User talk:FloNight

From Strategic Planning
Feel free to contact me on this talk page to talk about strategic planning. But for the fastest reply leave a message on my Wikipedia English talk page or contact me by email.

Next Steps

Next steps!
It's time to answer some questions! Would you check out the list of questions that were submitted by the community and others and try to answer some? -- Philippe 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply


The Original Barnstar
for welcoming anonymous users, thanking them for their contribution, and inviting them to follow the task force, which sets exactly the right tone. -- Philippe 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply



Hi, thanks for the welcome. Look forward to working with you. --Bodnotbod 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Weekly report


According to the template our Weekly Reports are due at noon on Mondays. I've spoken to Philippe about it, though, and he says "when we're ready" is OK. Personally, I think it would be good for us to have the discipline of keeping to a deadline. I've set up the recommended template here. Philippe says we can alter the template if we like. I suggested we might add a brief summary of what each of us as individuals has done and that way Philippe or whoever checks our report can give us feedback if any of us is going off at a tangent or could be using our time more productively. I think it would also help us as a task force to know what each other is doing. But I leave all that for your decision as facilitator. --Bodnotbod 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you set up the first weekly report page :-). Let's finish getting our initial organization in place and then make the report. Now that everyone has checked in and are starting to give their initial views, we can make decisions about what we want to accomplish for the next week. I'll put something on the talk page asking everyone to state their ideas and some time frames for proceeding. FloNight 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Me and bodnotbod are a little eager :) Hopefully the rest of the group will check in soon. (They probably just need a little guidance before they ramp up their input.) Randomran 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Missing members

Hello. I notice we have two task force members that haven't made a contribution for over a week now:

I know that Jcravens had only intended to put in an hour a week but Henna had committed to 10 hours a week. I wonder whether you, as facilitator, might like to get in touch with either of them to see whether they're intending to get more involved this week? I think we could use the extra input. --Bodnotbod 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Liquid Threads Issue

Hi FloNight

I think we may have a problem with Liquid Threads in that I am unable to reply to your response (not the first time I have had issues with LT either, and partly why I was so sympathetic to JaapB at the top of the page). It tries to open the edit box then the edit box disappears. I will try again later but if unsuccessful I will bug it. Sjc 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Later) I've bugged it, the problem appears to be with (at least) IE7. This problem does not occur with Firefox or is (at least) less evident. Sjc

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Not being able to respond to comments is a big problem. :-( FloNight 11:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Just as a heads up, LiquidThreads is also frequently not refreshing my browser (any of them, IE7, Firefox, Opera) in a timely or reliable fashion. Moreover, it does not appear to update the history or refresh the history for some time, and I wonder if there is some hidden latency issue here. I will /bug this. Sjc 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
There were loads of concerns express about LT during the IRC office hours yesterday. User:Werdna is working them. Putting the bug in is a good idea. FloNight 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Focusing on the questions

Hi FloNight--thanks for your leadership with the community health task force. As I was scrolling through the page, it struck me that Liquid Threads has in many ways been more harmful than helpful. It's a bit buggy, and we also lost our organization around the key questions.

What would you think about stripping Liquid Threats from the page (preserving as much content) and reordering everything around the key questions? My hope is that we can order all of the great brainstorming/surveys/data around a specific set of issues.

--JohnF 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I definitely see what you mean. I'll look at the threads to see how to reorganize the content using the traditional style of posting. FloNight 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Weekly Report 02

Hi, our Weekly Report 02 was due in yesterday. Are you able to look over it and make your final pass and sign it off? Randomran and I have contributed to it. I would also like to give Philippe a shout once it's completed as there are some points I would like him to take action on. --Bodnotbod 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dispute Resolution Research

Hey FloNight, two weeks ago you mentioned that there was a study of dispute patterns over time, particularly at ArbCom. I was hoping you may have found something. Or, if it's a public study, then maybe you would know where to look? Let me know. Randomran 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found the study. I need to get it into a form that I can link to on site. I'll do that today. FloNight 15:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Exciting! I hope it casts just a little bit of light on the problem. Hopefully a lot. Randomran 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is an interesting study, but I'm not sure it has the answers to your concerns. FloNight 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I haven't gotten my hopes up too high :) I'm used to dead ends by now. Randomran 16:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
[1] I linked to it. You'll have to down load it to read it. FloNight 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! You're right that it doesn't give us a lot of detail about how dispute patterns have changed over time. But there are still some interesting facts about how and why ArbCom was created. There is also some very sound economic theory. Definitely worth digging up. Randomran 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Meeting time

List your preferred day and time to meet for an interim status check on progress of the Community health task force work.

