| Revision as of 23:35, 28 January 2014 view sourcePhilippe (WMF) (talk | contribs)3,830 edits →Now that the kerfluffle is nearly over: Response to LeakyCaldron.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 28 January 2014 view source Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs)3,830 edits re to Begoon→Now that the kerfluffle is nearly overNext edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| :::Pro tip: "No" is only 2 characters. Would have saved a lot of time, been equally dismissive, and answered as many of the points raised. "Stop asking me to justify what I can't, it's embarassing, and I can only bloviate" is somewhat longer, so I can kind of understand why you didn't choose that. | :::Pro tip: "No" is only 2 characters. Would have saved a lot of time, been equally dismissive, and answered as many of the points raised. "Stop asking me to justify what I can't, it's embarassing, and I can only bloviate" is somewhat longer, so I can kind of understand why you didn't choose that. | ||
| :::I am, however, disappointed with your reaction. You are, I believe, an employee tasked with "community advocacy". As a member of the community I brought you concerns. There's no reason to ignore them other than reluctance to address - which is fine, I suppose, in it's way (except it's your job) - but tell me you're not going to answer the question if you like - don't try to brush me off with non-answer crapspeak. That's insulting. Many of the points I raise have nothing to do with legalities or confidentiality. Many of the things I asked are easily addressable with no recourse to the bullshit in your answer. The only thing in your reply that means much at all to me is that you give a reason to use tools which local communities don't use or permit. That's fine, but you abjectly fail to give any reason why PC2 could be the best tool, let alone the only tool - useful in any circumstance (let alone this specific one), and the direct points I make about the user group concerned with its approval? No response whatsoever. What makes PC2 better than PC1, except that it restricts approval to a very oddly selected group? What advantage does it give to the PCI group, or to us? It should, surely, be an easy answer, since you clearly must have understood why this was the best scenario when selecting it, given that you always give these things a huge amount of thought? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> | :::I am, however, disappointed with your reaction. You are, I believe, an employee tasked with "community advocacy". As a member of the community I brought you concerns. There's no reason to ignore them other than reluctance to address - which is fine, I suppose, in it's way (except it's your job) - but tell me you're not going to answer the question if you like - don't try to brush me off with non-answer crapspeak. That's insulting. Many of the points I raise have nothing to do with legalities or confidentiality. Many of the things I asked are easily addressable with no recourse to the bullshit in your answer. The only thing in your reply that means much at all to me is that you give a reason to use tools which local communities don't use or permit. That's fine, but you abjectly fail to give any reason why PC2 could be the best tool, let alone the only tool - useful in any circumstance (let alone this specific one), and the direct points I make about the user group concerned with its approval? No response whatsoever. What makes PC2 better than PC1, except that it restricts approval to a very oddly selected group? What advantage does it give to the PCI group, or to us? It should, surely, be an easy answer, since you clearly must have understood why this was the best scenario when selecting it, given that you always give these things a huge amount of thought? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> | ||
| ::::Distressing. I suspected you wouldn't be thrilled with my answer, so I cross checked it with a couple of people that I trust here who also are privy to the full details. I don't think I can provide you with further detail that will satisfy you, but I truly do hate that you seemed to see it as an amplification of the situation. It was intended to disclose what I could, while protecting the legal situation, which remains an actual active case. I could certainly make this go away, I suspect through a couple of paths: first, to lay down my accounts and say that I'll never touch an office action again. I'm unwilling to do that. I'm proud of my record with Office actions - we've drastically curtailed their use and - but for this dust up and one with the article about Damon Dash - we've done so rather quietly. As a whole, I think you would find that folks who work with me on wiki will tell you that my responses tend to be well-reasoned and logical. I would request that you think things through by looking at the totality of my time on wiki, in which I have consistently and strongly defended the community. Now what makes you think I would abandon that now? I continue to take the actions that I do in order to protect the projects and the Foundation. Some of them are controversial and loud. Most of them are quiet and cause no fuss because of the careful way that we execute them. But occasionally something happens, and I'm forced to