User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 3

1921:

appear to be posing political rather than technical hurdles to a new policy (or at least its trial) that has been agreed by due process. The actual technical change is one of modifying a user right and is not complicated to effect. Most of the more complex agreed changes (three other options for new users to get their articles published without having to wait 4 days/10 edits to become autoconfirmed) are to the Wiki interface templates which I can do myself through my admin access. If the trial delivers the expected results, it will solve a far greater number of perennial problems than simply that of over 1,000 pages per day (80% of all newpages) that have to be deleted through one process or another, and which are patrolled by a loose group of extremely inexperienced, and partly very young and/or non native speakers of English. NPP is already largely recognised as a broken process. I believe there is every urgent reason to implement this trial now without further delay. The consensus was reached by a debate involving around 500 users and a clear majority in favour, and based on examination of of the problem rather than subjective 'support' or 'oppose' !voting. . A further centrally publicised RfC on the actual terms of the trial has also received practically unanimous support. I realise by now that the WMF may not in favour of this new user right change, but they should accept a decision arrived at by the very kind of consensus that they insist is the way to get things done at Knowledge. By questioning the authority of the 'self governed' Knowledge community, the devs, IMHO, are rocking the very foundation of a pillar of Knowledge policy. Your help in this matter would be very much appreciated. Regards,

1673:

situation that such a link was able to sit there for weeks unchecked. It seems that the page was not being watched by anyone who is currently active, and that could very well be why the link never got noticed; the main thing is it's gone now, but damage might already be done. Back to the first point: I have no way to know if SCV was from OTRS or not, I just know he came after the ticket was made (I don't think I saw him before that) and didn't check his userpage. Since I can't see the ticket myself (and don't really need to), I am not too concerned about it and don't need to know who handles it unless that person says so at the talk page or something in that section. Regarding the AfD point, however, I would still propose - if Covington is all right with it - that we try to fix the article first and, if he still wants it deleted, go from there. I think he was placated when we pointed out we're not his enemies and we wouldn't send cops after him or anything; he said that was a welcome change.

1871:. Over the course of the day, several developers (I assume they're developers anyway) expressed their opinion that they generally didn't think it was a good idea, or they thought it should be done differently, etc. Their complaints focused on the political nature of the request, not any technical hurdles that needed to be overcome. I found this to be quite an inappropriate response. We had gone through the process of organizing a proposal and getting the support of at least 300-400 editors, just to be derailed by three developers who hadn't seen the widely advertised proposal while it was active. My feeling is that their opinions should not override the consensus of hundreds of experienced editors. 1995:

that this is in direct conflict to the mandate we have from the Board of Trustees to focus energy on editor retention, and that we're in a terrible position of being asked to implement a trial that is in direct conflict to that directive from the Board, which is the legitimately elected voice of the community. So we have a poll that purports to be the will of the community, and a Board that is elected from the community, and the two are directly in conflict with each other. Until that rather constitutional question is resolved, I think the question of implementation is secondary.

3137: 913:

inappropriate (and I'm not in any position to know one way or the other, having not seen any evidence), they are well-positioned to deal with it. I don't know of any circumstance where the Committee has rejected a valid complaint based on formatting. The clerks will help with that, as you suggest. The important thing is to make sure that all the pertinent facts are in there. If you need to submit the statement confidentially, please contact me or any of the committee's clerks and we can show you how to do that.

1177:

sorted out by an election. That misses the important point that editors who would make very good Arbs don't want to stand because membership would mean getting involved in these kinds of exchanges, and this has become an increasing problem over the years. So it's a problem that has many, many tentacles, to do with trustworthy individuals not being so good together in a group, because no one is monitoring the group interactions; and people elected to be arbiters almost forced to become something else instead.

2763: 2732: 2150: 1355: 614: 2685: 2359:? In case you haven't checked, it was quite a major incident and has recieved extensive coverage in many newspapers and media, including in the United States. Thus, your claim of the event only being "locally" significant is discredited. Please restore the article in its form before it was deleted. If you have any objections to the article or its content, you are welcome to take it to the AfD, which is the procedural method, rather than outright deleting it. 2852: 2177: 1955:

contacted you because my request seems to be going down a very inappropriate path and I wanted to open the lines of communication before it gets too far down that path. As Kudpung explains above, Knowledge editors have clearly expressed via consensus that they want to see this trial happen. For the devs to be discussing the political aspect of the change at this point of the process (and essentially implying that they're not

1418: 2981:

clearing up some monumental sockpuppets cases on them. I rather hope that one day we will see her among our admins, but of course that's up to her. I'm now back to concentrating my efforts on the improvement of NPP, and will also be shortly providing some more screencasts. I am of course still available for any help I can provide in any way on the IEP issues. --

1967:

the right path. If there is nothing you can realistically do, then I would appreciate if you could simply keep an eye on the bugzilla page and perhaps comment there. We're just looking for someone from the WMF to help ensure that this proposed trial (which has been done by the books, completely in accordance with Knowledge policies) eventually gets the fair shake it deserves. Thanks.

