User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 6

My request
Hi Philippe,

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 ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Philippe,
 * Maggie wrote here that you had planned to answer me 2 or 3 August : 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)

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 · talk 02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi NTox. Great question!  I've heard conflicting things, and since I'm on holiday currently, I'm going to ask that someone from our legal side weigh in on this.  Keep an eye on this space.  :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Have an excellent vacation. NTox · talk 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 · talk 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I asked that our legal team review this before my holiday. Let me find out what they came up with.  Thanks for the ping.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

PCI pirated specifications
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. --Hinata talk   00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is "we" ?


 * Please do be aware of WP:NLT. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2012
 * This is not a legal threat. I don't know just read the article on in my contrib, I am just concerned about it. --Hinata talk   11:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you concerned about it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

United States Education Program
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.

Many thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Demiurge1000 - I can't assure that they get a reply (I have no control over people outside my own department), but I will absolutely make sure that they are aware that it's there, and that Frank is aware. Thanks.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * I was just talking with Geoff about this one the other day. Unfortunately, protection needs to remain a bit longer.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also commented on the article's talk page, but I hope this can be worked out sooner than later. Thank you. --Malerooster(talk) 21:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

What's the status on the Damon Dash article. Please remove block. If everything is available in open press why did wiki block the article?--Ron John (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this?
Hi Philippe.

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 AN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. - jc37 18:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

New staff member?
While NPPing I game across a person who appears to be a new staff member. They don't have the cat yet so I wanted to bring this to your attention. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  I've added the category and asked him to move toward the standard template.  Appreciate it! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ppena
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)
 * If you mean the one who works at the Wikimedia Foundation, you actually want this user page: User_talk:Ppena_(WMF).  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is she the main contact for fundraising this year? I want to update User:WhatamIdoing/Fundraising.  I'd also like to know what the approximate target is.  It was $16M two years ago.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that should be Megan Hernandez.. mhernandez@undefinedwikimedia.org. :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Iluvalar (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Files in userspace
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. - jc37 07:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:User_pages
 * Please pardon my stupid question, but I'm afraid that I'm a little out of the loop on some things. Is there a rash of this happening?  Or is this a pre-emptive policy?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Preventative. - jc37 23:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Requested wording change to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning
Someone is requesting a change to the wording of MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning, and changes to that message need approval from WMF's General Counsel per you. The discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning (although it implicitly refers to several other discussions on that page and elsewhere), and this shows the diff of the requested change. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 04:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Minors entering into contracts
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. Ryan Vesey 22:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Hi - I've asked the legal team to weigh in on this one. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ryan Vesey 17:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan,


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.


 * I hope this answers your question!
 * I hope this answers your question!


 * P.S. I believe this link contains the resolution to that specific discussion you remember from Commons. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Removal_of_photos_of_minors
 * P.S. I believe this link contains the resolution to that specific discussion you remember from Commons. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Removal_of_photos_of_minors


 * Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good link. Watchlisted it.  :)  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you found it helpful! Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article quality
Thank you for the note about article quality. I have passed this on 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)
 * Happy to help, hope the link is helpful. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Libel concerns, and a court banning order (British subjects resident in England)
I thank you. -- 77.86.74.210 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 British public figures. 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. 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.
 * 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.
 * 4. Please do contact the legal team if it is deemed or indeed necessary. I thank you.

-- 212.50.180.24 (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will look into this further today. As of now, these do not qualify under the office actions policy, which you can read at OFFICE - they are missing some of the preconditions.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation authored books being sold through Google Books
The Wikimedia Foundation is being listed as the author of a number of books republished by eM_Publications on Google Books. These books are considered non-free by google and have limited previews. They are being sold through google for about $2.50 a book. Any thoughts on the legality of this?Smallman12q (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If they are giving credit to Wp as their source I'm pretty sure it is perfectly legal and allowed by the licensing terms we all agree to every time we hit "save". Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox has it correct: the license allows for the use (commercial or not) of the text, provided it is appropriately licensed and attributed.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.  Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC).

