User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 4

WMF legal

Hi, I'm inquiring about [1]. I'm rather confused by the weird/unrelated summary of that edit and the necessity of having an official role account of the WMF make such a content edit, it would be great to have some context :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please disregarded the above, was clarified to me on IRC. Have a nice day, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions

Was this you? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not. That was someone using the term without authorization, best I can tell. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Yes it was. Thank you. I'll fix the signed out issue. (That's not the diff I thought I was lookign at. <sigh>). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BN

Hey Philippe. Just wondering of you could take a look my question at WP:BN#Retired "(WMF)" accounts when you get a chance (no rush). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Merseyside Police logo.svg

You have deleted File:Merseyside Police logo.svg, you reason is a Police Security concern. This cpncern is invalid, any one who wanted to produce a document with Merseyside Polices logo on can still do quite happily. You should reinstate it immediately and follow the procedure normally used in such cases rather than giving in to the dictate of a Notoriously control freaky Police force, Then consult Lawyers.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You could have produced a low resolution image from the SVG, via screen snap, but now you have deleted it that cannot be done. There is very little chance of copyright infringement as there is very little likely hood of financial gain via it reuse. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have enough letter from Merseyside Police regarding their harassment of me whilst photographic in a public place for commons that I can just scan one of them, I will only contact Merseyside Police via solicitor so I will not be contacting them. You should have sourced one as part of agreeing to remove.Merseyside Police and there Authority have been found in breach of the Data Protection Act on several occasions, I would be very surprised if they gave you a low res image.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you should have got Merseyside Police to create it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update

Hi Philippe,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Staff permissions

Hi Philippe - It is my understanding that there have been significant changes in the way that staff permissions are now assigned. Could you please review Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Staff (or arrange to have it reviewed by a suitably qualified member of the WMF staff) and update as appropriate? Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)  Done Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Conventional PCI

The Conventional PCI article has been stable for several months. Would it be okay if I removed the {{pp-office}} banner and lifted the protection from the article? Cheers, —Ruud 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but we can't. We're under a legal directive there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realize you looked at this one quite so recently. On the talk page of this article I posted a proposal for a short revised banner for the page clarifying the indefinite nature of the protection. I'd greatly appreciate your comments. Happy New Year!!--Policy Reformer(c) 21:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fusion Reactor one

The page is currently a red link, should it be created with the Office template to prevent someone from accidentally adding content while it is under office protection (and to add it to the category) or should it be left blank? — MK (^t/_c) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For now, I'd prefer to leave it blank. It's possible than an article could be written in such a way as to not be in violation; though it's difficult to see how. So I'm tending toward the more conservative option.  :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philippe (WMF). You have new messages at Lhb1239's talk page.
Message added 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk→ LesHB ←track) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

GLAM letter writer (photo project)

Philippe:

Who at WMF (or chapter or such) could help us with a letter related to this: [2]

I would not want to make a bunch of work for anyone, volunteers can drive it, but a simple cover letter could help us. Is a positive thing and a neat thing to try.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA

Yes, good timing! I have a few thoughts:

• Why isn't this posted as a formal, binding RfC?

Well, because first, RfCs are by definition informal... but also, RfCs aren't defined to cover this. From WP:RFC - Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I don't want to be accused of hijacking a community process, so we thought it would be best to do an RfC-like one.

Well, learned something new I did. Maybe I was thinking of a 'straw poll'. I guess the phrase 'Community consultation' just sounded a little, soft.

• What does this mean: "This page is a restatement of what the Foundation thinks the community’s position is, based on previous conversations at User talk:Jimbo_Wales and WP:SOPA. Please also see the IRC office hours chat logs. For background on the bill itself, please see WP:SOPA." Does that imply the WMF will act as 'closing admin' on the whole myriad of discussions rather than taking one of them (the last RfC) as binding. If the protest does go through there needs to be a clear place to point and say that was the discussion that did it, to avoid Pending Changes style mayhem.

No, we'll have an uninvolved admin or three. I'm still thinking on that.

• Along those lines, the discussion/RfC should be closed by a trio of uninvolved admins. Barring some misunderstanding on my part, I think that should be noted on the discussion page.

Can you explain why you are in favor of a trio?

This is the first coordinated political action this English Wikipedia has ever taken. As such, it sets a precedent. It's a big step. There will be intense scrutiny around the proposal/poll. Those who aren't happy with the result, and there will be many, will look to criticize the poll itself, including potentially the closer(s). A trio would copy what was done in the recent WP:V RfC over 'verifiability not truth'. Having three admins close there increased the confidence that they had come to a proper decision (especially since they all agreed). Had it been only one admin, there would have been room for doubt/human error/aberration.

• Similarly, the duration of the RfC should be predetermined and noted on the page as well, so there is sufficient time for people to voice their opinion while leaving room for closing admins. If the WMF needs to know by January 16, at 23:59 UTC, then the RfC has to close... no later than January 16 at 8:00UTC?

Nah, we can close it at 23:59. We'll be here.  :)

Ok, as long as that leaves enough turn-around time. Speaking of which, who is drafting the click-through page text? Is that a ENWP or a WMF process?

