Hi Philippe. I don't know if you're the right person I should be addressing this query to. Are Wikimedia chapter board members required to identify? If not, can you guide me to the forum where I should make such a request? Kind regards. WifioneMessage18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter board members are not currently required to identify; currently we only require identification from people with access to personally identifiable information, as defined in the "Access to nonpublic data" policy. Modifications to that policy would require the consent and direction of the Foundation's Board of Trustees, so you'd need to request it as a resolution through one of them. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; in the interests of transparency, I think readers of Talk:Damon Dash would appreciate an official word, even if that is just to say "the matter is still being dealt with by the Legal folks". Your last (indeed, your only) post to that talk page was in October, and the last official word on the matter appears to have been in November. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk)11:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's been down an unreasonably long time. If there's some legal matter over some content, is there no way to blank out that content with a disclaimer, so the basic biographical information is still available? 0x0077BE (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have been actively working the issue from the legal side are continue to engage with Mr. Dash and his representatives about the best way to get this article back up. Please know that pulling it down was a last resort - we tried multiple other options - and we will continue to do so. Yes, it remains blanked under the OFFICE policy for now, but we're actively trying to get something up. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information (Sorry, changed my username today, so I retroactively changed the sig above). I'm glad to know that it's actively being worked on. It seems so counter to the wiki mission for it to have been down for so long. Thanks for the hard work. 0x0077BE (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a month since the last bump, any update from the Foundation on the status of this article? We're approaching 8 months of protection on this article. I understand that there is a discussion occurring between multiple parties, but I would like to know that the discussion is still ongoing and approaching a decision on the fate of the article. Phuzion (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you deal with this article? Leaving it in this state for 7 months is not ideal. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like your consent to reproduce the emails you sent me promising to keep me in the loop regarding JSTOR and asking me to "downplay" it. I feel it necessary to have this consent to be able to fully explain how I was blindsided on the JSTOR issue. If it is denied, I will simply state what was said in my own choice of words, so your consent is being asked to be fair to you. I would ask by email, but as you have not returned any of my emails since December 1, that would seem a fruitless enterprise. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, while I appreciate the emailed apology, but by not posting publicly about this, you are really dissing TCO, who put much work into this only for us to meet a brick wall after December 1. I suggest it would be a good idea for you to post publicly and give him credit. Given the slam he took over his valuable report last fall, it's the least the foundation can do for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear about what my input would add to that conversation... the stewards are the people appropriately placed to make that determination. It isn't a matter for Foundation intervention, unless I'm missing something (which is possible and/or likely). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share Sumana's concern that we'd rather not be reaching out to a minor for contact info. It looks like she's asked for guidance from the legal side of our shop, so I'll leave it there. :) Thanks for the pointer, though. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar!
Thanks for your encouragement of our Editor Engagement projects. I am looking forward to finding and implementing the small, perhaps magical, changes that will solve our editor retention problems! --Kgladstone (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Downside threats
Hi Phillipe. Thanks for stepping in and oversighting one of the edits by User:Bunglezippy - I wonder if you'd mind doing the same for his other threat here? Much impressed by the speed of your response; if some of my professional contacts were that quick I'd be a lot happier. Cheers, Yunshui雲水12:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I blocked this user again tonight for going back to personal attacks etc against other Wikipedia editors. I noticed that you'd previously talked to this user on his talk page (quite recently) so thought I'd make you aware they'd been active again in case it's of any interest to WMF staff. Don't get me wrong, normally I'd go by the 4 warnings before blocking anyone rule but I could tell by the IP edits and the previous discussions on the talk page this wasn't going to make any difference so blocked now for two weeks. Hope you're well :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kind sir, for the sincere words of condolence. I've never had anyone from the WMF team visit my page before, so it did come as quite a shock, in a pleasant way of course. I'm deeply honoured, and yes I will admit, the words did make me shed a little tear too. I will try my best to take time away from editing duties, although I will probably be still around in the ether just reading through all of my contributions to take my mind off things. Again, thank you. Wesley☀Mouse03:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick, reassuring, and thorough answers to important questions. A brief look at your talk page archives also suggests that you've earned this. Thank you. Pine✉21:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, should the WMF require admins to notify the foundation if Department of Defense addresses? There is already a requirement for Senate and House of Representatives addresses.--Jasper Deng(talk)02:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:) I think a little comic relief from the serious stuff is a good thing once in awhile. Anyway, I went ahead with my application, ArbCom has it now. Thanks again for the emails. Pine✉05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Philippe. It's noted on WP:Identification that you are the person to contact about getting my identification on file with Wikimedia. I would like to do this so that I may apply for access to tools such as the ACC interface. Please let me know what the procedure is for submitting my identification. Thanks! —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS06:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There must be. I'm not aware of any emails from you that are unanswered. Would you please double-check the address? philippewikimedia.org. Be aware, we took a mail server DDOS attack this week and have had trouble with our email. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes email are lost. I sent you 4 emails in the last month and I phoned you by skype and left a message on your message box.