  • I generally work on here Monday to Thursday and should be around from 1400 UTC and can be available up til 0200 UTC the following day (ie a couple of hours after midnight). Anything in that zone should be OK. --Bodnotbod 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I really can't put a time on it, I'm catching up when I can but I am being stretched in a number of directions at the moment. My net access is subject to the vagaries of the wifi network in my hotel which is at best intermittent. Sjc 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This week didn't work out since I was out of town for Thanksgiving and could not guarantee that I would be available at a set time on Wed or Thursday (the two best days for others this week.) So, let's do it next Wednesday. Bodnotbod and Randomran, work out a time when both of you can be there. I can be available anytime that day as long as I know ahead of time. Then we will announce it and hope for the best that others can make it.

Do we want to have it on site on site or in IRC? Either works for me. If we do it in IRC then we will post the logs on site. FloNight 16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the additions... the editor rewards and awards page. I had no idea there were so many contests. It makes me think that those structures could be expanded rather than attempting to come up with something entirely new. They seem like a viable way of finding a project's best contributors; it would be nice if the WMF would support a few contests by sending a letter to the winners. --Bodnotbod 15:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome :-)
I agree that there are already loads of good ideas that can be expanded on. I think that the Foundation could be more active in driving these type of efforts in order to make them work better.
There also are numerous Wikiprojects mostly topic based. Some of these are very well organized and staffed. I would like to figure out ways to make the less active more successful.
I think it will be better to build on what already exists whenever possible. FloNight 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply


Hey... hope things are going well. I noticed you found a tool that tracks users' edits over time. Do you know of a tool that does the same thing for articles? I wanted to look at some activity patterns for our analysis. Randomran 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that there may be some. I'll look and see what I can find. FloNight 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Probably easiest to just ask Aka to create a version of the tool without that limit. -- Philippe 22:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Care to use some of that "I'm a facilitator from WMF" magic? :) I don't particularly want to wade back into Wikipedia, and I think you would get more enthusiasm from Aka than little old me. Randomran 00:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I get magic with this job? I had no idea. :-) But either way, I wrote Aka and pointed him/her here. :) -- Philippe 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
;-) FloNight 01:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks magic man! :) Randomran 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but lifting the limit is not possible. Generating the page would take too long and would use too many ressources. But I created a static version of the requested page: If you need another page, please let me know (E-mail or de:user talk:aka). -- Aka 17:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Aka, thank you for your prompt reply. :-) Randomran, do you want him to do any other pages? FloNight♥♥♥ 17:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! There's a lot of interesting pages worth analyzing, but there's only one I need help with:
That's the only one I need help with. The others are less than 50,000, so I think I'm okay:
Can you think of any others? Randomran 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
User conduct RFCs, and Mediation Committee, and Mediation Cabal are some other official and semi-official places where dispute resolution occurs on English Wikipedia. More people use these than Arbitration since Arbitration is suppose to be the last step in dispute resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I guess I've found three with more than 50,000 that I need help with:
I'll look into those other avenues... but in my limited experience, I'm not sure they get used in all cases, even though they should be. Randomran 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh no! Missed the meeting!

Hi, sorry. I missed the meeting. Is there a log of the IRC chat. I had written myself a note to attend. Damn. So sorry. Please respond here as to the log and I'll keep an eye on this page. Very sorry. Stupid of me. --Bodnotbod 08:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's OK, I think I've found the chat log. --Bodnotbod 08:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply


I'm a thief. I admit it. -- Philippe 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Decision table

I put together a little table for us to fiddle with. We may as well work on it as a group, and try to throw up some numbers. There will probably be some debate, but hopefully there will be enough consensus that we can can out the obvious ones that aren't too useful, and focus in on a hand full for our last 5-6 weeks of work. The idea being is we'd eventually be down to four by mid January.

Area of Recommendation Priority Impact Feasibility Desirability Total
Rewards 00 00 00 00 00
Social Networking 00 00 00 00 00
Usability/Tutorials 00 00 00 00 00
Decision Processes 00 00 00 00 00
Organizational Structure 00 00 00 00 00
Policy 00 00 00 00 00
Goals and Target-Setting 00 00 00 00 00
Research and Measures 00 00 00 00 00
Help and Documentation 00 00 00 00 00
Ponies 02 01 02 04 09

Since this stuff is confusing, I can make some tweaks if you want some help. I thought this might be a useful framework for a discussion. Randomran 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure. We need a way to evaluate the recommendations and this works. We can see if any one else wants us to look at it using additional evaluation tools, too. One thing that occurred to me is that some of the proposals/recommendations could fall under several areas. This muddies up the process in some ways. But looking at the recommendations in this way is doable, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I figure these are the broad areas of recommendation that have come up. I'm sure there is some overlap. There may even be more areas to focus on. Before we start evaluating these 9 areas, we may want to list them, and ask people if they see any other broad areas worth focusing on. Then we can get to narrowing down the recommendations most worthwhile. Randomran 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Excellent work, Random. I definitely support using the table. Couple of questions; I guess you won't host it here on this talk page? I have nothing against that, but it does seem like something that would be better placed on our task force page. Secondly, I wonder how we're going to populate it with figures? The proposal pages have their own voting modules built on, but this is not true of the recommendations pages. Perhaps they're easy to add, though, I don't know. Otherwise I guess we'll just have to note down our individual votes somewhere and do the maths from there? --Bodnotbod 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I posted it here just as an example. Whenever FloNight thinks we're ready, we should migrate it to the TF and get to work on it. I think that we can work out the numbers through the wiki process with a solid week of discussion. My hope is that some of them will be obviously of "low value", and we'd scrap them. Some would be of obvious high value, and we'd want to get to work on them. The challenge would be that we would disagree about the value of a few of them... so we'd have to discuss, and even work on a preliminary proposal until we had a better idea of how to value it. But this exercise should let us shorten the list down to at least 6, if not less. Randomran 15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Jolly good. Another... erm, not "concern" as such, but where I could use some guidance; I put together those pages for editor awards and rewards, social features and tutorials, which all match up to a heading on the table, so each of those has some semblance of a central place people can go to research and then discuss them. Can anyone point me towards any kind of venues I can visit to find out Strategy on "organizational structure" and "decision processes"? Or does it all tend to be scattered about? --Bodnotbod 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's really scattered.
I actually think these are two of the most important things we can work on. But at this point, I have more data about problems than I have ideas for solutions. Randomran 19:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Randomran, go ahead and move it off my talk page to a group page. Either to the task force talk page, or to it's own page with a link to the page and a description added to the task force talk page. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

    • We don't need to pin down our recommendations until mid-January. But we've had a lot of discussions about possible recommendations to focus on. Our hope is to narrow down the larger list to some recommendations that we feel have the most potential.

beep :)

I figure you're busy. (Something about the holidays causes every work place to ramp up at some point in December.) But as soon as you have a minute, it would be really helpful to have your insights at Task force/Community Health/Recommendation evaluation. A few of us have suggested three recommendations that are not worth pursuing (compared to other areas that could have more impact). We could use your input in that thread, so we can find a way to tighten our focus in the last month of work.

(And if you think the list is incomplete, and there is an area that we missed, feel free to point it out in this other thread. I'm hoping we've covered the best ones in the current list, though.)

I've been following along and will comment today. The only problem that I see is that looking at policy was a mandate given to our task force so we need to consider that aspect before we decide to pass on addressing it. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Definitely understand that part of our mandate. Sue Gardner, the executive director, had some interesting thoughts which I quoted at Policy and community health. She thought that tackling policy directly would be a bad idea, but had some ideas that we could focus on enabling the community to make better policy decisions. I think that might be encompassed in improving our organizational structure and/or improving our decision making processes. But let's take this discussion over there. Randomran 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Social networking: the stuff we spoke about last night

Hello. I've had a go at drafting something on the ideas we discussed last night. You can view it here: [2]. If you have any comments, please leave them on the discussion page of the recommendation; we may as well try to keep any discussion centralised. Hope you're well, --Bodnotbod 15:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Next steps (again)

Hi FloNight,

Thanks for all of your contributions to the strategy wiki to date! The strategic planning process wouldn't be where it is today without all of your help. Your early and frequent support was invaluable, and I want you to know how much of a difference that you made. I hope you'll continue to work towards finishing the plan...

We're about to move into the third and final phase of the process, and in many ways, this will be the most challenging. I'm hoping you will continue to be an active presence in shaping the movement's five year strategic plan.

Here are some concrete suggestions as to how you can help moving forward:

  • Add your name to Strategic Planning:Hosts. This just formalizes what I think has been true all along; that you care about this process, and that you're doing what you can to help it along moving forward.
  • Help organize and improve this wiki! Starting next week (January 18, 2010), we're going to be encouraging many more people to come participate, and we want to make sure this wiki is as presentable as possible. A comprehensive list of things to do is at Strategic Planning:To-do list.
  • Invite people to participate! Encourage volunteers to discuss Task force/Recommendations.
  • Finally, we need to clearly describe what this final phase is going to look like. In particular, we could use feedback and discussion on Strategic Planning:Decision-Making.

Let me know what you think! Many, many thanks! ~Philippe 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

We've had a good few months to discuss the Task Force recommendations, and it's important that we start converging on goals. If you could jump in on the most recent thread, that would be great. Thanks! --Eekim 18:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am very happy that you have taken positively to my suggestion

User FloNight I am very happy that you have taken positively to my suggestion about community health. A healthy community understanding is a great start to improving the community. Spread the wikilove! mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No general concenus? When there is any give us a bell asap. Mcjakeqcool 11:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Still no general concenus? When you get any give us a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool 09:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am glad to announce that I have had some general concenus. Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply