I noticed that you deleted User talk:Mephistophelian per WP:LEGAL. This seems to me to be a clearly invalid rationale to delete a page (with over 1,000 revisions), the purpose of WP:LEGAL is that we don't give in to legal threats, not that we follow demands. Perhaps you meant something else than WP:LEGAL, but I would like to have some clearer explanation of what happened here, because as it stands it sends a completely wrong message. Fram (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I don't like it but is not worth wasting more time on, but (as you now noticed as well) if it really had been deleted for WP:LEGAL, it would have been truly problematic. Can I just ask: if Mephistophelian would return, are we allowed to undelete it? Fram (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mephistophelian did a lot of Articles for creation submission reviews. These invite the submitter to discuss declined submissions, one route being via the reviewer's talk page. What procedure could we use to ensure a new user doesn't inadvertently recreate the talk page with a question that is likely to go unanswered? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. I do not know the candidate, or Dennis Brown, but the language used by a representative of the foundation, writing in that capacity, accusing a candidate and nominator of "hijacking" an RFA (or the RFA process), is intemperate, uncalled for, and an inappropriate assumption of bad faith. Is this accusation-- of "hijacking"-- the position of the Foundation? Kablammo (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have been at a leadership retreat this week and have only been able to stop by Wikipedia for a few minutes. I'm afraid that - noting the RFA had closed on the 9th - I presumed any questions would have been rendered moot, since they were not placed on my talkpage, and did not follow the "talkback" banner to the discussion page. Generally speaking, I've found it's best to summarize the issue on a talk page, to drive people to follow the banners... but that's just a side note.
I don't believe that the word "hijack" necessarily always implies intentional wrongdoing, and I certainly didn't intend for that to be read as the implication. As the hijack definition on Wiktionary notes, it can be commonly used to refer to an instance of redirection of a process from its originally intended purpose. I do not assume bad faith or intentional wrongdoing on your part, Dennis. I've heard only good things about you and am sure you are working with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, I believe that's what this RFA effectively did. As Director of Community Advocacy, I stand by my position that a protocol for temporary adminship should be community vetted rather than building, ad-hoc, on a process intended for entirely different aims.
Again, I apologize for the delayed response. In the future, I'll pay more attention to the talkback banner, and I'd encourage you - if there's something you really want to call my attention to - to email me. That's frequently the best way to get a quick response. We have 800 wikis, roughly, and I get talk page notifications so frequently that I can easily miss one. Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously, Dennis? I mean, I'm all for asking Foundationeers to check their attitudes at the door sometimes, but you're blowing the use of one word - used in a fairly standard colloquial meaning - up into (dare I make the pun?) a federal case. No, Philippe was not saying that he thought you were committing a federal crime and stealing an aircraft or ship. I'm not sure in what universe it would make sense to accuse him of that. He wasn't accusing you of doing something "illegal" at all, because there's no law that covers "editing Wikipedia in a non-disruptive manner that may nevertheless be a manner that was chosen poorly." I get that you're upset and offended because you think Philippe used a loaded word and misjudged you, but dude...take off the spiderman mask and climb down from the Reichstag, you're making yourself look very odd right now. Asking him to consider whether "hijack" was a good term to choose, and whether he'd use it in similar circumstances in the future? Fine. Demanding he apologize because you feel he's accused you of illegal activity and personally offended your honor by thus libeling you? Not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis: I can't speak for the 'real world' definition according to Mountain View, California, but where I'm from one of the Wiktionary definitions ("An instance of a seizure and redirection of a process") is not uncommon. I don't exactly encounter it in my day-to-day life, but that's because I don't hear the word "hijack" much (Cardiff not being a high-crime area). It simply means to redirect; to redirect with bad or good intentions, without any implicit claim of illegality. To address your options above: there is an option C, which is that Philippe spoke unclearly and did not intend to communicate the meaning you are placing on his words. I would suggest this is probably the correct interpretation of his statement, given that he has explicitly stated he did not intend to communicate any bad faith or intentional wrongdoing (and surely a claim of illegality would involve both?). I'm sorry if that statement is not enough to satisfy you, but it's clear to me that he didn't say what you're asking him to back down from. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a different issue than you were talking about in your last post (the one I replied to). In that one, you said you wanted to know whether it was Philippe's personal or professional opinion that you had committed a crime ("Is this a personal opinion, or is this the official stance of the Foundation? that by nominating someone, I was trying to illegally seize the process for nefarious reasons?"). Which, as I said above, comes across as a very odd thing to ask, because there was no criminal accusation in what he said. If what you're really after is a discussion of whether Philippe's comment there was made in a personal capacity to influence a situation he personally disliked (or something? is that roughly what you're saying?), but using an official account to make the comment...that's a completely different complaint that what you made earlier today, and you would have been better served to just ask it, rather than taking the sidetrack about criminality. My personal opinion as far as that issue is that he made clear in his comment on the RFA talk that the Foundation's policy was X, and his personal analysis of this situation was X+Q. For all that my opinion matters here, which is nearly not at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did clarify. He did correct for it. My explanation of the meaning of 'hijack', Fluffernutter's explanation of his intentions - these are repetition of things he has already said. At this point it's fairly clear we're not going to agree on the appropriate action, so I'm going off to do other things. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that conversation about this has fragmented a bit, as Dennis had emailed me as well as posting here. Since that's the case, I want to reiterate here so others are aware of it as well some of my position, as set out in that email. My statement was made in my professional capacity on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation; it is based on repeated rulings by and consultation with our legal counsel. In terms of the specific word used, I have explained the context in which I intended it. While I would not use it again, based on Dennis's interpretation of it (which I understand in retrospect), I reiterate that I never implied or meant to imply bad faith on his or Carrite's part, although I believed (and still believe) as Director of Community Advocacy that the RFA process was being used inappropriately from the Wikimedia Foundation's perspective. You are, of course, very welcome to link to this comment or this section from the talk page of the RFA or anywhere else that seems appropriate to you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is OTRS Minimum Age. Message added 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Philippe. I hate to add to your list of things to do, but I was hoping you could help me. Does the Foundation have a position on the proposal at meta:WebCite. This is the service we use to archive our references and citations. The proposal is to take over WebCite and there are some questions about Fair Use and some other proposals about possibly donating funds or services to WebCite. I'm not sure how these things work and there may be some proposals there that wouldn't be possible for legal reasons or something else. It would be helpful to get input from the Foundation if it's possible. And since I'm here, I just wanted to thank you kindly for your dedication to the project. You're a shining example of what's good about Wikipedia and you rate tops in my book. I know dealing with the community here can be very trying at times and you've alsways been helpful and courteous through it all. You truly are a great Wikipedian. Kind regards. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - and thank you so very very much for the compliment. It's really nice to hear. I'm glad that I'm able to serve your needs, and also consider it a real honor to have the job that I do, so thank you for trusting me with it. As to you question about webcite - I think it's a great project, and so does the WMF as a whole. Whether or not it's something that should be folded under our umbrella is nuanced. The first question that I'd ask is "Do they WANT to be folded under our umbrella?" We have no real issue with absorbing projects or tools (and I'd argue that this one might be better considered a tool than a project) as needed, but I think that any conversation should begin with "What is best for webcite and what do they want?" Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a statement from WebCite at the meta page.
+ Perspective from WebCite: WebCite - a project I initiated - is humbled by the support from the Wikimedia / Wikipedia community. We are more than willing to discuss all possible options, including a "takeover" by WMF. Personally, I would think that leaving it a stand-alone entity with funding and strong ties to the WMF would be the better solution for all parties involved (not least, legal exposure), but this is for WMF to decide, and as WebCite initiator my primary goal is to see WebCite flourish and survive, which it may be best achieved the umbrella of the WMF. In any case, WebCite does need cash (we are hoping to raise $50k by end of this year to pay a developer for a much needed overhaul, more storage space etc). The third option is a commercial one, i.e. raise Venture Capital and/or charge for "pro/premium" memberships. The latter is the avenue we may have to pursue if other fundraising efforts fail. In the meantime, please donate at http://fnd.us/c/aQMp7 (preferably with a comment) - this will go a long way to demonstrate to potential funders that there is some serious need and support for a service like this. Gunther Eysenbach, University of Toronto, WebCite initiator --Eysenbach (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan, I hadn't seen that (I'm in an offsite workshop for three days) - I've passed the funding request (last week) on within the office, and one option that came up was that Webcite could request funding through the Wikimedia Grants process. Has anyone shared that option yet? I'll take a look when I have a bit more freedom to read carefully. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot written at that page, and I was on a script enforced Wikibreak for most of the discussion, so I haven't gotten through all of it. It appears that someone has mentioned a grant, but nobody has yet referenced the actual Wikimedia Grants process. I don't necessarily know where to post information on the grant or who to address it to (WebCite/Gunther Eysenbach or the rest of the community involved in the discussion), and I'm not familiar with the grants in general, so I'll leave it to someone else to explain that. RyanVesey20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) @Philippe, thanks very much for the help. You folks at the WMF are the hardest working bunch of people I've ever met and I appreciate all you folks do for the project. I've left a note at meta:WebCite#WebCite can apply for a grant with your suggestion.
Hi Philippe. I'd appreciate your comment at a discussion (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Covert advertising: 2012 German court ruling) regarding if/how/whether it's appropriate to reference legal rulings in our policies that occurred outside of the US/Florida jurisdiction, and if so whether or not to reference to the general and legal disclaimer is appropriate or required. Just to be clear, I'm supporting mentioning those disclaimers while at least one other editor is opposed to doing so. As you know, COI editing is quite controversial so I only intend this as a way to get a third opinion with some legal background. Best, Ocaasit | c19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a related topic, Philippe, there is ongoing and somewhat contentious discussion about an OTRS ticket involving NDAA 2012 and how it was handled. I want to point your attention to the related discussions:
They involve what happens when a COI editor or representative is led to a talk page and advised to engage there. In this case it happened through OTRS with a very sensitive and controversial subject where the COI editor worked for the U.S. Government and was given extensive advice by me about how to engage on the talk page of the article, how to present sources and arguments, and what to expect from the consensus process of talking with other editors. Most important, I am curious if you had any thoughts to relay about how best to make it abundantly clear that COI editors even when assisted through OTRS get no special privileges and other editors have no particular obligations to do what is requested or suggested. I'm trying to clarify our guidance on this. Since it involves OTRS volunteers and their role and status I hope you might review it. I've also emailed the OTRS list to ask a similar question about clarifying our position in these situations. Best, Ocaasit | c13:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question about checkuser and oversight access
Hi Philippe, I've just left a question on your personal page by mistake, [2] 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. [3] This committee oversees the use of checkuser and oversight, and its members are given access to the CU and oversight tools themselves. It has happened once before that a non-admin was appointed, though it didn't work out and lasted only a few weeks, as I recall.