Could you please double check and email answer at ceedjee@hotmail.com ?
Hi Philippe. Thank you for your email. I used skype to call your direct phone (at WMF) and left a message there. And the emails are more than 4 weeks old... The whole stuff being very sensitive, I would highly appreciate you can handle this asap... Thank you in advance. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37
Ryan, I brought this to Philippe's attention. We hope to have an answer for you this weekend. Geoff is on retreat and will not be able to weigh in before then. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the quicker-than-expected response!
I'd like to ask a clarification (not to be difficult, just to avoid any future confusion).
"...on the condition that the selection processes for moderators remain exactly the same as that for administrators- using the same criteria, operating on the same page."
So by this, it requires the RfX process (RfA, RfB, and depending on the final name decided upon: RfM) as currently administered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?
The reason I ask is because of the technicality that RfX requests are currently actually subpages which are transcluded to that page. (And also as there seems to be a movement of late to change transclusions of community discussions to links to community discussions.) I believe the point is that the community process of requesting these tools and responsibilities must be the same as requesting adminship?
And when she notes "criteria", she means the typical criteria a bureaucrat follows when determining whether the request is successful?
This latter question is because, as noted in the proposal, this package would not contain all the tools and responsibilities in the current administrator user group. So I don't want a confusion where community members think that when discerning if an editor is trustworthy of gaining this user-right package, they weigh even for tools that the editor is not requesting.
I think a precedent for this (if it helps) is that we've had bots request adminship (one successful example), but specifically only for certain tool usage - such as delete. (Going through the full RfA process.) This has been my personal comparison when I was thinking of how to explain this in the proposal.
And finally, as the same process is (re-)affirmed as required, is the title "admin" required? (for example: moderator-admin)
I don't mind, and after several days of discussion, I'm actually leaning in that direction myself. But I'm curious if this is something that you all wish, or if the actual name doesn't matter. (going back to the example of admin-confirmed bots, which are not called admins, even though they technically have all of an admin's tools).
Again, let me respectfully say, I really, really, REALLY don't want to be difficult in this. But with something like this, I think clarity would be helpful.
And speaking of which, if anything of the above is unclear, PLEASE let me know, I'm happy to try to clarify.
Answers: what she means is that while we don't care what the criteria for getting adminship is (i mean, we do, to a certain extent), we do care that it is exactly the same for moderators as for administrators. No setting two different sets of standards. The title "admin" is not required. The actual name does not matter to us. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. that's exactly what I wanted to know. The current standard being (I presume) community trust, as expressed through an RfX discussion.
(De-dent) My apologies, but I think I need to ask you to clarify once again.
We are having a discussion here (This stemmed from the discussion were were having here, User:David Levy's oppose was #10 I believe.) It seems that there may be a confusion about what I asked about above in regards to "same criteria" and "same standard".
I believe that you are talking about the community standard that bureaucrats apply to determine whether there is community consensus to whether the request for adminship was successful (as noted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process). But apparently David sees something different (which I haven't been able to quite precisely discern, though I keep trying : )
Also now that I'm here anyway, I was wondering if when you said "it" must be the same process, were you implying that your concern (the reason for determining that the standard must be the same) was only due to/related to the issues (whatever they may be) related to seeing deleted content?
I have another related comment on the topic of this being required to occur in the same way as RfA. Does that mean that WMF would be opposed to any proposal that changed RfA at all? (related to adminship, not the moderatorship proposal) Thanks for the reply btw. RyanVeseyReview me!00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all: Kelly's agreement should not be construed outside of this individual case. We're not saying that criteria can't change - just that if it changes for admins, it must have a mirrored change for moderators. Not two different sets of standards. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What standards? Standards are different for every person that votes on an RfA. This is going around in circles because no one knows what "criteria" or "standards" you are referring to. Gigs (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to butt in); Gigs, I think there's a difference between "how editors choose to !vote" and "the overall standard applied". People totally vote with a lot of different rationales or motivations, and that makes it hard to pull out an individual thread, but the underlying standard that they're enforcing by voting is "the candidate must be in good standing and have the community trust their judgment, indicated by 70+ percent in support of their candidacy and the judgment by a 'crat that they're supported". So, for example, you can't simply have a quasi-automatic process, where anyone with above N edits and with a clean block log can have the rights...but of course, people are still welcome to vote with that rationale, and some will. Obviously there's a limit; if it gets to the point where there's an agreed upon metric (for example, 80 percent of participants will support anyone who has N edits and a clean block log) then this will need to be revisited. For once, our inability to agree on admin standards is a blessing rather than a curse :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lost your (Philippe's) comment in the threading : )
I don't know if you saw my follow up questions above, but I think you answered at least some of them anyway with:
"What we're trying to say is this: we can't have moderators be "admin-lite", or a training ground for admins. Promotion must be taken just as seriously, because they have access to some seriously important stuff."
And Okeyes looks like he answered the rest, presuming of course you all are on the same page (that's a pun : )
Because of all of the confusion, I was seriously considering suggesting closing this and starting over. I'll freely take the blame as I should probably have asked for your insight up front. And as gigs notes, things have become "somewhat" confused. However, I'll "continue on" as they say, for now, as (hopefully) things are clearer. (I have to say that at times this proposal discussion has started to feel like an RfA itself.)
I'm confused by the WMF's interest in the English Wikipedia's admin selection process. The processes and criteria involved vary enormously from project to project and from language to language. It is a lot easier to become an administrator on a small project, for instance, but they have the powers as an admin here (albeit over a smaller project). --Tango (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn
I withdrew the request.
Next time, I think you may find a note from me on your talk page first : )
Does WMF intend to do something with the fact that I am threatened of death on and diffamed on wikipedia websites ? I sent you 5 emails about this and phoned you three times but despite an email when you stated it would take time, I never got any answer from you. My feeling is that WMF refuses to take her responsibilites once more. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Your silence and refusal to answer my demands are totally shameful.
I am threathened of death and defamed on websites of the wikipedia Foundation and you even doens't answer to me.
You have my emails and you have received my messages. Why don't you answer ?
Apologies for the delay, Pluto2012. I know that Philippe has done extensive research into this, but I'm afraid that he has been out ill for a while. He asks me to tell you that we'll be in touch with you after he is able to return to work. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie,
You are Philippe are making a fool of me. I have contacted WMF more than 3 months ago about this and the solution of this problem would take 10 minutes.
Here above I make references to emails that he claims he didn't get, which is a lie.
I don't understand why MWF decided not to collaborate but you, Philippe, WMF and all people involved are responsable of any event that could arouse from this and harm me, my familly or my reputation.
15 days ago, Maggie wrote here above that you will get in touch with me when you return to work. Since then, you have edited wikipedia with your professionnal account but you didn't answer to me. You also received an email from a bureaucrat of wp:fr 4 days ago who didn't get answer from you.
As you surely know, a conversation between Fae and you has figured prominently in an Arbitration case.[1] From my remote perspective, it sounds like Fae came to you with what was either a request for WP:Office action, or not a request for action, and either way, his conversation with you should not be punished, and certainly not by indefinite ban from Wikipedia. It seems to me and others at the Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#WP:Office_revision discussion page that this sends a message that Wikipedia "advocacy" or office action processes are unsafe for editors to approach. We are shocked that someone would be permanently banned simply for going to the apparent Wikimedia go-to person about a problem. Fae has written that he will elaborate more about his conversation and his privacy concerns shortly. I think that it would be useful toward finding some resolution to this now even more controversial case if you could publicly explain more (as much as confidentiality permits) about this reportedly five-minute conversation in a hallway at Wikimania, and what your take on it is. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically removed undelete rights from this proposal in order to avoid the WMF requirement for such a strict approval process as for full admins. Could you comment here or there so that there is no confusion as to what exactly the WMF's position is on this.
Thanks for the speedy reply. I am OK with any other rights being removed from my proposal that require the strict approval process that is used for approving full admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Identification at SPI
I responded to your comment at WT:SPI regarding identification by suspected socks. I made a statement about identification for CUs, arbs, etc. that's required by WMF, but I'm not certain that it's true; would you please confirm or deny what I said? Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
