mull them over and let them all percolate through my mind, then try to integrate them with the next wave of sources. Yesterday I discovered that the sources that discuss my current project are so numerous that there are volumes of bibliographies just dedicated to cataloguing and analyzing them all. I yelled about how overwhelmed I felt. But then I looked back at the sources I had, and pieces started to fall into place and I started writing based on them. When that happens—when I can look at a subject and see how the disparate pieces of a subject fit together and how to make the article reflect the insight—that, for me, is what Wikipedia is for. And it is still possible for us knowledge gluttons to cooperate. My current project ranges out of the usual topic area (ancient Egyptian religion) and into another, so I've recently talked to a couple of editors from the neighboring field (religion in ancient Rome). My one long conversation with them was amiable and kind of amusing. The Greece and Rome project in general seems to have that sense of camaraderie, if this is any indication. I'm sure they're not alone. There are still friendly people on Wikipedia, and if you can avoid the shouting, the joy of knowledge is still out there, too. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC) I've only just spotted this, but I'll offer a few thoughts. I'm pretty much inactive these days, largely because I've been ground down in many of the ways you suggest -- and being an admin tends to get you the worst from the worst. Sadly, there's a surprisingly large number of people on the internet who are happy to treat you as if you're the bad one in Pol Pot's family - when they're hiding behind their keyboards. And in some ways it's understandable. As a species we've evolved to understand and respond to body language and all sorts of visual clues in our interactions with each other, and when stripped of those we often tend to be more aggressive in our interactions. (Think about it yourself, and see if you can honestly say you've never treated anyone in this online medium more harshly than you would face-to-face - I certainly fail that test.) So what are the good things that make it worthwhile? Well, I've been mostly logged out of late, and I come across Wikipedia when I'm Googling to find out things - and it's surprised me to be reminded just how much I (and millions of others) use Wikipedia every day of the week. And you know what? It's bloody good! And *we* did that! You, me, and the countless others who've actually worked at it. And every time I find something I was looking for, learn something new, get information I need for my day job, or just enjoy a pleasurable bit of reading - I silently thank you for it (well, all the individual yous who've donated their own valuable time with no thought of personal gain, but you're one of them). So ignore those whose lives are so empty they have nothing more productive to do than denigrate the efforts and achievements of others. (Did you see what I did there? I was far more insulting to anonymous people than I would be face to face!) And instead think of the millions who benefit from this project every minute of every day - you're doing it for them, not for the very small minority of whingers and whiners. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Articles for Creation

In my experience, when a COI editor is declined at AfC, in most cases they are writing an article about something that doesn't meet our notability requirement. Sometimes they write decent quality content and are trying to do the right thing, but at the end of the day, they want an article and we do not - that COI is insurmountable.

The problem in my view is that we decline their article in a manner that strings them along, sometimes through a half-dozen re-submissions. There's always a "next step" like "find more sources" and it wastes everyone's time. The PR rep is equally frustrated by it.

In my view we need a decline template that is more absolute that doesn't encourage re-submissions. That just says "it doesn't look like we should have an article on this topic" rather than "find more sources." Pinging user:Drmies here, because I have mentioned this to him as well. CorporateM (Talk) 17:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your article submission has not been accepted because it appears to promote a person, organization or movement. If you are affiliated with the subject of the article, please note that you are very strongly discouraged from contributing to articles where you may have a skewed perspective on what is neutral.

I think that's a really good thought, CM. We don't currently have a decline for "no, seriously, this just isn't ever going to work", even if we, as reviewers, know that to be the case, and hearing that the COI submitters don't like it any better than we do is enlightening. My thinking along these lines had led me to suggesting a new CSD criterion for "this is never going to work", but now that you mention your idea, a decline for that sort of thing is probably a better first step (we can always worry about deleting them some other time; they do little harm sitting around AfC space in the meantime). I'm not positive where we would go to have a consensus-making discussion about something like this...probably WT:AFC, but perhaps the Village Pump? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the bureaucratic "seek consensus first" method is not a good way to promote innovation in Wikipedia's processes and policies. There is rarely a gavel that slams down and all the sudden "It is decided. for now on we will do it this way." Rather I would just create whatever template you yourself would like to use. Use it and tweak it until you're happy with it and then share it with others. If they find it useful, it will spread organically and eventually someone will say "hey how come this isn't in the AfC documentation and review instructions?"

In my COI role I get inquiries from non-notable companies all the time, where the helpless PR rep kind of understands why they can't have an article, but they don't have the confidence or knowledge to take that message to their paymaster. A journalist will give us a straight answer on whether they are interested in the story we're selling, but Wikipedians are wishy washy, which makes the PR rep basically obligated to pursue it further. Once a corporate process has begun, there's a half-dozen people constantly saying "what's the status" and "what's the next step?" We need the PR rep to be able to say "Wikipedia doesn't want the article." CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Sorry it took me so long to reply to you! You're right that "seek consensus first" can stifle innovation, but the caveat to that is "but being bold is only the more-useful option if you have reason to think your idea is uncontentious and you can implement it singlehandedly". In light of that, there are two problems with being bold in this particular case. First, most AfC reviewing is done via the AfC helper script, which automatically transcludes decline templates and does other various tasks associated with reviewing an AfC, which can be a complex, multi-step process otherwise. As a result, a novel template won't get much, if any, uptake until it's integrated into the AfC Helper script, and getting it into AfCH requires discussion and the approval of the script's developers. Second, in this particular case, I strongly suspect that there is at least one, and probably more than one, person who would vehemently oppose any change to the AfC workflow that led to a "not now, not ever"-type decline. I'm all for being bold, but only when I don't have reason to think my action would be contentious. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right. I went ahead and sort of purused a few AfC submissions and sort of got a sense of things. It's been a while since I contributed to AfC. I left some comments on the AfC Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. It would be quite a wild conspiracy theory for someone to allege I have a COI with AfC templates, which would be based on the assumption of some self-serving conspiracy rather than my just trying to help. But when you came in with a heavy COI-angle I realized I should disclose my role as a COI contributor. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