1227:

whether a message was left by a bot or a human, and you'd be shocked (or, at least, I was) by the number of them that though the templates were human-written." This is an excellent result, can you give me a link to the research please? I'm currently in the process of shortening some of the templates messages we use for wrong tagging, and making them more friendly. Cheers, --

1887:

some of the very smartest people around - unlike stewards, who execute exactly what they're told, developers have responsibility for a full ecosystem, and they have an extremely limited number of hours with which to address a monster group of problems. They don't simply take orders - they have to work prioritize and decide what gets handled when, using limited resources.

1078:

first place. The Foundation should not have allowed new ArbCom members to gain access to them every year. And—given they did unfortunately exist—proper security measures should have been put in place to safeguard them. The situation now is that an unknown number of Wikipedians have been damaged in unknown ways, and that's not simply a matter for a future ArbCom election.

2113:. I share many of the same concerns as those raised in the discussions there—more specifically the declining userbase and how that impacts the future of Knowledge. I appreciate the WMF moving cautiously with the implementation of this trial so it causes as little damage as possible to the future userbase of our project here. Thank you for your time and support. 875:. I really appreciate that. Very much. Especially after all that has gone on recently and the tone in which some of it has been said. Indeed, Ched's words moved me very much, especially the degree of good faith imparted, and your follow-up to that, especially coming from you, Philippe, means a great deal to me. :) Thanks again, -- 2648:

that the Foundation endorsing an alternative could help us get over the hump that we've had in the past. So the answer to your question is, rather unhelpfully, "yes and no". Yes, we are willing to support the community in the implementation of an alternative but only if it's developed and supported by the local community.

1632:

assume that an AfD would definitely fail. Third, I think lengthy semi-protection for the article is just as important as lengthy semi-protection for the talk page archive; an attack site got put into External Links by an IP address, and was there for several weeks, so we're obviously not doing a good job of upholding

444:

compassionate , respectable, graceful, in short ,what human should be. Blaming a nation or claiming glory of humanity by some people who invented "nation" is beyond my understanding. Philippe, if you don't mind to guide me i'll really appreciate. Thanks again Philippe now i wil put 4 tilde , i hope it's working :)

2072:

other page creation". While I have my own serious concerns over the trial there is no doubt that it assumes new users will be able to create non article space pages such as User pages and so this can NOT be implemented (from a technical stand point) until a core mediawiki change is made to allow this right.

2393:

Hmmm, copyvios? I didn't look closely at the article, but that would certainly be prohibitive when it came to restoring. Mar4d, if there are copyvios, the article certainly won't be back. Assuming good faith, whether it's close paraphrasing or actual copyvio, that's not a good thing. Ironholds, I

2277:

Honestly, I don't think so. My thinking is this: the article creation requirements potentially impacted a huge number of people. This one truly probably doesn't. But I honestly don't have much of a strong feeling about it either way - certainly not enough to raise a stink if anyone did (or didn't)

1886:

Well, first, I'll say that expecting immediate action to a bugzilla ticket is simply not realistic. We have bugzilla tickets that have been open for months - even years - you can't get frustrated because you don't get action in hours. Second, it's important to remember that our developers represent

1554:

to discuss where to go on this article while the talk page is locked down from this constant attempt to remove the same material, which I am now thinking about archiving as I type this, and requesting indef. semi (at a minimum) on the archive page so Harold can't touch it as an IP (I'll need to clean

1077:

about the leak, where you implied that these were simply private comments, and would have to be dealt with at the next election. I ask that you take this more seriously. The archives in question contain very damaging material, including actionable material. They should never have been retained in the

647:

are broken - namely the "About me" and the "My test area" links. Both use Special:MyPage as part of the link location. But that resolves to a page relating to the user who is viewing your page, not to you. So when I click on your "About me", I get taken to my user page, not whichever page you thought

36:

jobs are all endangered, and the only "thanks" I get is the occasional trouting when I step over the line (and yes, I occasionally do, I confess it). I just read a blog where the whiner said we should have 50 million articles here, and notability was an evil plot to inconvenience him!!!! I've trimmed

3252:

issues, and obvious socking (I'll have to look into an SPI later). However, the IP editor reverting to keep the info is alleging the remover(s) is the subject. I just wanted to check--did you stumble upon this article over the course of normal editing, or is there a WMF/OTRS issue that I should be

2980:

Hi Philippe. Stalking Voceditenori's talk page, because she and I have worked very closely on this problem, I could not help but notice your kind words. She has shown great dedication to our encyclopedia, not only with this, but gnoming away on quality articles such as opera, and

2662:

Thanks for the quick reply! That's exactly what I expected to hear. This newfound support from WMF changes things for the project, and we're still discussing what direction to take now, and how we can best utilize your offer of help, but in any case, I look forward to working with you in the future.