It concerns me that this should be proposed, because it means that the committee – elected from a very small number of candidates, sometimes with close to just 50 percent of the vote – would be giving the CU and oversight tools to editors who have never gone through any form of election. My recollection is that the Foundation insists that editors with access to deleted revisions submit to an election that is at least as rigorous as the RFA process; that is, those with access to deleted revisions should be administrators, or should have been chosen to have access to deleted material in a way that is similar to applying for adminship (diff, as one example, though I've seen this mentioned several times).
My question to you is: does the Foundation have the same minimum requirement for access to the checkuser and oversight tools on the English Wikipedia as it does for access to deleted revisions? SlimVirgin(talk)20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, it's always good to hear from you. I truly appreciate your well considered questions. In this case, I don't have an immediate answer for you, because (frankly) I've never asked the question in quite this way. However, I'll take the question to Geoff and see what he thinks. I doubt that I will have an answer before Monday at the very earliest, however, and it may be later than that, if there's research that needs to be done.
As speculation only, my initial opinion is this: Foundation policy requests that checkuser be issued on the direction of the Arbitration Committee on sites that have one with a large enough electoral base. It doesn't say anything about requiring administrator-level tools before doing so. So I would say that my initial gut call is that the WMF wouldn't object to what is happening here, however, given the recent statements about access to deleted revisions, I agree with you that it makes sense to clarify. When considering the reasons for requiring election for access to deleted revisions, they're primarily due to concerns about deleted content and access thereto. In this case, since these AUSC committee members are given access to deleted content, I do want Geoff to weigh in. So I'm sorry, all of that just to say "It's complex, and I honestly don't know." I'll find out. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe, thank you. I understand that CU and oversight might be seen differently by the Foundation, as only the latter involves access to deleted revisions. But if you and Geoff are going to consider whether access to oversight ought to require some form of election (RfA or equivalent), I hope you'll also consider whether access to CU should too. Having access to CU allows a user not only to check another editor, but I believe also allows access to the logs of all accounts and IP addresses checked within a certain time frame – which could be several months' worth of checks – so there is considerable access to private data. Sometimes this data is sufficient to identify an editor; for example, if s/he is posting from a small workplace. It concerns me that this could be offered without any scrutiny from an electoral process, whether RfA or some other. I know that elections are imperfect, but they're arguably better than nothing. Anyway, I'll wait to hear from you. Many thanks again, SlimVirgin(talk)22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for your patience. I took the question to our legal team, and have communicated this to Risker (for the committee) and will also post to WT:AC/N. In summary, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process. While we certainly think the goal of involving non-admins in the oversight functions is laudable, and we support expanding the role of non-admins, this is one area in which we are forced to constrain that activity. We think that we have been consistent, for some time, in saying that we require an RFA or RFA-identical process for access to deleted revisions.
With that said, I personally erred in not noticing this earlier and in not putting an earlier stop to it. I wish I could explain how that happened, but I'm simply at a loss to understand how I missed such a clear connection between the statements that we (and I, personally) have made around this and the practice that I knew was going on. I want to thank you for pointing it out, SlimVirgin, because it's an opportunity for us to correct that mistake. I apologize to the committee and the community for not doing that earlier, and want to express my apologies to any non-admins who may have applied for this permission this time or in the past, when the Foundation really should have stepped in to prevent that. I hope that they will use their energies for another opportunity to help the project, and that they will understand and accept my apology. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to answer that, because I hate sweepingly broad statements, but... as a general rule, this definition from the legal team can be held as universal. I can't (right offhand) think of any exceptions to it, but I would encourage specific wikis with questions to come to me individually. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can name several of the support wikis (chapter wikis, Meta, Outreach, test, etc.) that do not follow this principle - is that because they are not content wikis that this is allowed? --Rschen775420:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Test is a special case, because developers often need to test code around that, for instance. Chapter wikis are broadly left to the chapters to control, with very few exceptions. Wrt Meta, can you tell me what you mean there? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Meta, most of the temporary adminships are granted immediately without discussion. There are legitimate reasons for them to have such rights though, in my opinion. --Rschen775420:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow up question here: Since the main role (in fact, iirc the only role permitted by the committee) is to oversee the use of the OS and CU tools, and the viewing of oversighted revisions from a technical standpoint does require the "sysop" bit to function correctly, would it make sense that having a non-admin on the AUSC is possible because they would only be able to view the OS log, including reasoning, but not individual revisions unless they were e-mailed such revisions through a mailing list, for example? Not that I'm running anytime soon (or ever), just wondering why it'd be a problem since iirc the Oversight tool requires the RevDel and the view-deleted tools/rights to function properly for the viewing/deleting of revisions, and the OS group doesn't include the view-deleted or delete tools, only tools above and beyond the RevDel. gwickwiretalkediting23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine how a user who cannot see what was actually suppressed would be of any use to a group that reviews the appropriateness of suppression actions. It would be like doing a GA review for an article when you could only see the section headers. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they see some questionable log actions, they can always e-mail the list for the AUSC, and one of the others could give them the data if necessary, if the WMF would approve of that. Regardless, a very knowledgeable CU who doesn't really dabble in OS (or never had the bit) and wasn't an admin may be beneficial to the AUSC, i.e. have a member for the Checkuser permission, and the other 5 members be able to access both. There are a number of non-OS Checkusers currently (well, at least one). gwickwiretalkediting01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Given your statement that "access to deleted revisions... require[s] an RFA or RFA-identical process", can you please also offer an additional statement on the behalf of WMF containing its opinion on whether children should have access to deleted revisions. Thank you. — Hex(❝?!❞)15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the WMF, but my personal opinion is that someone being a child is not a sufficient reason to grant them access to deleted revisions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hex, here's your answer, from the WMF's privacy policy and past statements on this subject (not official, but I'd be willing to bet that this is pretty much what Philippe wll affirm). Age only matters for the access to the OS and CU tools, and for any jobs that may involve these tools. Since admins are of any age, hell, if we didn't know their age we'd possibly !vote a 10 year old into adminship! The age for adminship does not exist, and the foundation has no legal need to make one. There are administrators on other projects as young as 14-16, and they do a damn good job. Excuse my language, only used for emphasis :) gwickwiretalkediting19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we haven't officially made a statement as to age and access to deleted revisions, but I think that is, in itself, a statement. I'll ask our attorneys, if you'd like, but it'll be pretty far down the list of priorities, unless there's an immediate and pressing concern. If it's just a general inquiry as to our feelings on a policy, I typically tell people that "Assuming we know of its existence, if we haven't stopped it, we certainly don't think it's tooooo odious." Is there an immediate and pressing concern? If so, email me privately (philippewikimedia.org) and I'll look into it. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No particular pressing concern. I'm just trying to get a full picture of what the WMF is saying. In this case it appears to be that there is no legal problem with a 14-year-old, or possibly even younger, as Gwickwire notes, having access to deleted revisions, so long as they have passed the RfA process. That's interesting. — Hex(❝?!❞)11:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about 'deleted revisions' do you mean any article that is deleted, and not just those that have been oversighted? They seem to cover quite different situations, since most deletions are a statement about spam / notability / quality... – SJ +18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the statement implicitly includes checkusers since they were granted viewdeleted rights in this RFC (whose intent was, somehow ironically, to allow non-admins to become CU, among others). Cenarium (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Canoe1967, I'll say up front that I am not a lawyer, nor am I a non-legal expert on copyright. In fact, the amount that I know about copyright can best be described as "barely passable". I typically refer all copyright questions to Maggie Dennis, our senior community advocate, who also knows how to rope in legal counsel when it's over her head. May I suggest that you start with her? I'll draw her attention to this conversation as well. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had left a note on her talk page in the Aircraft section. I misunderstood her response and left a note here. I didn't want to contact the lawyers directly. I am just wondering if the use of these images is cut and dried. Is an image of a copyrighted 2D character represented in a 3D hot air balloon a copyvio even if FOP is allowed. In countries such as the USA where FOP is not allowed can we upload images of hot air balloons that have unique shapes or is that a copyvio of a 3D sculpture. Does the Batmobile copyright case extend to all the images we have of it on commons? We have commons:Template:Second Life that states that 3D works created there are copyrighted by the creator in Second Life. If Second Life creations are affected by a real life copyrights like the yellow submarine, a batmobile, SpongeBob SquarePants etc. Can we host images of them in commons. We may need policy/guideline clarifications on these issues. A Second Life section may need to be added to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter above as well. Feel free to copy/paste any of my text to others that wish to review it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process.
Many current admins passed their RFA several years ago. The RFA process years ago bears no resemblance to current RFA. That means there are a large number of admins with access to deleted revisions who have not been through any RFA-identical process.
If F insists on people passing RFA to see deleted revisions, then admin status should be removed from people who passed when the standard of RFA was completely different. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We considered the issue that you raise. However, we believe that the fact that those admins retain their bits is a definite sign that the community continues to trust them (including the modified community of today - versus their original community that voted them in) and therefore, that is sufficient. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An issue of which you might want to be made aware of...
Philippe, are you aware of this thread. I am told that mainstream media has been known to pick things up from this blog, so we should be prepared with a strategy should this become a story outside of Wikipedia. GoPhightins!22:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to thank you for your efforts, but the outcome isn't 100% clear to me. Do you feel confident that we won't see any more unapproved mass-editing projects from this professor? If you do, I'm happy to let the matter drop. If you don't feel that a commitment was made and it isn't possible to get a clear commitment, I am going to feel compelled to seek a ban on such activities. (I would greatly prefer to leave this behind us.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe, I think Looie raises a good point. Also, I noticed that WoodSnake seems to imply in his most recent comment at the Education noticeboard that he maybe does not intend to watch carefully there, but instead is going to pay attention only to what you tell him. Nonetheless other editors are responding to him there, in ways that he should be paying attention to. So you may either want to point him back there, or watch there carefully yourself in order to convey what the community is thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Affaire Pierre-sur-Haute
I am not coming into this as a one-off, I have been dealing with rampant impropriety by administrators for the last couple months. It has brought my editing to a halt. In that respect, I have a bias in all this.
So what. Is Wikipedia now to be subject to the whims of the foreign secret services? The mere fact that this was caught is an anomaly. We should know what will happen next time:
"And make an excuse so it won't get reverted."
That is a concrete hypothetical. It is bound to happen after this fiasco. And then what? We'll deal with that when it happens? Not his or her fault? Just another mistake?
The real question is, did he or did he not abuse his administrative position, yes or no? yes, he did. Why he abused his administrative position is already determined: because he wanted to. Simple. He did not want to resign. He wanted to avoid becoming a free speech/Wikipedia martyr and keep his social status on Wikipedia.
I have personally gone out of my way to make it clear that Europeans may be required to censor Wikipedia in contravention of Foundation policy, and yet everyone has ignored it. (People, you, probably don't even realize, that "freedom of speech" as we know it here in America is decades old; it hasn't always been this way.) That's fine, ignore it. But enough is enough. This is about as concrete as it gets.
You must understand that something must be done. Either the European-language project will be based on European-American sociopolitical values, or European ones. This is not hypothetical, I have been talking about it for a while now. Europeans are well represented on the project. Europeans have freedom of speech like Chinese have freedom of speech. (Really, the Chinese have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, with fewer statutory exceptions than Europeans do.)
The time to solve this problems was months ago, but now will do just fine. It is an "architectural" problem, a policy problem. That's you. If not, well, I'm sure I'll do alright, its the other editors and readers that will get screwed. Int21h (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought it was obvious what I say I should have done: resign my administrative privileges. It is a similar situation if the government asked a defense lawyer to betray his client or be arrested. He has a moral obligation to resign rather than do either.
Then you didn't read what I said. How could he resign? You think they were going to wait for him to resign, politely? He was being presented with the choice of do it, now, or face punishment. He had no access to resign. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank, I think the hypotheticals about what the Interior Ministry would or would not have done if he would have resigned is besides the point. He agreed to the TOS. He violated the TOS using his administrative privledges. Willfully. Every European should reasonably know that what happens on Wikipedia can subject them to arrest in Europe. Its obvious. Russia, France, Germany, England. Wikipedia has content that is illegal in all those jurisdictions; but the only thing that matters is it is legal in California and within Foundation and project policy. If he fears arrest in France for it, then he should not have become an administrator on an American website. He did so anyways. Otherwise we get into the finer points of "oh BLANK told him to do it or face punishment so its OK". We can sit here debating it forever but the facts are clear. If these are valid excuses for violating policy then it should be formalized that you can violate policy with no repercussions under certain circumstances. Lets not play the "I know when I see it" game. Int21h (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did resign, at least temporarily, but the idea that he should be held accountable on Wikipedia for his actions shows what a fool you are. RyanVesey04:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. He did resigned. After he abused his administrative privledges, and only "temporarily." I do not believe it is foolish to hold a user accountable for his responsibilities to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If those conflict with your responsibilities to your Lord or Prefect, leave. Int21h (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude.... he resigned AFTER.. as in after he got home so that they could not do it again. When they made the demand he was IN their office. He really couldn't very well resign there, they were literally right there with him and making a threat that, as far as I can tell, means he may not have been allowed to leave. To that end if he refused we may not even know about it for 24-48 hours because he had no way to get the message to us. He knew full well that the community was going to restore it, I don't think you can judge him at all. You have no clue what you would do in that position until you are in that position.
Hi! Would you mind making some comments at d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining oversighters about the WMF's position on a few things? I've made comments related to one of the threads above about non-admin OS, identification, stewards, and abuse of the tool and dealing with that, but I think it would help if they heard from you. --Rschen775421:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VPT#Concerns with Flow is a discussion where major concerns regarding the deployment of flow are listed. I share in them, and seeing as there is no response from anyone from WMF, I thought it prudent to notify you, our community advocacy director to, I don't know, advocate for the will of the community. Thanks Philippe. GoPhightins!02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of writing an answer. It should be noted that this thread was started around 10:00 am. local time, and it's now 9:00 pm local, and it's a day off for everyone. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I did not pay attention too carefully to the times ... I saw how many replies there had been and assumed that it had been open for a few days. My apologies. GoPhightins!12:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Philippe (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Signpost comment request. Message added 22:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Philippe, at Jimbo's suggestion, I'd like to draw your attention to this discussion on his talk page (you may need to read the main discussion to understand the context). Please comment, if you have anything to add. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe - I'm both a long-time Wiki editor and also a contributor to a Facebook group page with content that regularly links to FB pages created from Wikipedia articles. I've been trying to find out how & how often those FB pages are updated to reflect the current content of the matching Wikipedia articles. There's no way to get answers from Facebook about things like this, but I did locate a discussion that you took part in here on Wiki back in 2010 that approved a request to allow a Facebook bot to carry out automated updates on a daily basis. So at this point what I want to know is whether that arrangement is still in effect, or has it been superseded by something else? If you don't happen to know, perhaps you could suggest who might be able to provide the answer. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cgingold,
My understanding is that the Facebook bot updates those on a daily (or more frequent) basis. I have the ability to force a manual update of a page if necessary, but we try to discourage that, because I don't scale (except horizontally, with the aid of chocolate). If that understanding is no longer correct, please let me know, and I can check in with Facebook on it. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe - Thanks for your reply. I'm really in the dark as to what is going on with Facebook. They're not exactly transparent and responsive to inquiries from users - such a huge contrast with Wikipedia. The reason I'm concerned about this issue is because a couple of days ago I made a series of edits to 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. Some hours later I discovered that the FB page derived from that page had not been updated to reflect my edits. I checked again later in the day, and again the next day -- still no update. That was when I started looking on the internet for info about this issue -- which is in very short supply! But I did find the discussion I noted above, and you know the rest. It's now been about 48 hours since I edited the Wiki article, and the supposed mirror on Facebook still has not been updated. So I am really wondering what the current arrangement is, since it clearly isn't happening on a daily basis any more. I would be most appreciative if you would be good enough to check with Facebook -- especially since this undoubtedly affects more than just this one article. Thanks again for your help with this! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would have been nice to push it thru when I first spotted the problem, but that particular occasion has already come and gone, so there's no real need to expedite things at this point. However, the same basic issue will come up again in the near future with regard to other articles, so I sure hope they get things squared away ASAP. Thanks again! Cgingold (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Hey, what do you know? Looks like Facebook got their bot up and running again! Not only the article in question, but also another article it links to have been updated to reflect recent edits. Hopefully this will continue on a regular basis. Speaking of which, did you happen to find out from your Facebook contact how frequently their bots are supposed to update the articles?