Jay is working on it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Because of the importance of this decision, I think there should be a site-wide central banner notice for logged-in users put up. It's only fair so that people can't say they didn't know the discussion was going on--and for a move which would set precedent on English Wikipedia, it warrants a higher degree of thoroughness in general.

It's being built now.

It's up. Excellent.

• Are we using the term 'blackout' correctly? I think some readers think that means no editing/no reading rather than just a click-through. Does a 'blackout with clickthrough' make sense as a term?

I've tried to clarify that on the page.

Yes, nice job there.

I'm very excited to see where this goes, hopefully the community will make a good decision. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be a hell of a ride! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added: The WP:CENT notice is also underplaying the concreteness and the immediacy of the proposal. "Community consultation regarding what, if any, action to take regarding WP:SOPA" sounds like just another discussion in what has been weeks of varied and informal debate. It needs to mention something much more forward, such as "Formal poll to protest SOPA on Jan 18." What we lose in open-endedness, we'll gain in not blindsiding users who don't realize what's being put forth. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to that change. Feel free to make it.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Just to quickly answer for PB... on point two, we definitely want an uninvolved admin to close. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ocaasi and Steven... I'll pull together answers shortly.  :)

It would be useful, if you or someone else from the WMF could come to the german organisation site to clarify some things, especially to whom we should speak about the techical issues like who can activate the banner and things like this. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've asked Tilman to stop by.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action

A vote? Really? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I disapprove of the worldwide blackout. What can I do to punish Wikipedia? Jeremicus rex (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Logo Change

In addition to a banner and clickthrough, has a logo change been proposed?Smallman12q (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. It would be pretty tough to orchestrate that (not the mechanics... obviously, uploading a new file is easy... but the process), but if you have any ideas, I'm listening.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA initiative and proposed text (#Comments 3)

Should this initiative pass, I'm inclined to think that the community should have a direct say in what represents them to the millions of folks who visit on the big day. Would you please see to it that a working draft of all proposed textual content (including supplements, such as "example text" and references) is available for commentary and announced as soon as possible?   — C M B J   09:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is posted, as requested - we've always intended to do so.  :) They are at Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Proposed_Messages. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Philippe (WMF),

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically, no. I didn't post an opinion at all.  :) But I can see why the bot got confused.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA move clarification

May I ask you to elaborate on the reason for this action? I'll WP:AGF here, and won't make a big fuss over it at the moment. But do note it feeds into a bad perception. And I think giving a more informative reason would have been helpful in minimizing the possibility of an intemperate reaction (censorship by the WMF! :-)). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We had asked that discussion be confined to the ACTION, not to the merits of the bill. The discussion was straying off that, so it was moved to the talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA poll

I'm confused, it seems as if section 1.2.2 is dead, and 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 are clarifications of terms used in section 1.2.1? Could the header titles be changed to make this more clear please? Prodego ^talk 06:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add those sections.  :( I would have prefered they never existed, it's a departure from what we set up that didn't serve to clarify things at all. I'm reticent to make major changes at this point, for fear of being accused of manipulating it. You might propose something on the talk page? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what the sections are trying to say well enough. I fear the voters do not either. Luckily this isn't too much of a problem, because of the way the poll is going. The only question is whether many of the voters in 1.2.3 intend to support 1.2.1.2 over 1.2.1.1, and didn't realize they hadn't. Prodego ^talk 06:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my fear: by changing the headings, I may make it appear that people supported something they didn't intend to. I think we have to trust the closing admins. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action#Proposal to clear_up page, note also Wikipedia:ANI#SOPA Blackout, for why it should be safe to remove 1.2.2. Prodego ^talk 06:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is too late to save this. It is impossible to figure out what people were voting for. Half seem to think 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 are separate from 1.2.1, but AS WORDED 1.2.3 is a separate, ambiguous option. Honestly I'd restart the poll immediately, but it is too late for that as well. I don't know what I can do at this point. Prodego ^talk 08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA at the italian Wikipedia

The Italians are discussing about actions: it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Stop SOPA initiative. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SPAs at SOPA/action

Hi there Philippe. There's currently an ANI discussion regarding an editor who's tagging SPAs over at the voting page, on the basis that the comments of "passers by" don't get counted. Just want to clarify, is there such a rule in place for that discussion? I'm under the impression that we're inviting any and all of our readers to comment, and we do indeed give equal value to comments of readers-only and established editors alike. Thanks, Swarm ^X 03:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your impression matches my intention. I'll make note to the closing admins. Feel free to reference this statement. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exact start time and duration

There are a bunch of votes/comments that assume a 24-hour blackout. Could you place a note specifying the exact duration and start/end time being considered? (Reddit, Cheezeburger Network. Minecraft, etc. have all agreed on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC).) Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The WMF is anticipating a 24 hour blackout, beginning at 8AM on January 18th. If the closing admins want to specify something different, they're free to, and we'll follow that to the best of our abilities, but anything shorter than that introduces a host of difficulties. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

8AM UTC? EST?

