User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 4

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Neotarf in topic ArbCom gender case

« no need for interwiki » on Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook edit

Hi Philippe,

Please see Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Links_to_Meta.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't login on foundationwiki edit


I have a problem with my account on foundation wiki.

I have not received the email with the password, and reset does not work. I guess the email is not correct.

Could you check it please? Cheers, Alan (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Can you check your mail again? I've reset the account. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Email received. Thanks for all. Alan (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question edit

Dear Philippe,

What do you think of implementing a system that automatically notifies users when their IPs are checked? Something like the notification you received for my posting at your talk page, only so much more important for that person's privacy and security, and which incidentally might also help prevent abuse.

Thanks for your consideration!, DanielTom (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not a checkuser - I only do checks in the context of staff work - but for my purposes, I can see some instances where it would be bad, or illegal. For instance, if we get a court order, they're occassionally accompanied by a gag order, telling us to provide evidence and not to disclose what we've done for some period. Such a tool would be in violation of that order. But Checkusers are really the right people to ask. :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will respond to this query on the user's page, as having a response on a highly viewed page is not something that would do to someone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Staffers again locking personal account edit

This is now the third time that a staffer locks a personal account in the course of locking WMF accounts for people no longer employed by the foundation. I'd like to request that in future, such locks only be made by experienced member of the LCA team, such as yourself or James Alexander. It seems clear that some of the more junior people are not trained enough to do the job properly. See User talk:JTrias (WMF). Snowolf How can I help? 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the staffer has chosen to remove the discussion from his/her discussion page, here's the diff. Snowolf How can I help? 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Snowolf; I've weighed in to the stewards list on this, but I believe that she made the correct decision here. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I've now gotten confirmation that it's a personal account - I've unlocked it. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lista de correo de bibliotecarios Wikipedia en español edit

Hola, Philippe. Te escribo porque necesitamos ayuda con el manejo de la lista de bibliotecarios ( En este momento hay un solo usuario que administra la lista (es:Platonides) y la comunidad de biblios que hacen uso de esta herramienta ha pedido que se aumente el número de administradores. En julio de 2013 se postularon 3 usuarios:

Todavía estamos esperando que le den los permisos. Yo personalmente le escribí a Platonides informándole sobre los nuevos administradores, no he obtenido respuesta. Ya hemos esperado mucho tiempo, es por esto que te escribo ¿hay forma de dar esos permisos a otros usuarios? ¿puedes hacerlo tú?. Gracias y saludos, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I translate: "Hi Philippe, I am writing you because we need help with the manage of admins email lists ( At the moment only one user manage it ((es:Platonides)) and the community of admins who do use of this tool request the increase of numbers of listadmins. On July 2013 three users offers to do it:

We are waiting yet that anyone give them the permissions. I write to Platonides to inform about the new listadmins but he doesn't answer me. We are waiting to much time, so I'm writing to you. Can you give the permissions to other users. Thanks!!! Laura Fiorucci (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

Best Regards!!! Esteban (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been posponing it for a long time, wanting to do it the right way (and I thank Laura for her periodical reminders). I will try to move this along during this week. Platonides (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Laura, I'm actually traveling shortly to head to a conference. However, I'm sensitive to the fact that you've been waiting a while. Luckily, it looks like Platonides is going to be able to get that done for you shortly. If it's not done by Wednesday, please let me know, and I"ll get it done then. Thanks. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philippe: It's Thursday and remains unresolved the issue reported by Laura. Greetings. BetoCG (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BetoCG, please email me a list of email addresses to add, and I'll do so. My address is philippe{at} Philippe (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philippe: Done. Greetings. BetoCG (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hola, Philippe. Todavía Platonides no ha entregado la clave. Ahora envió un examen con 14 preguntas a BetoCG, Esteban y -jem- y ellos deben responder¡!. Estoy muy molesta con esto y así se lo dije a Platonides: esa lista no es de su propiedad, no la quiere entregar o que?. Entiendo que Platonides desee seguridad pero ya esto es demasiado. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(My translation of Laura's post:) Hello, Philippe. Platonides still hasn't given the key. He has now sent a test with 14 questions to BetoCG, Esteban and -jem- and they must answer! I'm very upset about this and so I told Platonides: this list is not his property, does he not want to give it or what? I understand that Platonides desires security but this is too much. DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Philippe. Platonides is applying own rules to a list that is not owned. I don't doubt of his good intentions, but this doesn't seem adequate. We would appreciate that you can resolve this issue definitively. Thank you. Best regards, Bernard (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya tenemos la clave :) ¡por fin!. Gracias y saludos desde Venezuela. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philippe: To me no one has given me the password. On the other hand, Esteban sent us an email saying that is incorrect. So, I request the password reset and sent to us by private message. Thanks. BetoCG (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philippe, all is solved by now, no need to reset. Platonides sent us the password in a somewhat cryptic (and NSA-safe?) way, and Beto didn't notice at first. Some emails later, it has been explained. Thanks for offering your help with this and sorry for leaving so many messages :). -jem- (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Diff/7523042 edit

Was this edit intentional? PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, an accident. I thought it had saved, but when I got back to my browser, it looked like I hadn't, so I saved. Evidently twice. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOU on paid editing edit

I'm surprised no one has stopped by to ask you about your proposed change in the TOU. Is this on the agenda of the next meeting? Can you perhaps provide some detail as to what the process is? Also: Can anyone, such as a little mouse like me, make a proposal to the board on changing the TOU? Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Coretheapple, the Terms of Use proposal was prepared by the Legal and Community Advocacy Team at the Wikimedia Foundation, and it may be submitted to the Board for final approval after community discussion. The process is based on Section 16 in the Terms of Use. Thanks! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite. As Stephen points out, it's not my proposal. It's proposed by the WMF Legal and Community Advocacy team, of which I am but one member. I was just the guy who did the original wikification there. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
moved to the TOU discussion talk page
03:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)~Hi, I hope this is the correct place to write a comment. In India it has so happened that the free social networking sites and comment pages are flooded with paid posters, this results in campaigning and unfair targeting in gangs of any individuals expressions or free thoughts. As a result many honest individuals have begun avoiding such forums. Had the paid posters revealed their employers, it would have been easier to form an opinion of their posts and most probably we can ignore them as biased posts. I think anybody who is paid to post must reveal the employers details so that we know whether to take them seriously or not. There can be a bold logo which says that this particular contribution is from a paid employee, clicking on the logo can lead to further details of the poster and (compulsorily) his employee. Infact the TV news says there are agencies which hire people to do this job, and the political and/or business men give contracts to these agencies to begin like/hate campaigns. Hence not only the agencyof the paid pster but also the person who in the first place hired the agency should be revealed.Thanks for reading14.97.7.242 04:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Devraj User:DevrajReply[reply]
Hi there - the best place to comment is on the talk page of the amendment proposal. I'll move your comment there, if that's okay. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping edit

Hi Philippe. I guess you missed my ping. Could you please look at this? Regards, Trijnsteltalk 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Phillipe - Please remember that any type of paid contribution for information would completely distort Wiki information - Imagine if Hitler paid to have someone say he was for the good guys!! Do not do this - stress you need contributions!! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncmcdonald (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phillipe, if you are getting paid by Wikimedia Foundation for this editing and "refactoring" activity, even if just reimbursement of expenses, perhaps you had better post a disclosure.-- 21:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, the new amendment has not been approved yet. But even so, I am in compliance with that amendment, because my user page discloses my affiliation. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-compliant sites edit

Just wondering, since Non-compliant site coordination is inactive, where would I normally go to report to the WMF legal team about external sites not complying with our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GNU Free Documentation License copyright guidelines? In particular, English Wikivoyage has the page Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution which instructs users to place reports onto the corresponding talkpage here, but there does not seem to be an obvious mechanism in place for dealing with such requests. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for feedback on my GSoC'14 proposal edit

Hi Philippe,

I am planning to work on the project titled "Tools for mass migration of legacy translated wiki content" this summer under Google Summer of Code. I have drafted a proposal for the same over the past few weeks. This project is going to help the translation adminstrators like you in a great way, as it would completely automate the tedious manual task of preparing a page for translation and then importing the translations into the Translate extension. You can check the proposal page for detailed information on how I plan to accomplish this.

As you would be an end user of this tool, it would be great if you could go through the proposal and provide feedback/suggestions. Your feedback would definitely help me improve the proposal as well help in creating an even better tool. You can do the same on the discussion page of the proposal or reply here, whichever is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you!

P.S: I need to submit the proposal to Google by March 19, 2014.

BPositive (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BPositive, I thank you for taking on this interesting task. Unfortunately, I won't have time to review prior to your deadline, but I'm asking that James Alexander take a look for me. Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. I had infact requested James to review it as well. Looking forward to hearing from James. BPositive (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annual Plan employee participation edit

Hi Philippe, this might cause chain-of-command issues, but I would be interested in hearing questions and comments from WMF employees about the Annual Plan in addition to them responding to questions from community members. Do current employees feel that their needs will be met in the next plan? Are there any significant over-resourcing or under-resourcing issues? I hope that the Cs worked on these issues with their departments before the plan draft went public in which case WMF employees might have little to add, but I am interested in encouraging public participation from everyone, and that includes employees. Would it be ok to specifically ask for their comments through a post on Wikimedia-l, or to ask Sue to invite them to post their comments? I would like to invite public employee participation in a way that is respectful of the work that Sue and the Cs have already done while inviting insights from everywhere in the org. Thanks, --Pine 05:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pine: I obviously can only speak for myself, but the reason that I have not publicly commented on the plan is, quite simply, I have nothing to say. My boss solicited my input into the plan, and I'm satisfied with it. I don't feel like I need to comment on the work of other teams because I trust them to know what they need. I think you'll find my feelings here to be fairly representative of the opinions of other staff. We're not a "quiet" staff - when we have something to say, we say it. But when we're silent, I think it's typically safe to assume that silence = assent. Because when we don't assent, we're noisy.  :-)
With that said, if you really feel that there are WMF staffers who are waiting for an invite to contribute, I think something phrased similarly to what you left here for me would probably be a decent answer. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. By the way, do you always check your email for budget questions at 2 AM on holiday weekends? ;) --Pine 06:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo edit

Hi, Philippe, i just wanna say that you're doing just great. Please accept my regard :) Okkisafire (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please pardon my delay in responding, and thank you for your kind words. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organizational development edit

Hi Philippe, I've added a category for Organizational development here on meta. Is there someone who is a knowledgeable point of contact who might look this over? Djembayz (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Djembayz, Philippe is on vacation but who you really want is Anna Stillwell who has a lot of experience in the area and is leading the charge in the WMF. I'll ask her to take a look tomorrow at the office. Jalexander--WMF 07:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New ED's account edit

Which one is the actual account of Lila Tretikov? Lilatretikov (talk · contribs), LilaTretikov (talk · contribs) or Lila-Tretikov (talk · contribs) ? Or all of these accounts? --Glaisher [talk] 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lila's official username is LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk · contribs). We registered a number of potential doppelgängers at the time of her announcement, but that is the actual account. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back from vacation edit

I boldly removed the header on this talk page since I believe we have passed May 5. Everyone needs to know that you're back to your usual 70 hour work weeks. ;) --Pine 06:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foiled again! Thanks.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please test the new feature Special:PageMigration edit

As a Google Summer of Code Intern, I have been working on the Mass Migration tools project for Wikimedia. We are now ready with a minimal working product. The tool helps translators and translation administrators import the old translations into the Translate Extension.

An instance of the same has been set up on labs. You can find some useful instructions on the main page.

Please test the tool and report bugs/suggestions using the link provided on the main page itself. You can have a look at the tracking bug to check already reported bugs.

Looking forward to hearing from you! Cheers. BPositive (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StewardScript edit

Hello Philippe. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of StewardScript. This is mainly to enable automatic updates, but it also includes a few fixes. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 04:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Staff Accounts edit

Do you know if there is any plans to add the new staff account policy to wmf:Policies#Board and staff members? Zellfaze (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are not any such plans, currently. The old one wasn't there either, so this would be consistent. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF request edit

Dear Philippe, concerning this WMF request, please note the consequent discussion on Commons. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Advanced privileges' edit

Dear Philippe,

At Talk:Requests for comment/Privacy violation by TBloemink and JurgenNL I've asked a question regarding whether it is still up to the Dutch community (and on their behalf, to us, the Dutch bureacrats) to decide whether TBloemink and/or JurgenNL get a rollback-privilege, or that this privilege is part of the "advanced privileges" in WMF's decision. I'd be happy if you could reply (at that talk page) to my question.

