Jump to content

User talk:Philippe/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explanation, please?

[edit]

"along with a warning to not change infobox parameters": If you'll take a moment to read my edit summary, it was a polite request, not a warning. I did not make any accusation of policy violation. I did not say anything about vandalism. I did not suggest any threat of block or other sanction. My exact words were "Please don't tinker with infobox parameter", which is not a "warning". Please assume good faith.
"reverted him for what appears to be no more reason than you liked the previous version better": If you'll take another moment to look at the version of the infobox before and after his edit, you'll see that his edit removed part of the important information in the infobox. Specifically, before his edit it read: "Last: Pope Benedict XVI, 19 April 2005 - 28 February 2013". After his edit it read: "Since February 28, 2013". It's not uncommon when an edit removes important information, especially without explanation in an edit summary, that edit is reverted.

Now, I'll assume good faith that you hastily fired off your message to me without looking at these details and thank you for that message, misguided as it might have been. Have a good day!. Cresix (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

[edit]

A concern about checkuser and oversight

[edit]

Hi Philippe, I have a concern related to 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. [1] 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.

My question to you is: does the Foundation have the same minimum requirement for access to the checkuser and oversight tools? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

m:CheckUser and m:Oversight indicate the minimum requirements globally. --Rschen7754 19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made clear that I'm asking only about the English Wikipedia. So far as I know, it has no CUs or oversighters who aren't admins, so the proposal to appoint one without an election that is equivalent to RfA (with the same consensus requirement) is a concern, particularly as it seems to clash with the Foundation's position on deleted revisions. I've just realized that I've asked this on Philippe's personal account so perhaps I should move it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

[edit]

WikiProject Wikify April Drive

[edit]

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]

Wiknic 2013

[edit]
Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

[edit]
  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

[edit]

You're invited...

[edit]

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

  • Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
  • Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

[edit]
Just because: pie! *hugs* phoebe / (talk to me) 17:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

[edit]

Togo

[edit]

This may interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be advisable to seek further confirmation before taking this too seriously. I have the nasty feeling all is not as it seems and I even sort of know who the posted the linked post. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed trolling.[2] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

[edit]

October 2013 Wikification Drive

[edit]

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Players (New York City)

[edit]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

[edit]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

[edit]

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

[edit]
Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!
Hi Philippe! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

[edit]

Illegal protection state

[edit]

I notice that per [3]] you have placed PC2 level protection on an article, citing "office action". While I am cognizant of the implications of an office action, PC2 is not a permitted protection state on English Wikipedia. I have upgraded the protection on the article to "full" pending your action to set the protection at one of the permitted protection states: semi, PC1, PC1 plus semi, or full. I thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.—Kww(talk) 01:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by this unilateral overriding of an Office action without consultation and will be reviewing its ramifications. In the meantime, I would ask that the term "illegal" not be used to refer to mere violations of internal Wikipedia policies rather than actual laws. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an override, Newyorkbrad. I chose my action carefully so as to not override an office action. Had I reduced the protection, I believe that I would have been in violation of WP:OFFICE. By increasing the protection until Phillipe determines an acceptable protection level for the article, I ha ensured that all protection that the office required has been maintained and the article is safe from any form of disruption that the office was seeking to prevent.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Designated Office actions must not be unilaterally reversed, ever, and certainly not without your having even consulted with anyone. It is true that raising the article's status to full-protected was less blatantly irresponsible than unprotecting would have been, but there was no need to suddenly take any action at all, especially without checking with anyone. I will wait to see if Philippe or Legal have any response before taking any action here, but I caution you not to ever, under any circumstances, negate or modify another Office action in this fashion again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Less blatantly irresponsible"? Are you seriously arguing that office actions set a maximum protection level for an article and admins cannot increase the protection? Note that I did not even remove the PC2 protection that was in place, as it is rendered harmless by the full protection.—Kww(talk) 04:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KWW, I am astonished at the absolute lack of judgment that was displayed here. The OFFICE policy has always been a bold, bright line for this policy, and this is the first time I can recall that anyone has altered an OFFICE action that was so marked - when it hasn't been blatant vandalism. I want you to know that I just spoke to the legal team about your actions and asked them what to do. To my eyes, I see two things here: a violation of the no-alteration rule as it pertains to the OFFICE policy, and a violation of the protection policy (unless, of course, you can independently demonstrate that the article deserves to be fully protected in accordance with that policy - in which case, you should present that evidence now).
We select the level of action very specifically and with a great deal of care. If you have a problem with it, you're invited to contact us prior to taking action. That's the minimum standard expected of any admin when overriding an action, much less an OFFICE action.
On any other wiki, I'd be removing your tools right now. However, on this wiki, because there is a functional Arbitration Committee, I'm going to, instead, refer this to them for them to determine what sanction to take. You should take this advice: before altering an OFFICE action, talk to the Office. That should be obvious to any admin who exercises the minimum standard of care on this project. I further point out the notice at the top of the talk page, which says:

This article is the subject of an action performed under the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation. Under no circumstance are editors to remove this protection or edit in an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of it. Any attempts to provide such information will result in the reversion and suppression of the edits made, and the user in question may be blocked for an indeterminate length of time. Questions regarding this action may be left here, addressed to the Foundation at legal@wikimedia.org, or addressed to Philippe Beaudette. This restriction will remain in place pending further instruction from the Foundation. For more information, please see WP:OFFICE.

@Newyorkbrad:, may I ask you to take this matter to the committee? If the committee would like further information, I stand at your disposal. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I await the interesting definitions of "circumvent" and "remove" that would have to be applied to make my actions improper. You installed a protection level that was impermissible under our protection polices. That protection has been increased, not removed or circumvented. Had you shown respect for our policies at the time you installed the protection, the difficulty would not have arisen.—Kww(talk) 05:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of improper protection levels, reversion to improper protection levels, and inappropriate use of WP:OFFICE policy to attempt to prevent increases in protection on articles has been noted at an Arbcom case.—Kww(talk) 05:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

[edit]

An Arbitrator is confused (and me too)

[edit]

You wrote in your log for this account that you "Added pending changes to Conventional PCI, which staff rights didn't give me the permission to do." It seems User:Carcharoth doesn't see any technical reason for that [4]. Perhaps you should clarify what the issues are, probably on the ArbCom page for everyone to see. Thanks, Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has already offered a plausible technical explanation [5]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration declined

[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 00:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again. Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 00:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe/Archive8&oldid=1168306321"