User talk:Peteforsyth

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

Contents

Hmm[edit]

I take it that I shouldn't be signing up for things on Meta? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do, it might be a good idea to get that ban lifted first, or else make your presence on that page so clearly valuable that consensus would be easy to achieve. This is actually a pretty good example of the sort of thing I have in mind; I think it's perfectly fine and desirable for somebody in your position to make contributions to this wiki, but I wouldn't be comfortable with you adding your name to certain public-facing lists here without some community consideration. -Pete F 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If you noticed, the original ban which was for one year and expected to last only 6 months was transformed by a later ArbCom without any new evidence of abuse on Wiki into an indefinite ban with the notion that "probation" or "restrictions" can equal "more ban". With such a radical change, it is obvious that it would never be lifted. I was given an email from one Arbitrator that I can forward you that says that there are 7 Arbitrators that will never want me unbanned no matter what and that the only way to be able to return is to have them removed. It is kinda funny for an individual who never had an RfC filed against them, had every block that year overturned, etc. to be treated that way, especially when the case was filed by myself because I was tired of being harassed. And yes, I was actually harassed - the admin in question sent out all of my personal details to people through email and even outed me publicly on the ArbCom case pages and yet wasn't even desysopped. It is so odd that one of the Arbitrators who wants me gone no matter what claimed that I "outed" a user by pointing out that he previous tried to have me indefinitely banned on a previous name while he was harassing me on my user talk page. I never released any real names or personal info, but alluded to a previous account that the Arbitrators all know was not a real name of his and that he was operating multiple socks and have been operating multiple socks for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
What jumps out to me from looking at that ArbCom decision more closely, is that you've also had some troubles with Commons and a mailing list. Nothing fatal about that of course; but I think if a group were forming, or an outreach-oriented page were being formed, I'd want to have a clear demonstration that other people wanted you participating. Of course, the "Assume Good Faith" concept is always there; hopefully, if people involved with such pages had no direct or recent bad experiences interacting with you, they'd gladly work with you. So I don't think this should be cause for alarm. -Pete F 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The "trouble" on Commons was by an admin who blocked me for saying that a blatant pedophile should be banned on Commons and then he not only had to undo the block but he was deemed abusive for using a sitting Foundation Board Member's IRC cloak in order to gain permissions on IRC he had no right to have and used it to try and boot me from chat and intimidate me. On the mailing list, I quit because one of the users there was trying to use the list to call people for political action and I said it was inappropriate. Then as some sort of retaliation the one guy said that if I ever came back I would be on moderation. None of those actually mattered to the Arbitrators. You can read their conversation on Wikipedia Review in the ArbCom-l leaks. That was all just added later. On ArbCom-l one Arbitrator said I was worse than an admitted pedophile who used adminship to blatantly harass people (according to the ArbCom-l description), which shows how some of their claims really don't match reality. After all, I am an academic who writes a religion column, is prominent in politics, a leader in multiple civic organizations, etc., and everyone who met me irl at any meet-up preferred my company over most Wiki regulars. If I was really that awful, I wouldn't have had so much support or have Jimbo say I did a really good job as an admin at Wikiversity after my ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. -Pete F 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter regardless. The Arbitrators are the power structure of en.wiki and have the right to do whatever they want for any reason. For your info, I always seek permission before attending events, posting in certain areas, etc. because of the ban. So, you don't have any opposition from me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the essay hit a bit of a nerve. Sorry, that wasn't my intent. Very glad to know the essay seems acceptable to you, though. And I hope things get easier in the various situations described above. -Pete F 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If you know anything about Wiki culture, it never does. Hey, it isn't as bad as Conservapedia where people get booted almost immediately for questioning things like "Why do you have an article on how liberals are fat?" But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cough[edit]

You said to ping you. Yet another IP. The guy doesn't understand that you can sock by jumping from IP to IP to try and hide your tracks (as can be seen from the linked SPI which has a lot of IP addresses used to get around blocks). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

About the money issue and spending stuff - sorry, I didn't care about the answer to the question to be honest. I was just trying to clarify Mbz's question without it seeming so out there or trollish or whatever. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You have new messages
Hello, Peteforsyth. You have new messages at Mdennis (WMF)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sue Table[edit]

Hi Pete, I was just trying to figure how to fill the table, you improved it a lot, but maybe I need a little more help: may I add a row with my opinion? or evryboby fill the same cell with checkmark and then Sue count fot this?? --Xaura 15:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC) (in my dummy_mood)

Hi Xaura, I am trying to figure it out as much as you are :) But I think it's a little different than you describe: each cell can get one checkmark, if anyone thinks that criterion is important. I believe Sue's hope is that, if people disagree about a certain cell, it will lead to a useful discussion on the talk page. It seems like a strange way to stimulate discussion, rather confusing, but potentially very effective! -Pete F 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
And, thanks for the compliment on the table improvement, glad to hear it helped! -Pete F 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
OH! tht's why I cannot copy as I'm used to! If even you cannot figure how to fill the table I'll have to ask the boss herself!--Xaura 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Something is seriously wrong with the Wikipedia blocking policy[edit]

So someone who has a computer and internet access elsewhere, and can create a log in name that way, can edit on a Hillsborough County Public Library computer, but those who do not have those resources can't. Is that the right way for Wikipedia blocks to be enacted? Doesn't this favor those with resources and disenfranchise those without? This does not seem right to me.

Where is the evidence that there is more vandalizm from Hillsborough County Public Library computers than other large systems. I haven't see the evidence. A year ban for a county public library system with over one million people depending on it? 71.46.49.251 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be an important problem here, and can offer "moral support," but I do not have any special authority, resources, or expertise to solve the problem. I think keeping the general discussion at Wikimedia Forum is the best way to go; I offered up my own talk page merely as a place to facilitate a workaround for a single user, which I am happy to assist with if desired. -Pete F 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So there is no "quality control" over the blocking policies of en.wikipedia, one of the top internet destinations in the country, if not the world? Why is there so much emphasis on university students, when high school students, more likely to use public library resources, are treated so poorly. Or anyone else that does not have a university IP? Has any university IP been blocked for a year, regardless of the amount of vandalizm? And as I said, there is no evidence that Hillsborough County Library computers are significantly likely to vandalize than any large IP that would never be blocked for a year. And the library computers are only blocked on en.wikipedia. 71.46.49.251 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You clearly haven't the slightest idea who you're talking to. Continue, if you find it fulfilling in any way. I'm sure it will be entertaining. -Pete F 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Translation_tools_workshop,_2012#Logistics. Cheers! --Siebrand 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi Pete,

This question is for you as for admin on English wiki. I am blocked there, that's why I will ask my question here. Could you please tell me what do you think about this policy, and what measures should in your opinion be taken towards an admin that violates it time and time again? Thanks.--Mbz1 02:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mbz, as an abstract question, I think that is a very important policy, and something I try to take to heart as an admin. In practice, it is not hard for me to imagine good faith disagreements about whether an admin is "involved" or not. Since I don't know anything about your case, I don't have much more to say about it -- except that I can see from your user page that you have been a very active contributor in the past, and I certainly hope that something happens to bring this to a resolution everyone is happy with. -Pete F 02:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for response. Maybe you'd be so kind to read this section and tell me, if I got something wrong. Thanks.--Mbz1 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that is quite an extensive case you have built up there. I really don't have the time to educate myself on such a complex and charged issue. I'm not sure if there is precedent for bringing an RFC here from another project, for behavior that is confined to that project; I understand that you're doing it because you are blocked there, but I'm unsure whether you are likely to find anyone here interested in engaging with it. Like I said before, I hope things work out for the best; but I'm not sure I have any great insights into how to bring that about. Thanks for asking, though. -Pete F 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually did not ask you to read over everything. I asked you to read over one small section, but I understand you'd rather not to get involved. Oh well, thanks for responding anyway.--Mbz1 06:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but please note that mbz1's en.wiki block is in effect voluntary; as I just posted on the RfC's talk page, mbz1 traded an indef block for a Revision Deletion of an entry in her block log. It is reasonably certain that any admin or Arbcom if contacted via e-mail would lift the block in exchange for reversing the RevDel. Tarc 14:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes my block is self-requested, and yes, I asked to revdelete an edit summary in my block log, but mostly I asked to be blocked because I was bullied, and tarc was the main bully.It never stopped even after the block!
this dirty personal attack by tarc, an attack that was made three months after I asked to be blocked! tarc falsely accused me in posting a racist comments to User talk:Malik Shabazz. tarc wrote it was "typical mbz1 tactic, but she's already indef'ed." I am not sure how low one should fell to make such an attack especially against the editor who cannot even respond. What "typical mbz1 tactic" the liar is talking about. I mean, if it is "typical tactic" are there more examples of the same typical tactic, which is including using an open proxy to post racist comment to an editor talk page? Any differences so far? Here is a typical Mbz1 tactic.
Here's tarc's vote on an innocent essay I wrote (also made after I was blocked):"'Delete - This is not reflective of anything other than the personal opinion of one of the worst battleground-mentality pov-warriors to grace the I-P topic area in recent memory. Repeatedly blocked and now indef'ed, this last finger-in-the-eye to the Wikipedia community should not be left to stand. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)" .Please note that tarc came here to say my block was self requested, but in the examples I provided above it mentioned the block, but said nothing about it being self-requested. Please also note that much less than 1% of my total contributions to the project were I/P related, and less than 10% of my English wikipedia contributions were I/P related.
Now tarc started hounding me here Please see that post and the post at your talk. --14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete[edit]

Would be nice to have ur comments there [1]. What do u think about the recommendations? Thx --Angel54 5 23:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I try[edit]

to translate parts of an article out of "Der Spiegel" (The mirror), only to introduce u to that stuff - a leading German newspaper http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,778866,00.html:
"In the future Kenzehkhanuly will ask Professors of Universities for help. [Head line missed] That is working in an other context, wikimedia stuff member Frank Schulenburg says. The idea: students dont write an examination but an article. "Why shouldnt they write an article for wikipedia, with scientific exactness", Schulenburg asks. In the name of the wikimedia foundation he asks Universities to help. With success: 32 Universities collaborate in that project, including well-respected like Harvard or Berkeley. Their creditpoints the students get for their participation in Wikipedia. Schulenburg talks about a student, who wrote about the nationaldemocratic party of Egypt. At that time their chairman was Husni Mubarak. "This contribution had a hundred readers, then the Arabic spring came and there were tenthousands." Many of those nonvoluntary columnists would like, not just write an examn , but to work for something with more substance. Now that program shall be executed worldwide."
And I dont do any judgment on that one...right? Replace editor with student, how easy is that one? --Angel54 5 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, helpful to see the Der Spiegel article for context. I don't know about your inquiry regarding the Terms of Use, and I'm not in a position to mediate whatever your dispute with Frank is. But I'm interested in the substance of what you've brought up. Are you implying that there's a problem with the approach taken in the Public Policy Initiative or the Global Education Program? As someone who was involved in the early planning for both, I'd like to understand -- but I am having trouble seeing the connections you're drawing. Could you explain more? -Pete F (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In short: as I explained in that discussion about Sues Recommendations, I personally got the feeling that the connections between Chapters on the one side and the communities at the other should be better. Many authors dont understand that through their non-paid work it is possible, to grab such huge amounts of money as funding and on the other side nothing flows back in the communities. And in this situation Frank suggests to acquire students to stop the decline of authors. And thats why Im a bit embarrassed about such proposals. If Wikimedia would do a good work in supporting their freelancers such things would not have to be discussed. There are always the same people who think the same things and if it doesnt work, then we change the authors. This is clearly the wrong way: U could read that this program should be followed "worldwide" (and if such an article goes into Kurier then this means, also in Germany). Throw all those people out - they have done their work, lets look for new ones. U know the Shakespeare citation about the blackamoor, who did his duty...--Angel54 5 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Culture Alliance SF Bay Area[edit]

It breathes: Free Culture Alliance SF Bay Area. The vision: informal group, maybe put on a monthly get-together, keep a low-traffic email list, possibly have something substantial on an annual basis? What do you think? I'll talk to Plos folks, if you think this is a good direction, let's get a list going of people to contact.

- Mattsenate (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania budget[edit]

Hello, Pete. I've always thought that it's a shame (or a scandal?) that no info whatsoever on an Wikimania's budget is publicly available. The only thing I've managed to extract (last time for Wikimania 2009) was the amount spent by the WMF on scholarships, and perhaps something an be found in the form 990. Do you know who has this information, where it's stored and made available and to whom, and whether it can be published in some form? It's interesting for the whole community and absolutely necessary for any bidding team. Thanks, Nemo 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that a group that doesn't know how much a convention would likely run doesn't have enough experience to run a convention. The previous budgets are absolutely essential, I'm not saying you don't need them because you do, but a group that can host Wikimania should be able to fairly reasonably guesstimate how much it'll all cost, in my opinion. Banaticus (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Nemo sorry for taking so long to reply. I generally agree that it would be good for this information to be shared publicly. However, there are some other considerations. It seems to me that many (most?) expenses for something like Wikimania would be negotiated -- and having public information about what is being spent, or has been spend in the past, always has the potential to weaken the current team's (or future teams') negotiating position. I would strongly support an effort to establish clear guidelines around what budget information should be published and when, but I also expect there would need to be some clear limits on what is advised.
I'm happy to discuss this in more detail at some point, if you'd like. It would probably be a good idea to bring in some voices from various past Wikimania teams as well. -Pete F (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Your point is an important one and something which I should have made clear immediately: I don't think everything should be public, but I surely think that something should be (as opposed to completely nothing right now). As I said on Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimania_travel_question, as a public piece of info I think total expenditure can suffice. However, I'd expect all Wikimania teams to be provided with detailed financial reports from past years, for the sake of efficiency and long life learning (so to say); I don't know what's made available to them right now and where, but I hope wikimaniateamwiki is used for knowledge sharing across years, and surely internal-l could be spammed with such information if available anywhere. Finally, when or if some info is available somewhere, it would be useful to add to the Wikimania Handbook a small section "if [your bid wins/<insert condition here>] you'll have access to the following information and sources of help: ...". This is why asked you in the first place, because I know you're interested in improving the handbook (among other things). What do you think? --Nemo 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

strategy page import request[edit]

Hi Pete, please see Wikimedia_Forum#Import_request_for_one_strategy_page about MENA Region Catalyst Projects. Cheers, --John Vandenberg (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to your suggestions to improve the Easy Media uploader proposal[edit]

posted here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/Easy_Media_Uploader

ArticleFeedbackTool and call to action[edit]

FYI, I sort of quoted you here. --Nemo 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Open course[edit]

Hi Pete,

I just saw the announcement about the open course on how to edit. I was curious about the timing: the six-week course runs from mid-May to the end of June, and VisualEditor is scheduled to deploy the week after that. Are you addressing this massive change in the course? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in our course! No, we haven't covered the VE in any great detail (though we have mentioned it). It's of course my hope that whenever it's ready, it will be deployed in a way that provides an easy transition for all editors. Even if it's not, I believe a solid grounding in MediaWiki syntax is the best tool I can offer my students, and will serve them well in adjusting their habits as needed. If and when the VE becomes a better option, I will of course adjust any future cohorts of the course to cover it more fully. -Pete F (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
As long as your students have some idea that it's happening, then that's probably all that they need for now.
It sounds like the old editor will be always on for everyone, without needing to enable anything. You'll just click "Edit source" rather than "Edit" to reach it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Stupidity of the reader[edit]

Today I vented some thoughts which bothered me for a while. --Nemo 14:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

[2][edit]

Hi there, due to an rather stupid accident I couldn´t answer you question till now. This (block dated 03. April 2014) happens to you, when you mention that a certain user wrote an article about a customer of the advertising agency she ist working for. Of course my edits with the evidence I found were deleted. I guess User:Mogelzahn is on their paylist as well. Weissbier (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

[3] You made it a forum by responding. I expressed support for the greater ramification of the letter, i.e. all such privileges need to be addressed by the community first instead of just this one. I'm sure most people would agree with that sentiment and not want the WMF to mistake that this was solely limited to one feature. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ottava Rima:, thanks for the note. I hope I didn't come across as critical, I realize that I may not have expressed the intention clearly enough at the outset. I see that @Odder: has since tidied up the page, which might have been the better approach for me to take. I'm not uninterested in the details of your perspective -- quite the opposite, actually -- I just would much prefer to read about them at a place like Requests for comment/Superprotect rights. This letter should be easy to absorb; I am envisioning a page with dozens, or maybe more, signatures, where it is very easy for the reader (whether or not they are a Wikimedian) to quickly scan the list and get a clear sense of the numbers. Uniformity is an important piece of that puzzle. -Pete F (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You can be as critical as you want, you created it. :) I just pointed out the irony. I just wanted you to know that I think we need to put forth a policy that makes it clear that we are independent, as we are supposed to be for legal reasons. That means that the WMF can't just impose anything because they operate our servers. If they want in the future to blackmail us over the servers, fine, but then that would lead to a fork stand off. The WMF is way too big and way too bloated, and the projects are how they get their funds. We create the content, they profit off of it. Just look at how they opposed a true free academic license because it was non-commercial licensed. They oppose anything where they can steal other people's ideas to make money off of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

I consider this blatant canvassing. Please don't ever spam people with such messages again. This, that and the other (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Don't you ever tell people what to do again. odder (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a letter, not a vote. "Canvassing" guidelines do not apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback, and as I said in edit summary, I'm sorry for having made an unwelcome intrusion on your talk page. I have reverted, and will do my best to avoid commenting there in the future. -Pete F (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Petitions[edit]

Hi Pete, I just received your invitation, which I regret I just can't thank you for. I don't mean at all to be unpleasant, but when in critical situations, I always prefer to be roughly frank rather than falsely formal, and very frankly I have to tell you that I didn't appreciate to receive this invitation. I went to that RfC to make a call for unity and harmony, and I got as an answer an invitation to deepen the distances among the members of the Community. This you sent to me right when I understand that most people, right now, are already correctly disposing to a healthier attitude of humbleness and openness to discussion. Well, I certainly respect the individual freedom of thought, so I only can argue about the collective side of the issue, which in my very humble opinion regards how and where to solve the problems that we find, and sometimes create, right here. Still from my pov only, if we are not able to solve our problems here, in our wiki, either they actually are not 'problems', or they are not 'ours'. So I'm very sorry I have to say that a petition on a completely unrelated site seems to me as a very bad move; we can discuss about everything here, and if we can't find solutions among ourselves, it won't be a call for external support that will help us. We still need to learn how to discuss among us, it's maybe too early to bet that a dispersion of the discussions could be of any advantage. Besides, if you just had took a look at what is currently going on, you could perhaps have seen that your proposal comes in the less useful moment if you too stand, like I do, for a sane solution.
However, I believe that unity is a valuable item, but it's not necessarily anything that anyone ought to feel as a compulsion; it is a condition which eventually would only regard those who want to stay together in a given common Community. And this feeling too is not compulsory at all. But I do hope, and partly I envision, also, that we are still sharing the pride of being together in this Community. This would allow us to try to solve our problems where they have a chance to be solved, and that place is here.
As said, I didn't want to be offensive, truly, and I sincerely apologize if anything in my words could sound offensive beyond my intention. I'm looking forward to working together with you again soon and I hope you can accepts my best regards --g (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Gianfranco:, there is of course nothing at all offensive about your message, I appreciate the forthright and detailed feedback. I will respond briefly, but am willing to discuss in more depth, please feel free to continue the discussion here.
First, I am absolutely with you on wanting to have unity and harmony, and I hope that the first words of the letter convey that. I thought carefully about the wording, and consulted with several trusted colleagues, so I'm sorry to learn that it came across as negative.
I did not originally intend to publish this on an external site, but let me tell you why I made that choice. There has been so much said about what the readers want, without much solid evidence of what they want; and in my experience, when I tell people outside the movement what is going on, they feel passionately about it. I felt it was important to create an avenue for them to express their views, and for those of us closer to the decision to be able to see their views. If you look at the edit history, you will see I initially created a section for "Wikimedia supporters" to sign the document here on the wiki; but since there is so much concern about the usability of wiki-editing for non-regular-contributors, I was easily persuaded to use a site that is set up with this purpose in mind, and with high usability for this purpose.
There is of course nothing to prevent a non-Wikimedian from signing the on-wiki version if they prefer, though I didn't provide explicit instructions on how to do it. If you feel I should add something in, I am happy to consider it. -Pete F (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe there is one thing that should prevent an "external" to come in and express himself on such a technical and complex discussion: that it is very technical and very complex, at the point that we too that work everyday in the Projects ended into an unsustainable confusion. I'm usually wide open to external contributions, but there are cases in which they just can't help. Or, to be honest, cases in which they seldom can help and it's unlikely they could. I'm glad you have keen interlocutors in your extra-wiki life, but I guess that if I start talking with my wife, who knows me very well and is a mere "reader", about user rights and protections, about the MV opt-out and similar arguments, she wouldn't get the point, at her first strike, at least :-) Please, consider that the whole happened without even looking at the potential and eventual implications and inferences of the tool; it wasn't by a combination that I stressed alot, in my post, about strategic issues, because these have to be part of the necessary reflections for a correct evaluation of the tool. Do you expect readers to bear this in their mind while expressing themselves? To go on with a frank but not false approach, are you calling them to give us concepts for us to use to solve our problems, or are you calling them only to gather some signatures? And I believe it's not really that different with wiki "regulars" who haven't a complete sense on what happened. You know, I presume, that beyond your good faith this call could be seen as something very different from what you described me here.
But apart from all that, you are launching this just after what you are asking for has already been scheduled for annulation, and there is people apologizing. Is this campaign still needed, really? At the moment my opinion is that it only could add more nerves to a situation that is starting to quiet down. If we all can relax a minute and give up a bit of our own positions in order to allow discussion restart correctly, we have a chance to help ourselves to get everything re-starting to go as usual. This is, imvho, a true priority. It's a sacrifice that's needed, but it's pretty normal it is, if your ideas are valuable; only "cheap" ideas can be renounced at no cost ;-) --g (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Gianfranco, "already been scheduled for annulation, and there is people apologizing"? If you mean Erik's email and [4], there isn't any apology there and no scheduled removal of the superprotect right. --Nemo 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nemo bis:, I would not like to bring things back to a personal level, it never proofed to be helpful in restoring productivity in discussions. But since you linked those statements, what they say is enough for me to get the message that they have got the message. I don't care at all that there isn't a date, because I know which was their starting position and I look at where they are now, and I have to appreciate (and I'm glad to appreciate) their effort to tell with facts, if not with words, that we are going to be again together. This is more than mere apologizing, this is admitting a mistake, and I'm pretty sure that an experienced and uncommonly gifted user like you are, as well as Pete, about whom I can read uncommonly deep and proficient contributions, will both fairly admit in turn that a meaningful move has been done and are both capable to read in such a move all the meanings it has. They will add facts to words; will you? --g (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ouch typo in header. :( --Nemo 04:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

no typo, no mistake, in our context it is generally wrong to go for petitions whatever their subject is. Concepts, this is what nurtures our discussions, not a number of votes --g (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think @Nemo bis: meant my typo in the notification I sent out...whoops. @Gianfranco: I have followed this discussion, and appreciate your points, though I don't entirely agree. The language of collaboration can be a negative when coupled with unilateral action; that is, I think the important point here. It is unfortunate that this process has become a contest of PR-type messages, but I can't take responsibility for it having gotten to that point. I believe your underlying point is that we should be making decisions based on the merits of various actions, and I agree entirely; but unfortunately, we have long been out of that mode on the issues discussed in this letter. -Pete F (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
my true point is that what happened could be a dangerous propeller for division, disjuncture, partition of a working team which must remain united in harmony, a condition that it seems to me you were agreeing upon before. Of course, each one of us with his own ideas, and free to have them and to free express them. Coherently with our habits. When we are in the middle of the breach, adding further distances is very unlikely to be helpful, this is my sole worry. Rest assured I'm not PRing for anything or anyone, I respond of what I do and in my vision anyone else responds of what he does. There are general interests, though, and I prefer to look at them as a priority. --g (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

About the petition thing, I answered on my talk page. TL;DR: I do not support your petition. --Ainali (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I received your invitation. In January in esWiki we had a similar problem with Wikimedia Foundation, because it took a lot to get the VisualEditor disabled, so have brought the issue to our village pump.

Whenever I know how my mates have reacted I'll tell if I like or not your comment, because it is not very polite spamming, but I just do it in esWiki, so... Cheers. Albertojuanse (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC) PD: Sorry my english

Hi @Albertojuanse:, I regret that this seems like spam to you, and several of our colleagues have felt the same. I am very interested to know whether or not this resonates for you and your local community, though -- please do come back when you have a more fully formed view, whether or not you agree. -Pete F (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions[edit]

Hi,
I was not aware of it. Thanks for informing. I'll check it. after receiving your message I have checked and found this thread wikipedia:Wikipedia:VPT#New_superprotect_protection_level.2C_coming_to_your_wiki_soon. In case you have not posted there, could you do it and add those two links there? I have not signed still, but few editors I very much trust are already opposing this move (at WP:VPT, link above). I'll study more soon. Change.org and wiki-petition, both are fine. --TitoDutta 05:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I have created a caricature
Superprotect caricature image.jpg

TitoDutta 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose option[edit]

I signed the petition, but in addition to the support option, please provide an option those who support the WMFs as well as one for neutrals. Its the wiki thing to do, and will show the board where the balance of feeling on this issue is. Otherwise however many signatures we receive , a hundred or a thousand, we will be painted as a self interested, self selecting clique that is not truly representative of community feeling.--KTo288 (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Responded on the letter's talk page. -Pete F (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Petition on Meta[edit]

Hi Peter, thank you for notifying me of the surprisingly undemocratic practices of Wikimedia Foundation. I am not aware of any thorough discussion on the new Media Viewer beforehand. It does not bring any new quality for users and introduces such a profound change for editors of Commons, that it should remain a beta feature forever. This is my personal view which should not be considered as representative of the Czech Wikimedia community.--NoJin (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for composing such a well balanced and good petition. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) nl-wiki admin and global sysop
The next step could be the developement of a Charter of Cooperation by WMF and the international community of individual volonteers („iCIV") - please compare Bylaws: ARTICLE II - STATEMENT OF PURPOSE - with a KISS :) --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
... or a Charter of Coordination in terms of bylaws. Stay in tune: Have fun with Wikipedia. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  Levels of Public Participation[1]
 
        empower  
        cooperate  
        involve  
        consult  
        inform  
           
... from information to empowerment:
Levels of public participation with increasing public impact

Does WMF know the levels of cooperation/coordination with iCIV (international Community of Individual Volunteers)? Please, have a glance at colour Public Participation beautiful - being used in Spektrum der Bürgerbeteiligung. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

More might interest you: Tic-Tac-Toe of Free Content – on the track of Coordination. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC) (trying)
  1. (International Association for Public Participation 2006: 35) quoting Template:Internetquelle - This publication has been published in three parts: 1, 2 und 3.

At Fragen zur Wikipedia I am trying to initiate a discussion about Requests for Comment/Ten Guiding Principles of Wikimedia Movement where all Chapters participate in their native toung and contribute to this RfC as a supplement to dicissions which will be made by WMF in nearly two month (Working Together) --Edward Steintain (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to choose another name, considering there is Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles (which just describes how the previous ED worked and is very confusing in its relation with wmf:Values). --Nemo 08:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a conflict. And the conflict is about the final interpretation what Guiding Principles means: ´Guiding Principles of Wiki Media Foundation´ or ´Guiding Principles of Wiki Media Movement´. Who shall decided about the meaning – Foundation or Movement? The basic idea is: Stop defending! Start developing! Guiding Principles in possession of the Community – not yet. It is a matter of historic progress. Loving NOW! -- Edward Steintain (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please let us try to send a sign of hope. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nemo. Charter of WikiMedia Movement (WMM Charter) – free knowledge by cooperation and diversity. --Edward Steintain (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Charter of WikiMedia Movement (WMM Charter) is the new suggestion. Edward Steintain (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Organizational cooperation (being called coordination by WMF so far) needs a continuous developement. A Charter of Wikimedia Movement (WMM) was suggested to give the Guiding Principles of Wikimedia Foundation a new impuls. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
New anouncements of LT from SF. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, Peter, what happend with Superprotection in de:?? Do you have any idea?? Thanks. (from es:) --Ganímedes (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to posting on talk pages[edit]

Pete (Peter? Preference?) I think that it would be best to set a date for the petition to be delivered rather than a number of signatures. Signature counts are much more prone to failure, and it could cause the petition to drag on forever. Alternatively, set a number of signatures, but with a backup date in case that number is not hit. Zellfaze (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pete, thanks for your message and thanks for your work on the letter and your postings on the MediaViewer and Superprotect affair. I for myself fear that this activism is completely senseless since the Wikimedia Foundation has shown in the last days and in past clashes that it gives a flying fuck on what the community thinks and it has nothing more to give to us, the authors, than a bunch of hollow phrases and PR bullshit. So, as the only measure I have to put some pressure on the WMF I suspended my work on the German Wikipedia for an unlimited time and put a note on my pages there to discourage people from giving money to the Foundation. The annual december fundraising is coming and as all personnel the WMF has is payed by funding money given by people who were convinced into paying by articles written by volunteers. I hope the WMF feels the pain their action does to us, the authors. If not (and looking at the amount of money the german fundraiser raises compared to the international fundraising volume, they wouldn't even miss the money) I'm at least hoping this method and my example can be an example for authors of other Wikipedias too, so that my single voice can be part of a choir whose voices will ring the ears of every Erik Möller, Fabrice Florien, Jan-Bart Vreede and Lila Tretikov out there. Thanks. --Viciarg 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am in a minority thinking this, though I don't think I am, but the Wikimedia projects serve a purpose too great for me to consider stopping editing. I'd rather see people discussing a fork than discussing stopping editing. (Aside, I do not support the idea of a fork at this time). Zellfaze (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

pt.wiki discussions[edit]

Hi!

As requested, I tried to resume discussions at pt.wiki. Ãs described, I think there was no real discussion but very active editors are aware about what is happening. I had ping users I know from pt.wiki and I hope they will help to point out any discussion I may have missed. Sorry for bad english. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

letter update on it.wiki[edit]

I reported the question about the delivering of the letter on Italian embassy (linked by local Village Pump, the "Bar"). the Italian discussion regarding the story is "Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Tranquilli mamma WMF sa cos'è meglio per te" (in English sound like "Relax, 'mom' WMF knows what is best for you"). --valepert (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Superprotection[edit]

Ciao Pete.

Signed the letter with my original non-SUL-account Patio. I met Jan-Bart in person some days ago and he disagreed that this is against the gist of Wiki... Kind regards,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  09:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

About talks in zhwiki (Chinese Wikipedia)[edit]

Hi, Peteforsyth.

I have seen your update which was posted in my talkpage, I also seen your comment in zhwiki's talk area, which translated by Liuxinyu970226. In fact, the talk in zhwiki(both the section you commented and the 9th section) is mainly about the translation of your letter days ago. Many Chinese wikipedians think that there are some problems in the translations of your letter --- they think that they're not NPOV. Some people think that the meaning of some of the translations are different from the original letter. They think that some of the translators are use the letter to throw mud at something else.

Many people may not feel like reading some pages all written in a foreign language, it may be tiring. (Although with Google Translate) So most of Chinese Wikipedians' thinkings are shown in signatures. Now I think that the topic is about "Since the Media Viewer is useful for new wikipedians(but may be confusing for old wikipedians), the status of MV shows the attitude of Wikimedia: New wikipedians or Old wikipedians". So it is great of WMF to allow people to set the status of MW. (That's my attitude. If there is any mistake, I am so sorry about that.) Rubyy (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Open letter mass message and one-side point of view[edit]

Thanks Pete for your mass message on my talk page. Although I think you should include some information from evolution from the WMF side, especially Community Engagement (Product)/Process ideas which touch the presented issue. It is draft, but good commence. --KuboF (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect spamail[edit]

UNSUBSCRIBE

SpinningSpark 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass messages[edit]

Mass messages look better when you spell them correctly. Next time you send one, I strongly recommend checking with a native speaker.

("Decision") DS (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That runs.[edit]

Hi Peteforsyth.

We talked of your petition here. Amicalement. --Le sourcier de la colline (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarify[edit]

In the sentence that begins "The Media Viewer software should be permitted to return to "opt-in" on those projects where it has been clearly called for, and not returned to "opt-out" until those communities agree" I think instead of "on those projects where it has been clearly called for" what you meant to say was "on those projects where that has been clearly called for". When you use "it", it sounds like you are meaning "Media Viewer", but I think you meant "opt-in", which would be clarified if you edited that sentence to change "it" to "that". Apteva (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done -- thanks, -Pete F (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect letter[edit]

Hello Peter. Sorry for delaying to answer, I'm not at base home but at my country home and Internet connection is a little bit something absurd here (!). As a matter of fact another user (FocalPoint) started a discussion in Greek Wikipedia, but I cannot say there is much interest from the majority of users, though five of us hava signed the letter. Anyway, given the total number of users in el.wikipedia, five is a comparatively high score. I do agree that the Foundation is just administering Wikipedia and other sister project, but those who really create them are simple users, like you and me, who dedicate their spare time contributing and adding content, that is constructing the actual thing. Under this prospect, I believe that the Foundation must strongly take into account the contributors' opinions and not follow, as it is said, the line "I decided and I order". Foundation must understand, and users also, that the true power of Wikipedia is its Community, no matter which country everyone comes from. As for practical matters, I think it would be better to establish a final date, not a threshold of signatures, I would propose September 10th or some days later, but not long time after that. I also think that an e-mail to every member of the Foundation's Board, including all users who have signed it, would be the best way of delivering it, so nobody would be in the place to say "sorry I didn't see it" or "I didn't notice the discussion on meta" and similar excuses. Of course these are merely suggestions. I'll try to stay in contact so I will be informed on possible progress. Thanks a lot for writing me. --Ttzavaras (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

signing[edit]

Hello Pete, it would be better readable, if you signed your proposals on the MV consultation page. Greetings --Winternacht (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Winternacht, I didn't sign because I'm not interested in pursuing these things further; problems at this level should have been identified and resolved long before the software was moved out of beta. I am not interested in doing uncompensated work for the Wikimedia Foundation; I think Jimbo Wales summed up my reasons nicely here: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Jimmy-Wales-think-crowdsourcing-is-a-horrible-term -Pete F (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point, and I also think that those problems should have been resolved a long time ago (before all votings and roll-outs). I didn’t mean that you should pursue things further or whatever. I only meant that it would be better for the readers to see at once who proposed which proposal and who identified which problem with the software, that’s all. You don’t need to do anything more with that then. They should do things themselves and not letting others make their own work now, yes.
Nice link, by the way. „Your job is to help them do what they want to do“, „the great communities of the Internet“. It seems that the text has to be very old (I can’t find a date for that) and must have been forgotten in the meantime, or it got another interpretation such as his own principles on which the wikis once relied. *seufz* --Winternacht (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Winternacht. I weighed several options before filing those bugs...and maybe it's worth recording, so since you've asked, here's a summary:
  • Signing the bugs would inaccurately convey the sense that I want to engage in something collaborative, without compensation.
  • I considered submitting them as an IP, but I take some pride in never having obscured my identity on any Wikimedia project, and I didn't want to break that habit over this.
  • I considered entering "Move MV back into beta until an appropriate solution can be designed, implemented, and tested" -- which I genuinely believe is the only legitimate path forward -- but I've said it before, and don't want to be pointy, so I decided not to propose a solution.
  • Finally, I chose to submit them under my account, but leave them unsigned. If you, or anybody, feel it's important to add my name, I won't stand in your way -- but my preference is to minimize the amount my name is associated with them, because they are not my problems to solve.
I hope that makes sense -- I understand if you disagree, but that's why I did it the way I did.
As for the Jimmy Wales quote, it looks like he wrote it April 4, 2013 -- the date is below the quote in small text. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, but I think that this is not transparent. Perhaps someone will add your missing signature then, and I don’t think, this will be bad. For myself, I don’t like to get engaged at all in those bugs, if this is the way it shall be and MV won’t even be rolled back to beta or something like that which would be so easy to do, but there is that wall inbetween which I can’t understand. The procedure is a real bad one now altogether. I wrote something upon that already on my talk page. This whole thing about the superprotection and the media viewer roll-out (but not back again) and ignoring the communities as much as possible is making me tired and unwanting to engage in anything here (or wherever) anymore. And I know quite a lot of people who also feel that way, a part of them have themselves blocked or don’t want to edit anymore or something like that. Do you know this rule about Meta wiki? I’m really thinking that that page is such a „try to get the decision[s] overruled“, decisions on 3 wikis. It’s sad to see this being done this way. --Winternacht (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Below the quote, I’m seing this small text, but no date at all: „Written Insert a dynamic date here. Asked to answer by Isaac Lewis and Anonymous.“ Perhaps it can only be seen with an account there? But if this is really a quote of 2013, then I’m wondering even more. It doesn’t match other newer comments. --Winternacht (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thought you might want to have a look[edit]

New Media Viewer usability research. The wikitext report will be available on Monday, I believe. I and/or someone else will further spread the availability of the information. I'll be in San Francisco next week, let me know if you want to grab a coffee and we'll compare schedules. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Superprotect status[edit]

Dear, in this period I'm very busy but I'll try to update my knowledges about this new feature. Thank you for your interest.

Have a nice day --Joetaras (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I'm unsure what this superprotect status has to do with small wikis in particular - in general small wikis are fine with whatever new WMF / Wikimedia-wide policies are, as long as they don't ask the admins of small wikis to do it themselves. Taking off my hat as admin of zh-yue.wp: and wm2013:, I don't think I'll comment on the RfC because it's really long and unstructured, and all the points I would've wanted to make have been made already. Deryck C. 10:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peteforsyth, Vietnamese Wikipedia community has recognized this (vie an auto message on local Village pump), so who have interested would to participate, unless they don't really have opinions. Anyway, I translated many pages related to this into Vietnamese. Thank you for informing. Sincerely. --minhhuy (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You have new messages
Hello, Peteforsyth. You have new messages at Ralgis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
@Joetaras, Deryck Chan, Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy, and Ralgis: Thank you all for the feedback. I thought it would be worthwhile for admins to know about something that affects their privileges, and had some feedback that the VP notifications might not be noticed on many wikis. -Pete F (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for info--Laslovarga (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Pete!--Marzedu 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out to me. H. (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for your message. Regards.--Jatrobat (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info regarding this issue which has been raised recently from our wiki. I have read most of the materials. Thanks again. (From Cantonese Wikipedia) --WikiCantona (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. --Жељко Тодоровић (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC) с. р.

Thanks for the info. I signed the petition.--GatoSelvadego (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Pete,
I just found your message today on my discussion page, because I almost never go to Meta-Wiki.
English is not my favourite language and I'm not sure to understand well what this superprotect status means for me.
I take profit of this message to write a request. Since the beginning of Commons I look to all files published, so I have seen today almost 25 000 000 during all these years. I do this in order to add in "my" wikibooks each picture fitting the themes. For instance, many thousands of them are included in the french photography wikibook. It frequently occurs that I find mistales in the names of the files, like a false determination of plants or animals or all other kinds of errors, but I can't correct them and have to ask somebody else to do it. I would like to have the right of doing myself directly the necessary corrections, it would save time for me and for other administrators !
Best regards, Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jean-Jacques MILAN, thank you for the note, and I'm sorry my message didn't reach you in a timely manner. I am happy to discuss it if you have comments or questions. But I will leave that to you. In the meantime, I will make a request on your behalf for the "file mover" right on Commons. -Pete F (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leadership[edit]

On [5], for a couple years now I've been contemplating the idea of writing two essays, one on eugenics/social engineering and the other on central management/planned economy, but I've not yet found a sensible way to do so. Probably they'd come as a a dyad of humorous political manifests inspired to well-known historical ones... one would need a social darwinist and a socialist from 19th century to avoid being too "compromising", but then who will know them? :-) Needs a lot of preparatory reading. --Nemo 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Resolution on superprotect[edit]

FYI --Nemo 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As an update, I was busy in March and forgot to look back at this. The resolution was mostly drafted in my mind, though, so if still needed I could commit a morning to write it down. It's a very reasonable text which I think anyone can agree with. --Nemo 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we talk on IRC/Skype/phone Nemo bis? Pete F (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Nemo bis/User rights process. Please polish. --Nemo 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
for your efforts in spirit of the self-determination of the Wiki community

I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for keeping an upright spine for democratic autonomy and against those who abuse their powers. Especially for the Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer. Thank you!!!!11eleven --Trofobi (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Research:Wikipedia article creation[edit]

Can't remember if you saw this. BTW, as WMF is entirely useless for the things which really matter, I've been hoping for a while that some community member(s) active on en.wiki work towards a decision to reverse the catastrophic decree by Jimbo in 2005, which probably played a major role in the decline of the English Wikipedia. --Nemo 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Nemo bis -- that is even stronger than I would have suspected. "We found correlation based evidence that directing new article creators to AfC has resulted in a dramatic decline in the creation of good new articles by newcomers." Many thanks -- very helpful link, I had not seen that study. -Pete F (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry[edit]

Hi, I've emailed you (via en.WP). Thanks. Tony (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Pete, we'll need to finalise soon. Tony (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Board election update[edit]

Thanks for the honesty in withdrawing. :) --Nemo 06:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Nemo bis. It was a tough decision, but I do think there are several excellent candidates. I plan to write more as I continue evaluating options (everything looks slightly different now that I have withdrawn!) I notice there is an interesting precedent for voter guides (from the last English ArbCom election). I'd be very interested to see your reflections and endorsements before I cast my votes; please let me know if you publish anything. -Pete F (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I have no opinion in regard to your situation (which I have not in any way looked into) or whether or not it was a good decision to withdraw but, should you have the time, I would be interested to know your opinion on any related matters.
For my part I have started a discussion at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015#How_come_infrequent_editors_to_Wikipedia_want_to_be_trustees? and am currently formulating a related question to the remaining 21 candidates.
Whatever your reasons may have been I truly respect that you are WP:here purely for the reason to build the best resource of information possible and, if I had a cap, it would be off. GregKaye (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Opposition[edit]

On the oppose votes by the time you withdrew, I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I expect there were at some 500 tactical opposes on all candidates; said tactic voters probably knew what to do at the beginning of the election and voted immediately. Assuming a tactical voter supports only 3 persons and opposes 17, if voters are 100 % tactical then it logically follows that candidates have an average support rate of 15 %. So your support rate was probably average at that point. --Nemo 21:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nemo_bis. I agree, and everybody who's commented on it to me publicly or privately has said the same; the one single exception is somebody who has every reason to have a biased view (though I would have hoped he would apply some more critical thought). On the specifics of your comment, I'm not inclined to think tactical voting was such a strong factor -- after all, every single candidate got more than the 15% average that a purely tactical approach would have produced, and by a huge margin, the most votes were in the "neutral" category, which a purely tactical voter would have no reason to use. Nevertheless, I attach almost zero importance to how people chose to vote on my non-candidacy. If I did, I might be celebrating having received the fewest "oppose" votes of all candidates ;) -Pete F (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

Hello. Please move these pages to MediaWiki namespace. Thanks, Rzuwig 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Matiia (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Superprotect Right[edit]

Dear Peteforsyth

Thank you very much to let me know my Right of Superprotecting the pages. I would like to superprotect the main page of Sindhi Wikipedia. May I know how to use this option? Kindly guide.

Aursani (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

fy:[edit]

Thank you for your message of 2014. I can assure you that I was unaware of whatever you were asking about. I would have been that even if I had been active at that point for the very simple reason of size. Determine the number of users on en: and those on, in this case, fy:. Also, compare the number of en:-oriented meta users with the number of fy:-oriented meta users. Now divide the impact from the one, measured as such meta users, by its distribution on the other, measured as its users. Those two values are fy:'s impact on the individual en: user and vv. You'll probably find that fy would suffer an impact > 1: all the stuff organised from en: (and the same for each other large wiki) would take up all activity from each fy: user, if we were to allow the impact, and we'd still miss most of it. In other words, the only way for a small wiki to survive is to just concentrate on its own activity and simply ignore the largely irrelevant messages coming from elsewhere. Aliter (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aliter, thanks for this. It is difficult to know for sure what will be of interest to whom; but I appreciate this feedback. -Pete F (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Post-mortem[edit]

For once I agree with Brandon. There is no need of a post-mortem for Flow, its doomed fate was already known in February 2013. What we need is a pre-genus! Nemo 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nemo bis Yes. It's actually the same thing, as you pointed out yourself :) -Pete F (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Seat" vs "Seats"[edit]

Hey Pete!

About this, I see your point. However, it was "seat" in the original version created by Stephen LaPorte and then changed to "seats" by a passer-by. So "seat" seems like the canonical version. It doesn't really matter, though.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Neil P. Quinn: Sorry, you're right! I acted too quickly, without reviewing the prior history. I agree, it's a pretty minor point...if you'd rather change it back, that's fine by me. The agendas are not something generally treated as "canon," many of the agenda docs have all kinds of unofficial fingerprints on them. So whatever helps the reader best understand what the board was considering at that time...seems best to me. -Pete F (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Alice appointment[edit]

Frieda was honest in her vote but it's easy to explain: first, she stood as a candidate against Alice presumably aiming to do a better job than her; second, reversing the affiliates' decision by reappointing the failed candidate is an act of disrespect both for Frieda and for Frieda's (s)electors. Nemo 08:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nemo_bis, I agree that is the most likely explanation. But I haven't seen where Frieda says so, or seen commentary from anyone close to the situation. Are you saying you have? -Pete F (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Frieda's vote was so obvious that it need not be explained. I'm more curious about the reasons for the other votes. :) Nemo 21:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am too. The whole decision seemed very odd to me at the time. I like Alice very much, and I trust that her intentions toward Wikimedia are the best. But the decision was very unusual, and I would have liked to hear some public communication about the reasons for it, and what kind of effort they went to to explore other candidates. -Pete F (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

e-mail won’t function[edit]

I don’t know where this goes. If you know of a superior place to put this, you may direct me to it (or post it there yourself, if you wish).

I don’t think that anybody is receiving the e‐mails that I send through the projects. When I request copies of my message, I receive nothing. When I e‐mail myself, I receive nothing. I’ve checked all of my inboxes, including the ‘spam’ one, and there’s nothing new in them.

Please help me fix this. I need this feature for private correspondence.

--Romanophile (contributions) 09:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: please I really need this function. --Romanophile (contributions) 08:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. A bit basic, but have you double-checked that the email you have in Special:Preferences is correct, and have you checked your spam filter to see if wiki emails are going in there? I unfortunately can't help much more than that. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for chiming in Ajraddatz, and I'm sorry for not responding sooner, Romanophile. I do not have any clear ideas about what might have gone wrong, but these suggestions do seem like the right starting point. If you'd like to use my email address for testing, that's fine with me -- feel free to send me a test message, and also let me know here when you have sent it, and I will let you know if it comes through. -Pete F (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I copied my address from the preferences, I could find it dozens of times in my mailbox. I nullified my e‐mail address, then readded it, e‐mailed myself, and rereceived nothing. I tried using Internet Explorer instead of Opera… nada. Then when I returned, I received a new message. I returned to the mailbox. ‘Your email address has now been confirmed.’ Sent another e‐mail to myself. Nada. And I’ve checked the spam box multiple times. Oh, and I just rereceived that unsubscription notice.
I just now sent you a test mail. Oh wait, it unsubscribed me again. I sent you another mail, this time sans requesting a personal copy. Bloody hell. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear it Romanophile :-/ Have you used Phabricator before? It might be best to create a phabricator ticket, and hope that attracts the attention of somebody who knows better how to figure out what's going on. I can help you make a ticket if you haven't done that before. -Pete F (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I’ve never done that before. --Romanophile (contributions) 08:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, I created a bug (see the box to the right). I don't know whether or not this will lead to somebody who can fix it...but there's a chance. You should be able to follow any activity on the ticket at that link, and you can also add comments to fill out the description if you like. -Pete F (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassment[edit]

NounProject Leaves.png

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Missing Year - Thanks[edit]

Thanks for noticing the missing year on one of our updates :) Seddon (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Seddon (WMF), and sorry for the messy way of pointing it out, I should have just fixed it myself. -Pete F (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Announcing a new mailing list for Meta-Wiki administrators[edit]

Hello!

As a regular administrator on Meta-Wiki, you're allowed to subscribe to the recently created metawiki-admins mailing list. This is a closed mailing list for announcements, asking for help and discussion between Meta-Wiki administrators. If you wish to subscribe, please fill the form at this page and then contact Savh or MarcoAurelio via Special:EmailUser using your administrator account so they can verify the authenticity of your request and address. You'll find more information on the mailing list description page. Should you have any doubts or questions, feel free to contact any of us. We hope that this tool is useful for all.

Best regards,
-- MarcoAurelio and Savh 12:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Mailing list administrators for metawiki-admins mailing list.

Message sent to members of Meta:Administrators/Mass-message list. Please see there to subscribe or unsubscribe from further mass messages directed to the whole group of administrators.

Notice of removal of adminship[edit]

Hello,

I regret to inform you that, in accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and as a result of your inactivity, administrator rights have been removed from your account. Please see Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2017 for details. Kind regards, MF-W 16:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Presenting Community Engagement Insights survey report: Tuesday, October 10, 1600 UTC[edit]

Hi Peteforsyth,
I am reaching out to you because you signed up to receive updates about the Global Wikimedia survey.[1]

We will be hosting a public event online to present the data, a few examples on how teams will be using it for annual planning, and what are next steps for this project. The event will take place on Tuesday, October 10, at 9:00 am PST (1600 UTC), and the presentation will be in English. You can watch the livestream here, and ask question via IRC on #wikimedia-office.

If you are unable attend, you can also find the report on meta, and watch the recording of the event at a later time.

We hope to have you join us online! -- María Cruz 23:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. Update your subscription to these messages by clicking here.

Some more hefty pseudo-WIRs proposed[edit]

Somebody noticed that WMF happily gives out 50 k$ grants for basically no outputs, if you invent some content work and add some fancy packaging about diversity. Basically a donation to random entities who promise to sometimes touch a wiki. There are some proposals now which I worry WMF might approve even without any hint of a possibility of commensurate results: [6] [7] and perhaps even [8]. What can be done about it? --Nemo 06:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)