You have edited wikipedia but still didn't answer me despite my requests and your [colleague] promises on this page to do so. I simply have no single news from this. Answering takes 10 minutes and solving my problem 10 more. I contacted WMF 4 months ago.
In one of your recent edits on Jimbo Wales's tp, you talked about "intellectual dishonnest[y]" for a critic that seems quite anecdotic (my mind but I don't have details). How should I describe the behaviour of WFM and yours if I compare with my situation and the concerns for which you have been contacted by me and another people ?
Maggie wrote here that you had planned to answer me 2 or 3 August : [1] but you didn't. After all this time, I even wonder if you remember the case. Could you take contact with me ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shared accounts - legal issue?
Hi, Philippe. For some time there have been folks at WT:U who have wondered whether or not the use of shared user accounts constitutes a real copyright concern. The argument is occasionally asserted that Wikipedia's copyright licenses necessitate individual account operation, and for that reason account sharing cannot be allowed. Is there any clarity that you are able to provide to support or discredit this reasoning? NTox · talk02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any word on this? Just recently we have had people who have explained the policy/copyright this way, which I feel a tad uncomfortable about since we are not sure if it is a valid reason. NTox · talk17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you or someone in WMF should delete the entirety of the article, and remove the infringing links to the specifications. What do you think we should do. --Hinatatalk00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe,
please ensure that posters asking for help in Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program at least receive a reply; alternatively, please ensure that whoever deals with, or dealt with, people posting there, is aware that there is a lack of replies there.
Thanks Philippe. My comment here was a bit intemperate; I vaguely knew which WMF person would be able to help, but gave up trying to work out their exact username after several attempts (I wonder if there should be lots of redirects from possible usernames to actual WMF usernames, I have this problem whenever I look for User:GeoffBrigham as well - redlinked typo is deliberate!) It also turned out that the issue that concerned me had already been dealt with long ago. (Which is something else I could have checked if I had taken things a bit more slowly.) Thanks again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damon Dash
Hi Philippe! I'm just curious if WMF Legal has had any progress on the Damon Dash article, and if you know of any timeframe that the issue may be resolved. The article has been protected and blanked for nearly one year now, and in your comment on the talk page, you mention that the protection and blanking is intended to be temporary. I'm not asking for specific details, but just an update as to whether any type of progress has been made. I haven't seen any update from the Foundation in 5 months, so I think everyone would like an update. Thanks! Phuzion (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, please inform us whether the Foundation has made any progress with Mr. Dash and this specific issue. Is the Foundation currently engaged in active litigation or discussion with Mr. Dash and his counsel, or have things stagnated? Thanks again! Phuzion (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at WP:AN about a user who is soliciting personal donations on their WP userpage as a reward for their contribs. There is debate about whether it violates any policy, I don't think this particular situation was ever anticipated or encountered before. I was curious as to whether the Foundation has any particular stance on this sort of thing. The thread is at Wikipedia:AN#Solicitation_of_donations. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second the request, while noting that I can understand if a response will take time to determine what the legal situation may be. If such time is needed, we can mark the thread to not be archived if needed. - jc3718:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I talked to Geoff about this. At this time, the Foundation doesn't have an official position, other than "we support the decisions of the local Wikipedia community and trust in the community's wisdom and processes." I know that's not incredibly helpful, sorry! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it civil
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem with the principle that the Foundation would support the decisions of the local Wikipedia community and trust in the community's wisdom and processes is that it is an excuse when it refuses to take any action. A proof is given here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damon_Dash&diff=462365585&oldid=462345019) where the Foundation took an action without trusting the community's wisdom and processes to solve this. The Foundation takes the complete editorial control of article whenever it wants to and it can therefore be conluded that it has the editorial control of all wikipedia projects. Freedom of speech 2012 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply incorrect. That article is under Office protection to prevent litigation at a time when we simply don't have the resources to deploy to litigate. The community had many opportunities (using those self-same processes that you mention) to fix the articles. We've approached more than a dozen editors to ask that they engage on this in a structured method, and have been declined by every one of those editors. This is not a matter of not trusting the community's wisdom, it is a matter where the community's wisdom collectively failed, and the Foundation was forced - through threatened litigation - to intervene. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm trying to leave a message to Ppena but you deleted the user page she point on the WMF site. How could I contact her ? Please, answer here. Iluvalar (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what WMF policy is on any of this. But it would seem to me that we don't need anything non-free in userspace. (Due to copyright or whatever else.) Since such things appear to have questions of laws involved, and so forth, wanted to ask you about this. - jc3707:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) I'm not a huge fan of preventative policies, as a general rule, preferring to handle issues as they arise, but I'll add this to the list of things for legal to think about. Since it's not an emergent issue, it will likely be a bit... but we'll get it on the list. ;) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a discussion on commons, but I can't remember how it turned out, but it mentioned minors entering into contracts. Basically, a minor who enters into a contract can void that contract prior to reaching the age of majority. Would that give minors any ability to decide that their previously contributed content be no longer released under CC-BY-SA. While I don't believe this is a major issue, I know of one editor who did request that all of their contributions be deleted after they were blocked. If what I have said is true, it would seem like a minor making this request would need to be granted the request. RyanVesey22:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking for Philippe (obviously!), but I dimly remember a suggestion somewhere (possibly not even somewhere reputable) that this is indeed true, but that for practical reasons we avoid widely mentioning it.
(Just imagine if random editors indef blocked through WP:COMPETENCE or alleged trolling issues, instead of creating weekly sockpuppets and trolling around on IRC and other such minor-disruption-of-no-importance, came back with "now I demand you delete all my contributions because you won't do what I say!" every single time.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful question. It’s a somewhat complicated issue that to date has not been directly addressed by the courts. The short answer is that it’s possible a court could find in favor of disaffirming (i.e. voiding) the license itself, but it’s not very likely that a minor could use it as a method of removing selected content.
You are correct that a minor can make a contract and void that contract at any time before or within a reasonable time after reaching majority (subject to some statutory modifications). But under our Terms of Use, all users agree to license contributions under Creative Commons or GFDL. So in order to revoke the license under CC or GFDL, the minor would have to disaffirm the entire TOU. This is unlikely to occur, because California common law recognizes that it would be unfair to allow minors to void a contract while allowing them to reap the contractual benefits. If a user can’t give back the benefits, courts are disinclined to allow them to disaffirm. Because it’s difficult to give back the types of “benefits” derived from Wikimedia, such as education and international recognition/exposure or reputational benefits, the Terms of Use would likely stand and an attempt to revoke the license would be considered a breach of contract.
Thank you for the note about article quality. I have passed this on [2] to the editor who mentioned it to me (he is a specialist in messaging technology). In my own field, the articles contain serious errors, I mean, absolutely riddled with them but (as you say) there is no published review of these. Hestiaea (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Libel concerns, and a court banning order (British subjects resident in England)
1. Do concerns over libel cover a British person, who is also a British subject, and resident in England? We have an article, and editors are appearing to be attempting to insert libellous information – in the English definition of that term – into an article for a BLP by means of consensus. It must be noted that the subject concerned has already commenced civil legal actions against several named individual persons.
2. And does a British court banning order (from England) to protect the identity of a minor, or, a person below full age, not yet of full capacity and below the age of consent in England (the age of 18 years), apply in Wikipedia? Can the name of the subject be summarily censored within Wikipedia?
Let me preface this by saying clearly that I am not a lawyer, and any opinions here are my own, and have not been discussed with legal counsel, so they should not be interpreted as anything more than my opinion.
All editors should be concerned about libel, as applied to any article subject. In addition, we have a BLP policy that talks very clearly about appropriateness for inclusion. However, I am loathe to apply it to your particular circumstance without knowing what article we're dealing with.
The Wikimedia Foundation does not - under ordinary circumstances - recognize orders unless they are from a court of competent jurisdiction. However, orders may apply to individuals (for instance, if they live within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the order). In such a circumstance, it may be wiser to voluntarily comply with the an order. In addition, in all things, common sense may have a role. It's hard to speculate without knowing the article in question. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. I thank you. His name is Alistair McAlpine, [His Lordship the Right Honourable] Baron McAlpine of West Green. I am not happy with how the direction of the discussion is taking, at Talk:Lord McAlpine. He is currently pursuing civil legal actions against at least three Britishpublicfigures. The editors concerned are essentially attempting to repeat a libel (according to British (English) definitions), as if it were just an ordinary story in his life. What they are tying to do is almost certainly unlawful (illegal) in England.
2. Her name is (deleted-courtesy), and she was a girl of 15 years of age, who ran away with her male music teacher to France, before her surrender and his arrest and capture. Her article has already been deleted, but references to her name still remain at the article for her (former) school, being the Bishop Bell School, in the County of Sussex, in England. There appears to be some sort of an unpublished and a secret "super-injunction" of some sort in the High Court of England against all publications of her name. [3] The article for the school would probably have to be locked afterwards, if I were to just go ahead and remove the references to her name. (I am already in contempt of court here in England just by writing this.)
3. Can Office actions of any sort take place at either of the cases?
4. Please do contact the legal team if it is deemed or indeed necessary. I thank you.
Not so sure. The use of the text with proper attribution is legal (and $2.50 is much less than some are charging) but the author is not the WMF. Attributing the text to the WMF is neither good for the consumer, the WMF or the actual authors. No doubt this is a good faith mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless. RichFarmbrough, 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Block Of Damon Dash Violation of NLT?
Hello, my name is Thebirdlover. I have been on Wikipedia for a few months short of two years and I have a question. While I have read the Damon Dash article and some of the sources are "dubious" to say the least and some of the information may have been unnecessary. But couldn't we have just fixed it? The community have collaborated before on this type of stuff and it is has turned out great. But my main concern is that this has been a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Daniel Brandt and User:ColScott were never allowed to own their articles, would've been banned if they made legal threats, and they were much more persistent than Dash was. What makes Dash different? Is it because Dash has money? Is it because he has an actual legal team? Note that this comment isn't meant as a personal attack at you at all, just as a way for you to clarify your position on this issue. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very prescient comment - I expect to be lifting the editing restrictions on Dash shortly. No, what made Dash different is that there were a number of issues which the community could not seem to fix - the community was given quite a lot of time to attempt to work it out, and the situation was getting worse and worse, and approaching litigation. When that happens, we make a conscious decision about what our position on the risk is: is it worth the half a million to million dollars that it might cost us (in a litigation that resolved in our favor!) to defend? Or is it better to blank it for a while, attempt to reset the clock, and then try again? One of the factors that we take into account is the readiness of our legal team - while they were tied up with other issues, we weren't in a position where - with our limited staff and budget - we could have even thought about defending against litigation. Not with the Wikivoyage kickoff and the litigation that went with it, and the other things on the legal team's plate. We're now to a point where we think we can give this the attention it will take to get this right, and where we think the community can build a good, clean article. So look for an announcement shortly - and I mean days, not weeks, about how we're proceeding on Dash. I know that's not an entirely satisfactory answer, but I hope it gives you some insight into the thinking. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this article from the sidelines. I thought it was an interesting metaphor of sorts. If the community can't fix problems when WMF itself is involved, that's telling for how hard it is for companies who don't know anything about how Wikipedia works.
I'd be happy to chip in if a similar issue occurs that requires editor attention in the future. It sounds like it would have saved everyone some grief if an editor just put a couple hours into article improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 16:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would be happy to work on the article in draft space if it's possible to get it unlocked when I have a draft that is neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't imagine there will be any issue this time, since I've restricted it to former admins, but I wanted to run it by you anyway before going "live" : )
And, after looking that over, would you give a look over WP:RRA, as well? I'd like to go live with that proposal sometime in the near future as well. - jc3705:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Obviously all donations like this take time. But was it hastened by the events that were currently taking place? Are you able to confirm at what date the donation was absolutely and finally committed? You rightly place great emphasis on facts in the link above, but what are the actual facts? 86.169.113.255 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The events that took place were never raised, to my knowledge. I firmly believe it never came up. I don't know the actual date of the donation being made, but I know that the development of press releases, etc, usually takes several days prior to them being released, so I would suspect a week or so prior the announcement at the very latest. I'll ask, though. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just be careful in regard to strawmen arguments. I don't think the serious case proposes that the Wikimedia Foundation and Brin or Google were in a cash-on-delivery arrangement where donations were directly in return for Wikipedia services to be rendered in aiding Google lobbying. That's not how political corruption works in the main. It is true that much Google-related money has been donated to the WMF, we agree on this point, correct? It is also true that the WMF aided Google lobbying, though I don't expect you to grant that (spare me the PR line of the spontaneous grassroots uprising by the masses against the forces of evil - I am far too jaded and cynical to do much but roll my eyes at such fairy tales). I don't begrudge you correcting overly simplistic models, but I do say not to draw from that any sort of refutation of the major donor influence case. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays
Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol. Best, Risker (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Jimbo just removed a question on his talk page about the 'global wikipedian award'. What is this award, and did it have anything to do with the WMF, or was it an initiative of Jimbo alone? Thanks. 86.146.79.118 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Are you saying you have no knowledge of whether it had anything to do with the WMF? Or are you saying it actually had nothing to do with the WMF? Surely if money was being donated from WMF funds, someone would know? 86.148.208.66 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're parsing words, and it's an unfair question. How would I possibly say, theoretically, that it DID have somehting to do with the WMF, if I had no knowledge of that? That's a ridiculous posturing to take.
Philippe, with regard to the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, you told me last April: Note - if there are truly child porn issues, and the Foundation is notified, we actually remove them from the servers and report as required by law. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Today, however, you told Anthonyhcole, Without speaking to this specific case, in general, images that are problematic are oversighted and not deleted from the servers. There's a very good reason for that: law enforcement advised us to do so, so that the image remains in place for their investigation, should they need it. After a certain amount of time, we have it quietly removed. Let's not go casting about breathless lines about people obsessively saving porn unless we know the whole story, okay? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayen, that's a fair question. The process changed, because we got new advice from law enforcement and the National Center for Missing/Exploited Children. We do an almost continuous review of our processes for dealing with that type of file, and some new best practices were given to us relatively recently. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is "removed from the server" what happened to that particular image or was it something else? If Jimbo can't view it, I suspect it was removed from the server, but there are new Wiki-things happening all the time, so it would be nice to confirm whether it was that or some other tool. – PhilosopherLet us reason together.21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That file has been oversighted. No new technology is involved. I'm not sure why Jimmy can't view it, but I suspect he was following the link on enwiki, which would tell him the file didn't exist, unless he went over to commons and checked there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you might consider apologising to me for the "Don't be ridiculous" comment, Philippe. Without an apology, I'm going to find it very difficult to work with you in the future. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I never want someone to be offended. Please accept my very sincere apology for that comment. I will clearly say that I found your leap to bad faith (in suggesting that there was a group of people harboring illegal material on the wiki, and that the WMF would allow that) offensive as well, but that does not excuse me for speaking rashly and rudely. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the suggestion that there is a knee-jerk reaction by a cadre on Commons that anything with a hint of nudity or sexuality must be kept no matter what, was made by one editor and endorsed by another, immediately prior to my comment. It was not my suggestion. It seems from your response that there is in fact a group of people harboring (at least potentially) illegal material on the servers, and that the WMF allows it. Forgive me if I have misunderstood but that does seem to be what you have just said [4]. It was not ridiculous for me to raise my concern that the group on Commons that, according to John lilburne and Carrite, obsessively save porn on Commons, might have free access to oversighted files. And I reject any apology that includes a mistaken assertion that I am making leaps of bad faith and being offensive. Please don't ever address me again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, he said the material was oversighted and kept, which makes it rather nonsensical to suggest the WMF are allowing people to harbor (store) the material on the server. If you put some of your money on top of a table in plain sight, and I take it and keep it and maybe provide it to a third party and don't intend ever to return it to you, I don't think you would view that as my "storing" your money for you. Yes, I think you've misunderstood. If it makes it any clearer, administrators can't view oversighted files. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a message about this on the mailing list but for whatever reason sometimes my messages don't seem to post. The gist was to say thanks for your attention and that it is awesome that things are moving so fast on this issue, and that the persons responsible for the server migration did an amazing job and you should tell Jimmy or Sue or whoever to give them a raise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe. Somebody has inquired about the OFFICE protection of this article (which was done in October/November 2011). Any comments you can leave there are appreciated. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, was this intended to keep certain information out or to block the entire creation of an article about him? It's been "temporarily" blanked for over a year (and not deleted, just blanked), so I am also curious as to the rationale. – PhilosopherLet us reason together.21:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you deleted User talk:Mephistophelian per WP:LEGAL. This seems to me to be a clearly invalid rationale to delete a page (with over 1,000 revisions), the purpose of WP:LEGAL is that we don't give in to legal threats, not that we follow demands. Perhaps you meant something else than WP:LEGAL, but I would like to have some clearer explanation of what happened here, because as it stands it sends a completely wrong message. Fram (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I don't like it but is not worth wasting more time on, but (as you now noticed as well) if it really had been deleted for WP:LEGAL, it would have been truly problematic. Can I just ask: if Mephistophelian would return, are we allowed to undelete it? Fram (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mephistophelian did a lot of Articles for creation submission reviews. These invite the submitter to discuss declined submissions, one route being via the reviewer's talk page. What procedure could we use to ensure a new user doesn't inadvertently recreate the talk page with a question that is likely to go unanswered? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. I do not know the candidate, or Dennis Brown, but the language used by a representative of the foundation, writing in that capacity, accusing a candidate and nominator of "hijacking" an RFA (or the RFA process), is intemperate, uncalled for, and an inappropriate assumption of bad faith. Is this accusation-- of "hijacking"-- the position of the Foundation? Kablammo (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have been at a leadership retreat this week and have only been able to stop by Wikipedia for a few minutes. I'm afraid that - noting the RFA had closed on the 9th - I presumed any questions would have been rendered moot, since they were not placed on my talkpage, and did not follow the "talkback" banner to the discussion page. Generally speaking, I've found it's best to summarize the issue on a talk page, to drive people to follow the banners... but that's just a side note.
I don't believe that the word "hijack" necessarily always implies intentional wrongdoing, and I certainly didn't intend for that to be read as the implication. As the hijack definition on Wiktionary notes, it can be commonly used to refer to an instance of redirection of a process from its originally intended purpose. I do not assume bad faith or intentional wrongdoing on your part, Dennis. I've heard only good things about you and am sure you are working with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, I believe that's what this RFA effectively did. As Director of Community Advocacy, I stand by my position that a protocol for temporary adminship should be community vetted rather than building, ad-hoc, on a process intended for entirely different aims.
Again, I apologize for the delayed response. In the future, I'll pay more attention to the talkback banner, and I'd encourage you - if there's something you really want to call my attention to - to email me. That's frequently the best way to get a quick response. We have 800 wikis, roughly, and I get talk page notifications so frequently that I can easily miss one. Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously, Dennis? I mean, I'm all for asking Foundationeers to check their attitudes at the door sometimes, but you're blowing the use of one word - used in a fairly standard colloquial meaning - up into (dare I make the pun?) a federal case. No, Philippe was not saying that he thought you were committing a federal crime and stealing an aircraft or ship. I'm not sure in what universe it would make sense to accuse him of that. He wasn't accusing you of doing something "illegal" at all, because there's no law that covers "editing Wikipedia in a non-disruptive manner that may nevertheless be a manner that was chosen poorly." I get that you're upset and offended because you think Philippe used a loaded word and misjudged you, but dude...take off the spiderman mask and climb down from the Reichstag, you're making yourself look very odd right now. Asking him to consider whether "hijack" was a good term to choose, and whether he'd use it in similar circumstances in the future? Fine. Demanding he apologize because you feel he's accused you of illegal activity and personally offended your honor by thus libeling you? Not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis: I can't speak for the 'real world' definition according to Mountain View, California, but where I'm from one of the Wiktionary definitions ("An instance of a seizure and redirection of a process") is not uncommon. I don't exactly encounter it in my day-to-day life, but that's because I don't hear the word "hijack" much (Cardiff not being a high-crime area). It simply means to redirect; to redirect with bad or good intentions, without any implicit claim of illegality. To address your options above: there is an option C, which is that Philippe spoke unclearly and did not intend to communicate the meaning you are placing on his words. I would suggest this is probably the correct interpretation of his statement, given that he has explicitly stated he did not intend to communicate any bad faith or intentional wrongdoing (and surely a claim of illegality would involve both?). I'm sorry if that statement is not enough to satisfy you, but it's clear to me that he didn't say what you're asking him to back down from. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a different issue than you were talking about in your last post (the one I replied to). In that one, you said you wanted to know whether it was Philippe's personal or professional opinion that you had committed a crime ("Is this a personal opinion, or is this the official stance of the Foundation? that by nominating someone, I was trying to illegally seize the process for nefarious reasons?"). Which, as I said above, comes across as a very odd thing to ask, because there was no criminal accusation in what he said. If what you're really after is a discussion of whether Philippe's comment there was made in a personal capacity to influence a situation he personally disliked (or something? is that roughly what you're saying?), but using an official account to make the comment...that's a completely different complaint that what you made earlier today, and you would have been better served to just ask it, rather than taking the sidetrack about criminality. My personal opinion as far as that issue is that he made clear in his comment on the RFA talk that the Foundation's policy was X, and his personal analysis of this situation was X+Q. For all that my opinion matters here, which is nearly not at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did clarify. He did correct for it. My explanation of the meaning of 'hijack', Fluffernutter's explanation of his intentions - these are repetition of things he has already said. At this point it's fairly clear we're not going to agree on the appropriate action, so I'm going off to do other things. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that conversation about this has fragmented a bit, as Dennis had emailed me as well as posting here. Since that's the case, I want to reiterate here so others are aware of it as well some of my position, as set out in that email. My statement was made in my professional capacity on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation; it is based on repeated rulings by and consultation with our legal counsel. In terms of the specific word used, I have explained the context in which I intended it. While I would not use it again, based on Dennis's interpretation of it (which I understand in retrospect), I reiterate that I never implied or meant to imply bad faith on his or Carrite's part, although I believed (and still believe) as Director of Community Advocacy that the RFA process was being used inappropriately from the Wikimedia Foundation's perspective. You are, of course, very welcome to link to this comment or this section from the talk page of the RFA or anywhere else that seems appropriate to you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is OTRS Minimum Age. Message added 02:28, 11 February 2013 (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.
Hi Philippe. I hate to add to your list of things to do, but I was hoping you could help me. Does the Foundation have a position on the proposal at meta:WebCite. This is the service we use to archive our references and citations. The proposal is to take over WebCite and there are some questions about Fair Use and some other proposals about possibly donating funds or services to WebCite. I'm not sure how these things work and there may be some proposals there that wouldn't be possible for legal reasons or something else. It would be helpful to get input from the Foundation if it's possible. And since I'm here, I just wanted to thank you kindly for your dedication to the project. You're a shining example of what's good about Wikipedia and you rate tops in my book. I know dealing with the community here can be very trying at times and you've alsways been helpful and courteous through it all. You truly are a great Wikipedian. Kind regards. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - and thank you so very very much for the compliment. It's really nice to hear. I'm glad that I'm able to serve your needs, and also consider it a real honor to have the job that I do, so thank you for trusting me with it. As to you question about webcite - I think it's a great project, and so does the WMF as a whole. Whether or not it's something that should be folded under our umbrella is nuanced. The first question that I'd ask is "Do they WANT to be folded under our umbrella?" We have no real issue with absorbing projects or tools (and I'd argue that this one might be better considered a tool than a project) as needed, but I think that any conversation should begin with "What is best for webcite and what do they want?" Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a statement from WebCite at the meta page.
+ Perspective from WebCite: WebCite - a project I initiated - is humbled by the support from the Wikimedia / Wikipedia community. We are more than willing to discuss all possible options, including a "takeover" by WMF. Personally, I would think that leaving it a stand-alone entity with funding and strong ties to the WMF would be the better solution for all parties involved (not least, legal exposure), but this is for WMF to decide, and as WebCite initiator my primary goal is to see WebCite flourish and survive, which it may be best achieved the umbrella of the WMF. In any case, WebCite does need cash (we are hoping to raise $50k by end of this year to pay a developer for a much needed overhaul, more storage space etc). The third option is a commercial one, i.e. raise Venture Capital and/or charge for "pro/premium" memberships. The latter is the avenue we may have to pursue if other fundraising efforts fail. In the meantime, please donate at http://fnd.us/c/aQMp7 (preferably with a comment) - this will go a long way to demonstrate to potential funders that there is some serious need and support for a service like this. Gunther Eysenbach, University of Toronto, WebCite initiator --Eysenbach (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan, I hadn't seen that (I'm in an offsite workshop for three days) - I've passed the funding request (last week) on within the office, and one option that came up was that Webcite could request funding through the Wikimedia Grants process. Has anyone shared that option yet? I'll take a look when I have a bit more freedom to read carefully. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot written at that page, and I was on a script enforced Wikibreak for most of the discussion, so I haven't gotten through all of it. It appears that someone has mentioned a grant, but nobody has yet referenced the actual Wikimedia Grants process. I don't necessarily know where to post information on the grant or who to address it to (WebCite/Gunther Eysenbach or the rest of the community involved in the discussion), and I'm not familiar with the grants in general, so I'll leave it to someone else to explain that. RyanVesey20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) @Philippe, thanks very much for the help. You folks at the WMF are the hardest working bunch of people I've ever met and I appreciate all you folks do for the project. I've left a note at meta:WebCite#WebCite can apply for a grant with your suggestion.
Hi Philippe. I'd appreciate your comment at a discussion (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Covert advertising: 2012 German court ruling) regarding if/how/whether it's appropriate to reference legal rulings in our policies that occurred outside of the US/Florida jurisdiction, and if so whether or not to reference to the general and legal disclaimer is appropriate or required. Just to be clear, I'm supporting mentioning those disclaimers while at least one other editor is opposed to doing so. As you know, COI editing is quite controversial so I only intend this as a way to get a third opinion with some legal background. Best, Ocaasit | c19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a related topic, Philippe, there is ongoing and somewhat contentious discussion about an OTRS ticket involving NDAA 2012 and how it was handled. I want to point your attention to the related discussions:
They involve what happens when a COI editor or representative is led to a talk page and advised to engage there. In this case it happened through OTRS with a very sensitive and controversial subject where the COI editor worked for the U.S. Government and was given extensive advice by me about how to engage on the talk page of the article, how to present sources and arguments, and what to expect from the consensus process of talking with other editors. Most important, I am curious if you had any thoughts to relay about how best to make it abundantly clear that COI editors even when assisted through OTRS get no special privileges and other editors have no particular obligations to do what is requested or suggested. I'm trying to clarify our guidance on this. Since it involves OTRS volunteers and their role and status I hope you might review it. I've also emailed the OTRS list to ask a similar question about clarifying our position in these situations. Best, Ocaasit | c13:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question about checkuser and oversight access
Hi Philippe, I've just left a question on your personal page by mistake, [6] so I'm asking it again here. It's about an issue I believe you've commented on before on behalf of the Foundation.
Risker is keen to see the Arbitration Committee appoint non-administrators to the Audit Subcommittee. [7] This committee oversees the use of checkuser and oversight, and its members are given access to the CU and oversight tools themselves. It has happened once before that a non-admin was appointed, though it didn't work out and lasted only a few weeks, as I recall.
It concerns me that this should be proposed, because it means that the committee – elected from a very small number of candidates, sometimes with close to just 50 percent of the vote – would be giving the CU and oversight tools to editors who have never gone through any form of election. My recollection is that the Foundation insists that editors with access to deleted revisions submit to an election that is at least as rigorous as the RFA process; that is, those with access to deleted revisions should be administrators, or should have been chosen to have access to deleted material in a way that is similar to applying for adminship (diff, as one example, though I've seen this mentioned several times).
My question to you is: does the Foundation have the same minimum requirement for access to the checkuser and oversight tools on the English Wikipedia as it does for access to deleted revisions? SlimVirgin(talk)20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, it's always good to hear from you. I truly appreciate your well considered questions. In this case, I don't have an immediate answer for you, because (frankly) I've never asked the question in quite this way. However, I'll take the question to Geoff and see what he thinks. I doubt that I will have an answer before Monday at the very earliest, however, and it may be later than that, if there's research that needs to be done.
As speculation only, my initial opinion is this: Foundation policy requests that checkuser be issued on the direction of the Arbitration Committee on sites that have one with a large enough electoral base. It doesn't say anything about requiring administrator-level tools before doing so. So I would say that my initial gut call is that the WMF wouldn't object to what is happening here, however, given the recent statements about access to deleted revisions, I agree with you that it makes sense to clarify. When considering the reasons for requiring election for access to deleted revisions, they're primarily due to concerns about deleted content and access thereto. In this case, since these AUSC committee members are given access to deleted content, I do want Geoff to weigh in. So I'm sorry, all of that just to say "It's complex, and I honestly don't know." I'll find out. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe, thank you. I understand that CU and oversight might be seen differently by the Foundation, as only the latter involves access to deleted revisions. But if you and Geoff are going to consider whether access to oversight ought to require some form of election (RfA or equivalent), I hope you'll also consider whether access to CU should too. Having access to CU allows a user not only to check another editor, but I believe also allows access to the logs of all accounts and IP addresses checked within a certain time frame – which could be several months' worth of checks – so there is considerable access to private data. Sometimes this data is sufficient to identify an editor; for example, if s/he is posting from a small workplace. It concerns me that this could be offered without any scrutiny from an electoral process, whether RfA or some other. I know that elections are imperfect, but they're arguably better than nothing. Anyway, I'll wait to hear from you. Many thanks again, SlimVirgin(talk)22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for your patience. I took the question to our legal team, and have communicated this to Risker (for the committee) and will also post to WT:AC/N. In summary, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process. While we certainly think the goal of involving non-admins in the oversight functions is laudable, and we support expanding the role of non-admins, this is one area in which we are forced to constrain that activity. We think that we have been consistent, for some time, in saying that we require an RFA or RFA-identical process for access to deleted revisions.
With that said, I personally erred in not noticing this earlier and in not putting an earlier stop to it. I wish I could explain how that happened, but I'm simply at a loss to understand how I missed such a clear connection between the statements that we (and I, personally) have made around this and the practice that I knew was going on. I want to thank you for pointing it out, SlimVirgin, because it's an opportunity for us to correct that mistake. I apologize to the committee and the community for not doing that earlier, and want to express my apologies to any non-admins who may have applied for this permission this time or in the past, when the Foundation really should have stepped in to prevent that. I hope that they will use their energies for another opportunity to help the project, and that they will understand and accept my apology. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to answer that, because I hate sweepingly broad statements, but... as a general rule, this definition from the legal team can be held as universal. I can't (right offhand) think of any exceptions to it, but I would encourage specific wikis with questions to come to me individually. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can name several of the support wikis (chapter wikis, Meta, Outreach, test, etc.) that do not follow this principle - is that because they are not content wikis that this is allowed? --Rschen775420:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Test is a special case, because developers often need to test code around that, for instance. Chapter wikis are broadly left to the chapters to control, with very few exceptions. Wrt Meta, can you tell me what you mean there? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Meta, most of the temporary adminships are granted immediately without discussion. There are legitimate reasons for them to have such rights though, in my opinion. --Rschen775420:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow up question here: Since the main role (in fact, iirc the only role permitted by the committee) is to oversee the use of the OS and CU tools, and the viewing of oversighted revisions from a technical standpoint does require the "sysop" bit to function correctly, would it make sense that having a non-admin on the AUSC is possible because they would only be able to view the OS log, including reasoning, but not individual revisions unless they were e-mailed such revisions through a mailing list, for example? Not that I'm running anytime soon (or ever), just wondering why it'd be a problem since iirc the Oversight tool requires the RevDel and the view-deleted tools/rights to function properly for the viewing/deleting of revisions, and the OS group doesn't include the view-deleted or delete tools, only tools above and beyond the RevDel. gwickwiretalkediting23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine how a user who cannot see what was actually suppressed would be of any use to a group that reviews the appropriateness of suppression actions. It would be like doing a GA review for an article when you could only see the section headers. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they see some questionable log actions, they can always e-mail the list for the AUSC, and one of the others could give them the data if necessary, if the WMF would approve of that. Regardless, a very knowledgeable CU who doesn't really dabble in OS (or never had the bit) and wasn't an admin may be beneficial to the AUSC, i.e. have a member for the Checkuser permission, and the other 5 members be able to access both. There are a number of non-OS Checkusers currently (well, at least one). gwickwiretalkediting01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Given your statement that "access to deleted revisions... require[s] an RFA or RFA-identical process", can you please also offer an additional statement on the behalf of WMF containing its opinion on whether children should have access to deleted revisions. Thank you. — Hex(❝?!❞)15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the WMF, but my personal opinion is that someone being a child is not a sufficient reason to grant them access to deleted revisions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hex, here's your answer, from the WMF's privacy policy and past statements on this subject (not official, but I'd be willing to bet that this is pretty much what Philippe wll affirm). Age only matters for the access to the OS and CU tools, and for any jobs that may involve these tools. Since admins are of any age, hell, if we didn't know their age we'd possibly !vote a 10 year old into adminship! The age for adminship does not exist, and the foundation has no legal need to make one. There are administrators on other projects as young as 14-16, and they do a damn good job. Excuse my language, only used for emphasis :) gwickwiretalkediting19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we haven't officially made a statement as to age and access to deleted revisions, but I think that is, in itself, a statement. I'll ask our attorneys, if you'd like, but it'll be pretty far down the list of priorities, unless there's an immediate and pressing concern. If it's just a general inquiry as to our feelings on a policy, I typically tell people that "Assuming we know of its existence, if we haven't stopped it, we certainly don't think it's tooooo odious." Is there an immediate and pressing concern? If so, email me privately (philippewikimedia.org) and I'll look into it. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No particular pressing concern. I'm just trying to get a full picture of what the WMF is saying. In this case it appears to be that there is no legal problem with a 14-year-old, or possibly even younger, as Gwickwire notes, having access to deleted revisions, so long as they have passed the RfA process. That's interesting. — Hex(❝?!❞)11:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about 'deleted revisions' do you mean any article that is deleted, and not just those that have been oversighted? They seem to cover quite different situations, since most deletions are a statement about spam / notability / quality... – SJ +18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the statement implicitly includes checkusers since they were granted viewdeleted rights in this RFC (whose intent was, somehow ironically, to allow non-admins to become CU, among others). Cenarium (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Canoe1967, I'll say up front that I am not a lawyer, nor am I a non-legal expert on copyright. In fact, the amount that I know about copyright can best be described as "barely passable". I typically refer all copyright questions to Maggie Dennis, our senior community advocate, who also knows how to rope in legal counsel when it's over her head. May I suggest that you start with her? I'll draw her attention to this conversation as well. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had left a note on her talk page in the Aircraft section. I misunderstood her response and left a note here. I didn't want to contact the lawyers directly. I am just wondering if the use of these images is cut and dried. Is an image of a copyrighted 2D character represented in a 3D hot air balloon a copyvio even if FOP is allowed. In countries such as the USA where FOP is not allowed can we upload images of hot air balloons that have unique shapes or is that a copyvio of a 3D sculpture. Does the Batmobile copyright case extend to all the images we have of it on commons? We have commons:Template:Second Life that states that 3D works created there are copyrighted by the creator in Second Life. If Second Life creations are affected by a real life copyrights like the yellow submarine, a batmobile, SpongeBob SquarePants etc. Can we host images of them in commons. We may need policy/guideline clarifications on these issues. A Second Life section may need to be added to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter above as well. Feel free to copy/paste any of my text to others that wish to review it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process.
Many current admins passed their RFA several years ago. The RFA process years ago bears no resemblance to current RFA. That means there are a large number of admins with access to deleted revisions who have not been through any RFA-identical process.
If F insists on people passing RFA to see deleted revisions, then admin status should be removed from people who passed when the standard of RFA was completely different. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We considered the issue that you raise. However, we believe that the fact that those admins retain their bits is a definite sign that the community continues to trust them (including the modified community of today - versus their original community that voted them in) and therefore, that is sufficient. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An issue of which you might want to be made aware of...
Philippe, are you aware of this thread. I am told that mainstream media has been known to pick things up from this blog, so we should be prepared with a strategy should this become a story outside of Wikipedia. GoPhightins!22:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to thank you for your efforts, but the outcome isn't 100% clear to me. Do you feel confident that we won't see any more unapproved mass-editing projects from this professor? If you do, I'm happy to let the matter drop. If you don't feel that a commitment was made and it isn't possible to get a clear commitment, I am going to feel compelled to seek a ban on such activities. (I would greatly prefer to leave this behind us.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I think Looie raises a good point. Also, I noticed that WoodSnake seems to imply in his most recent comment at the Education noticeboard that he maybe does not intend to watch carefully there, but instead is going to pay attention only to what you tell him. Nonetheless other editors are responding to him there, in ways that he should be paying attention to. So you may either want to point him back there, or watch there carefully yourself in order to convey what the community is thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Affaire Pierre-sur-Haute
I am not coming into this as a one-off, I have been dealing with rampant impropriety by administrators for the last couple months. It has brought my editing to a halt. In that respect, I have a bias in all this.
So what. Is Wikipedia now to be subject to the whims of the foreign secret services? The mere fact that this was caught is an anomaly. We should know what will happen next time:
"And make an excuse so it won't get reverted."
That is a concrete hypothetical. It is bound to happen after this fiasco. And then what? We'll deal with that when it happens? Not his or her fault? Just another mistake?
The real question is, did he or did he not abuse his administrative position, yes or no? yes, he did. Why he abused his administrative position is already determined: because he wanted to. Simple. He did not want to resign. He wanted to avoid becoming a free speech/Wikipedia martyr and keep his social status on Wikipedia.
I have personally gone out of my way to make it clear that Europeans may be required to censor Wikipedia in contravention of Foundation policy, and yet everyone has ignored it. (People, you, probably don't even realize, that "freedom of speech" as we know it here in America is decades old; it hasn't always been this way.) That's fine, ignore it. But enough is enough. This is about as concrete as it gets.
You must understand that something must be done. Either the European-language project will be based on European-American sociopolitical values, or European ones. This is not hypothetical, I have been talking about it for a while now. Europeans are well represented on the project. Europeans have freedom of speech like Chinese have freedom of speech. (Really, the Chinese have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, with fewer statutory exceptions than Europeans do.)
The time to solve this problems was months ago, but now will do just fine. It is an "architectural" problem, a policy problem. That's you. If not, well, I'm sure I'll do alright, its the other editors and readers that will get screwed. Int21h (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought it was obvious what I say I should have done: resign my administrative privileges. It is a similar situation if the government asked a defense lawyer to betray his client or be arrested. He has a moral obligation to resign rather than do either.
Then you didn't read what I said. How could he resign? You think they were going to wait for him to resign, politely? He was being presented with the choice of do it, now, or face punishment. He had no access to resign. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank, I think the hypotheticals about what the Interior Ministry would or would not have done if he would have resigned is besides the point. He agreed to the TOS. He violated the TOS using his administrative privledges. Willfully. Every European should reasonably know that what happens on Wikipedia can subject them to arrest in Europe. Its obvious. Russia, France, Germany, England. Wikipedia has content that is illegal in all those jurisdictions; but the only thing that matters is it is legal in California and within Foundation and project policy. If he fears arrest in France for it, then he should not have become an administrator on an American website. He did so anyways. Otherwise we get into the finer points of "oh BLANK told him to do it or face punishment so its OK". We can sit here debating it forever but the facts are clear. If these are valid excuses for violating policy then it should be formalized that you can violate policy with no repercussions under certain circumstances. Lets not play the "I know when I see it" game. Int21h (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did resign, at least temporarily, but the idea that he should be held accountable on Wikipedia for his actions shows what a fool you are. RyanVesey04:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. He did resigned. After he abused his administrative privledges, and only "temporarily." I do not believe it is foolish to hold a user accountable for his responsibilities to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If those conflict with your responsibilities to your Lord or Prefect, leave. Int21h (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude.... he resigned AFTER.. as in after he got home so that they could not do it again. When they made the demand he was IN their office. He really couldn't very well resign there, they were literally right there with him and making a threat that, as far as I can tell, means he may not have been allowed to leave. To that end if he refused we may not even know about it for 24-48 hours because he had no way to get the message to us. He knew full well that the community was going to restore it, I don't think you can judge him at all. You have no clue what you would do in that position until you are in that position.
Hi! Would you mind making some comments at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining oversighters about the WMF's position on a few things? I've made comments related to one of the threads above about non-admin OS, identification, stewards, and abuse of the tool and dealing with that, but I think it would help if they heard from you. --Rschen775421:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VPT#Concerns with Flow is a discussion where major concerns regarding the deployment of flow are listed. I share in them, and seeing as there is no response from anyone from WMF, I thought it prudent to notify you, our community advocacy director to, I don't know, advocate for the will of the community. Thanks Philippe. GoPhightins!02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of writing an answer. It should be noted that this thread was started around 10:00 am. local time, and it's now 9:00 pm local, and it's a day off for everyone. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I did not pay attention too carefully to the times ... I saw how many replies there had been and assumed that it had been open for a few days. My apologies. GoPhightins!12:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Signpost comment request. Message added 22:26, 4 June 2013 (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.
Philippe, at Jimbo's suggestion, I'd like to draw your attention to this discussion on his talk page (you may need to read the main discussion to understand the context). Please comment, if you have anything to add. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe - I'm both a long-time Wiki editor and also a contributor to a Facebook group page with content that regularly links to FB pages created from Wikipedia articles. I've been trying to find out how & how often those FB pages are updated to reflect the current content of the matching Wikipedia articles. There's no way to get answers from Facebook about things like this, but I did locate a discussion that you took part in here on Wiki back in 2010 that approved a request to allow a Facebook bot to carry out automated updates on a daily basis. So at this point what I want to know is whether that arrangement is still in effect, or has it been superseded by something else? If you don't happen to know, perhaps you could suggest who might be able to provide the answer. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cgingold,
My understanding is that the Facebook bot updates those on a daily (or more frequent) basis. I have the ability to force a manual update of a page if necessary, but we try to discourage that, because I don't scale (except horizontally, with the aid of chocolate). If that understanding is no longer correct, please let me know, and I can check in with Facebook on it. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe - Thanks for your reply. I'm really in the dark as to what is going on with Facebook. They're not exactly transparent and responsive to inquiries from users - such a huge contrast with Wikipedia. The reason I'm concerned about this issue is because a couple of days ago I made a series of edits to 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. Some hours later I discovered that the FB page derived from that page had not been updated to reflect my edits. I checked again later in the day, and again the next day -- still no update. That was when I started looking on the internet for info about this issue -- which is in very short supply! But I did find the discussion I noted above, and you know the rest. It's now been about 48 hours since I edited the Wiki article, and the supposed mirror on Facebook still has not been updated. So I am really wondering what the current arrangement is, since it clearly isn't happening on a daily basis any more. I would be most appreciative if you would be good enough to check with Facebook -- especially since this undoubtedly affects more than just this one article. Thanks again for your help with this! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would have been nice to push it thru when I first spotted the problem, but that particular occasion has already come and gone, so there's no real need to expedite things at this point. However, the same basic issue will come up again in the near future with regard to other articles, so I sure hope they get things squared away ASAP. Thanks again! Cgingold (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Hey, what do you know? Looks like Facebook got their bot up and running again! Not only the article in question, but also another article it links to have been updated to reflect recent edits. Hopefully this will continue on a regular basis. Speaking of which, did you happen to find out from your Facebook contact how frequently their bots are supposed to update the articles?
You know, it occurs to me that, as much as I appreciate your help on this, it sure would be nice in the future to have a direct way to make problems like this known to a person or dept. at Facebook who would actually respond in a timely way. In fact, I've already discovered another major problem with those articles that needs to be fixed as quickly as possible. (This one doesn't really involve Wikipedia, so I won't bother you with the details.) I realize, of course, that you have no control over such things, but perhaps you could pass this request on to your contact at Facebook. In any event, thanks again for your very helpful intervention, Philippe. Greatly appreciated! Cgingold (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
serious harassment issue
Hi Philippe, if you're not aware of it I'd like to direct your attention to User talk:Jimbo Wales#NSFW - Wikimedia Commons video. I won't try to explain what is happening there, you'll have to read it. In my view if this happened to anybody except Jimbo it would provoke an office action, and in my further view the fact that it is Jimbo ought not to matter. There are obvious reasons why Jimbo would not want to ask for an office action himself, hence this message. You're probably not the right person to contact, but I don't know anybody better -- can you tell me who is? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The STOPhaus Movement is Claiming That WP is Maliciously Libeling Them
You may or may not be aware that there has been an ongoing feud between an anti-spam organization known as The Spamhaus Project and an anti-censorship collective known as The STOPhaus Movement. This has spilled over into Wikipedia community due to a largely biased and one-sided section on a page that seems to be gvery one-sided altogether. The Spamhaus Project has a page on Wikipedia and on that page there is a discussion concerning STOPhaus and their involvement in the "Largest DDoS Attack in History" as NYT so sensationally called it.
The NYT journalist, Nicole Perlroth and John Markoff were fed the content by Cloudflare, a DDoS mitigation company working alongside The Spamhaus Project. The Wikipedia article reflects on allegations against The STOPhaus Movement and even goes as far as to use a quote calling us "spam and malware hosters", "criminals" and various other libelous claims. We, if there is a "we" are a group of people, users, ISPs, and various anonymous supporters that believe that Spamhaus are over-aggressive in their means to the point it is, or should be, illegal. The debate is whether or not they are, in fact, criminal in their actions.
I am reaching out on the behalf of The STOPhaus Movement to suggest that your editors allow the inclusion of the allegations against Spamhaus, made by STOPhaus or the removal of any reference to STOPhaus from The Spamhaus Page. Maintaining what we are calling libel without moral or reasonable grounds to do so appears to be malicious propaganda and is being received as such. Congratulations on your new life, but you should understand first hand, how a NYT inaccuracy becomes a PR nightmare and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. should not promote the libelous abuse of any group of people.
Especially since the largest STOPhaus support comes from your hometown and a recently formed Political Party in Pinellas County support TSM. Seems you should be a proponent for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, bring a Floridian. Maybe London has already gotten to you though, who knows?
The Wikimedia Foundation takes no position on content in the vast majority of articles. We are a passive content host only, interceding when there is a legal need to do so. I'm afraid that I can't help you here.
Have you obtained legal consultations from expert lawyers that independently
supports the ArbCom party-line that WMF and Wikipedia have no control over IRC, despite Jimbo Wales's statement to the contrary, and
A. no, not me personally. I don't know if the WMF ever has.
assure you that WMF and Wikipedia comply with COPA/COPPA despite requiring email from users with accounts (with registration being repeatedly requested to IP editors until they register),
A. My understanding (disclaimer: IANAL) is that the WMF is exempt from COPPA.
assure you that you, Sue Gardner, the WMF board, and other Wikipedia/WMF officers have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of child predation despite WMF/Wikipedia's
A. I'm not sure why you think I need legal advice to be so assured.
not requiring parental permission from 13-17 year olds (per COPA/COPPA),
A. See above.
not requiring child-safety training from leadership (Tea House, adopters, etc.),
A. See above.
allowing an editor to instruct a child how to overcome his parents' removal of email addresses and continue to email and IM the child and tell another child of an upcoming visit to his town,
A. The WMF does not run an IM or email system and would thus have no knowledge of or responsibility for those things.
being warned by ArbCom that they lack the expertise and time to handle existing child predation cases (even with the existing policy)?
A. We are in discussions with Arbcom about this currently.
I would suggest that you (or an officer with a clue) alert the Board of these concerns at the next meeting and assure them that (1) outside counsel has been retained to review these questions and (2) WMF/Wikipedia is consulting on child safety with experts (e.g. Boy Scouts, or Girl Scouts). Kiefer.Wolfowitz08:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damon Dash has now been blanked for nearly two years. It's time to make it an article again, since this is way too long. It seems that Template:Pp-reset is the way to go.
How about: Damon Dash (born May 3, 1971) is an American businessman known for his roles in Roc-A-Fella Records, Rocawear clothing and DD172, a nightclub.
The page has been protected for 2.5 years. Will it be protected forever? Does it need to have the gigantic banner for all time? The page mentions you specifically, otherwise I would have posted at WP:VP, or on the article talk. Cheers. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe, Sorry to bother you as I know you're very busy, but the community has worked itself up in to quite a frenzy and the User:________(WMF) folks are taking quite a beating right now. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do, but I wanted to offer some suggetions. If the foundation is looking in to things, perhaps you could issue a statement similar to this
The foundation has heard the community loud and clear. We are looking in to your concerns and will be addressing them shortly. Please give us a little time to repsond
Or maybe you could start a poll that list specific concerns so that the community can vent by signing a poll rather than going after specific foundation employees. The community is getting really personal and I don't think it helps them or the foundation staff and so I'm hoping some type of intervention can cool the flames. Like I said, I'm not sure if there's anything you can do, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Kind regards. 64.40.54.109 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe. An Office question has come up at RFUP, regarding an obscure/obsolete page that is allegedly protected for legal reasons; it would be great if you or someone else could take a look. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)05:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."
We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."
So we would like to bring that discussion to the attention of every member on board and some staff.
Personally, I agree with Jimmy that the Commons community has gone down a sad and disappointing path. Unfortunately, as staff, our role is limited. We have no power by fiat to change things there, and that is correct and right. I am always, however, looking for positive ways for us to exert what influence and moral authority we do have toward corrective action there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy blanking an obscure article talk page and then pointing to from a prominent page draws far more attention to it than leaving it alone would have -- I've removed the link here [9]. NE Ent13:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Philippe (WMF). I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Hey Philippe. I hope you're doing well and that you think the WP:Wikimedia Foundation page will be helpful to the community. I just wanted to post a minor quibble. I saw your edit summary here, and I thought it would have been better without the "Excuse me?" and the "DO NOT". I understand it's a serious matter, but it just came across to me in the wrong fashion (we do have this, after all). The talk page post definitely got the point across well, with a better tone, in my opinion. Well that's just some random feedback. Carry on and best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have to say, I've never had an edit summary come under such scrutiny. The reason for the strong tone there: we frequently employ several different tactics in an attempt to make sure that one of them speaks to the recipient. Not all people respond to the same styles - that's why my talk page message was so much softer - in hopes that at least one of those two would resonate with the user.
The truth is, reverting office actions is A Big Deal. The potential risk to the projects is massive (in that case, the DMCA filer could have legitimately sued us - and though they would not likely have prevailed, the opportunity cost and actual cost of mounting a defense would quickly rise into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, we could lose Section 230 immunity, which would imperil the future of the entire project.)
@Biosthmors:, please note that the section you link says "virtually never appropriate", not "don't ever do it." I do it frequently as a volunteer and have for years preceding my even knowing what the WMF was. :) You can glance through my contributions dating back probably as far as 2007 to see that one of my most frequently used edit summaries in my copyright cleanup is "copyright problem removed. PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE. See talk."
Beyond that, speaking of Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility, I'm a little concerned about adding your own disagreement with another person's actions presumably with the intent of enshrining it permanently into a public facing board. :/ This is not a step I would take without clear consensus on the appropriateness of this, as even if others agreed that it was an inappropriate use of capitalization or that the tone should have been different, capitalization is not forbidden and - even if it were or even if the tone seems tense - we do not generally encourage shaming of others on Wikipedia. I don't understand the purpose of it, other than to make sure everybody knows that Philippe did something of which you don't approve. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. User:Philippe (WMF), no worries: I'm just looking for material I guess. With regards to: I think it's actually a pretty bad practice to mount accusations on a supposedly neutral page, I don't see it that way, but I take your larger point. It's just a bold and quick first attempt. And Maggie (WMF), I understand what you're saying with I'm a little concerned about adding your own disagreement with another person's actions presumably with the intent of enshrining it permanently into a public facing board. I'll remove it so there's no need to worry. I'm just trying to be bold to stimulate progress. The whole purpose of the section is to try and explain what makes Wikipedians happy about the WMF and what makes them not happy about the WMF. I regret I've concerned you both so much with my first attempt. Thanks for your replies, and I'll make some corrective edits. OK, now that we're done with that, any other thoughts about how to improve the page? Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Biosthmors:, I'd recommend trying to keep it fairly concise, actually. If people are going to use it as an information page, it's better to avoid making it so long that people overlook important points. A few points:
"The WMF develops software used on the English Wikipedia..." I think it might be good to point out that this work is also undertaken by volunteers? I'm constantly pointing people through answers@ to mw:How to become a MediaWiki hacker :)
I would probably link to wmf:Work_with_us with the "they are hiring" bit. Note that hires go beyond engineering as well, in case you'd like to put a general link to that.
There's no such thing as "WMF chapters". :) Chapters are separate organizations and do not fall under the WMF umbrella. I would call them "Wikimedia Chapters" myself. The link you have there is to a page that doesn't exist; you want wmf:Local chapters.
Under reception, I might be careful about suggesting that the community acts as one entity (I read that in "the members of the community"). My experience is that it isn't, not by a wide shot. :) Hence, the community might be simultaneously happy and unhappy.
While some of us do sometimes work long hours, I'm not sure I'd link to a single IP contributor saying so. :) I'm also not sure what you mean by "which might explain some of the Wikipedian–WMF dynamic."
In addition to the Legal Fees Assistance Program, I'd probably mention Defense of Contributors.
I'm not rushing, and am working on a version that will place significantly less load on the servers (see User:Kww/common2.js).
As for "compromise", the community has been extremely explicit in what it wants: it wants VE to be an opt-in editor that is used by experienced editors that have consciously opted-in to the tool and have the skill set necessary to monitor their edits for unexpected side effects and damage. The community has expressed a firm consensus that VE is not yet ready for deployment to new and anonymous editors. WMF's response has been to force an impasse: refusing to accede to a quite reasonable demand on the part of the community while proceeding to deploy VE wider and wider.
People are willing to compromise. Reasonable editors (including myself) have signalled willingness to help test the product. All we ask is that you not deploy incomplete and partially tested products in a production environment.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied in more detail on Kww's talkpage, but the tldr is this - The WMF cannot expect the community to compromise when the consensus is already there. They should implement the consensus, or not get unhappy when it is implemented locally. ~Charmlet-talk-17:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your note here was unfair. It's pretty frustrating to see you accuse others of acting hastily when many (if not most) of the objections to VisualEditor came from the perception that the Wikimedia Foundation was moving too hastily to deploy the software widely. In some ways, after reading your comment, I wonder if you simply missed the relevant request for comment. You seem to completely ignore it and instead decide that you're "dismayed" that someone might try to implement the overwhelming consensus that formed there. Did you read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC and its associated talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Acting hastily to actively damage the experience of users, numbers of whom have repeatedly given anecdotes of better editing experiences using [the Wikitext editor] would be in violation of long-standing practice about not breaking the software, and be an exceptionally bad idea." Is this quote of yours, with a minor adjustment by me, not exactly what the WMF has done and continues to do across all of Wikipedia? E.g. the rollout of VE to some 20 further wikipedia language versions? Perhaps the people at the WMF can try to think whether any comments they make can be applied (more accurately) to what they have been doing over the past few months, before posting them here. All you do is fan the flames and give more reasons why people ignore the WMF and implement whatever solutions they can instead. Obviously, if your main worry is that the solution about to be implemented to enforce the RfC consensus isn't optimal, your best course would be to provide a better solution. Fram (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Director, Community Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
"Where else in the world can you have a job that lets you support the people who change the way that the world uses information? It's an amazing job."
Any reply to the above comments? It's your job, after all, so some indication that the above has been read and grokked would be welcome. If the WMF wants to rebuild some community trust, more communication (and preferably of a different kind than what we have had the last few weeks and months) would be a start. Alienating many of the most active editors may create a community feeling within the English Wikipedia (with many people who can't agree on anything all agreeing on the opt-in and on their basic opinion of the WMF's handling of this situation), but it has disrupted the community feeling between WMF and en-wiki badly. Fram (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After you insulted me in an edit summary here and then on your talk page here, I'd really rather not have any contact with you on any level. But it seems you're WMF legal's community liaison.
There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:BLPN#Louisville teen sexual assault case about the ethics (largely) of publishing the names of juvenile offenders. Some have raised the possibility, though, that publishing the names of juvenile offenders may be against the law in the US, and may leave the Foundation vulnerable. Have we received advice on this question from Foundation legal in the past? If not, would you please pass this on to somebody qualified to offer that advice?
While wandering through WP:OFFICE, I noticed that Talk:Derek Smart/Archive1 and the other archives all say "Don't reverse this action without permission from Philippe or his delegate", but none of them mention who the delegate is. When you're back from your medical leave, could you edit these pages to add the name of your delegate? I'll notify Mdennis too, but I'm asking you in case she doesn't know who the delegate is. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!" – JKadavoorJee06:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update Just wanted to note that voting starts 00:01 (UTC) on 25 November 2013, which is the week of the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm going to ping @Tim Starling:, @Reedy: and also @Jalexander: just in case their help is needed. I want them to have some advanced notice so they aren't caught off guard. Thanks for everybody's help. 64.40.54.210 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker:, do you know if anyone is coordinating with Engineering on this? Like, I'm not aware of anything about it. As far as I know, my team has no involvement in this whatsoever this year, so I've put no energy into coordinating anything. If I need to be, someone needs to let me know. Otherwise, I'm assuming the committee or the election coordinators have things well in hand. @Jalexander: fyi. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best person to ask would be @Happy-melon: or one of the other Election Commission members. I saw that Reedy is aware of the bugzilla because he modified it a bit (changed from normal to enhancement), but not sure if he's assigned to it. Will see if I can find someone to get you an answer. At this point, though, the most that can be done is running the voter list; the nomination period still runs for several days, so it's difficult to do a full setup at this point. Risker (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of assuming that maintaining the bugzilla bug is sufficient to ensure that this is appropriately resourced from the WMF side. Let us know if that's not the case, but it'd be pretty arcane if there was further runestone-aligning needed (and odd if direct poking of staff members was still required given that we were basically directed not to do that last year). I hope to be able to produce the SecurePoll config XML pretty soon after the close of nominations. Risker is right that we could run the voter list now, though, that would probably be worth doing. Happy‑melon21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe. Sam Reed has done the first two elements that are required for the poll; but there is one more step that needs taking; and I'm a little worried that it won't be complete before everyone packs up for the weekend (it's been sitting for a day now). Any thoughts? Happy‑melon20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lock was placed by a bot, not a human, that has been rectified. Also, the policy does not read as you have stated, it reads "The vast majority of cases are libel, unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy, and copyright infringement." (Emphasis my own) -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)09:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... (WMF)
Hi Philippe, thanks for your post on my talk page. This mixup tonight raised an interesting question in my mind. At the time I blocked RYasmeen I had thought I stumbled on a new trolling strategy, appending "(WMF)" to usernames to trick admins. Though it turns out that wasn't the case here, for future reference, is it technically possible for someone to do that? Or is there a filter that blocks people from registering usernames with that at the end? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Arsten:Yeah, we've spent some cycles on that, off and on, for a while. There were bugs when we tried to use the AbuseFilter to screen for that, and when we tried to add it to the title blacklist to prevent it (namely, staff members who had never edited a particular wiki could not then use their SUL'd account to SUL into that wiki and auto-create the username... because the creation was disallowed by AbuseFilter.) It's something that continues to needle at me, but it hasn't made it to "crisis" mode to get into higher order thinking lately. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested re non-admins and whether or not they are prohibited from running for Arbcom
NB: I answered this section with the following statement:
"The Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to clarify and/or expand on a previous decision of the legal team, specifically that the Foundation would not allow users to have Checkuser or Oversight rights added to the user account of a user who had not passed a request for adminship or an equally rigorous community selection process.
Our legal and community advocacy team has been asked whether running for (and winning) a seat on the Arbitration Committee would meet the "rigorous community selection process" test, and therefore qualify an elected ArbCom member for Checkuser/Oversight rights. We believe that being elected to ArbCom is an involved process that strongly demonstrates community trust, and that there is a reasonable expectation that Arbitration Committee members on the English Wikipedia's Arbcom will hold those tools, except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we will not object to the assignment of checkuser/oversight tools to any user who runs for, wins, and is seated on the Arbitration Committee.
Respectfully,
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy"
Hello Philippe. I am sure you recall that, prior to the AUSC appointment process earlier this year, you posted a statement by the WMF indicating that only individuals who have successfully completed an RFA or RFA-identical process would be permitted by the WMF to have access to CheckUser and Oversight tools. This question has come up again in relation to the current elections (see on my talk page), and requires rather prompt resolution before nominations close. Simply put: if a non-admin Arbcom candidate meets the requirements for appointment (i.e., required level of support, ranked high enough for a seat, meets age and identification requirements, etc), will the WMF agree to permit that individual to have access to CU/OS? Risker (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think non-Admins should be allowed to run as a candidate. I think they are unlikely to win but they would offer a different perspective to ARBCOM. Can't they just be granted access/tools if one is ever elected? LizRead!Talk!23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current interpretation from legal, no. They would need to pass adminship or an admin-identical process. Whether they'll reconsider that is up to the lawyers. However, please note that the WMF doesn't set the election criteria (we don't say who should be allowed to run) - we restrict one set of tools. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both frwiki and nlwiki have non-admin CUs, and frwiki has a non-admin OS, and appointment at both places is done by ArbCom - should they not have their rights, then? --Rschen775423:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely know idea whether or not this would be feasible, legal, stupid, etc., and am simply throwing this out there because it occurred to me, and some crazy elementary school teacher told me no idea is too stupid to say out loud. If this is ridiculous, please let me know. Anyway, what if Wikipedia were to join the Associated Press, and thus have access to AP images and media for use in articles? I was particularly thinking about this in the context of sports articles, where AP photographers get the best and sometimes only images, but it could have multiple other uses. As mentioned, I may completely misunderstand something and this might be totally ridiculous, but I thought you might be the one to ask. Thanks. GoPhightins!01:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are no dumb ideas. :-). Off the cuff, and without any research, my recollection is that AP photos are copyright; that would make it a non-starter as far as most of the community is concerned, I believe. Is there a free-content AP alternative? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct; the photos are copyrighted, but members of the Associated Press are allowed to use them, so what I was saying is what if the WMF "bought in", thus allowing the photos to be used in articles. That said, they could not be reused, and that would be problematic, I suppose. GoPhightins!03:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to your question is, if the WMF "bought in" the right to use those photos, then WMF would be able to use those photos on pages belonging to the WMF. On Wikipedia pages, it would make no difference at all. Does this make things clearer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. (or actually, "maybe". I think it's possible, User:Demiurge1000, that we could probably buy a license for the Wikimedia Foundation properties, to include Wikipedia, since we're the registered owner of the sites, though I'm not certain of that, and IANAL) Or to put it a bit more philosophically, Wikipedia exists with the understanding that - with very few exceptions - all the images that are on it are covered under a free license. If we were to do as you suggest, User:Go Phightins!, the result (assuming the AP didn't freely license their images) would be a patchwork of image files with various levels of restriction to them, and one of the conditions that makes Wikipedia unique (the ease of content reuse) would cease to exist. That said, I like it when people are thinking of creative ideas, and I encourage you to keep questioning and keep thinking. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have fair use images (i.e. team logos) that cannot be freely reused ... there could be a mechanism for using AP images that would give readers the understanding they are not freely reusable. I don't know, but as it stands, a lot of sports articles lack any, let alone quality, images right now, and the AP has ample quality sports images ... there should be a way to use them if WMF would buy a license. GoPhightins!14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you lower protection to "pending changes"? It was infrequently edited before protection, and it has been infrequently edited since. --George Ho (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I would personally like to say Thank you for the work you've been doing over the past few years both on and off Wikipedia and through the Wikimedia Foundation! A great thing which I noticed is that you like to listen and understand the problems first, and then find the right solutions for it :) I wish you and the rest of the WMF team all the best in doing their work successfully. Best Regards! TheGeneralUser(talk)18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! That's tremendously kind, and I appreciate it very much. I work with a great team of people - both WMF employees and community members here - and they make it a ton of fun. It's easier to do when you love your job, and mine is (hands down) one of the best in the world. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Moved to
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}