2071:

I know Philippe has said this once but just so that people realize this isn't a "easy flip of a switch" that some people have been talking about. The proposal is to turn off ARTICLE SPACE ONLY page creation. Currently this right does not exist and you can only control "talk page creation" and "every

1994:

I had a meeting about this today; further will happen tomorrow, I have no doubt. It's not being ignored on the WMF level, I assure you. I hope that we can come to some resolution shortly. It's a delicate issue... one that is a balancing act. Many at the WMF believe (and frankly, I'm one of them)

1962:

Regarding the technical work required to implement the change, I can't be 100% sure but I don't think it requires as much work as you think. The only namespaces that non-autoconfirmed users will be able to create new pages in is the User and User talk namespaces. This is the way that the interface

1954:

Philippe, thanks for the quick response. A few additional comments: I agree with you about being patient and I understand that this change will not happen overnight. I don't expect it to. I didn't contact you because I was frustrated that the devs hadn't implemented my request within 24 hours, I

1874:

I was directed to you by some very experienced editors as the best WMF contact to handle this particular problem. I'm continuing to discuss the issue with the developers on the bugzilla page, but I'm getting frustrated and I'm unsure if they will ever agree to implement the trial changes. Is there

1672:

Demiurge, as a late-comer to the situation at the article, I completely agree that the attack site should never have made its way in there. For that reason, I can certainly understand Covington's reaction to it, even if what he did violated policy (and that link is now gone). It is an embarrassing

1176:

Thank you for that assurance. I've been worried by the comments of one Arb in particular who has implied the situation is normal and will continue. So I shuddered to see the (I accept now, inadvertent) implication from you that this is just a question of some ill-advised private comments that can be

896:

I did not know that I need to enable email. I have done so. I am in the process of filing a complaint with the arbitration committee. I hope they will not act like lawyers using a loophole and try to deny it based on it on being in the correct format. I think they have helpers, like clerks, whom

532:

The Wikimedia Foundation is a "safe harbour" entity, which does not give us the standing to send a DMCA counter-notice. Any such notice would need to be sent by someone with standing. So, I'm sorry, but we can't particularly help with that. Until we receive a counter-notice, we're bound to comply

2016:

The community already has rules similar to this in that one must be (auto)confirmed to upload files, or be a logged in registered user to even submit a page in the mainspace. There are already (small) hurdles to contributing. I would have hoped that you or someone from the WMF would have cleared up

1966:

In closing, my motivation for contacting you was not out of impatience, and I don't expect the trial to be implemented in a matter of a few days. However, I see the request for implementation heading down the wrong path and I would appreciate it if there's anything you can do to steer it back onto

1920:

Hi Philippe. Several other editors, including Snottywong and I, have been working on the problem of inappropriate new pages, including the existing controls, for over 10 months, together with necessary gathering of stats and in-depth empirical study. I have to agree with SN that the devs

1738:

I would like to know if WMF is going to do anything about the tight cabal of administrators and middle-senior editors who are way too comfortable with each other and conspire about regular editors with each other. You were fed false information from the WN/I page (and I can prove it with a citation

1226:

Hi Philippe. As you probably know, Snottywong and I have been doing some serious research into NPP over the last 8 months and come up with a lot of important stats. I noticed your comment "We ran an interesting experiment over the weekend where we asked people (non-Wikimedians) to identify

1150:

access of new members each year was damaging in itself. So I ask that both issues be taken equally seriously by the Foundation. I began a discussion with Mike Godwin about this some time ago, with the hope of having these archives deleted, or at least having access curtailed with each new intake of

235:

a couple of months ago. Articles about Wyatt Earp are present on many language versions of WP. I could not believe that the article about such a key figure in American pioneer history was so bad. I've worked diligently to become familiar with the many, complex sides of this historical figure, not a

2647:

Well, let's be clear about what the role of the Foundation is in this. We're not going to impose a change from above that's resisted by the community. However, we WILL be interested in helping with research, stats, and building the case for a sensible alternative, most likely. I'd like to think

2632:

the current process; we've been doubtful that we can provide a major "fix" (such as an alternative process) without WMF support. So, Philippe, there's a key question here: does this mean the Foundation is (even possibly) willing to implement an alternative (or any modifications whatsoever) to RfA?

2605:

Nominations have now reached an all-time low and a logarithmic chart would show that they will soon tail off completely. The reasons for this are clear. It may now be appropriate to take an earnest look at the possible introduction of some control over voters, such as is done on many

1898:

So be patient - and don't lose your cool - and I'm sure things will resolve themselves. But you simply can't expect developers with limited resources to jump immediately at any single community's beck and call. There are a massive number of problems to be dealt with, and their time is enormously

1473:

The posts in question were deleted based upon the staff's recommendation to avoid exposure to legal issues. We're entitled to do that under the revdel guidelines. "Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the case is clear,

765:

as A7. Anyway, it has been recreated (presumably by the article creator, but I can't know for sure) and the subject seemed notable enough to me so I added a few references to the article. On your userpage it says that "my work on this username is typically in my capacity as an employee", so I just

405:

As to Jalexander, I am his supervisor for work done within the role that he exercises for WMF, but not for work done as an individual, and I tend to keep a very strict separation between the two. So, no, I will not get involved, I'm sorry. This is to avoid the appearance of responsibility by the

31:

I'm getting weary of drinking from the Eternal Firehose of Sewage: the spammers, the POV pushers, the infantile "I know what I know and mere facts shouldn't get in my way" pseudo-vandals, the "I've got to tell everybody about my YouTube vids/blog/band/game mod/gossip and Knowledge isn't letting me

1114:

Philippe's remarks, to me, have nothing to do with the security situation per se. It seems fairly clear that he just meant that, if indiviudals have concerns about what arbitrators have been saying about them in private, they should deal with them at the ballot box when the election comes around.

2422:

Excellent. Mar4d, I encourage you to work with Ironholds on this. Copyright violations are one of the most significant infractions of our rules because of the implications legally. You absolutely must get those resolved. I'd encourage a full and total review of your contribution history. If

1978:

Please note that the latest comment on bugzilla (comment 15) no longer implies that the devs aren't going to implement this trial, it comes right out and plainly says it. A user named Brandon Harris is instructing other devs to not implement this change as it is controversial. We urgently need

1939:

I'm sorry, but it's not simply a matter of changing a user right. The userright change that I believe you suggest is the ability to create a new page. What, then, of a new user's ability to create a user talk page (for instance, to ask for help). There must be segmentation by namespace, which

912:

I can assure you that I have the highest respect for the good faith of the people on the committee. They're good people who give a substantial portion of their free time, voluntarily, to the Knowledge community and have a very high regard for the community. If there's something going on that's

1796:

If you have proof of admin or editor abuse, submit it to the Arbcom. I dealt with that specific situation, that's all I'm empowered to do. I'm sorry that youfind it unacceptable. If there's something the foundation needs to see, you can send it to me by email - but we don't typically involve

1631:

Three things to note. First, there's overwhelming evidence that User:SlapChopVincent is not the person dealing with the OTRS ticket. (In fact, that account was very recently created, and appears thus far, only to edit about Covington). Second, I don't think we should necessarily be too quick to

1145:

Philippe, I understand that you're taking the security concerns seriously. But my point is that there are other issues that have to be taken seriously too, namely that Arbs have been writing about people in such damaging ways, and retaining those archives on a Foundation list. Even ignoring the

1605:

Looks like you've got an interesting one, no question about it. On the surface, however, it doesn't appear that this would qualify for an OFFICE action. Jamieson was deleted for a number of reasons, but principal among them was that he went through an AfD and was non-notable, the article was

1827:

before and I am not sure what image I am locking from uploading (unless he talked about putting an image on that article). I only locked the article because there was just back and for edit warring for days and just put a stop to it. It appears he is very involved with the articles on Libya.

443:

Dear Philippe, thanks for your kindness and encouragement. I'm not well educated nor speak english well. I really like the spirit of wikipedia, but so many articles really harassing human intelligent . If you want to know , my nationality called Humanity , My people are honorable, decent,

214:

Since you are with the Wikimedia Fdn, and you say you want to help represent the vast majority of WP editors who only rarely contribute, I thought I'd bring something to your attention. This is about why editors don't contribute or quit. As an editor, I am someplace in the middle: a regular

1855: 52:'s in Madison) and use their resources to expand and create articles on their subject matters. Instead, I watch for the "Reagan was a Nazi spy" graffitists and the Username:BuyMyPenisEnhancer idiots. The gray t-shirt I got that one time is beginning to look like pretty paltry reward. -- 258:) and other experienced admins get articles into GA with one hand tied behind their back. It's an everyday thing. Even for someone like me it's a bit of a tendentious process I engage in with some trepidation. TonyTheTiger's actions were callous and ungracious, bordering on lacking 2129: 1854:) ran for two months and received wide support from hundreds of editors. It eventually closed successfully, with a consensus that the change first be implemented on a trial basis. Another smaller proposal then ensued to decide the length of the trial and other minor details (see 1963:

currently behaves for anonymous editors. I just did a test by logging out and successfully creating a new user talk page as an IP. So, the mature, tested code that we need already exists, we just need to apply it to registered users who are not in the autoconfirmed user group.

1026:

Sure enough, your administrator show that they lack the ethics to be an admministrator. They wipe out the complaint and ban me. They even remove my messages to a Wikimedia employee. This is the incivility that you wrote about in the Wall Street Journal several months ago.

1587:, I just think knowing whether this is an option he can pursue would be beneficial, or whether there is another channel he should go through instead. I do have fears he may try to sue WMF over this...but given he didn't five years ago, it's quite possibly bluster. 1845:

Philippe, I've been having some trouble getting developers to implement some changes and I'm wondering if you could help me from the WMF side. Let me give you a brief history of the situation. In April of this year, a proposal was put forth to require users to be

1505:

this link (Gwen Gale own words)"Too many active Wikipedians are wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls which includes several members of arbcomm who are more interested in publishing unsupported gay celebrity gossip than they are in writing an encyclopedia to academic

2559:

Thank you Philippe and welcome on board. It's very important - and encouraging - to know that the WMF is aware of major developments of this nature, and the project looks forward to any support and new ideas that you, and your colleagues, can provide.

1609:

It looks to me like this is one where standard community processes will need to take their path. I'd remind the subject of the standard of verifiability, not truth, and encourage them to find other sources or get the allegedly incorrect sources to withdraw their

916:

If my office at the Foundation needs to get involved, we have a close relationship with the Committee and they have never been shy about letting me know if there's something I can do to assist them. You're doing the right thing by connecting with the committee.

1851: 1570:

came about to be protected via WMF directly so that I have an understanding about the procedure. He is requesting his page be deleted, but an AfD would find him notable and it would be kept if attempted. He even e-mailed to the info-en-q queue generating

1998:

From the perspective of staff, we're in a terrible spot. We take our direction from and serve at the pleasure of the Board and the Executive Director. To receive an instruction from the community that is in conflict with that is not something that we

2374:

Philippe, just to butt in; please don't restore that article. I'm currently looking through Mar4d's contributions for copyright violations, and it has them; regardless of why you deleted it, it's not coming back, and you shouldn't let it.

1164:

Then let me assure you that the whole situation is being exhaustively looked at by various people from various perspectives. We are looking into more than simply the security, but a host of things, from legal to ethical to practical. -

406:

Wikimedia Foundation for work done by him as an administrator and a volunteer. That could be perceived as making him an agent of the Wikimedia Foundation while acting as a volunteer, which would place our legal status in some jeopardy.

2243: 551:

Ok, so someone needs to send WMF itself a notice, rather than send one itself. Next question is, who would have standing to send WMF such a notice? One of the editors who put the signing keys into the article in the first place? Any

1658:

Phillippe, thank you for that reply on the course that led to the office action on that article. I agree with you that it's clear that the situation for that one does not exist for this one, so that background helps me a little

2803:

on 10th says the problems were being taken seriously and there was going to be a meeting about it. IEP edits with big copyvio/quality problems are still being made in article space (albeit at a lower rate than before) (e.g. see

1890:

Another major thing to point out: this isn't just a switch to be made. It's a core change to underlying systems. It requires re-coding. It requires adapting and testing code, and making sure it doesn't break anything else.

717:... and that Special:MyPage design flaw would be me trying to make a user page when watching television :P. Good thing someone noticed this before the template was activated for all new users! I've fixed the base design 583:

You're correct that one would need to be sent to the WMF itself, as the content host. As to whether or not you'd have standing to send one, I'm afraid I can't give you legal advice. The best I can do is point you to

511:

I would like a DMCA counter notice to be sent to Texas Instruments. The EFF helped other recipients of DMCA notices by TI do so, and TI has not followed through in prosecuting anyone who has filed a counter notice.

1198:

Solving this is going to require a lot of honesty about how it happened, and a willingness to listen and understand the consequences. I won't say more about it for now. I just wanted to let you have this feedback.

1705: 1733: 1582:

I hope this is not too much to ask about, and if there is information you'd rather not post on your talk page in an answer, you can of course e-mail me via my userpage. While I'm not asking your advice at

420:

Thank you for your clarification at Choose Your Own Adventure. I did not know that you were Jalexander's supervisor. I asked you to get involved solely to restore the image if it had the correct licensing.

1376:

You're absolutely welcome. Hey, a note: the sections on this page don't have “” links; I thought I was blocked for a second (again). Just a suggestion that you should look into. Also, Section:Censorship:

109:

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Knowledge. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Knowledge contributors." I would like to invite you to

2105:

Hello Mr. Beaudette. I would like to thank you and Mr. Alexander for looking in to this restriction with a cautious eye. I was one of the thosands of people that watched the discussions unfold at

508:

I'm not sure if I have standing, legal or otherwise, to challenge the office action in question since I haven't edited the article in question, but I am appealing it in the interests of openness.

1875:

anything you can do to help ensure that the will of the enwiki community gets implemented? I'll watch this page for any response, or feel free to email me if you prefer. Thanks for your time.

858: 2251: 2271: 1725: 1748: 2088:

See comment 26 on the bugzilla page where one of the devs shows all of the code that would need to be added to implement this change. It is not a technically difficult change whatsoever.

1858:). There was strong support and a consensus to allow the trial to run for 6 months, and then to reverse the changes for 30 days while it is discussed whether it should be made permanent. 1458:.If my understanding is correct, and you were the one who did it, may I please ask you in accordance with what wikipedia policy you deleted the posts made by at least 4 editors? Thanks.-- 1863:

Having gotten support for the idea and support for the smaller details of the trial implementation, the only thing left to do was to ask the devs to implement the change. Working with

1023:

I wrote to you as a concerned parent. My child has been harrassed by a user who has done this to others for several years. My child warned me that I would run up against deaf ears.

2255: 2244: 2356: 802:) — I agree with you that it is best to utilize ongoing processes to assess the consensus of the community about this issue at this point in time. Most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- 468: 3276: 937:

If I can't be Minister of Special Projects and Second Liege of the Knowledge Shadow Council, is there perhaps an opening for Viceroy, or maybe Archduke? (looks hopeful) Cheers!

1509: 886: 352: 2954: 1551: 2624:

Philippe, again, thank you so much for your offer of support. Most of us in the project agree that the current process is broken and unsustainable. However, due to the

2408:

I have already done so; to be honest, I'm still going through his contributions checking, but I've identified quite a few problems I'll be working with him to resolve.

3075: 3284: 3093: 1567: 1563: 2691:

I made this today. Do you know anyone who can plot and superpose a logarithmic line across this, extended to show the prognosis? I'd send them the XL data.

1039: 1094:

If that's the implication you got, then I didn't come across clearly. I can't begin to tell you the number of hours I've put in on this issue - we are taking it

998:, not realizing that it was you initially who added the entry. I have self-reverted myself for now, but I'm not really seeing why that entry should remain there. 3089: 3061: 1710:

Your Final Warning is outrageous, considering I never had a first warning from you; there was only ever one incident, so you can't warn against something twice.

1439: 1410: 1381:

has been temporarily blocked, if you didn't know already. Again, the sections on this page don't have the links, just a good-natured suggestion. Thanks again,

2807:). Please can we have an update from WMF on the situation ? - is there a plan to stop inappropriate IEP edits ? is there a plan to (help us) clear things up ? 1806: 1791: 1763: 2485: 1777: 1319: 1305: 687:

line at the bottom of the template. If the template is used on, for instance, a talk page (as it is on Maggie Dennis' talk page), the talk page is listed in

3190: 1645: 194: 178: 3280: 3102: 2058: 2040: 2026: 712: 698: 678: 2935:

Thanks for the award! I never had an award before so I feel downright encouraged!! Or should that be upright encouraged? Either way, it's a good feeling.

1973: 1908: 1159: 1107: 742: 526: 126: 96: 79: 3071: 2898: 2776: 2749: 2500: 2476: 2436: 2417: 2403: 2237: 2163: 1622: 1368: 1128: 631: 1401:

Yes, I removed the section edit links purposely... it was interfering with the display in the header template. :) Thanks for pointing out the block.

926: 597: 570: 542: 3229: 2717: 2538:

I believe a spammer has found his way into your account. They snuck into mine once too, and after changing my password and cleaning up they stopped.

1930: 1695: 1572: 2344: 2301: 2287: 2138: 2094: 2031:

One would think that would be the case, yes, but understand that without unlimited resources, sometimes things don't happen as quickly as we'd like.

1985: 1310:

I don't care about the "law of the land"; no matter how much legitimacy those pigs in Washington claim, they're nothing more than inhuman monsters. --

669:

I agree that's suboptimal. I grabbed that straight from a template for new users, so I'll give that feedback back to the designer too. Thanks. :)

430: 415: 2671: 2657: 2597: 2073: 2011: 1949: 503: 445: 334: 2519: 1525: 1483: 1270: 1207: 1171: 991: 648:

I would end up at. So, you need to replace the two links with something a bit more hard-coded ... which I'll do in a second or so, pointing them at

281: 265:

I don't know what you can do to educate admins but I know WP has suffered from a loss of editors. I personally know two experienced Admins who have

255: 104: 852: 2122: 2077: 1881: 977: 959: 787: 143:? From reading through the talk-page, I can't tell whether it is still under WP:Office protection or if it is permitted to request unprotection. 2458: 2384: 1488:

Phill, and what exactly was the "libelous information" you are talking about? All the links I provided are available on wikipedia. For example,

1151:

members, but unfortunately nothing came of it. I don't want to see another opportunity to fix this be wasted, because it does need to be fixed.

1542:

where an IP editor claiming to be the article's subject has been repeatedly removing what he considers libelous information from the article's

1296:

Not my call. As the DMCA is the law of the land, we're obligated to follow it. Until or unless I'm directed otherwise, I'll follow the law.

1040:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=432600224&oldid=432464753

396: 364: 3088:

to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests:

2836: 2583: 843:

Thanks for the clarification. I just wish there was a more straightforward way of publicly logging this sorta stuff. It just looked funny.

160: 3121: 2321: 2293: 2263: 1504: 1074: 422: 388: 356: 2588:

Thanks, folks. It's clear to me that the current process is broken and unsustainable. I'm interested in what alternatives gain traction.

70:

Sure, I get it. Really, I do. Maybe it's time to put down the tools for a while and write some articles? Something to reinvigorate you?

663: 2970: 2961:

that still shows up as an article in toolserver searches. Can you please follow up again and see if anyone can fix the problem. Thanks,

2789: 775: 169:

is no longer under office protection. Standard editing rules apply, but we're asking people to make conscious and deliberate choices. -

2259: 2002:

Please, stick with us - and do everything you can to help keep things de-escalated - while we figure out the constitutional issue here.

202: 2805: 799: 561:

If it has to be an involved editor then there's nothing I can do, but if any editor will qualify I'll be sending a counter notice soon.

1559: 384: 3288: 355:

has an acceptable license, I believe it should be undeleted. Jalexander has been unresponsive to my queries for over a month. Thanks,

2017:

this "constitutional question" while the RFC was in progress or shortly thereafter, not when the community files a bugzilla request.

3205:. I know nothing about the back story of that page, but from your edits there I assumed you would want to be aware of this. Cheers. 2547: 64: 2864:

Given to members of the community who help uphold and support other editors in harder times by most of all being a good friend. --

2607: 326: 1596: 1343: 1290: 946: 254:

I confess I was discouraged by the delisting and quickfail without the opportunity to immediately fix the article. TonyTheTiger (

837: 302: 2800: 1839: 1086: 3149: 2943: 2368: 1579:

showed up afterwards, making me think he was the one addressing the ticket (though I'm not asking for a confirmation either).

1396: 1013: 495: 2922: 2329: 453: 2880: 754: 147: 3015: 2490:

is there a reason not to write this article? or bio article? it has coverage in jerusalem post, telegraph, continuing npr.

2130:

Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles#bugzilla_30208

1311: 1282: 627: 245: 3214: 2948: 2769: 2762: 2745: 2700: 2619: 2569: 1512:. Should this too be deleted because it is a "libelous information"? English is not my first language, but I just went to 1281:

Stop censoring articles. By supporting the DMCA you're as guilty as the corporate pigs and their lackeys in Washington. --

321: 3262: 1455: 688: 684: 585: 3174: 2641: 813: 3166: 3070:: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 2222: 1834: 487: 1467: 1255: 1061: 906: 781:

Quite right, I was just logged into the wrong account. Thank you for asking. The article looks a ton better now. -

766:

wanted to check that your deletion wasn't an office action and it was simply you acting as an ordinary admin. Cheers,

3101:: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are 131: 3020: 2990: 1236: 735: 344: 44:

you. I'm a historian by training; what I'd really like to do is get a grant to sit in a research library (like the

1261:

Happy to help. Thanks for calling it to my attention. We can't always help out, but were able to in this case!

2794: 2106: 1713:

Your Speedy Deletion Notice is outrageous too: I never responded once between your edits and deletion requests.

1057: 638: 1500: 2756: 872: 864: 718: 1716:

Lastly, all the Bad Faith I have been shown has been completely ignored, as has Due Process. Congratulations.

2110: 45: 2628:

of virtually every major "RfA reform" proposal, we've mainly focused on minor, easy to swallow proposals to

2262:

be similarly subpaged "so that it would get more broad discussion than on a narrowly focused project page"?

2187: 1782:

And there's no excuse for what the admins and editors inbetween have done for which they remain unpunished.

3202: 1739:

from it) by one of these admins. Nearly ALL of the editors involved all the way to WN/I acted in BAD FAITH.

1516:

and read: "It is usually a requirement that this claim be false" What "false claim" I made, Phil? Thanks.--

110: 49: 2046: 286: 2875: 1915: 762: 755: 248: 220: 1538:

In the last couple of days, I've been involved in a potentially flameful (is that a word?) situation at

3225: 3186: 2910: 2894: 2832: 2713: 2653: 2593: 2533: 2472: 2432: 2399: 2340: 2283: 2233: 2036: 2007: 1945: 1904: 1802: 1773: 1759: 1618: 1479: 1432: 1406: 1389: 1361: 1354: 1301: 1266: 1103: 922: 708: 674: 593: 538: 411: 380: 348: 327: 174: 75: 2292:

I don't have strong feelings about subpaging it either so will follow your opinion not to subpage it.

2195: 1787: 1744: 1721: 932: 166: 140: 26: 3267: 3143: 2940: 2575:

Indeed, Phillippe, it's great to have a staff member on board. Welcome, and thanks for signing up!

2350: 2185:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

1768:

Ah, I realized what you meant. No, I stand by that warning. There's no excuse for what you did.

1533: 1378: 1315: 1286: 1006: 17: 3136: 1847: 818: 644: 2156: 2149: 3170: 3115: 2820: 2309: 1868: 1641: 1327: 491: 215:

contributor (10K+ edits over 4+ years) but not obsessed by it. I have recently been taken with

208: 191: 157: 2278:

or to do it myself. Sorry, but I'm a big ol "meh" on this one. I know that's not much help!

3048: 2904: 2786: 2054: 2022: 1539: 1427: 1384: 1340: 695: 660: 653: 1336:, you would've known that I had withdrawn the accusation as being on a vent, and apologized. 3201:

Hello Philippe. I just blocked someone, and when I looked in their contributions I noticed

3162: 2995: 2625: 2134: 2118: 1783: 1740: 1717: 1576: 1547: 1068: 1045: 965: 826:

Having a sudden message on my talk page from a foundation member gave me a bit of a spook.

730: 620: 613: 449: 338: 91: 59: 32:

play", the "Knowledge is mean to me when I try to sell my overpriced vitamins" whiners. My

8: 3221: 3182: 2936: 2890: 2870: 2828: 2709: 2649: 2589: 2543: 2516: 2497: 2482: 2468: 2454: 2428: 2424: 2413: 2395: 2380: 2336: 2279: 2229: 2218: 2032: 2003: 1941: 1900: 1798: 1769: 1755: 1691: 1614: 1592: 1475: 1402: 1297: 1262: 1124: 1099: 1053: 1035: 999: 918: 793: 704: 670: 589: 534: 483: 407: 307: 170: 122: 71: 2256:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 70#Changing the article creation requirements

2245:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 70#Changing the article creation requirements

1754:

Can you provide some context? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Email is fine.

3258: 3196: 2966: 2842: 2725: 2552: 1276: 1166: 954: 902: 848: 833: 782: 566: 522: 438: 240:

was readily approved by one editor, and them almost immediately delisted by an admin,

3210: 3111: 2986: 2918: 2738: 2731: 2696: 2615: 2565: 2553: 1926: 1637: 1449: 1333: 1241: 1232: 973: 942: 771: 458: 266: 241: 188: 154: 3235: 3085: 3057: 3026: 3010: 2953:

Back in July you were involved in a discussion about a problem with the toolserver

2812: 2783: 2506: 2325: 2297: 2267: 2050: 2018: 1562:

section requesting to delete his article. Because of this and the recent block of

1555:

up the topic headers, he clearly doesn't know what equal signs are used for here).

1492: 1337: 995: 692: 657: 607: 426: 392: 360: 317: 297: 3129: 2927: 2664: 2634: 2576: 2364: 2114: 2089: 1980: 1968: 1876: 1200: 1152: 1079: 985: 725: 274: 259: 85: 53: 2449:

If MRG could drop in, that'd be awesome; she's great at copyright-related work.

1959:

going to implement this change) is worrying to me. This is why I contacted you.

207:

Thanks for the taking the time to both notice and comment on my contribution of

3245: 2865: 2539: 2511: 2492: 2450: 2409: 2376: 2317: 2310: 2214: 1829: 1824: 1687: 1588: 1584: 1521: 1496: 1463: 1251: 1120: 1049: 1031: 882: 809: 374: 270: 118: 3254: 3249: 3060:, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is 2962: 2958: 2250:

Hi Philippe. You moved discussion about the article creation requirements to

2170: 2132:, including some questions on how the community may be able to help the WMF. 1818: 1633: 1566:

on July 14 (for which you are listed as the contact), I am curious as to how

1348: 1116: 898: 891: 844: 829: 649: 562: 518: 278: 224: 3025:

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at

2819:

I'm actually not the best person to ask... people who would know better are

3206: 3040: 2982: 2914: 2824: 2692: 2611: 2561: 2205: 1922: 1864: 1686:

Thanks to both of you, I'll head back and see what's transpired recently.

1228: 1018: 969: 938: 767: 269:

due to abuse by other admins. I would like to suggest that the standard of

232: 228: 2684: 3154: 3001: 2975: 2808: 1221: 313: 292: 223:, and related events and characters. Both of these articles were full of 3000:

Thank you for you kind comments regarding my editing milestone. Cheers!

2913:: This is a message to Mihir, but I think it concerns everyone. -- 2049:

to have unlimited resources or be in more than one place at one moment.

1613:

So, in this case, I'm afraid we can't do a great deal to help. Sorry!

236:

trivial task. I finally thought it was ready for GA, and to my surprise

3279:

on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks!

3029:, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications. 2360: 2252:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Allow new editors to create articles

1706:

Your Final Warning and Speedy Deletion Notice (Before I even responded)

1513: 237: 216: 2851: 1734:

Wikimedia Foundation on Administrator and Senior Editor Accountability

2427:

has any suggestions for people that could join in cleaning this up.

1517: 1489: 1459: 1434:

user who has been editing Knowledge since Thursday, October 28, 2010.

1391:

user who has been editing Knowledge since Thursday, October 28, 2010.

1247: 877: 804: 370: 84:

I'm working on some legislators; for me, that's fun - what a wonk! --

2509:, based on reports. i trust we can discuss notnews; 1event on talk. 3241: 3044: 1606:

deleted, and then recreated. Those circumstances don't exist here.

1546:(ironically having little involvement in the article except under 467: 3248:. I'll also be continuing to monitor, as there are clearly both 2182:

Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail!

1850:

in order to create new articles. The proposal (quite long, see

859:

Thank you very much Philippe for giving me The Original Barnstar

683:

If you're talking to the designer, suggest that s/he drops the

3181:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.

2467:

MRG, if you're stalking here, can you help out with this? :)

2143: 1456:

deleted my exchange with Gwen, and later added back my apology

515:

I therefore consider it of low risk to challenge this notice.

40:

Know what I mean? I'm not complaining about you, really, just

2889:

How kind! Thank you. I'm going to copy it to my userpage.

1503:.It is interesting to follow a few links from there.Or maybe 1098:

seriously. For you to suggest otherwise is disappointing.

2779: