This is the userpage of a user who was a member of the Wikimedia Foundation staff or served as a contractor to the Foundation. In order to maintain a historical record, it has not been deleted. However, any contact information given may be incorrect, as this user is no longer employed at the Foundation. To contact current Foundation staff, please see Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff or Staff and contractors. If you need assistance identifying the proper staff to contact about an issue, please contact answerswikimedia.org.
I have now ensured that the images on Commons have been oversighted completely, and the occurrences of them which were on nl.wp oversighted. But they are still accessible by anyone of our stewards, of which Trijnstel is.
I do not expect the WMF to intervene as it relates to Commons issues, that is something that the Commons community rejected and took it upon itself to deal with in the JurgenNL case, and it is something that I expect will occur here too if a valid reason for the accessing and distributing of images which were deleted due to privacy isn't forthcoming. Other projects seem to be more willing to comply with the WMF on such things, as they were in the JurgenNL/TBloemink example, so this is something that may be up to the WMF to deal with in that regard. Russavia (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And see the discussion at AN/U too. There, me and a few other users expressed their concern on publicly posting the contents of private mails in and off wiki. So we would like to know WMF's stand on this.
Further, I would like to know WMF's stand about how the organisation see JurgenNL's attempt to reveal a private correspondence to a third party while he is already in "some restrictions" in WMF projects as advised by the legal. IMHO, he again proved he is no way trustworthy to participate in any WMF projects.
So expecting an immediate official advice to the Common community on how to handle this case. Jee 06:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jkadavoor coming to me with abuse by Trijnstel of the trust of the Commons community is something that people should be thanked for, not turned into the nonsense that you are suggesting. Additionally, refer to this which clearly allows for the use of copyrighted materials as fair use on our projects. Also the right of the Commons community to know about abuse trumps the users right to privacy, especially when steps were taken not to make the person personally identifiable when using the evidence. That is all. Russavia (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russavia, I've no comments about Trijnstel's actions now as she is not responded so far; no plan to turn away from that part. But that part may very weak since MoiraMoira has no complaints (so far). What surprising me is why not you or JurgenNL not forwarded this matter to the crats/oversighters who are responsible to deal it in Commons or to the Legal or OC who are responsible in WMF side. (Personally I don't like anybody publish my mails without my consent. I had previously communicated with you; how can I confidently contact you any further? This is not a behavior that I expect from people with advanced rights in any projects.) Jee 16:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russavia, you're such a hypocrite. Publishing private emails without the author's permission is at the same level as JurgenNL harassment of MoiraMoira, you can scream "fair use" all you want but at the end of the day, publishing private emails (without the consent from the author[s]) to the public (online or offline) isn't acceptable and is a breach of trust. I have the same thoughts as Jkadavoor about not wanting my emails and private IRC logs published without my permission. JurgenNL is clearly angry about losing his administrator tools and has "forwarded" these private emails (without Trijnstel's consent) which are just over a year old and way before the harassment case (why has it come up now and not during that case) and I accept Trijnstel's statement. Bidgee (Talk) 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The specific place for complaints about an alleged breach of privacy is through the Ombudsman Commission. That Russavia is unwilling or disinclined to take that step means that he should stop spreading this matter broadly across the wikis, or we should not hear him on this matter outside of the specific place of reference. Rabble-rousing and "look-at-me" syndrome seemingly are this person's reason to be these days, it is not apparent that it is about making a better wiki, or making better content. I would suggest that this matter just be archived and Russavia be pointed to the appropriate place to investigate the claims. — billinghurstsDrewth 05:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was recently blocked on English Wikipedia for an alleged outing after I was trying to add some evidence to my arbitration case. The evidence was from gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.bugs. Does this belong to WMF?