I know everyone is busy right now, but after the dust clears it would be fascinating to learn what makes a 12 hour blackout difficult. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA "div tag" for the blackout

So, we're going to blackout, it seems. I'd like to hide the banner just in case someone *does* manage to edit, or perhaps (!) even vandalize. Can you update me on my talk page once the WMF (?) decides upon a "div tag" for the blackout notice? Thanks, (and hopefully this message makes sense...) Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 23:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an emergency backdoor entrance, which will be publicized at the appropriate time.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout

Hi Philippe. I was closely following Wikipedia's initative against the legislation of SOPA and for the users or editors, who don't know about the blackout that will be taking place on January 18, how do we go about notifying them? I think that it would be courtesy for people to understand what is happening to the Wikipedia project -- I am suggesting this, so that, when the time comes, there won't be tons of e-mails of concerned users about Wikipedia disappearing off the Internet. Whenaxis about | talk 00:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We're going to put up a banner. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Before the actual blackout takes place? Because if we just put up this banner:

People will be like:

Oh, damn. This is serious. *panic*

(Excuse my blatant humor, but you get my point (;) Whenaxis about | talk 00:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're building out a warning banner right now. It'll go live shortly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Good :) Thanks.. good luck with this initative. All the best, Whenaxis about | talk 01:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for thinking of it. ;) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you change the wording of the present prewarning banner, from in protest of to to protest, which is shorter and more idiomatic? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, it will show up in 5-10 minutes. Jalexander--WMF 03:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout redux

Why was the news of the vote to go ahead with the blackout not made public to the wider wiki community? Many smaller editors such as myself were unaware of the vote and did not have a chance to register our opinions on this highly controversial decision. I am angry at the blackout not because of the political implication of the blackout but I did not have a chance to register my objection, it is was simply a decree from on high which I had imposed on myself. There was no warning or notice given that there was a vote. I may not of been a super contributor but I helped out in my small way by correcting spelling errors and reverting cases of obvious vandalism.

Washuchan (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

i'm sorry that you didn't get notice. We had banners at the top of the Wikipedia for three days, and more than 1800 contributors participated in the vote. Our options were simply limited: if we were to be expected to do anything, we had to know immediately so that we could have tech resources working on it. Which meant we had to call a short notice Request for Comment.

This was not a decree from on high. The Foundation took no position and deferred to the Wikipedia Community entirely. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not see any banners aside from the usual ones requesting donations. Washuchan (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, donation banners have been down for three weeks. More than that, for logged in users. I'm afraid perhaps you are mistaken. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to avoid getting caught out in future, I'd recommend checking out the community bulletin board periodically. — Pretzels ^Hii! 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The community bulletin board is not a page I regularly visit, I tend to pull up random articles and run them through my spelling checker software and correct the spelling based on it's advice. I have had no complaints in all the years I have been doing it this way and most of my edits remain. And besides I do not keep much of a userpage nor do I care for accolades or barnstars or adminhood. The only reward I want is to make wiki better. I am sorry if I offended you by asking to be included in the major actions like this one, I will not trouble you further. Washuchan (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on RD

I left this comment here. It doesn't relate to the OP, and normally it would (from my experience) be a perfectly fine aside but given what the OP said earlier, I just thought I'd check that you don't think it's a problem. If you think it may be best removed, feel free.Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout request

Hi Philippe. It may be a little late in the day for this. But I wonder if it might be an idea for someone to contact Google and ask if it would be possible to block access to caches of WP pages during the blackout. --FormerIP (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. The idea isn't to 100% cut off access (what about medical emergencies, with no doctor present, etc?) - it's to restrict it in such a substantive way as to make a solid statement. I think it unlikely google would comply with that request, and I'm not sure we want to make it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout screen designs