take a stand... any action that erodes the OFFICE action policy compromises a threat to the safety of the projects. Not the Foundation - the project. So yes, I reacted strongly to that. I said before and I'll say again, I wish it had gone differently. No doubt I made the situation worse. I won't convince you that I'm telling you the truth, I know. But I do believe that the actions taken with the Conventional PCI article were correct. Pending changes level 2 is the level of protection warranted, in an effort to maximize the number of people who can edit that article. People of good faith can disagree. I suppose you and I will never agree on that; thats okay. I respect your right to disagree. I wish I could show you everything I've seen about this. But I can't. ] (]) 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*PC1 would be slightly wider, would still require review of the edits by others, and is supported by our policies and practices. PC2, as it stands right now, permits approval of the edit by a group of editors approved during a trial that occurred in the past and still possess a user-right that is rarely given out today. Are you certain that PC1 would be insufficient? I take it that you are also affirming that full protection, while not meeting the WMF goal of providing wide access, did not actually cause any legal issue.—](]) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | ::*PC1 would be slightly wider, would still require review of the edits by others, and is supported by our policies and practices. PC2, as it stands right now, permits approval of the edit by a group of editors approved during a trial that occurred in the past and still possess a user-right that is rarely given out today. Are you certain that PC1 would be insufficient? I take it that you are also affirming that full protection, while not meeting the WMF goal of providing wide access, did not actually cause any legal issue.—](]) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Where did I affirm that? I've said no such thing. I don't recall making any comment on the legal issue or lack thereof that was caused by your action. ] (]) 23:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | ::::Where did I affirm that? I've said no such thing. I don't recall making any comment on the legal issue or lack thereof that was caused by your action. ] (]) 23:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 28 January 2014
 Archives | ||||||||
|
||||||||
Starting anew
Archiving happened again. :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
J R Kowalski
Also pinging User:Jalexander: User:J R Kowalski claims to be WMF - is this the case? If not, can you take the appropriate actions? --Rschen7754 20:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- He is not affiliated with us. It looks like User:LFaraone got him though. Thanks for the headsup. @Jalexander: - no need to respond. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Question
| Anon, no, I won't answer your questions. That would be totally a waste of my time. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to consider any point of view but your own, and my time is better spent doing other things. |
|---|
|
Hi Philippe (WMF), you're the director of community advocacy, whatever it means. Maybe you could explain to me why your community is so desperately afraid of transparency and so desperately afraid of the truth to come out? What little, dirty secrets they are trying to hide? Besides preventing me from using talk pages within Misplaced Pages policies to defend myself not only violates all norms of humanity adopted in the civilized world ,but also violates my constitutional right of freedom of speech. So what say you? 69.181.42.248 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec)
@Johnuniq: I'm not entirely sure you're wrong. But I'm going to say this first: Anon, no, I won't answer your questions. That would be totally a waste of my time. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to consider any point of view but your own, and my time is better spent doing other things. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Philippe (WMF), it is simply untrue. I said repeatedly and repeat it one more time: I am willing to apologize as soon as I'm presented with a valid evidence I harassed the admin or any other Wikipedian for that matter. So far nobody was able to present one. There were screams, there were lies, there was closed tribunals in which I was not allowed to participate, and there was a sick witch hunt, but no evidence of harassment. And what is you point of view(I hope you have one) which I demonstrated "an unwillingness to consider"? 69.181.42.248 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
- 76.126.141.88 and 69.181.42.248 appear to be sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user mbz1. SPI Filed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Update?
I was reading this New York Times piece, which has been sent to me by a few colleagues and others. It's actually too bad it is getting so much circulation, because it has a lot of really awful mis-information. But I was wondering if there was any update on the Wiki-PR situation (I'm presuming they did not cease or desist) and/or the "statement" I heard the board was going to make taking a position.
The legal angle (astroturfing regulations and whatnot) are a big part of how I persuade companies to participate ethically and stand on firm ground when pressure comes down the pipe to stray from an honest contribution. So I am somewhat obsessed with it. CorporateM (Talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- @CorporateM: I don't actually have an update on this - I know that we are continuing to ask that the community handle Wiki-PR socks as per standard procedures, so I believe we're still just watching for breaches of the cease and desist. Much beyond that, I don't know. I am unaware of any potential Board position, but I probably wouldn't be consulted beforehand on that. I'll ask around and see if I can get an update from legal that I can post. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- On a separate topic, do you think someone from WMF legal would be willing to speak at the WOMMnext conference? They are big on ethics and disclosure laws. Because of the emphasis on the legal aspect, I figured a WMF lawyer would be the best possible option if someone is willing to. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The question isn't so much "are they willing" as "are they available". Our lawyers are incredibly busy. But you could write them and ask. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who would I write to? CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose it would help if I told you that, huh? Instead of letting you read my mind from however many miles away? :) Sorry... yeah, I'd start with Geoff Brigham - gbrigham@wikimedia.org. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who would I write to? CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- The question isn't so much "are they willing" as "are they available". Our lawyers are incredibly busy. But you could write them and ask. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- On a separate topic, do you think someone from WMF legal would be willing to speak at the WOMMnext conference? They are big on ethics and disclosure laws. Because of the emphasis on the legal aspect, I figured a WMF lawyer would be the best possible option if someone is willing to. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:OFFICE talk
Your template talks about "this protection" and "such information" despite not having previously referred to either of those things. Perhaps you should rephrase the first sentence to something like: "Information has been removed from this article under the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, and edit-protection may have been used to enforce this removal." – Smyth\ 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- It also seems like a good candidate for indef full protection, even though it's not used on very many pages, since... well... WP:BEANS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's a vague not helpful template. It should link clearly and explicitly to the specific restrictions in place. NE Ent 00:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that the kerfluffle is nearly over
One thing that I have noticed is that you have never precisely stated why the problems with Conventional PCI require using a protection level that is proscribed on English Misplaced Pages. While I understand that there may be some level of secrecy involved, can you explain at some broad level why PC2 and only PC2 is appropriate?—Kww(talk) 19:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I posted this elsewhere, but it bears asking here too:
- PC2, as far as I can see, just means an approver needs to have "Reviewer" or "Admin" before the change is visible:
- Template:Pending_changes_table
- Now, granted, that seems to stop vandal changes being instantly visible, relying on "Reviewer" status before that can happen - but I don't think we're talking about vandalism here, are we? I'm a reviewer, and I'm not looking out for the PCI organisation if I review - nor, I doubt, are the hundreds of other "reviewers" who were given the right while it was being tossed around like candy while PC was being steamrollered through as the latest, greatest thing. I didn't ask for the right, or pass any "tests" - so I'm not really clear how including me in the group of people who can approve these potentially illegal edits helps. Nor have I ever agreed to be included in such a group or been trained or briefed on such a thing.
- I strongly suspect, anyway, that an organisation concerned with preventing publication of copyright infringements on their property, and with ensuring compliance with a legal take-down request concerning such, gives far less of a shit about all that crap than it does with the legal requirement of having the infringements removed - permanently - reliably. I'm damn sure the courts would give no shit at all.
- Can you comment on that, or does secrecy forbid?
- Sorry for jumping in here, Kww, but the questions were fresh in my mind... Begoon 17:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- only in the broadest of senses and it will likely be unsatisfactory to you both. Generally speaking, the WMF has a fixed set of tools at our disposal. Anytime a project restricts one of them it takes a size able hunk out of our inventory. This may mean that at times we do not follow a local community rule about a tool, because, frankly, those rules did not take our use case into account when they were being crafted. As an example, as the content host, no judge in the world is going to let us get away with an argument that we had a *tool* to do something but could not do so because of a local community rule.
- we pick our level of protection with a great deal of care. Generally speaking, we have an almost fanatical concern that the article be open to editing by as many people as possible while meeting the goal of the protection. That was always the case here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pro tip: "No" is only 2 characters. Would have saved a lot of time, been equally dismissive, and answered as many of the points raised. "Stop asking me to justify what I can't, it's embarassing, and I can only bloviate" is somewhat longer, so I can kind of understand why you didn't choose that.
- I am, however, disappointed with your reaction. You are, I believe, an employee tasked with "community advocacy". As a member of the community I brought you concerns. There's no reason to ignore them other than reluctance to address - which is fine, I suppose, in it's way (except it's your job) - but tell me you're not going to answer the question if you like - don't try to brush me off with non-answer crapspeak. That's insulting. Many of the points I raise have nothing to do with legalities or confidentiality. Many of the things I asked are easily addressable with no recourse to the bullshit in your answer. The only thing in your reply that means much at all to me is that you give a reason to use tools which local communities don't use or permit. That's fine, but you abjectly fail to give any reason why PC2 could be the best tool, let alone the only tool - useful in any circumstance (let alone this specific one), and the direct points I make about the user group concerned with its approval? No response whatsoever. What makes PC2 better than PC1, except that it restricts approval to a very oddly selected group? What advantage does it give to the PCI group, or to us? It should, surely, be an easy answer, since you clearly must have understood why this was the best scenario when selecting it, given that you always give these things a huge amount of thought? Begoon
- Distressing. I suspected you wouldn't be thrilled with my answer, so I cross checked it with a couple of people that I trust here who also are privy to the full details. I don't think I can provide you with further detail that will satisfy you, but I truly do hate that you seemed to see it as an amplification of the situation. It was intended to disclose what I could, while protecting the legal situation, which remains an actual active case. I could certainly make this go away, I suspect through a couple of paths: first, to lay down my accounts and say that I'll never touch an office action again. I'm unwilling to do that. I'm proud of my record with Office actions - we've drastically curtailed their use and - but for this dust up and one with the article about Damon Dash - we've done so rather quietly. As a whole, I think you would find that folks who work with me on wiki will tell you that my responses tend to be well-reasoned and logical. I would request that you think things through by looking at the totality of my time on wiki, in which I have consistently and strongly defended the community. Now what makes you think I would abandon that now? I continue to take the actions that I do in order to protect the projects and the Foundation. Some of them are controversial and loud. Most of them are quiet and cause no fuss because of the careful way that we execute them. But occasionally something happens, and I'm forced to take a stand... any action that erodes the OFFICE action policy compromises a threat to the safety of the projects. Not the Foundation - the project. So yes, I reacted strongly to that. I said before and I'll say again, I wish it had gone differently. No doubt I made the situation worse. I won't convince you that I'm telling you the truth, I know. But I do believe that the actions taken with the Conventional PCI article were correct. Pending changes level 2 is the level of protection warranted, in an effort to maximize the number of people who can edit that article. People of good faith can disagree. I suppose you and I will never agree on that; thats okay. I respect your right to disagree. I wish I could show you everything I've seen about this. But I can't. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- PC1 would be slightly wider, would still require review of the edits by others, and is supported by our policies and practices. PC2, as it stands right now, permits approval of the edit by a group of editors approved during a trial that occurred in the past and still possess a user-right that is rarely given out today. Are you certain that PC1 would be insufficient? I take it that you are also affirming that full protection, while not meeting the WMF goal of providing wide access, did not actually cause any legal issue.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I affirm that? I've said no such thing. I don't recall making any comment on the legal issue or lack thereof that was caused by your action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)As an aside, nevertheless a relevant one, I read with incredulity your reaction to Kww's change in article status. The fanatical concern you describe above appears to extend to the manner in which you defend "your" responsibilities. However, I am not the only one to have expressed concern about the approach taken by you in this instance. I note your relatively early but rather token apology. Having presumably read the entire AC motion, how would you deal with a similar situation in the future? Do you consider yourself rebuked by the comments in the Arbcom. motion, including by members of the AC relating to your behaviour? Leaky Caldron 17:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Believe me, I'd love nothing more than to not have to defend these actions. They are one of the parts of my job that I like the least. Nobody is ~ever~ happy about an office action - and no one is ever satisfied with the resolution of them. I have not read the entire AC motion at this point (due to several other critical issues at work), so I don't wish to comment on it (and likely won't wish to comment on it, even after I do read it). If an admonishment to me exists, I'm sure that I'll feel admonished. I think I said clearly in my statement that there are things that I wish I'd done differently. I suspect Kww feels there are things that he wishes he had done differently too, although I haven't spoken to him about that, and don't really want to put words in his mouth. Would I approach it differently? Absolutely. ~How~ would I approach it differently? I respectfully decline to answer that, because I'm not anxious to put both an actual action and a hypothetical one on trial. I hope you'll understand that. I'm sorry that you felt my apology was token. It wasn't. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)