• News and notes: German chapter asks for "reworking" of Funds Dissemination Committee; should MP4 be allowed on Wikimedia sites?

• Technology report: Architecture Summit schedule published

• Op-ed: Licensed for reuse? Citing open-access sources in Wikipedia articles

• In the media: Is Google hurting Wikipedia traffic?; "Wikipedia-Mania" in the New York Times

• Traffic report: The Hours are Ours

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Sociology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-04

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf11) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on January 16. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on January 28, and all Wikipedia wikis on January 30 (calendar).
• You can now see relatively recent results on special pages like Special:DoubleRedirects, Special:UncategorizedPages or Special:WantedCategories. They were disabled before because they were very slow. The results are now updated once a month. [1]
• As of January 16, you can make and use guided tours on the Asturian, Farsi and Russian Wikipedias. If you want this tool on your wiki, you need to translate it and ask in Bugzilla. [2] [3]
• You can give comments on an idea to have a fixed toolbar at the top of wiki pages. [4]
• You can watch a video to learn how to report problems in Bugzilla. [5]

VisualEditor news

• In the toolbar, the menu to edit the styles (like bold, italic, etc.) now has a down arrow (). The order of the Insert menu has also changed a little.
• You can now edit <gallery /> tags with a very basic tool. [6]
• You can now see a help page about keyboard shortcuts in the page menu. [7]
• When you change categories, you will now see them when you save the page. [8]
• When you edit templates, you will now see the parameters in the right order. The ones that you must add have a star (*). [9] [10]
• The page will now be saved faster, thanks to a new way of coding the text that sends 40% less text to the servers. [11]
• Your wiki can ask to test a new tool to edit TemplateData. [12]

Problems

• There was a problem with search on the English and German Wikipedias between January 6 and January 14. You could not see new pages and changes in search results. [13]
• There were "pool timeouts" errors on several wikis on January 13; it was caused by a code change that was made to fix another problem. [14]
• On January 17, Bugzilla and Wikimedia Labs were broken for about 20 minutes due to network problems. IRC channels with recent changes (irc.wikimedia.org) were broken for about two hours. [15]

Future software changes

Orange bar with new messages

• If you have removed JavaScript in your web browser, you will soon be able to see the orange bar saying that you have new messages. If you have changed how the bar looks with a gadget, you may need to change the gadget again. [16] [17]
• You will soon be able to add a given Flickr user to a blacklist so that their files can't be uploaded using UploadWizard on Wikimedia Commons and other wikis. [18]
• You will see a warning when you try to delete a page included in at least one other page. [19]
• You will so longer see disambiguation pages in Special:LonelyPages. [20] [21]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bonnie Prudden page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Philippe's judgment

You wrote:

Did Kww intend to substitute his judgment about the article's protection needs for Philippe's? No, he was trying to use Philippe's judgment ("This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people")

My question: is "This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people" something Philippe actually wrote? If not, it reads like an unwarranted presumption both about what Philippe was trying to do, and that the PC2 was even a matter of Philippe's judgment (rather than that of, say, the WMF legal team, which may be why he had to confer with them). Overall this seems like a situation where one should try to presume as little as possible. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people" is a summary of what PC2 does, and thus of what Philippe applied to the page (you could, of course, summarize it with other phrasings, too, but that's one). It's not an assumption of what he may or may not have been thinking, which, like you, I have no idea of. I don't think my comment was really sufficiently ambiguous to need to be edited; it goes without saying to anyone who's reading the case that Philippe represents the WMF in this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think describing another person's judgment about an issue really does assert something about what's going on in their mind, rather than about some related topic in an aspect that might or might not have been relevant to what they were thinking. The relevance of Philippe!=WMF is that someone interpreted "Philippe talked with the legal team" as "Philippe asked the legal team how to clobber Kww" where an AGF reading might be "Philippe asked the legal team whether full protection was an acceptable alternative to the PC2 that they had decided on earlier". Anyway, thanks for the clarification about the non-quote. I made another comment on Floquenbeam's usertalk if that's of any interest. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

• Book review: Missing Links and Secret Histories: A Selection of Wikipedia Entries from Across the Known Multiverse

• News and notes: Modification of WMF protection brought to Arbcom

• Featured content: Dr. Watson, I presume

• Special report: The few who write Wikipedia

• Technology report: Architecting the future of MediaWiki

• In the media: Wikipedia for robots; Wikipedia—a temperamental teenager

• Traffic report: No show for the Globes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)