Just a reminder to please return my emails. I've been waiting for a reply for around two months now. If you are having some sort of trouble with my email address or yours, please say. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First question: in the "investigation", Toddst1 (the admin who blocked me) identified me, among other things, as "Daniel Tomé who placed 34th in the tournament." I had never mentioned on-wiki which place I took in that 2012 world tournament, but, even ignoring that, I really don't understand why it would be a relevant detail to mention, other than to identify me personally – even if I had finished in 1st place, or 56th place, what bearing could that have on the SPI?
Second question: if checkusers aren't supposed to publicly link IPs to specific accounts, for security reasons, why are other users allowed to do it by just calling them "Suspected"? Although this is an abstract question, I'll give you my own example again: here, I see 4 IPs linked to my name. Of course I didn't use those IPs, but let's pretend I did use them: couldn't that page put me in physical danger by revealing my location? So why are such pages allowed?
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Philippe, today I noticed the WMFOffice blocking an account with the rationale Account operated by/for WMF banned user. It would be useful if you could detail precisely under what circumstances the WMF will block an account with the rationale Account operated for WMF banned user. I'm increasingly concerned that users uploading work for which OTRS permission was obtained by a now banned user could be targeted under this new power that the WMF has given itself. Nick (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it difficult to think of such a circumstance, and think instead that it reflects clumsy wording choice by the person doing the lock. I'm not interested in playing proxy-editing whack-a-mole games.... I can't eliminate the possibility that we might act if, for instance, we were able to conclusively demonstrate (to the level that meets the standard for action) that someone was running an account that was a proxy for a banned editor - that is, the editor wrote and prepared everything, but a proxy editor actually pressed the upload/edit button, but I think that circumstance is fairly unlikely. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
During the recent Gender Gap Arbitration case, I requested access to suppressed edits that were used as evidence against me. At the time, Mr. Wales indicated that "it is important in ArbCom cases that people not be punished based on evidence that they haven't seen or are not allowed the chance to rebut." 
However, after the case closed, I was informed by an arbitrator by email that "We don't provide suppressed content. Edits are only suppressed under a few narrow criteria, and it's important that suppressed material remains private." Is there someone who can provide me with the contents of my own edits so I can have a chance to evaluate and respond to them? The edits in question were added to the case here: 
@Neotarf: enWP is a self-managed wiki, and Wikimedia staff don't have the ability to override a decision of an Arbitration Committee with regard to suppression. You will need to go back to enWP's committee via the mailing list and appeal the decision of an aribtrator. You have the opinions that you wish to have to cite. One would think that the concept of natural justice would allow for your edits to be provided to you, and the issue of facing your accused, where your words are the accuser is a worthy argument, similarly if they are using your commentary as evidence against you. — billinghurstsDrewth 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As billinghurst said, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to provide those edits. I do, however, stand with him in thinking that you should be told what evidence is being used against you, if you have not been. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for your responses. The situations are both stale, one is four months old and the other seven, so I would certainly like to see the actual edits, if for no other reason than to refresh my memory. In addition, if I remember correctly, one of the edits that is being attributed to me was in fact made by another user. I think the Committee should also have the opportunity to see these edits. I will take this issue back to the Committee, per the above recommendations.
There is another issue, also involving suppression of edits, which I have not been able to get resolved, but I will start a new section for it. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy specifies 17 types of information that are regarded as "personal information". It defines "personal information" as "information you provide us or information we collect from you that could be used to personally identify you."
The oversight group has dismissed some concerns I brought to their attention, citing the Wikipedia:Oversight policy, and saying this personal information is insignificant and "not considered oversightable material". An arbitrator has told me that "these are as personally identifying as a mention of your being a human being would be." Other issues that have been raised are that no action can be taken unless an editor can be "identified" or "endangered". Endangerment would seem difficult to prove until it has actually happened--it seems to me the reason for the policy is to prevent identification and endangerment. And hasn't the Foundation already defined the types of information that "could be used to personally identify you" in the policy itself? Another issue raised is whether the Arbitration committee can revoke these privacy provisions by sanctioning a user.
Are there any channels I can go through where my concerns will be taken seriously or where this can be resolved?
Some of my concerns involve off-wiki violations, apparently by individuals named in the recent Gender Gap case. —Neotarf (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ombudsmen are the appropriate entry point for something of this nature, I believe. If/when they are over their heads, they have shown no reluctance to approach WMF staff for assistance. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then, what is the purpose of consulting the person who posted the information? Is there additional criteria regarding the psychological profile of this person? Does the information have to be true? Does the person requesting removal of the information have to prove whether it is true or not, or whether the information was posted by accident or with the specific intention of doxxing? What if the person posting the information claims to be just guessing, even if they posted the information in a way that left no doubt they considered it to be true? Is speculation about personal information encouraged? Is it okay to leave personally identifying information unsuppressed, as long as it is later privately claimed to be "just a guess"?
Just FYI, I made a similar request to Reddit Men's Rights, and the information was removed within the hour. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My candidature was denied with the argument I did not grant the prove of my identity to Wikimedia foundation in time. I sent the documents to firstname.lastname@example.org on 28th of January 2015. My identity is also publically very well known. I have Iearned in the meanwhile that the correct address would have been email@example.com. But even if that is trough it would not be fair not to consider my candidature for such a formal reason – Wikimedia did get the my information on their main address and it would just be fair to redirect them to the right address or than to respond to me that I did send the documents to the wrong address. As there is still time to check my documents I cannot understand that you Wikimedia will this case not handle with generosity and fairness and so I appeal to you to reconsider this case and accept my candidature.DidiWeidmann (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not mine to reconsider, actually. I have no formal role with the steward elections, which are self-organized and self-policed, beyond simply verifying the info that is sent to secure-info and providing any informal advice the stewards request. However, I understand that your identification was located and you were allowed to stand as a candidate, so that sounds like the best possible outcome. My apologies for the delayed response, I've been out of the office. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that some things went wrong, and things escalated quickly while they shouldn't have, but no law's where broken while doing it. There is no identify theft nor fraud in the game. Huib talk Abigor 18:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't confirm that. I have no recollection of what identification documents were used for those two accounts, and we do not store them. I can say this: I do not recall there being any duplicity, but I do not recall that there was not either. I'm sorry that I can't be of more help on the issue. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philippe, no worries. The first one was handled by Cary and Erik for the LiCom and you handled the one for the user:Delay. This makes it even impossible for you to remember it if they don't get stored. Thanks! :) Huib talk Abigor 20:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I sent an email to the blog mailing list two days ago, but I got a message saying it was moderated. Then nothing. Who is in charge of blogs ? I have an entry to propose :) Anthere (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Philippe, I would like to ask you, as expert on licencies and logotypes, may I modify the logotype for Wikispecies? What Id like to do, is to modify the logo in Photoshop, and add user rights graphics on the logo, as can be seen on various user boxes, eg the green arrow Done for autopatrol, the pencil for admin user box, 2 tools for crat, etc. Since the logo for Wikispecies is a logo within the Wikimedia foundation, I want to be sure, before I start. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dan.... I'm actually neither an expert on licenses or logos, but thanks for the compliment. :-) What I am pretty good at, though, is pointing you to the place to find the answer. In this case, that's the trademark policy. As I read section 3.1, you should be clear to do this, but I am not a lawyer, so if you have any doubt, you're best to contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Good luck, please feel free to ask if you have further questions. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Philippe, please don't take my revert personal. If you want to understand my point better, you can read on User talk:LuisV (WMF)#My Wish what bothers me. I really don't give a thing for such things as barnstars, I would like to be taken seriously as someone who has put in ten years much effort into the Wikipedia. Anyway ... Kind regards --Julius1990 (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Philippe, the 2014 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year has been decided, and it is a fantastic photography of butterflies feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecudaor. Would you like to join me in congratulating the photographer for their incredible photography, (credited as amalavida.tv - Dirección de Información Turística del Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador) and also in thanking the uploader, Russavia, who secured the release of the winning image (and countless thousand others) under compatible free licences, and was so prolific in then uploading this quality content.
It would be a nice act of reconciliation if you would investigate how the WMF can again allow Russavia to resume uploading and editing at some point in the future. The nature of WMF's Global Ban (permanent, non means of appeal) is draconian and is the very antithesis of what the free content movement should be about, at the very least, I would hope you would recognise the contribution Russavia has made and would move to allow him to appeal the Global Ban in some form. Nick (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Nick. User:Russavia was not globally banned because of poor contributions to Commons. It's great to see this picture that he uploaded recognized, but it's unrelated to the issues that led to our decision. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember my friendship with him on those days and how I helped to identify those cute butterflies. I can't believe how he decided to use the same IRC channel to insult me later. ;( Jee 03:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I wish I could, Tuvalkin, I'm afraid I can't give you specifics. :/ There's a necessary tension in matters like this between our commitment to transparency and our need to protect the projects and the users, including the users who are banned. As Philippe discussed earlier, there can be consequences well beyond our projects if we disclose reasons for our bans, and especially if we disclose them unevenly. It's a line that can be dangerous to skirt, as people speculate freely already. Because of this, we've been given a policy of not discussing the reasons externally at all. I can tell you that this is never a decision we make lightly, or quickly. It usually involves weeks of research and review by multiple people, including the bulk of community advocacy and several members of the legal team (and more). Unfortunately, I know that this doesn't really do much to alleviate the concerns of those people who want more insight into why a specific decision was made, but policy forbids our sharing that. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maggie, if a banned user waived privacy, would the WMF consider disclosing the ban reasons? Perhaps creating an appeal process conditional on such a waiver, and with skilled facilitation to avoid disruption?
I will here talk about a specific ban. I am not arguing that the ban was "wrong." I am pointing to what I know of evidence that something is awry. There are contradictions between WMF statements and fact, as least as I know it or interpret it.
There is a problem that, for at least a number of bans, there was no apparent TOU violation, and quite likely none. There might be other reasons for a ban, and those might be legitimate, but given that the stated reason -- TOU violations is always mentioned -- appears implausible, you can understand why this causes some discomfort in the community. (WMF Global Ban Policy contradicts the TOU, which refers to Global bans, explicitly. Block evasion, per se, may have violated the TOU for a specific project, but not globally, and this was well-settled, we thought. Under the established global ban policy, on which the TOU global ban mention was based, single-wiki bans were not enough to allow a global ban process to begin, and local bans, to be covered, must have been discussed, not merely blocks.)
It appears that in the WMF ban process, there is no opportunity or process for the banned user to be informed of evidence, to present contrary evidence, there is no warning, and no recourse. This goes far beyond the demands of privacy. Telling a user what they have done, specifically, would definitely not violate their privacy!
The secrecy of the bans gives the rest of us no idea of what is considered a bannable offense, and, indeed, the language of WMF Global Ban Policy does imply that one might be banned with no actual offense: "when the trust or safety of our users or employees is otherwise in danger or has been significantly compromised or threatened." That requires no offense on the part of the user. It is an assessment that "trust or safety" is in danger. So if someone's presence is considered a threat to the image of the WMF (i.e., the employees), as an example, or to the users (maybe they would get upset), then, to avoid this, a user may be banned without any TOU violation. But all the ban notices I've seen allege TOU violation and thus the allegation of harassment is implied, at least. In one or more cases I know of involving banned users, the banned users were harassed, accused of crimes that they did not commit, and they did not harass anyone.
Most recent example: Meco, originally blocked, some years ago, on en.wikipedia after an article making charges about him was published on Wikipediocracy. He was recently globally banned after he uploaded an image on Commons titled "blurred child porn image."
Here is his side of the story, I just found this: .
The image was promptly deleted and perhaps oversighted, but I have seen what was apparently the original. "Blurred" isn't kidding, it was totally unrecognizable as containing an image of any human. The only thing "child porn" about it was the name. Why did Meco upload that? I don't know. He doesn't say. The image came from a trial in Norway where he was found not guilty. He did run a porn FTP site when he was very young. He did not create those images he acknowledges were "child porn," he simply operated the FTP site and a user had uploaded them. He wasn't charged with this. He is, from what I've seen, compulsively honest. He will say things, with flat affect, as far as that can be discerned from text, that others would never say. The evidence on Wikipediocracy came from his own descriptions, from which, obviously, conclusions were drawn, yet they were knee-jerk conclusions, formed from his descriptions of his own adolescent sexuality. I.e., thirty years ago.
This had not been a disruptive user, but he was attacked, severely, off-wiki, and the attack was largely on the WMF for allowing someone like him to edit. Wikipediocracy implied it, so that anyone who wasn't careful would believe that the user was a dangerous pedophile. He wasn't, he doesn't show the symptoms and behavior. And that attack article was cited and linked on Commons and nobody did anything about it, except ban him promptly. He had an image of himself he'd donated years ago, and it was in long use on it.wikipedia. It was removed with an edit that said it was not appropriate to have a photo of a pedophile in an article on nudity. So he was called a "pedophile," on-wiki, it is in the edit history, and nobody cared.
So the process and situation does not inspire me to trust the WMF, which is unfortunate. A user was banned for something that is not illegal and that did not present a threat to children or users in general. He was not an advocate for "inappropriate adult-child relationships," which is the language of the en.wikipedia child protection policy. There is only one issue I can see justifying the ban: Meco and some, maybe all other banned users caused some users to get very upset, and they blamed the WMF for not dealing with these "pedophiles" or ... or what?
You wrote, above, "I can tell you that this is never a decision we make lightly, or quickly. It usually involves weeks of research and review by multiple people, including the bulk of community advocacy and several members of the legal team (and more). The Meco decision definitely appears to be rapid. You hedged the "weeks of research and review" with "usually," but you didn't hedge "never." It is not my intention to nail you to your words, you are not expected to perfectly express anything. However, you are avoiding the issue. This is a star chamber proceeding. The accused has zero rights, and no warning at all that they are doing something problematic, that could lead to a global ban. On the claim of TOU violation, you could say that they should have known from the TOU, but what we have seen is that the bans were not predictable from the TOU. Meco did not violate, in fact, the Wikipedia child protection policy, much less the TOU, which, even if he had "advocated inappropriate relationships," off-wiki, would not allow a ban on that basis. (A present danger to users would allow it. Advocacy may or may not create such a danger. But Meco, wasn't advocating, if he was, I've seen no evidence of it.
The WMF has the legal right to act to protect itself, its employees, and its users regardless of what the TOU reads. This is not a matter of right that I"m raising, it is a matter of wisdom and practicality, as well as justice.
The Russavia ban, right or wrong, has caused enormous disruption on Commons. It badly fractured the community. Those of us who had worked with bans knew that it is impossible to actually stop a determined user from accessing the projects, so community support is needed to enforce bans, or else the labor becomes prohibitive. Because of the division of the Commons community, which so far has not been able to find consensus either way on how to handle the Russavia ban -- and the ensuing socking, where Russavia is still uploading thousands of useful images -- Commons just lost a checkuser and administrator, User:INeverCry, from, he was explicit, the stress of trying to enforce the WMF ban without local consensus.
WMF bans -- office actions -- had been used previously in sensitive situations, and there had never been a major problem, because most of the users realized that they were better off without the publicity. And that is where privacy is truly involved.
The new bans were a radical move into new territory, requiring that the WMF take on responsibilities it had never assumed, and it was done without consultation with the community. Certain other recent WMF moves have been like this. It is visible that the relationship between the WMF and major segments of the community has been damaged. It is difficult to assess the depth of this damage, aside from what is publicly expressed of it, which would be the tip of the iceberg; mostly it may show up as loss of enthusiasm for the project.
We believed the assurances of community autonomy and local control.
