User talk:Felipe da Fonseca

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Putting response here[edit]

This is a somewhat combative response to your WM forum comment. Dropping it here rather than there as it is quite long, and I certainly take issues with what you have said, how you have said it, and not considered the space and means to communicate it. But hey, that is just me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


That is a work harder, not smarter, approach. It is my reflection this is sounding more like w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT / w:WP:IDONTLIKETHEM.

  • I am already at and involved at multiple communities, I don't have to go back anywhere, I never left them. If there is not clarity in your proposal outside of that, then maybe you need to go back to your proposal and review and refresh.
  • The fundraising banner is an infinitesimal small component of this wiki and in which there is little real input from metawiki beyond hosting the functionality, it is a WMF staff issue. Only staff and those approved by staff have access to it. It is not a good example of metawiki control.
  • Yes. WMF uses metawiki for coordinating WMF discussions, that is its purpose. WMF also uses Mediawikiwiki for developing technical solutions, as that is its purpose. Announcements are put out to many wikis of things that are happening, announcements, forthcoming changes, etc.
  • If I know I want to hear and discuss central-coordinating things, be it global proposals, global blacklists, global abuse filters, global rights, global blocks, global renames, new wikis, etc., then the coordinating metawiki is the place to be. Which bits are you peeling away? How do you want that done differently.

Can I ask what has your wiki done to educate your users about metawiki? Is the supposed distance partly due to your wikis ignoring of metawiki? Metawiki is just one wiki and it connects to all wikis, it is not about being central, it is about being connected and themed. So stop redesigning in an image that you have, and come and tell us what are your needs that are not being met. Prioritise them.

Also, please don't expect people to pick through the minutiae to understand your broad concept. Especially when your starting approach is ...

What we have today is a Meta formed by users who have migrated from their base communities (home wikis) and formed a new community, who decide and impose these decisions on the base communities in a top-down model of governance. In this model, the design of the relationship between Meta and the base communities is a star, with Meta at the center, where each base community has a relationship only with Meta. In the image on the right, Meta is represented by the central green dot.

  1. Who has migrated? What evidence? Many of the people I see here are at multiple wikis. There is nothing stopping any person participating, in fact invitations are sent out to request participation on behalf of the wikis.
  2. Which decisions are imposed without the communities' ability to participate? Can you show that there has been no consensus on the decisions,
  3. Base communities? What does that mean?
  4. With meta at the centre? So your community has no interaction with Wikidata? Where is that decision-making occurring? Tell us about the consultation there? What about phabricator? Show me where those decisions are influenced primarily by metawiki? If your primary wiki doesn't have a relationship with other wikis, don't come saying it is metawiki at fault. I know that the Wikisources cross-communicate, and independent of metawiki.
  5. Top down? And what does that mean? What top? Apart from the fact that you are now mixing your metaphors you cannot be in the centre and be pushing from top.
  6. new community? Each wiki and its participants is a community and this wiki has been in operation for

To name a few: a) the decisions do not reflect the opinion of the totality of the communities, but only of those who form the community on Meta; b) editors and users who do not have the full confidence of their base communities, but possess that of the Meta community, end up deciding and imposing their decisions on the base communities; c) sometimes decisions of the base community are administratively contested by Meta (formed by outsiders in relation to the base communities), overruling the decisions of the base community; d) several editors that don't frequent Meta (for various reasons, such as language, difference of political and technical structure, lack of time and others) end up not participating in the decisions on Meta; e) there is no knowledge and recognition between communities, since they don't interact other than through Meta; f) etc.

To point the supposed consequences a) {{citation needed}} {{examples needed}}
b) {{citation needed}} {{examples needed}}
c) {{citation needed}} {{examples needed}} who where when what? Can you point me to protests made or global RFCs about the issue? Even local RFCs?
d) here there is scope to change things at metawiki, though it will never be ptwiki
e) what does that even mean? how would your plan change that? Your plan further separates discussions, builds more silos and less reason to leave a wiki. It doesn't expose the people in your community to any outside opinion.
f) etc. what the f?

So after my harsh appraisal, I will come back with the questions. What are the real issues that exist? What information are you not getting? What opportunity for participation are you not getting? What feedback do you need? What is broken that needs resolution? Which of those issues are people? Which are the wiki? Which are the system? Which is people actually not bothering to come outside of their home wiki where they have a comfort zone?

Billinghurst Thank you for the above observations. I am sure you don't expect me to answer them quickly, so I will answer them slowly in parts.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Billinghurst But I can already tell you that if examples and quotes are missing, everyone is invited to provide them, I don't intend to do the work alone.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
IMNSHO, I would think that the whole discussion would be better as an open discussion as an RFC. I don't think that the WM forum is a good spot for complex debates.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Unmarking a page for translation[edit]

Hello Felipe,

You have removed the markups from User:Felipe da Fonseca/test. For information, I just wanted to notice you that the page is still a translatable page. Translation admins can use “Remove from translation” feature from Special:PageTranslation. -- Pols12 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pols12 Thanks for the information. Could you remove it for me? So I can use the test page for other things?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for translation adminship/Felipe da Fonseca[edit]

Done, welcome! :) feel free to ask any question you have. Regards. Matiia (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Matiia Thank you. Actually I have a question yes, what did I do wrong here that the tags appeared on the page?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Matiia Furthermore, I just put this page up for translation, could you please check that everything is correct, after all it is my first markup.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
First case: I don't see the tags, do you still see it after the page got marked for translation?
Second case: It looks fine, but I wouldn't use the same number more than one time in the tvar, as sections can change in the future. Matiia (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Matiia 1) Not anymore, I already understand how it works; 2) right. Thanks.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Hi, I reverted this edit which went to the wrong place (due to the confusing layout of the initiative pages), and there is no way for me to tell what would have been the right place. You might want to re-add it to the intended page. Tgr (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tgr thanks, I had forgotten to undo it. Yes, it was quite confusing, so I removed the templates and signed directly in the documents, see "Action lines" at: Movement Strategy/Invest in Skills and Leadership Development. Let me call atention from Abbad (WMF) for that too.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tgr and Felipe da Fonseca: As I've noted to Felipe, the template in these pages was intended as a placeholder. However, as it seems to be creating confusion, I suppose I'll be replacing it with normal code. If you've other feedback, I'd be glad to hear it --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC).
Thanks @Abbad (WMF)! If it's English-only then I think that's for the best. If you want multilingual section titles, I don't think we have great solutions to that... I'd probably move signatures to a subpage in that case. Tgr (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I would've hoped to find a translation-friendly solution, but I believe it's more of a priority to keep the pages well-organized and easy to develop (they are currently in draft form and, hence, that seems as a priority over translation, which is still possible). I've now removed the template from the pages where it was used --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

agree and understand about access to grants[edit]

I think most wiki community members would. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bluerasberry thanks for the reply. Your participation in the general thread might be more fruitful, as it indicates to the community that I am not alone.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)