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 No legal threats and 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)


 * 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)
 * PS - Thank you for clarifying that you didn't mean any personal attack - no offense was taken. I assume you to be asking in good faith and I'm answering in the same vein.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

RfCs
Hi : )
 * Moderators/Proposal(talk)

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. - jc37 05:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Still reading? : ) - jc37 08:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Brin donation
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Something to be aware of
In case you're not already watching it, WP:VPM. The rabble may be being roused. Anomie⚔ 04:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your sensitive input. Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Neumont University subpoena
Hi, further to my email, would appreciate feedback on this. Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Email
Hello Philippe, I sent you a response to your email a few days ago and wanted to let you know in case it landed in your spam filter. Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Global Wikipedian award
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)
 * I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the background or what (if any) involvement the WMF had in it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * I know nothing about the background or what (if any) involvement the WMF had in it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested
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)

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)

Were you talking about different types of files in each case, or has the procedure changed since last April? Regards, Andreas JN 466 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, Philippe. That makes perfect sense now. Andreas JN 466 04:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, these types of recommendations are fairly widespread now; somewhat similar matters covered in this UK MoU (PDF) published in 2003. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)
 * 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)

Email abuse
Thanks for your comment at ANI here. I know the problem is difficult, but would you please raise the matter of abuse at high levels of the WMF. It is absurd that the email system is so easily abused, and while a tricky problem, it would be largely resolved with some minor resourcing. A discussion is occurring at Village pump (policy). Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

OFFICE @ Damon Dash
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)


 * 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.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Yes!

Joopsy (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC) 

User talk:Mephistophelian
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)


 * I'm also wondering what happened. Care to share? Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to discuss it. This is one of those things that you're going to need to trust the office on.  I disclosed it to Arbcom last night through Risker.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maggie has pointed out that I labeled it incorrectly and perpetuated the situation with my comment here. It was deleted as a legal action on legal advice.  Not due to the WP:LEGAL shortcut.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes. Absolutely.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Allright, thanks. Fram (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * I've put in a couple of requests for page protection, which it might be helpful for you to comment on. -- Trevj (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now dealt with by . -- Trevj (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
I mentioned something you said with this edit. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And I asked you a question here. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hijacking
Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I join in the request made there by Dennis Brown. Kablammo (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To say that I'm disappointed that you won't even acknowledge the concern many days later is an understatement. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I have notified the Community Liason about my concerns. Kablammo (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Philippe, I feel you are skirting the issue. Like you, I am quite busy. To be clear, my intentions were not being questioned by anyone except you.  Others may have disagreed, but you are the only one that equated my nomination with an illegal activity.  This isn't just one editor giving an opinion, this aggressive claim was made in your official capacity as a representative of the Foundation, so you are in fact saying that the Foundation is claiming that Carrite and I were attempting to hijack the admin process.  This is grossly offensive and bordering on a personal attack.  Neither of us were anything but honest in the process, willing to accept the will of the community.  The real world English definition of the term is summed up by Google as "Illegally seize (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.", not the watered down version you are attempting to use, and I find it difficult to believe that you would have used it in anything other than its universally accepted definition.  My question is very simple: 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?  Either the Foundation needs to formally and properly inform me that my actions of nominating someone was somehow "illegal" or a gross violation of policy (perhaps WP:AN or Arb worthy), or you need to apologize in at least a public a manner in which you made the claim, to both Carrite and myself.  Anything less than one of these options is simply unacceptable. This is the same standard I hold myself to and I certainly would expect no less from a Foundation employee. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * My honor isn't at issue. As you both know, I'm able to brush off  criticism directed at myself with little effort or fuss.  Carrite and the RfA process itself is at issue.  When the Foundation speaks at an RfA in an official capacity, to the point it is arguably interfering or at a minimum, influencing the outcome, then yes, I feel clarity is needed.  I respect the difference of opinion, but I am not persuaded.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 18:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I would apologize if I was not clear, and note that I also made a comment at the RfA. If this was said using his personal account, I would have thought little of it.  You know me well enough to know that I am very tolerant of heated debate, sometimes frustratingly so.  So when my feathers actually do get ruffled, there is a reason. I'm asking Philippe to either say it was a personal (and inappropriate) comment, or it is the Foundation's official position. The fact that this aggressive statement came in the middle of an "official announcement" of the Foundation, using a Foundation account, made it appear that it was the official Foundation stance that a candidate who asks for the bit for unusual reasons is "hijacking".  What bothers me is that this gives the appearance that the Foundation is taking a side, injecting a poison pill in the debate over adminship, right after saying there was no legal problem with it.  Perhaps the definition is a bit hyperbolic (although it is the universally accepted definition), but having the Foundation give an opinion on the process in this way has a chilling effect and may discourage others from running, or may sway votes.  Carrite and I both knew this novel request would be controversial and I was thrilled that a majority supported him. In the end, he got what he really wanted, so it was really a win for him. I had no problem with the Foundation coming in and saying "we don't have a problem with this" or "we do have a problem", to which it could have been discussed in an open forum. If "hijack" seems innocent, keep in mind that WP:BIAS applies, and to many people, that is a very, very strong term with very negative connotations. (Think Carjack or 9/11)  So, either it was a simple mistake by Philippe that shouldn't have been said using an official account in the middle of an official statement, to which he should make clear to the entire community, OR if this is an official Foundation position, he would be held harmless and I would make a formal complaint to the Foundation itself.  I've no ill will toward Philippe.  From what I've seen, he appears to be a very likable guy, but this isn't personal, it is about proper procedure and policy.  I don't want the Foundation taking sides on the merits of any RfA, it is a dangerous precedent to set.  All I am asking is the exact same thing I would do (or expect of you or Oliver) in this circumstance: Add clarity, and if it was a mistake, correct the mistake in as public a manner as it was made.  And yes, it was unfair to Carrite as well.  It probably didn't affect the outcome, but it was still unfair and I would hope we all would hold ourselves to a higher standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Since Philippe and I are emailing, I will just continue the discussion there. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Vaca tion  9  02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the WMF have a position on WebCite?
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 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) Ryan Vesey 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Ryan Vesey 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (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 WebCite with your suggestion.
 * @Ryan, Thanks very much for the follow up with Philippe. I really appreciate your help with this. Best regards. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Child protection policy discussion
Hi Philippe, just wanted to drop you a note to point you to this AN thread in case the WMF has an interest in participating in or helping to define the legal boundaries of community discussion about child protection policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI and legal considerations
Hi Philippe. I'd appreciate your comment at a discussion (Conflict_of_interest) 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 &#124; c 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment would be uninformed and probably actively harmful, given that I am not a lawyer. :)  I think you probably want a legal opinion... I'll see if I can't find a lawyer to weigh in.  :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS
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:


 * User_talk:Ocaasi
 * COIN
 * User talk:Ocaasi/COIreview

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 &#124; c 13:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about checkuser and oversight access
Hi Philippe, I've just left a question on your personal page by mistake, 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. 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Is this just for enwiki, or all wikis? --Rschen7754 20:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? --Rschen7754 20:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --Rschen7754 20:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Philippe, many thanks for making inquiries and for your detailed explanation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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. gwickwire talk editing 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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). gwickwire  talk editing 01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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 :) gwickwire  talk editing 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 (philippe@undefinedwikimedia.org) and I'll look into it.  Thanks!  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)

Non-admin functionaries
Just in case you miss it in the bandwidth, I've asked you for a clarification here. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies  talk 05:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to add to your burdens, Philippe, but there's more that could use clarification,  Roger Davies  talk 05:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And still more, I'm afraid. Does the long scrutiny and robust discussion that goes with candidature in an ArbCom election equate to an RFA-identical process?  Roger Davies  talk 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FOP Mexico et al
An image similar to File:Hot air balloons in leon guanajuato mexico 2.jpg was recently deleted. It contained a balloon looking like SpongeBob SquarePants. If these balloons are the 'central focus' of the images and don't qualify as De minimis should they be deleted as copyvio? My reasoning is that they should not as 3D derivative works of a 2D copyrighted work. is a link to one such discussion if you would like to retrieve the image to view. I don't speak Spanish but my reading of the English translation of FOP Mexico is that 3D sculptures do not have to be on permanent display to qualify for commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. A section may need to be added to commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter for hot air balloons similar to the section on costumes and cosplay. File:Yellow Submarine Second Life.png and File:1960s Batmobile (FMC).jpg are two other images that may be in question as to copyvio for similar reasons. There was a court case on the Batmobile design regarding copyright. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/copyright-to-the-batmobile/ I am not aware of what copyrights there are for the Beatles' yellow submarine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Balloons.2C_Batmobile.2C_2nd_Life to centralize the discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)
Please reply to this. Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see a question there? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

An issue of which you might want to be made aware of...
A user at WP:ANI recommended you be informed of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_making_threats_of_cyber_attacks... THIS] discussion -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WMF issue?
We've got a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involving a major issue. In the subsection below it, some editors suggested that it might be a case where the WMF should be involved so I'm leaving you this message. Ryan Vesey 20:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this one of those rare cases where Jimbo might come in helpful? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow that came out badly. But you know what I meant. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, I do indeed. If they dont' respond to me, Jimbo may be the next step.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.  Go   Phightins  !  22:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have let Communications know. :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Philippe, I just want to say thank you very much for your outreach in this incident. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I'm happy that I could help.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * So I read your post, but I'm let with one question, did you actually say anything? Ryan Vesey 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This post or the other post? Int21h (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This post. What's your point, what's your goal?  What do you want to happen as a result of your comment? Ryan Vesey 03:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Int21h, you didn't answer my question. What would you have done, in his situation?  It's easy to condemn, but I haven't heard you offer a solution.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Obviously, easier said than done. But, as they say, get out of the kitchen. Int21h (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Ryan Vesey 04:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * Also, you keep bringing up the TOS, I do not think it means what you think it means. James of UR (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata OS
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. --Rschen7754 21:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have just got this message - I've been traveling. I'll take a look.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! :) Credit goes to a very good team though - both Maggie and James also woke up to deal with it.  So I'll accept this, but on their behalf, too.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI
. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion the WMF should be aware of
WP:VPT 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.  Go  Phightins  !  02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Go  Phightins  !  12:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Not urgent, but very time-sensitive. Thanks!  Go  Phightins  !  22:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Wikimedia Philippines
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)
 * Thanks, DC - I will take a look. For transparency, I should say that I'm utterly buried in work today so it may be some time, but it's on my list to look at.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Facebook updates of Wikipedia articles
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Huh, you know what? My magical update tool is down too.  I've written to Facebook and will report back.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow - that was quick! Thanks, Philippe. :) Cgingold (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cgingold. And speaking of quick... my contact at Facebook writes back that something broke, and he's going to do a front end push to fix it, but it may be a few days.  Can your stuff wait, or do we need to push it through earlier?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

serious harassment issue
Hi Philippe, if you're not aware of it I'd like to direct your attention to User talk:Jimbo Wales. 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)


 * Just a note, there has now been an administrator action on this, by Newyorkbrad, under the WP:BLP policy (as recently amended), noted at User talk:Russavia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For Your Kind Attention
Please read this: Commons:User_talk:Russavia. J Kadavoor J e e 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

when WebCite will be at last saved?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite if it closed we will have hard problems with links required by Verifiability (Idot (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

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.

PS - I'm neither a Floridian nor a Londoner. You meant that for Jimmy, I suppose. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC
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.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Me personally? Nope.  But if you mean the WMF, I couldn't say.  Don't have a clue.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Kiefer edited his question subsuquent to my answer. Regarding the issues raised above, I added comments after each.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 .Wolfowitz  08:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't attend board meetings. You, however, are welcome to write to any board member that you'd like to so alert them.  Contact info is at http://www.wikimediafoundation.org.  :-)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to bring back Damon Dash
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.

Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Ego, I'm going to be taking this case over, responding on your talk page. Jalexander--WMF 07:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on AfC at  the Village Pump: AFC ruining  Wikipedia
FYI: A discussion is taking  place at  Village pump (policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Conventional PCI
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)
 * The direction that I have received from our legal team is that yes, the protection will remain indefinitely. On second thought, let's try Pending Changes there.  Therefore, we will leave the banner.  I'm sorry.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

May I ask a favor, please?
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 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)
 * It's a nice idea. Where would you suggest that I post it?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Village pump (policy) with a level 3 header like  or a poll at WP:Flow/Poll or something like that. 64.40.54.109 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We just added a question to the VisualEditor FAQ - would linking to that help, you think? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a link to VisualEditor/FAQ may help. Thanks. 64.40.54.109 (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and thank you very much for the suggestion. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Philippe. I sincerely appreciate the help. 64.40.54.109 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. You guys/gals of the WMF work far too many hours.

New account with WMF suffix
Can a staffer please add the staffer category to User:SOsterberg (WMF) just for transparencies sake? merci. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFUP
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  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  05:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. Cleared up by Angela. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  03:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal and Moral Rights?
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.

Please note a somewhat related discussion at Commons too: Concern about the bureaucrat role of Russavia J Kadavoor J e e 11:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks Philippe, for your reply. Hope WMF will do something. J Kadavoor J e e 04:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
I do try to update my views with evidence. I don't always succeed, but I try. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI (2)
FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy blank
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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_actions&diff=prev&oldid=570945007]. NE Ent 13:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replying on the user's talk. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:WMF
As you may remember when we met at the Wikimedia conference in April, I got around to creating WP:WMF. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
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.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tone/all caps in an edit summary
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)

Well, oddly or annoyingly enough, I've now posted a link to the above post at WP:WMF in my attempt to create a neutrally-worded reception section. I thought it would be polite to notify you. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.)
 * With all that said, I think it's actually a pretty bad practice to mount accusations on a supposedly neutral page without even waiting to get my response to your initial query. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , 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 Etiquette and 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)


 * 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)
 * I shared most of my thoughts via email, I think, but I'll glance and see where it is now. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , 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.
 * The Signpost isn't really so much "open" to volunteers as it is a volunteer-run initiative. :) See Wikipedia Signpost/About.
 * Those are some thoughts and observations about what's there. I hope they help. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All done! Great points Maggie Dennis (WMF). Biosthmors (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
THank you. :) I enjoy brownies. :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Compromise solution
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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)

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 VisualEditor/Default State RFC and its associated talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Bad moon rising
I see a bad moon rising, I see trouble on the way... John Fogerty / Creedence. Please see really bad idea at AN NE Ent 17:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal advice required
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 BLPN 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?

I have not watchlisted this page, so please respond at BLPN. A timely and civil response would be good. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly need to contact Apple
Hi. Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Killiondude (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Low-priority: a little more precision would help
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)
 * The delegate changes depending on when/what staff is available, but my team always knows who it is. So perhaps we could clarify by having them contact the department?  In this case, it's MDennis.  :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"

 * Hope you are fine now. My prayers, J Kadavoor J e e 06:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Secure Poll for upcoming ArbCom elections
Hi Philippe. Thanks for all the work you do for the projects. I really appreciate your efforts. May I ask a favor, please? The annual Arbitration Committee elections are coming up so we need to set up the SecurePoll software. When the Foundation knows which developer will be setting up the software, could you please have them leave a note at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination so that the Electoral Commission can coordinate things with them? Thanks very much for your help. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note, was filed some time ago by Happy-melon in anticipation of the election. This is already on the WMF Engineering radar.  Risker (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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, and also  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)
 * , 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.   fyi.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Best person to ask would be 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, lemme go poke some folks in Engineering. I'd hate to find out that it wasn't resourced.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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? <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Conventional PCI
Per WP:protection policy, PC2 should not be used. --George Ho (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi George, thanks for your comment. The Wikimedia Foundation has large latitude when it comes to OFFICE actions, and the policy grants us that.  Specifically, "Such actions override community consensus."  (from Protection_policy.  I believe our usage to be in line with both the letter and the spirit of the protection policy.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The lock is orange, not black. The policy says that the black lock goes for either libel or copyright issues. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

... (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)
 * 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)
 * Oh, interesting, thanks for the explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested re non-admins and whether or not they are prohibited from running for Arbcom
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)
 * I have put the question to legal, and let them know that it's urgent. I can't guarantee a response time, but I'll push.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? --Rschen7754 23:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of what, if any arrangements were made between those projects and legal. I will ask though.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press
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.  Go  Phightins  !  01:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Go  Phightins  !  03:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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.  Go  Phightins  !  14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Schuette
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)
 * George, that's exactly what I will attempt to do in a month, presuming the correct conditions exist then. I'm going to have to ask you to be patient til then, but know that I'm watching it and will do it the second I'm free to do so safely.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, I've changed pp-semi-blp to pp-office to avoid any confusion in the future, please revert if you'd rather it stay with that template? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to close the loop on this, I've just dropped the page protection for that article.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

SecurePoll
Hi Philippe, could you help me with this? There seems to be something wrong. Mathonius (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Mathonius, I think User:Jalexander got you fixed up here. Let me know if not.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * 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)

Cold?

 * Cold sucks. I left Oklahoma, and the ice, on Saturday.  I'm now in the comparatively balmy climes of SF.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Comparitive...'. let me know if you  are ever thinking  of coming  to  Thailand :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)
<em style="border:1px solid gold;background-color:#008000"><font face = "Jokewood"> Happy Yuletides! <em style="background-color:white">

<font face = "Comic Sans MS">Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

~<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser <font color="DeepPink">(talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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. Hi Philippe, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser <font color="DeepPink">(talk)  19:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Happy New Year to you, as well.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)