You know, it occurs to me that, as much as I appreciate your help on this, it sure would be nice in the future to have a direct way to make problems like this known to a person or dept. at Facebook who would actually respond in a timely way. In fact, I've already discovered another major problem with those articles that needs to be fixed as quickly as possible. (This one doesn't really involve Wikipedia, so I won't bother you with the details.) I realize, of course, that you have no control over such things, but perhaps you could pass this request on to your contact at Facebook. In any event, thanks again for your very helpful intervention, Philippe. Greatly appreciated! Cgingold (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
serious harassment issue
Hi Philippe, if you're not aware of it I'd like to direct your attention to User talk:Jimbo Wales#NSFW - Wikimedia Commons video. I won't try to explain what is happening there, you'll have to read it. In my view if this happened to anybody except Jimbo it would provoke an office action, and in my further view the fact that it is Jimbo ought not to matter. There are obvious reasons why Jimbo would not want to ask for an office action himself, hence this message. You're probably not the right person to contact, but I don't know anybody better -- can you tell me who is? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The STOPhaus Movement is Claiming That WP is Maliciously Libeling Them
You may or may not be aware that there has been an ongoing feud between an anti-spam organization known as The Spamhaus Project and an anti-censorship collective known as The STOPhaus Movement. This has spilled over into Wikipedia community due to a largely biased and one-sided section on a page that seems to be gvery one-sided altogether. The Spamhaus Project has a page on Wikipedia and on that page there is a discussion concerning STOPhaus and their involvement in the "Largest DDoS Attack in History" as NYT so sensationally called it.
The NYT journalist, Nicole Perlroth and John Markoff were fed the content by Cloudflare, a DDoS mitigation company working alongside The Spamhaus Project. The Wikipedia article reflects on allegations against The STOPhaus Movement and even goes as far as to use a quote calling us "spam and malware hosters", "criminals" and various other libelous claims. We, if there is a "we" are a group of people, users, ISPs, and various anonymous supporters that believe that Spamhaus are over-aggressive in their means to the point it is, or should be, illegal. The debate is whether or not they are, in fact, criminal in their actions.
I am reaching out on the behalf of The STOPhaus Movement to suggest that your editors allow the inclusion of the allegations against Spamhaus, made by STOPhaus or the removal of any reference to STOPhaus from The Spamhaus Page. Maintaining what we are calling libel without moral or reasonable grounds to do so appears to be malicious propaganda and is being received as such. Congratulations on your new life, but you should understand first hand, how a NYT inaccuracy becomes a PR nightmare and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. should not promote the libelous abuse of any group of people.
Especially since the largest STOPhaus support comes from your hometown and a recently formed Political Party in Pinellas County support TSM. Seems you should be a proponent for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, bring a Floridian. Maybe London has already gotten to you though, who knows?
The Wikimedia Foundation takes no position on content in the vast majority of articles. We are a passive content host only, interceding when there is a legal need to do so. I'm afraid that I can't help you here.
Have you obtained legal consultations from expert lawyers that independently
supports the ArbCom party-line that WMF and Wikipedia have no control over IRC, despite Jimbo Wales's statement to the contrary, and
A. no, not me personally. I don't know if the WMF ever has.
assure you that WMF and Wikipedia comply with COPA/COPPA despite requiring email from users with accounts (with registration being repeatedly requested to IP editors until they register),
A. My understanding (disclaimer: IANAL) is that the WMF is exempt from COPPA.
assure you that you, Sue Gardner, the WMF board, and other Wikipedia/WMF officers have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of child predation despite WMF/Wikipedia's
A. I'm not sure why you think I need legal advice to be so assured.
not requiring parental permission from 13-17 year olds (per COPA/COPPA),
A. See above.
not requiring child-safety training from leadership (Tea House, adopters, etc.),
A. See above.
allowing an editor to instruct a child how to overcome his parents' removal of email addresses and continue to email and IM the child and tell another child of an upcoming visit to his town,
A. The WMF does not run an IM or email system and would thus have no knowledge of or responsibility for those things.
being warned by ArbCom that they lack the expertise and time to handle existing child predation cases (even with the existing policy)?
A. We are in discussions with Arbcom about this currently.
I would suggest that you (or an officer with a clue) alert the Board of these concerns at the next meeting and assure them that (1) outside counsel has been retained to review these questions and (2) WMF/Wikipedia is consulting on child safety with experts (e.g. Boy Scouts, or Girl Scouts). Kiefer.Wolfowitz08:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damon Dash has now been blanked for nearly two years. It's time to make it an article again, since this is way too long. It seems that Template:Pp-reset is the way to go.