On your closing note atop Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Blackout screen designs -- has at least some of the community's input been taken into consideration by the design team? Pretzels' version received extensive commentary and enjoyed nearly 10:1 support over that of the Foundation's original, which honestly leaves a little bit of a bad taste in your mouth to think that everyone's effort was entirely in vain.   — C M B J   23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Pretzels' version came so late in the game that the other version was already almost finished from a technical perspective. There's a great deal of technical infrastructure built into that blackout screen, and late changes just simply weren't able to be included too much. We've read them all and are folding in as much as we can reasonably do. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I refute this. It was absolutely not too late and I offered repeatedly to assist if the team were not capable of doing the job in time. The impression the WMF's behaviour gives is one of false democracy; Jorm made little attempt to engage in the discussion he started, and didn't bother to close it or update users if indeed this was set in stone days ago. It's a stark contrast to Steven Walling's post on my talk page, and it worries me that you might not all be on the same page. — Pretzels ^Hii! 23:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know it is frustrating. Really, I do. But the truth is, it's not all Jorm's fault. He's been under pressure to deliver a design since the very night they were posted. Tech had to know what they were working with, and to build things in. We simply don't have time to build twice, or to rip out any of the previous work.  :( Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply it is all Jorm's fault. I'm just disappointed in the lack of communication and coordination. — Pretzels ^Hii! 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Did we screw some things up? Undoubtedly. We're getting more right than we're geting wrong, though, and we're working really really hard at it. There are great people here, who gave up most of their weekend and are going to be here all night tonight to implement the community's will. While I wish we could have gotten it 100% right, I'm damned proud of where we are, and proud of the team that got us here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally doubt for a moment that a lot of great people are working very hard on this, or that tough calls must sometimes be made, but I'm a tad bit curious what exactly we did get right (on the technical side of things) if the concession is going to be that the only relevant community discussion wasn't acted upon at all.   — C M B J   00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance we could wait to see the product before declaring it a failure? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The community unilaterally favors taking down the mobile version and has presented a design with workable code to accomplish the task. As you've stated below, there's no intention to act upon the community's wishes in at least this regard, so it's reasonable to preemptively question the product.   — C M B J   00:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile is an entirely different infrastructure. We were clear that we would implement to the best of our resourcing abilities. The RFC close said it, I accepted that, and we did it. We didn't have the resources to put toward everything. You were going to have one or the other, but we just couldn't deliver both. I'm sorry. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Resources? What resources? The design and code are there. I'm a former web developer and I can recognize fifteen minutes worth of work when I see it. Even if your point is that the team doesn't even have that much time to spare, it could still be done fifteen minutes after the other version goes live.   — C M B J   01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all! Good grief no. There are a huge number of other pieces to put in place. I'll see if I can get Tomasz Finc to come explain it but you DRASTICALLY underestimate the level of effort here! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No need for him to pull off from more important things and explain for my benefit. The point is that it can be done if so desired, whether it be a little late or with a dirty workaround.   — C M B J   01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just like we could implement the community's favoured layout for the main blackout. — Pretzels ^Hii! 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The two expectations are fundamentally different. One entails superfluously redesigning a (nearly) complete work at the last minute to make amends. The other is a matter of actually blacking the site out, which is what the community voted to do and what we've said we're going to do.   — C M B J   02:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my heavens. Give this guy a break. Philippe and his team, undoubtingly is trying very hard to implement what the community wants. It's a miracle that they (meaning WMF) is able to produce such coding in this limited time span from Monday until Wednesday. Needless to say, they have to write the codes so that every page is inaccessible during the 24-hour time period, they have to prepare for the worst such as a crash on the website or a breach in the blackout system and they have do tests over and over to get it right. Just let it go. This is the first time that they are trying this. It's not going to do any good using attacks to get your point across or using false accusations just to show the indominacy of WMF. Whenaxis about | talk 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia

Does the blackout include en.m.wiki.x.io and/or simple.wiki.x.io? If so, they should be showing banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The mobile site will, I believe, be read-only. We've not been informed that the simple community wished to come down, so we're assuming they don't. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the mobile interface is an interface to content that has had a clear consensus generated about it; why is the mobile site not being blacked? Is this a technical limitation, or has WMF decided not to honour the community's decision in relation to en.m.? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical limitation. Please read the section immediately above. I'm getting Tomasz to come make a statement. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the concise and helpful answer, and thank you for arranging to have a statement made. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The banner system does not work on mobile and has never been built to support mobile. It would take us more then 15minutes to make central notice work on mobile. What's much faster and easier to implement is the banner system you see here. We can and will get that up quick. Tfinc (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just tested that on iPhone 4, and it renders well in landscape and portrait, and has a clean low byte cost feel. Good work. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the banner system considered a necessity? The mobile site could be easily blacked out with a simple .htaccess restriction and a single static page. (KISS principle)   — C M B J   02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't get the automatic geo targeting on CN then Tfinc (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

In the mobile version all the pages could be redirected to a simple mobile-friendly page containing the desktop text basically... --Rafaelluik (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what were doing here. Tfinc (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just a regular banner. The community rejected that approach for the English project and we've publicly stated that the site would be fully inaccessible. It's unacceptable to make a mockery out of that decision by allowing unbridled access to anyone with a mobile device, especially when a solution is simple and staightforward.   — C M B J   03:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your right i misspoke up there. But just dropping in the .htacces wont give us the geo lookup that we need for us to split pages views between US and non US. Tfinc (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me what you're using for geolocation and I'll see if I can come up with something.   — C M B J   04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. I'm also starting to see other apps pick up our banner. All of them are picking it up nicely. Doing the full blackout on them would be really inconsistent as we have no control of how they pull content from us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfinc (talk • contribs)

As it turned out, I didn't get Tomasz' last message here before the blackout went live. We did meet up for a 1:1 shortly after, but I spent much of the time we interacted just familiarizing myself with the codebase and trying to ascertain a way of interacting with the very same service he had evidently already provided a link to here. There wasn't very much time left to work with by the time we were on the same page about that, and then Erik eventually pointed out that we would be backtracking on a press release posted a few hours earlier, so the argument of sticking to our guns was compelling enough since we needn't embarrass ourselves any further. The effort largely died then and there, though I went ahead and looked into it a bit longer after Tomasz' left for home and sent him a prototype for safekeeping in case the decision was later reversed. It's been quite some time since I composed web code on a regular basis and I realized today that there was a critical element missing for that prototype to have worked, but I still feel fairly confident in saying that it could've been pulled off (even behind Varnish, at least via a config tweak to accommodate X-Forwarded-For headers) with something like .htaccess, file_get_contents, an if/else statement and possibly the creation of a mirror with a slight variation of the geoiplookup code with this task in mind. Anyways, considering the various official rationales cited against a mobile blackout, it's safe to say that there was (expectedly) a lot going on for everyone involved and so we'll just mark that one off and say that what ultimately happened was excusable given the circumstances.

For what it's worth, the blackout's overall execution was perceived positively by the general public. That's obviously one of two factors to consider in determining whether the operation was a success. Equally important for consideration, though, is community representation. Let me start by saying that some practical differences were expectable. There was no expectation for the fulfillment of unreasonable requests: those that could have had undesired repercussions, those that exceeded tangible resources, or those that came in at the last minute. However, there were a fair number of discrepancies—I counted ≥7 at a glance—between the Foundation and community on issues of key importance. And in moving forward, we need to approach this fact positively and with the resolve to ensure that we are more efficient in the future.

Personally, the one observation that comes to my mind is that the Foundation was very strapped for resources that could have been easily mobilized from the community. We have one of the most brilliant userbases of any community in the world. There are literally thousands of expert programmers, masterful graphics artists, professional writers, practicing attorneys, and all other kinds of distinguished folks who contribute on a regular basis. Had there been an impassioned call to arms in the beginning, I believe that the Foundation's burden could have been significantly decreased while simultaneously increasing community involvement and improving overall quality. This is the very model that lead to the project's success; it's intrinsic to what we do every day, it's what we do best, and it's what every member of this community has demonstrated that they are willing to voluntarily be a part of. With that said, there's probably some preparatory infrastructure considerations (communication, software/system diagrams, paperwork, etc) involved in facilitating such a strategy, but I think it's something that should be taken into serious consideration by the community and Foundation alike as a plan for handling future emergencies.   — C M B J   12:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA/Learn more discussion page

For the WMF wiki, you cannot comment on the discussion page of the SOPA/Learn more page. Will the WMF wiki(which currently requires WMF board login authentication) be modified to allow for users to edit the discussion page...or is the "Learn more" page going to be hosted elsewhere?Smallman12q (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's being moved. : ) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Philippe, I must say I was very surprised about the blackout yesterday. Admittedly, I might not be the most active “Wikipedian” (although sometimes I also edit articles without logging-in, which is why my profile does not reflect my “real” effort). Anyway, I was wondering if you would mind clarifying two things for me: 1.) How were Wikipedians informed of the discussion (and vote) prior to the blackout? I did not receive a message although my private Email address is associated with my account and the reception of Emails from other users is enabled. 2.) How many Wikipedians were ultimately participating in the final vote, please both in absolute terms as well as in relative terms expressed as a share of total “Wikipedians” (which are by definition, I guess, all those officially having an account and having at least 10 edits?). Thanks for keeping in touch with us "Wikipedians", Philippe! I am not saying I am unhappy with the blockout per se. But I think that the discussion process prior to such radical moves has to be drastically improved in order to increase the legitimacy of such actions. Respectfully, --MfGassi (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You might read the Signpost article here and the corresponding press release here to learn more about the participation. I believe there was a notice on people's watchlists and it was also publicized on {{Centralized discussion}}. Killiondude (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - there were also banners at the top of Wikipedia for all users for three or four days, in addition to the things that Killiondude listed. We didn't send an email out about this, because - frankly - I didn't think of it. I'm not sure we would have anyway, because it's a very cost and labor intensive process and tends to generate a lot of ill will. There were 1800 Wikipedians involved in the final vote (the largest RfC in the community's history). The "relative share" question is hard to answer because there's no solid number for what makes a Wikipedian. Generally speaking, the measure is "10 + edits per month". I'm not sure where we fall on that number but I'll have a look and see if I can get some answers. I think the more accurate number would be to see if we could get the average number of Wikipedians who are active on any set of three or four days and measure against that. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the 1800 number, have we checked to see if that's eligible as a proper world record of some kind?   — C M B J   23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Philippe! I would really appreciate if you could come back to me with a ballpark number of total Wikipedians (using our above definition) if possible. It is surprising though that you don't have this kind of 'summary statistics' readily available. Maybe it would be worthwhile to consider collecting them? Anyhow, I do not agree that the more accurate number would be the number of Wikipedians being active in the three or four days preceding the discussion. That's like holding local elections and not caring about the folks who are out of town for the weekend :/ Also, in the future, I would strongly suggest you do send people Emails to their private Email addresses (if they enabled receiving Emails from others in their profile) when such important and extraordinary measures are being considered. It is very simple to write a little script that does that automatically. Because, frankly, I do not regularly check the community bulletin board or try to stay on top of recent developments in other ways. I am really just interested in helping to improve individual articles. Now, maybe that makes me a 'bad' Wikipedian in some sense. But when Wikipedia speaks 'on behalf of Wikipedians' I would really like to be able to share my view and participate in the voting procedure. I think that is a very sensible wish.--MfGassi (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

This made me laugh. — Joseph Fox 00:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for the barnstar! :-) Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm sure you & the rest of the gang need a drink after all your brilliant work on SOPA, so enjoy one on me! GiantSnowman 19:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thank you very much indeed. Neat idea for the barnstars (maybe you could instead have created a WP:SOPA-participant award? :-) Cheers, and how does WMF plan to act next on the issue? benzband (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars

This is ridiculous. Distributing barnstars for a voting sets a bad precedent. I for one will not be displaying an award I did not earned. All I did was write "'''Support''' ~~~~". The usage of an automated tool to distribute awards to everybody makes the award pointless and void of any value. You even gave yourself an award... Also, by not signing it, you've just forced everybody to manually archive it as archivebots depend on the signature being there. No comment. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't approve. The idea, by the way, is to thank people for participating in a grueling and tumultuous process. I'm sorry that caused a problem for you, but hope you'll understand the underlying principle. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also please notice that you're in clear violation of our bot policy and our awb policy by running an unapproved bot at high EPM. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In was in regard of the "distributing barnstars for a voting […] makes the award pointless and void of any value" that i proposed a special award be created for the purpose of recognizing the efforts of WP:SOPA discussion participants. In my view it would have been more logical and i'm sure WP:WPWPA would have agreed (and maybe helped out on making it :) however what's done is done and, as you can see above, some are grateful for their barnstar. With my alternative idea, they could proudly display a sopa-discussion award that had a kind of : "i let my voice be heard. pro or against, i said it out loud" message. However as it is you it's just a bit of friendly recognition. As for the signature, i just checked the history. benzband (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

e/c I for one appreciated seeing barnstars going to people for participating in a difficult and important discussion (I didn't see any barnstars "for voting", by the way, only "for being a part of the discussion.") We need more editors who are willing to get involved. This is coming from someone who doesn't collect barnstars, but does understand that it helps to express appreciation around here. First Light (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippe, could you please, before the addition of barnstars make sure the additions are good faith. You've just given a barnstar who unexplained struck a vote of someone else, and was indefblocked for the behaviour. I don't think it's the best of ideas to do that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Philippe, I am in the same category as those above; I came here to question why I was singled out but digging deeper it seems you have given barnstars to hundreds of users. While barnstars obviously carry less weight these days than they have in previous years, since they are handed out like sweeties, awarding them to hundreds of users for merely typing in most cases mere characters onto a page seems to be diluting the award to the extreme. With due respect I will be reverted your addition to my userpage for this reason. It's a shame, since you seemed to have more sense than this act indicates. — Joseph Fox 00:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow guys. I think you're all taking this a bit too far. Barnstars are, at the end of the day, completely valueless—they're just a token that can be given from one editor to another as a thanks, or good job, or based on whatever arbitrary benchmark we want to make up. If the WMF wants to thank those who participated with a barnstar, so what? If you don't feel you've "earned it", don't count it amongst your other "awards" and move on. But attacking Philippe or the WMF for undermining the value of the barnstar is completely ridiculous. Swarm ^X 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Swarm - I was against the blackout (and surprised to find the barnstar) but if the Foundation wants to say "community discourse is good," let them. On that count, at least, I agree. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Meh, I was surprised to get one when all I contributed was '''+1'''. ~~~~, but I feel pretty similar to Swarm. All I came here to say is that if you do a similar sort of thing in the future, Philippe, could you please add a timestamp to your message so that the archive bots will archive it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A Kitten for your SOPA work

Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Continued efforts

Hi Archive 4, you are requested to provide your opinion on sending an anti-SOPA letter to the United Nations. Whenaxis about | talk 01:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Failed.

No template messages, please

No template messages, please - Nabla (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your help in recognizing those who contributed to the anti-SOPA/PIPA decisions! Tom.Reding (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Returning the barnstar

Hello Philippe! I am returning this barnstar to you as I cannot accept it, and here I explain why. --Bensin (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

I would also like to return my barnstar, for the reasons given by Bensin above. Thank you. Pascal (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Well, I thought it was a very nice gesture, and I came to thank you for it. :) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning

On MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning I was gonna add a wikilink on "violates any copyrights" to point to Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but there's a hidden comment in there that told me to clear it through you first, so just double checking to see if it's ok. --slakr^\ talk / 01:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, since that text is set by the Legal team, I'm going to ask Geoff what he thinks.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks a million =) --slakr^\ talk / 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Slakr, Geoff deferred to me, having no objection, and I have no objection. Have at it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks a million =) On a related note, I added a spiffy edit notice that points admins in your direction if they attempt to edit the page. I only have it on that one interface message, but if there are others, I was going to make a multi-use version for easier administration of the edit notice's wording, style, and point-of-contact info. --slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey-related question

In case you haven't seen it, I'd like to ask you to check the "Survey?" section at WP:AN. Someone seems to be running an unauthorised survey. The person originating the thread (Beyond My Ken) says that he'd like to talk about it with someone from the WMF whose name he'd recognise, and he specifically mentions your name. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry — I just realised that you'd already taken care of it. I loaded WP:AN before BMK remarked about you emailing him, so I didn't realise that you'd left a note at his talk. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather late, but...

Hi Philippe. Thanks for your work on the SOPA issue, and for the barnstar rampage afterwards. Do you have any barnstars left over? If so, one may possibly be appropriate at User talk:Solowing106#Blackout, where participation in the discussion was attempted but not (apparently) possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi Philippe, I've been e-mailing you about a legal threat and haven't received a response despite sending chaser e-mails. Please respond as this has just escalated. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded by email. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll review. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank You! Victor Grigas (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

E-mail.

Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Ceradon ^talk_contribs 02:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal and Community Advocacy

Philippe, thanks for your interest in the advocacy debate. We're not interested in promoting any particular frame and have advanced no argument, be it straw-based or otherwise – op-eds are published without regard for their stance taken. Your objections seem to be strongly worded for as fine a distinction between the wording between "advocating for the community/facilitating community discussions about critical WMF initiatives" of the Legal and Advocacy department and the food for thought questions as written. Would you care to suggest a neutral rephrase, or are there any other angles of the broader issue you think might be interesting and useful to see debated? Regards, Skomorokh 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the WMF did not suggest that we would be engaging in political activity, and your question did, the only fair way to word it is something along the lines of "Should the WMF attempt to catalyze community members towards....". The question, as it currently exists, is intellectually dishonest. It presupposes that the WMF is doing something that it is not, in fact, doing. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't get-into-it, as this sort of thing gets me in trouble, but consider the following hypothetical objection from a newly promoted government official: "Since the United States did not suggest that we would be engaging in pre-emptive war, and your question did, the only fair way to word it is something along the lines of "Should the United States attempt to promote democracy....". Your objection presupposes that it is only honest to describe what the WMF is doing as what it claims to be doing. Warmongers everywhere would love journalism like that. Remember, a People's Democratic Republic of Wikimedia is none of those. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed on so many levels, Seth. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta admins

Hi Phillipe. I noticed you participated a bit on the Gwen Gale/Mbz1 fiasco currently ongoing at Meta. I've just been blocked over there for supposedly making a total of one personal attacks. It's an indefinite block, and it appears my talk page and email access were revoked as well so I do not even have an avenue of appeal. The admin who applied this draconian block is the same user I supposedly attacked, and the comment that so offended him was in reference to the bullying actions he had already taken, so it feels very personal at not at all the kind of conduct we expect from admins over here, although I admit I know little about how adminship works at Meta. I would hope the Foundation would be alarmed that such persons are apparently running Meta with impunity, handing out such harsh sanctions, and also ignoring or rejecting consensus and demanding a deletion request be closed because they did not agree with it, threatening to block anyone who dared revert them, and the thing we are always accused of here, circling the wagons around the other admin no matter how poorly they have behaved. I'd like to know your thoughts on this, and I'd like to know how I can even request unblock at this point since my talk page and email were preemptively revoked. The block ID number is #27405. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say "supposedly making"; directly addressing another editor as "you abusive dick" under the edit summary "what an asshole" is pretty unambiguously over the line of what constitutes a personal attack, even by Wikipedia's unpleasantly low standards. There was also a certain amount of childish taunting on the part of Beeblebrox, with edit summaries "block me then", "c'mon do it, I dare you", and comments that included " I'd be thrilled to be blocked by you because it will ha[s]ten the day when you are desysopped here.".

The blocking admin WizardOfOz shouldn't have taken the bait, mind, nor is the justification for a talk page editing restriction and email block apparent. Unless standards for admin involvement (not to mention guidance for when to revoke user talk page and email access) are wildly different on Meta than they are on enwiki, it might be worthwhile to review these points with WizardOfOz. On the other hand, I don't think any Wikipedia project should pander to an editor who abuses an administrator with the expressed purpose of provoking a reaction, nor can I see any great rush to overturn what is fundamentally a well-deserved block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

An indefinite block weith no hope of appeal, placed by an involved admin? I admit I did taunt him, in reaction to his threat to block anyone who dared to revert him and his baffling insistence that the massive personal attacks made by Mbz1 be allowed to stand and that any discussion of removing them would be forcibly shut down by him. He is easily the most abusive admin I have ever come across on any Wikimedia project. If he did these things over here he would have been desysopped a long time ago. If what he did was not acting like an abusive dick then I guess I don't know what those words mean. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You taunted him, you left attacks like that, and you're coming here asking me to intervene? Stop wasting my time. You crossed the line. There are ways to address those issues that don't include doing things like that. You picked the worst possible course of action, and i can't believe you're showing up here asking me to defend it. No. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to defend it and I don't expect that anybody would. I was more concerned about an admin over there who obviously has an irrational grudge against any user from this project that dares to contradict him, and is willing to use his admin status as a blunt object to quash any disagreement with what he deems proper, and it seems several of the other admins there, along with at least one steward, agree. It also seems that he has voluntarily resigned his advanced permissions on that project, as he most certainly should have. However, I do apologize for taking up your time with this, I can't say I'm proud of the way I handled the situation, sinking to that level was obviously not the correct way to resolve the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Redux

I'm sorry, I really am, to feel the need to bring this back up with you. I notice you have already had some words over there with Nemo bis. I added a request for help with a technical issue to my talk page over there and he decided to troll my talk page in response to my request. In the belief that such behavior from an admin was not acceptable, I posted a request at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat asking for another admin to please step in and talk to him, and now I'm being told that adding a disparaging comment as a reply to a good-faith, politely worded request for help is ok if the admin doesn't happen to like me or my ideas. I feel like Meta has turned into the "if your from en.wp nobody cares what you think" wiki. I can't believe this sort of behavior is acceptable from regulars there, yet they keep banning and blocking visitors from en.wp for any minor thing they can. I don't want there to be a "war" between these two projects, and was only making a proposal designed to prevent exactly the sort of problems that have been occurring there lately by defining when certain standards for admin action when involved in a dispute. And for that I am being attacked and baited by administrators. I don't know what to do, and I am endeavoring not to lose my temper and get myself blocked again, but it looks like once again they are circling the wagons around "their" admin and preparing to mount a defense of any action he takes, no matter how out of line it is with best practices, which I thought Meta was there to help us define, not to give us negative examples of. Anything you could do would be much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC) The way they are reacting to my request that someone just please talk to the admin and ask him not to troll my talk has disgusted me to the point where I don't plan on ever participating there again, so please ignore this altogether. Sorry for wasting your time again. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I took a holiday and all hell breaks loose. I'll take a look and see what's going on. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Need email answer

Philippe, the mapmaking wiki community restart to move forward. Please, did you received my mails ? Can you personnally shake Erik for this issue. My email title is still "Support wanted to solidify graphic initiatives and SVG innovation", are your both email boxes working ? Sincerely. Yug (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I will ask Erik to look at it, but there's not much that I can do in this case. It's way beyond anything that I'm technically capable of moving forward on. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wish I can get an answer. Yug (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.106.79 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania Panel

Hey Philippe,

I'm fishing for panelists with a strong, intelligent opinion on paid editing for a Wikimania submission.

Neither Herostatus (founder of the Paid Advocacy Watch) or Silver (founder of Wikiproject Cooperation) are going to Wikimania.

Thought I'd see if you had anyone to suggest or would like to moderate. If the topic is accepted that is. King4057 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. I asked Jimbo, but I'll give this other guy a ping as well.

I really hope Wikimedia doesn't give in to any demands from these people, that'd really be the beginning of the end Such projets shouldn't even need to exist if PR/marketing/SEO people had ethics, it's a red herring: School children can understand how to edit Wikipedia neutrally... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree. Earlier in the group's formation there was discussion about CREWE being a champion of good ethical practices - a noble cause. However it seems like now it's a lobbying effort? The PRSA has said as much in the media. I discouraged their lobbying efforts and promoted expertise on good ethical practice and Wikipedia compliance - they responded by threatening to ban me. We will need to step up policing bad editors, because their publicity may encourage a surge of ham-handed editing. I'd encourage you to voice your thoughts on PR-Squared tomorrow morning as CREWE will undoubtedly come up in the comments on the blog. King4057 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Phil, I had some back and forth with Risker and we ended up making the panel about COI & neutrality in general, with representatives from different types of COI/paid editing. (see here). Should be a good discussion if accepted. Thanks for your help. King4057 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help, and I'd be very interested in attending. Can you link me to the submission? I'll upvote it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the new submission. I'm hoping we can have breakout sessions after, where we can discuss specific solutions through a structured discussion. My understanding is these are fairly free-form and don't require a submission. I think it would be helpful to define factors that tend to lead to good/bad paid COI editing, then discuss how we can encourage/discourage each respectively in a working group. King4057 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New ACC requirements

Hello, Philippe Just wanted to point out that the new ACC requirements should be worked into this section ? section 4, Cheers Mlpearc (powwow) 18:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It might be an idea, but that's something that would have to go through the board as far as I know and for a little change as such, they may just let it go under the "without limitation" wording. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 23:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for all

"This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation."

I didn't get one. :P -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

Hi Philippe,

A very small proportion of articles have been directly tagged with Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, and I was wondering what the opinion of the WMF was on the matter. It seems to me that this widget is comparable to a Fundraising banner in that as a feature emplaced by the Foundation, it should not be overridden without a very good reason. I've been reverted when removing some of the blacklistings, on grounds of editorial discretion, specifically because "{the} current edition of the tool is disruptive to readers, the feedback has been net-unhelpful, {and} the finesse of the tool is incompatible with audited content". Some clarification about this tool would be most beneficial here; the discussion is at Talk:Maple syrup#Article feedback tool. Thanks. Maxim_(talk) 15:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread about the article feedback tool

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Maple syrup". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to userpages for staff

To kill red links. I can't delete them since I am no longer an admin. Feel free to delete the redirects if you wish. --Meno25 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Peter Scheithauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belladonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning issue

collapsing for privacy

Dear Philipe, we are a group of 50 editors who have been communicating with each other via the email system. We do not wish to identify ourselves as we do not wish to be associated with drama. This is why we present this anonymously to you. Our intentions are pure and honest and we do not mean to stir up drama. We are gravely concerned regarding the hiring of Oliver Keyes to a position within the Wikimedia Foundation. He has long been known as a very difficult person to work with and he regularly engages in unsolicited attacks. We strongly feel that his hiring by the WMF is a dark stain on the part of the WMF and we strongly urge the WMF to seriously reconsider his appointment. Sincerely, Concerned Editors 134.241.58.253 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to contact me by email with specific issues, but I can't respond to generalities and won't discuss staffing issues publicly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Corresponding via email would divulge our anonymity. As well, we firmly believe that open community input is an integral aspect of this process. Please do not silence us. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The on-wiki process would be to start an WP:RFC/USER concerning the account that the "50 editors" believe has been unhelpful. Make sure the evidence is convincing, otherwise people might conclude that yet again an administrator is being pursued to settle a personal grievance. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that you have been trying, through different socks and ips, to pursue this personal vendetta for quite a while now I would probably stop trying to make up even harder to believe scenarios. This is especially true when it is quite clear to anyone looking who you are. (oh and spell Philippe right)James of UR (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)