All the best, CaAl (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'll respond there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day, I've asked for clarification on this usage of the Terms of use at Talk:Requests for comment/Privacy violation by TBloemink and JurgenNL. That part is a bit urgent, as community processes hinging on it (the odder de-crat on Commons) will continue over the weekend. Less urgent, it would be nice to know whether the OC had given the WMF a brief before the WMF took action, or the WMF acted independently. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will ask for further clarification, but the office is all pretty much gone home at this point for the weekend. However, I'll certainly ask. Regarding the second part of your question, the WMF took this action independently of the OC. They did not provide us with a brief, but we did our own investigation. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much appreciated, and have a great weekend. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Libels against IAC on EN:WP (authored by WM India Chapter President) edit

<< note: legal threat redacted. Don't do that again. You know how to reach us to file an actual complaint, posting quasi-official letters here is totally inefficient. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) >>Reply[reply]

[Wikimedia-India] FW: Complaint of BIASED, FALSE content and harassment of Indians edit

<<note: legal threat redacted. If you wish to reach the WMF regarding an actual legal issue, please feel free to write, but don't leave this on my talk page. It will be an inefficient path to resolution. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) >>Reply[reply]

Request for clarity on WMF policy inputs to file complaint @legal.WMF edit

<redacted text. Restating the same text in a different form is not appropriate>

Please send an email to legal  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish Wikipedia edit

Hi Philippe, these we're discussing. Internet access by the agency denied. For example, these agents are blocked in Turkey: Vajina, penis, testis. We also intend to block access to Turkish Wikipedia for the purpose of protest 24 hours. Some of our friends sent e-mail to Foundation. USer:Billinghurst led me to you. If you do need as a foundation. We're delighted. Good wikis. --Uğurkenttalk 14:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom gender case edit

Hello, Philippe.

I hope you are enjoying your Thanksgiving holiday.

This morning I woke up to find that, even though the evidence phase of the current ArbCom gender case is closed, arbitrator Salvio has introduced new evidence against me, without notifying me, and has cast a deciding vote to ban me from English Wikipedia based on the new evidence. [1]

I don't know if I will be allowed to present any evidence of my own, however I am at a huge disadvantage here because I can't see the evidence they are presenting against me. Is there some way to make this oversighted material available to me so I can answer these new accusations?

With regard to the first diff, about User:Tutelary, at the time the edit was suppressed, I sent the admin an email (screenshot here), as well as leaving a message on their talk page. [2] In my email I pointed out that I had posted internal diffs for every single statement I made. None of the user's statements were personal, they were all public statements and documented as such. I did not get a reply to either the email or the talk page message. It is possible the admin just did the oversight without checking. Is there some way I can document the content of my edit?

With regard to the second group of diffs, I received a large number of emails just prior to the situation, and have asked the user who sent them to me if I can make the emails public. They have refused. I have also asked on the arbitrators' mailing list if I can release the emails I exchanged with two arbitrators during the incident, but I have as yet not received an answer. This situation was also responded to by WMF legal. Would that department have logs of the incident they could make available to the arbitration committee?

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide with this. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Neotarf,
As a general rule, the WMF doesn't get involved in user conduct disputes, preferring that the community handle those on their own (with a few, rare exceptions). While I can understand the desire to reach out to the WMF, we don't actually reserve the power to overturn an Arbcom decision, and we have no jurisdiction as to their process. I can say that typically, when something regarding suppressed evidence has come up, I would think it fair to provide it to the party against whom the accusation is being made, but I do not know the specifics here and I have not followed the case in question, so I wouldn't dream of commenting on the specific case.
The legal team could potentially have logs of the situation, but without looking specifically, I can't say whether or not we would voluntarily release them.
However, if I may, it sounds to me as if the substance of the matter (redress of a process question) is not actually one for me. As I said, we hold no jurisdiction there. In even the most blatantly unfair ruling, there would be little I could do, other than to exercise my very limited power of persuasion to right the wrong, and the committee would (rightly) treat me as just any other editor. I think the person you're looking for - that can actually help you here - is thataway.
Best wishes,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure you've been much more helpful than you give yourself credit for. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Philippe (WMF)/Archive 4".