So, given the damage, which can be expected to continue, what is the balancing benefit of these "draconian" global bans (as described above) to the goals of the WMF, formed to "empower" the community to create and maintain the projects?
The WMF was insulated from liability by the responsibility of the community. The WMF is now acting in ways that could create liability. Frankly, I'm surprised.
I recommend that the WMF enter into discussion with the community over the global ban issue. With the prior global ban process, there was only one user ever globally banned, and it was by RfC on meta. The process did not follow the later-written global ban process, but the WMF did, then, enforce that ban (which caused a certain level of disruption, but it was accepted). I asked the closing steward in that ban if a local wiki could decide to allow a globally banned user to edit. His opinion was, yes, it could, by consensus. So, from this interpretation, a global ban establishes a default condition, banned, which is inverted from the normal. Normally, it takes consensus to ban a user. Under a global ban, it would take local consensus to allow a user to edit.
Before the user renaming was stripped from local bureaucrats, it was actually possible to detach the local account, and that had been done with a defacto global ban previously. It worked, and it was not disruptive. No problems appeared when this was done. With SUL globalization, it is no longer possible. However, the locked user could be allowed to create a new account, on the agreement not to edit anywhere else with it. If the user violates that, simple: locked.
Consider the possibility with, say, Russavia. Russavia was not disruptive, particularly, on Commons. He was still an administrator, as well as a very productive user. Suppose the Commons community considers allowing him to edit there; it would have to be with a new account. For this account to not be locked, there would need to be a Commons consensus. Would the WMF respect such a local consensus? This would establish and confirm local autonomy. At this point, I do not know what a Commons discussion would decide, it is quite possible that it would not agree to his resuming editing. But it could create a closure, either way.
And then there is the radical idea of negotiating with Russavia, treating him like a human being rather than an object to be tossed aside like a piece of trash. What does he want? For starters, would he agree to stopping all disruptive editing off of Commons if the Russavia account was unlocked? Would there need to be any other conditions? On either side? I do not know if he would agree to that, but what if he did? If the WMF had the opportunity to stop all the disruption in this way, would it take that opportunity, realizing that, of course, if Russavia violated the agreement, it would be a single button push to put an end to it? A negotiated agreement like this would be superior, in my view, because it would be likely to end that particular problem. Everyone could claim a victory. --Abd (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Philippe. Merchandise giveaways/Nominations is significantly backlogged, and has had no attention in the last month. The Wikimedia Foundation and your team really need to put more effort into editor retention work, at present it feels like you, Maggie and James only appear when it's time to block and ban another user (sometimes wrongly as was the case with Lkarasawa). There are users who have been nominated and supported by dozens of their fellow editors and there's just silence from the Wikimedia Foundation about if or when they'll get a simple t-shirt. I trust you, Mdennis (WMF), Jalexander-WMF, along with the merchandise people VShchepakina_(WMF) and JMatthews_(WMF) can clear this terrible backlog and keep on top of this page in future. Editors are the most important part of the project, could WMF show them a bit more attention, please. Nick (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Nick. Sorry for editing in volunteer account; it's Sunday and I'm volunteering, but wanted to respond briefly since your note pinged me. :) The Merchandise Giveaway program is certainly a great one that I personally applaud, but I'm afraid that Philippe, James and I can't really do anything to help out there. It's not a Community Advocacy program. I'm sure the merchandise team will be happy to explain their timeline and processes to you. It looks from the page history like they tend to do them in batches. Back to copyright cleanup with the time I have left. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Nick, it has been wonderful to see over 150 nominations added in the past month and a half, which is such a change from the past year! It's so great to see the Giveaways Program is finally getting the recognition it needs to be able to gift users as they so richly deserve! We couldn't do it without them. However, this influx of nominations came as such a surprise that my regular allotted monthly time for reviewing/approving nominations was not enough to handle the load. But I can reassure you that we'll get caught up quickly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! :) --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that. I look forward to the speedy publication of the report. As Director of Community Advocacy, perhaps you could use the nudge as the occasion for a little chat with your team about the effects on your engagement with the community caused by raising expectations that are not delivered on, and failing to acknowledge, let alone answer, polite and justifiable reminders from the community. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rogol Domedonfors: Thanks Rogol, I apologize for not responding earlier to your ping. As you said, unfortunately, I have been incredibly busy with some fires over the past couple weeks and that slipped. Regarding the Strategy page I put the time frame told to me by those responsible (which for better or worse, probably better, are outside of our team). I believe Philippe has already passed along a nudge on that (as did I actually when I first saw your post on my talk page though there is no reason for you to know that since I didn't say anything). I promise you that both I, and our entire team, agree that raising expectations that are not delivered on has effects we would rather not deal with. Sadly issues beyond our control sometimes rise up and we still have a lot to get better at. Jalexander--WMF 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. As a matter of interest, who is now responsible for the publication of the report? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the shout-out -- I look forward to seeing the data and even more to the WMF analysis. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A month later, it would be awfully nice if @Kgilbey (WMF): could respond to my request for an update as to when we may expect that report (I'm not asking for the report, you understand, I'm not that demanding, I'm simply asking for the expected date for the report). I find this sort of delay and non-engagement quite disappointing and I have come to realise in these discussions that since I am a relatively old-fashioned British English speaker I probably need to express that in a more direct idiom. I regard this sort of failure to respond, which is by no means unique, as an expression of contempt on the part of WMF staff for the volunteer community and it is making me angry . I do not know who Kim Gilbey works for as their user page contains no information and that name does not appear on the wmf:Staff and contractors list. Please be so kind as to find out for me and pass the message on. Thank you. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Philippe, I'm still waiting for you to comment in detail about an email chain that I started with you awhile back. My last email about the subject was on June 12. --Pine✉ 23:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I regret that I was off for medical leave, and came back to several urgent situations. It's not fallen off my list, I promise - but it's prioritized lower than taking action on some other things. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I am trying to think of what would keep you well on a permanent basis. Should I ask Rory to help with your email queue? --Pine✉ 06:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Will you please, you can change the user name? or you will delete the user name? I want to get a new username. Users harass me in my country.
Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X-static (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2015
Wikipedia Zero being used to violate copyrightedit
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Any progress in this case = report on Meta by @Teles:? In the meantime: see c:User:Teles/Mass copyvios (updated +/- constantly, checking c:Commons:Database reports/Video and audio uploads and/or related FB groups) = list of related uploaders and status = totalizing +/- 980 deleted files (mostly in 07./08.2015) --> involving not reasonable human power for detecting & tagging & deleting & blocking. You may also check the upload logs to verify what content was uploaded (mostly copyrighted audio music files: Rap, Gospel, etc.). Preferred extension appears to be .ogg, but in principle all audio/video extension affected. Pinging @AVrana (WMF): / @He7d3r:. Please ping me on Commons for feedbacks. Thx in advance. --Gunnex (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see any progress here and I am getting angry. WMF-fail + Wikipedia Zero --> is there really "a team" behind this or is this only a marketing gag? --Gunnex (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my impatient comment above but considering almost daily updated c:User:Teles/Mass copyvios (+/- 2-3.000 files affected) and c:COM:AN/B#Angola Facebook case I have the emerging feeling that I am wasting time here which I normally use for maintance work at Commons (mostly [old] copyvios). I will contact Daniel D Foy directly to pass some details. Thx (for your patience ;-) ). --Gunnex (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gunnex: Philippe has indicated that he is stepping down from his role for WMF for health reasons. I suggest that you ask Mdennis (WMF) about topics that were formerly brought to Philippe. --Pine✉ 18:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pine: Thx for the info, in the meantime (as I said above) I contacted Daniel D Foy (Technical Manager for mobile partnerships, focusing on the Wikipedia Zero initiative), giving a brief summary of the case (and got already a [short] feedback). PS: All the best for Philippe. --Gunnex (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]