How about: Damon Dash (born May 3, 1971) is an American businessman known for his roles in Roc-A-Fella Records, Rocawear clothing and DD172, a nightclub.
The page has been protected for 2.5 years. Will it be protected forever? Does it need to have the gigantic banner for all time? The page mentions you specifically, otherwise I would have posted at WP:VP, or on the article talk. Cheers. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe, Sorry to bother you as I know you're very busy, but the community has worked itself up in to quite a frenzy and the User:________(WMF) folks are taking quite a beating right now. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do, but I wanted to offer some suggetions. If the foundation is looking in to things, perhaps you could issue a statement similar to this
The foundation has heard the community loud and clear. We are looking in to your concerns and will be addressing them shortly. Please give us a little time to repsond
Or maybe you could start a poll that list specific concerns so that the community can vent by signing a poll rather than going after specific foundation employees. The community is getting really personal and I don't think it helps them or the foundation staff and so I'm hoping some type of intervention can cool the flames. Like I said, I'm not sure if there's anything you can do, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Kind regards. 64.40.54.109 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philippe. An Office question has come up at RFUP, regarding an obscure/obsolete page that is allegedly protected for legal reasons; it would be great if you or someone else could take a look. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)05:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."
We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."
So we would like to bring that discussion to the attention of every member on board and some staff.
Personally, I agree with Jimmy that the Commons community has gone down a sad and disappointing path. Unfortunately, as staff, our role is limited. We have no power by fiat to change things there, and that is correct and right. I am always, however, looking for positive ways for us to exert what influence and moral authority we do have toward corrective action there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy blanking an obscure article talk page and then pointing to from a prominent page draws far more attention to it than leaving it alone would have -- I've removed the link here [5]. NE Ent13:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Philippe (WMF). I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Hey Philippe. I hope you're doing well and that you think the WP:Wikimedia Foundation page will be helpful to the community. I just wanted to post a minor quibble. I saw your edit summary here, and I thought it would have been better without the "Excuse me?" and the "DO NOT". I understand it's a serious matter, but it just came across to me in the wrong fashion (we do have this, after all). The talk page post definitely got the point across well, with a better tone, in my opinion. Well that's just some random feedback. Carry on and best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have to say, I've never had an edit summary come under such scrutiny. The reason for the strong tone there: we frequently employ several different tactics in an attempt to make sure that one of them speaks to the recipient. Not all people respond to the same styles - that's why my talk page message was so much softer - in hopes that at least one of those two would resonate with the user.
The truth is, reverting office actions is A Big Deal. The potential risk to the projects is massive (in that case, the DMCA filer could have legitimately sued us - and though they would not likely have prevailed, the opportunity cost and actual cost of mounting a defense would quickly rise into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, we could lose Section 230 immunity, which would imperil the future of the entire project.)
@Biosthmors:, please note that the section you link says "virtually never appropriate", not "don't ever do it." I do it frequently as a volunteer and have for years preceding my even knowing what the WMF was. :) You can glance through my contributions dating back probably as far as 2007 to see that one of my most frequently used edit summaries in my copyright cleanup is "copyright problem removed. PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE. See talk."
Beyond that, speaking of Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility, I'm a little concerned about adding your own disagreement with another person's actions presumably with the intent of enshrining it permanently into a public facing board. :/ This is not a step I would take without clear consensus on the appropriateness of this, as even if others agreed that it was an inappropriate use of capitalization or that the tone should have been different, capitalization is not forbidden and - even if it were or even if the tone seems tense - we do not generally encourage shaming of others on Wikipedia. I don't understand the purpose of it, other than to make sure everybody knows that Philippe did something of which you don't approve. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. User:Philippe (WMF), no worries: I'm just looking for material I guess. With regards to: I think it's actually a pretty bad practice to mount accusations on a supposedly neutral page, I don't see it that way, but I take your larger point. It's just a bold and quick first attempt. And Maggie (WMF), I understand what you're saying with I'm a little concerned about adding your own disagreement with another person's actions presumably with the intent of enshrining it permanently into a public facing board. I'll remove it so there's no need to worry. I'm just trying to be bold to stimulate progress. The whole purpose of the section is to try and explain what makes Wikipedians happy about the WMF and what makes them not happy about the WMF. I regret I've concerned you both so much with my first attempt. Thanks for your replies, and I'll make some corrective edits. OK, now that we're done with that, any other thoughts about how to improve the page? Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Biosthmors:, I'd recommend trying to keep it fairly concise, actually. If people are going to use it as an information page, it's better to avoid making it so long that people overlook important points. A few points:
"The WMF develops software used on the English Wikipedia..." I think it might be good to point out that this work is also undertaken by volunteers? I'm constantly pointing people through answers@ to mw:How to become a MediaWiki hacker :)
I would probably link to wmf:Work_with_us with the "they are hiring" bit. Note that hires go beyond engineering as well, in case you'd like to put a general link to that.
There's no such thing as "WMF chapters". :) Chapters are separate organizations and do not fall under the WMF umbrella. I would call them "Wikimedia Chapters" myself. The link you have there is to a page that doesn't exist; you want wmf:Local chapters.
Under reception, I might be careful about suggesting that the community acts as one entity (I read that in "the members of the community"). My experience is that it isn't, not by a wide shot. :) Hence, the community might be simultaneously happy and unhappy.
While some of us do sometimes work long hours, I'm not sure I'd link to a single IP contributor saying so. :) I'm also not sure what you mean by "which might explain some of the Wikipedian–WMF dynamic."
In addition to the Legal Fees Assistance Program, I'd probably mention Defense of Contributors.
I'm not rushing, and am working on a version that will place significantly less load on the servers (see User:Kww/common2.js).
As for "compromise", the community has been extremely explicit in what it wants: it wants VE to be an opt-in editor that is used by experienced editors that have consciously opted-in to the tool and have the skill set necessary to monitor their edits for unexpected side effects and damage. The community has expressed a firm consensus that VE is not yet ready for deployment to new and anonymous editors. WMF's response has been to force an impasse: refusing to accede to a quite reasonable demand on the part of the community while proceeding to deploy VE wider and wider.
People are willing to compromise. Reasonable editors (including myself) have signalled willingness to help test the product. All we ask is that you not deploy incomplete and partially tested products in a production environment.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied in more detail on Kww's talkpage, but the tldr is this - The WMF cannot expect the community to compromise when the consensus is already there. They should implement the consensus, or not get unhappy when it is implemented locally. ~Charmlet-talk-17:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your note here was unfair. It's pretty frustrating to see you accuse others of acting hastily when many (if not most) of the objections to VisualEditor came from the perception that the Wikimedia Foundation was moving too hastily to deploy the software widely. In some ways, after reading your comment, I wonder if you simply missed the relevant request for comment. You seem to completely ignore it and instead decide that you're "dismayed" that someone might try to implement the overwhelming consensus that formed there. Did you read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC and its associated talk page? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Acting hastily to actively damage the experience of users, numbers of whom have repeatedly given anecdotes of better editing experiences using [the Wikitext editor] would be in violation of long-standing practice about not breaking the software, and be an exceptionally bad idea." Is this quote of yours, with a minor adjustment by me, not exactly what the WMF has done and continues to do across all of Wikipedia? E.g. the rollout of VE to some 20 further wikipedia language versions? Perhaps the people at the WMF can try to think whether any comments they make can be applied (more accurately) to what they have been doing over the past few months, before posting them here. All you do is fan the flames and give more reasons why people ignore the WMF and implement whatever solutions they can instead. Obviously, if your main worry is that the solution about to be implemented to enforce the RfC consensus isn't optimal, your best course would be to provide a better solution. Fram (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Director, Community Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
"Where else in the world can you have a job that lets you support the people who change the way that the world uses information? It's an amazing job."
Any reply to the above comments? It's your job, after all, so some indication that the above has been read and grokked would be welcome. If the WMF wants to rebuild some community trust, more communication (and preferably of a different kind than what we have had the last few weeks and months) would be a start. Alienating many of the most active editors may create a community feeling within the English Wikipedia (with many people who can't agree on anything all agreeing on the opt-in and on their basic opinion of the WMF's handling of this situation), but it has disrupted the community feeling between WMF and en-wiki badly. Fram (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After you insulted me in an edit summary here and then on your talk page here, I'd really rather not have any contact with you on any level. But it seems you're WMF legal's community liaison.
There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:BLPN#Louisville teen sexual assault case about the ethics (largely) of publishing the names of juvenile offenders. Some have raised the possibility, though, that publishing the names of juvenile offenders may be against the law in the US, and may leave the Foundation vulnerable. Have we received advice on this question from Foundation legal in the past? If not, would you please pass this on to somebody qualified to offer that advice?
While wandering through WP:OFFICE, I noticed that Talk:Derek Smart/Archive1 and the other archives all say "Don't reverse this action without permission from Philippe or his delegate", but none of them mention who the delegate is. When you're back from your medical leave, could you edit these pages to add the name of your delegate? I'll notify Mdennis too, but I'm asking you in case she doesn't know who the delegate is. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!" – JKadavoorJee06:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update Just wanted to note that voting starts 00:01 (UTC) on 25 November 2013, which is the week of the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm going to ping @Tim Starling:, @Reedy: and also @Jalexander: just in case their help is needed. I want them to have some advanced notice so they aren't caught off guard. Thanks for everybody's help. 64.40.54.210 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lock was placed by a bot, not a human, that has been rectified. Also, the policy does not read as you have stated, it reads "The vast majority of cases are libel, unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy, and copyright infringement." (Emphasis my own) -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ)09:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... (WMF)
Hi Philippe, thanks for your post on my talk page. This mixup tonight raised an interesting question in my mind. At the time I blocked RYasmeen I had thought I stumbled on a new trolling strategy, appending "(WMF)" to usernames to trick admins. Though it turns out that wasn't the case here, for future reference, is it technically possible for someone to do that? Or is there a filter that blocks people from registering usernames with that at the end? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Arsten:Yeah, we've spent some cycles on that, off and on, for a while. There were bugs when we tried to use the AbuseFilter to screen for that, and when we tried to add it to the title blacklist to prevent it (namely, staff members who had never edited a particular wiki could not then use their SUL'd account to SUL into that wiki and auto-create the username... because the creation was disallowed by AbuseFilter.) It's something that continues to needle at me, but it hasn't made it to "crisis" mode to get into higher order thinking lately. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to
.jpg){kind=link}
