User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive2

From Strategic Planning

Appeal letter

Nice appeal letter - will there be translations? Will the translation effort be coordinated? Could this draft be marked 'ready for translation' when it is? It might be linked to (the translation) from nl.wp notice board in two weeks time. Dedalus 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will be as many translations as we can possibly get. cbrown1023 will coordinate the translation effort through Transcomm, but it is ready to translate immediately. But yes, I should mark that it's not ready for public distribution yet. -- Philippe 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left Reply on ACP page

left you a reply on the ACP proposal page
Proposal:MediaWiki Admin Control Panel


I´ve got a question about Process#Phase IV: Business Planning/ Call to Action. I don´t understand the sentence "what role it needs to play in this higher-level strategy" and therefore I have got a problem to translate that. What is the meaning of "role" and does "higher-level strategy" means Phase 4? --Goldzahn 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problem solved. --Goldzahn 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure broader participation

Hello Philippe.

I am at this very moment translating this to Portuguese (almost ready for reviewing) and later will do Spanish, if not already done. Meanwhile, I had this thought, that it would be awsome to have a link to the strategy page from Wikipedia's mainpage, or at least from Meta (also, I wish those icons at the bottom of main page were at the top on every page, that is, permanently visible) . That little icon alone might bring as many people in as anything else we may do. Also, could we not have a word with Gopher or someone at wikinews and ask them to run an article on this process? It is after all news on its own right, the fact that wikipedia (wikimedia) is about to take a leap - how big? in any case, perhaps we ought to think of wikimedia's mediatic power in a broad sense, if participation is what we are aiming for? Hope that doesn't come across as presumptuous, just sharing some thoughts. And since I am at it, another one: on the call for proposals list, we now have proposals arranged by category and then alphabetical order. A great leap from what we had at first, but as many proposals belong to more than one category, they get to occur on the list the same number of times as the categories they belong to. This, I feel, ads to confusion, despair (oh, sh-t, too much to read) and bad economy. Please consider if this might not be a further improvement: On a table, arrange proposals alphabetically in the left column, indicate the categories they fall into in the right column(s). That would allow for current rankings to be posted too. Au revoir, -- Thamus joyfulnoise 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thamus, these are all very good suggestions. I'm going to look into which may be feasible tomorrow. -- Philippe 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. It may be a single line, but no more is needed to make you (one) want to go on working. It is somehow important to know that someone is listening. Just in case you needed that confirmation. :)


Hi, Philippe I put arguments to support my position:

Thank you for your attention and for having accepted me as an administrator. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 01:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodrigo - received, and I'll look at them very soon; I've tried to actually take a day off (total fail, I'm not very good at that.) -- Philippe 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Did you really need to spam the Proposal talk pages? I think your action will have little feedback...--Kozuch 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are actually two answers to that. First, yes, I really did, because the Board of Trustees specifically asked that we include that question on all proposals. Second, I personally think that it's a great way to get discussion about that particular question, and I'm pleased to see it happening on some proposals. I think the net result is positive. -- Philippe 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "Impact" section to proposals would be a solution too probably. But you are right this can ignite some reactions maybe.--Kozuch 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, adding an Impact section to the proposals was my first thought; I was concerned about having the template change in mid-submission though. I didn't want some to have a section that others didn't, and going back to add it to already submitted proposals might have been problematic. This seemed like the lowest-impact method, and it could be done by a bot and so not clutter recent changes. -- Philippe 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my intruding here, but yes, that may have been a bad good idea. I remember I was not a little angry at Philippe at first, something like "why don't you read the proposal, then make a genuine question". My anger didn't last long though, and that particular proposal needs rewriting anyway. But the reason for my intrusion is, I wonder it's not too late to clarify the reasons above for other people not reading this thread. We all suffer from an x degree of prima-donism, and I'm affraid that for someone in Philippe's position its a little like moving through a minefield... -- Thamus joyfulnoise 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thamus, that's a really good point. I think I'll do a VP post about it. Thanks for the idea. -- Philippe 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Values

Meta:values does discuss wmf:values, however the core set has never been translated to any other language than English. So why aren't they communicated? No, they are! The wmf:Donate/Transparency pages in all languages available do link to these values, while most links on these translated pages do link to a translated page ... So why not? The Board of Trustees never passed a resolution on these values! On meta the thing has the status of essay. Value based organization development has been the Anthere thing. Ok, I like Anthere very much, see Proposal:Values. Dedalus 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au Revoir Wikipedia

Well, Philippe, that was a bit extravagant now, but since I am leaving I'll let you go unpunished ;) Thank you. My time here was as fascinating for me as it was short. After this sunday I will no longer have the means to stay connected in the same regular way that allowed for my being so active here during the last month or so. I trully regret leaving undone so many things I meant to do, but that's just how life is. I would still like to send you a few parting thoughts about my impresssions here, that you may decide to share with the community if you see any worth, but I'd prefer it if you had an e-mail that I could use for that. Mine is (or All the best, -- Thamus joyfulnoise 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First convenors resolution

Philippe, have a look at First convenors resolution, edit if necessary, and please sign if you do agree. Dedalus 09:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new users

Hi, thanks for the note about the welcome message. We should, however, consider using the mw:Extension:NewUserMessage for welcoming new users. This gives us the opportunity to modify the welcome message on-wiki instead of having to change it in the bot code. Regards, --ChrisiPK 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've had a bugzilla request in for weeks. Since it's not a high priority, it's simply not happening (which is right and good - high priority stuff goes first, always). Rather than have nothing, we've got the bot. :-) -- Philippe 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Philippe,
You used a bot to put the questions about the impact on the discussion pages of proposals? Because I modified the template to categorize. But I've lost the "whole" day and I could not edit more than one hundred pages.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used a bot. I'm not sure what the purpose of the template is? It seems to me that discussion is a better way to do that? I mean, impact may be rated differently by many people and using a template for a certain rating implies that that is the "official" impact of the proposal. Discussion is much better, I think... -- Philippe 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The utility is to categorize, so that we know, after a discussion, what the community thinks are the important points. You can see that I kept all the discussions and only put the ratings that had previous discussions, except the "Fair Use", that the impacts are already expected. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier, then to add a category for "impact" to reader feedback? That way, we're not populating it across hundreds of talk pages and flooding recent changes and wearing you out? -- Philippe 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how would we know that a proposal "X" is evolving? With this feedback we can see the level of discussion and can measure how important the proposal is for the community and the community still think that will affect the End User. In addition, we encourage discussions on the proposals that were classified as massive impact, but with low choir.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "how would we know that a proposal "X" is evolving". Could you restate it? I'm a little slow on Sunday afternoons. :-) But we can pull reports from reader feedback (anyone can, at any time) and view what people have voted and see graphs of the evolution. But I'm all for encouraging discussion in any format; my primary concerns it that I'm afraid people will see the template and think "well, the impact is decided" and move on. I'm also incredibly willing to not be involved in decision making on this level and to not advocate for a change one way or the other. I would prefer to see things proposed somewhere before they impact hundreds of changes, but also want to encourage people to be bold and edit. Sometimes I have trouble reconciling the two... -- Philippe 22:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think of another way, if people see the template and talking: "Hey, I do not agree with that, I'll have to talk about" or "Ow! That level of discussion is very low, I have to talk"... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 22:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me the template does not look like a good idea. I guess for this to work there needs to be a group of users to evaluate and update the ratings, and such a group is not there. Now it looks like an invite for anybody to pass final judgement. - Brya 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing about the fact that the template is a good or a bad idea, but I do think we need some kind of assessment of the impact. I think that people should be able to do that themselves. Delphine (notafish) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people should evaluate individually, but how do we know what to deploy? How will we know what the community thinks is good for the Movement? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a feature at the bottom of each proposal that aims to do just that. I have no idea if it actually works, but it looks like a promising starting point for what you want (as opposed to your template). - Brya 06:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it does work. - Brya 07:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level of discussion

The template states: Second parameter is the level of discussion of the proposal. Can be a number between 1 and 5, where five is the highest level of discussion and the proposal can be deployed or denied

I am not sure I understand what "level of discussion" really means. Is this about strategical vs operational? Or something else? Thanx! notafish 07:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my template :) Actually one that I haven't gotten involved with... I try to let the community work those things out so that its' a community driven process.... -- Philippe 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1=not discussed at all; 5=discussed at length (everyone knows all arguments). Dedalus 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level of communication

This is a very well hidden message, even for someone who has been online nearly all day. Dedalus 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

I'll put up a sitenotice :) -- Philippe 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you beat me to it! :) -- Philippe 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mail me the secrets about the delay :) Dedalus 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No secrets, nothing juicy... just wanted to make sure that we roll it out right, and a couple more days gave us time to close the loop on things. -- Philippe 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome bot

What's going on with all of the un-welcomed users over the past few days? Is the welcome bot not working, or are these people who joined before the welcome bot was up and running? Gopher65talk 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I havne't taken the time to really look into it, but I suspect that it has to do with whether the account was created here or started here on SUL... perhaps it's welcoming one type of account and not the other? -- Philippe 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Whatever the reason behind it, I'll start watching for unwelcomed accounts again though. Fortunately it doesn't look like there are that many, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Gopher65talk 02:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worked; but Rectification Needed

Worked for me :) unfortunately I seem to have two accounts now. Registered as Piandao in wikipedia, and had to register as Piandao:en here as my usual name was not available - bottom line. I only need one and now it seems I have caused one to be created in Wikipedia as Piandao:en - aka Confused. please help,FanQ  Piandao:en  21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Form Text fields in foreign languages


for your information: I updated the regions in the forms of the 3 languages below,as I think the previous versions would give mixup in the forms.

The french version had sorted the regions alphabetically. The englis version is also sorted alphabetically, but I think that will give a mixup as the 3rd in english is Asia but in the french it is Amérique latine. The chinese version had an extra line like 其他(請注明) [SMALL TEXTAREA], probably something like 'Other country, please specify'. As far as I can see the other languages are OK. I did not check the mr language as I could not find info about the continents in mr.wikipedia.

HenkvD 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philippe, as the edit war has only been exercised by an IP adress, I have lowered the protection of this page to autoconfirmed users. Please always consider using the lowest level of protection needed to keep the disruptive people out. We should also think about whether this really needs to be indefinite or whether we can reduce it to, say, 3 weeks or so. Best regards, --ChrisiPK 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I'm uncomfortable allowing one party in an edit war to edit and not the other. That's why I chose the protection level that would fairly apply to both. Indefinite means just that: indefinite. Not infinite. It has never been my intention to leave it infinitely. I would be very surprised if I'd leave it on even three weeks. Please do me the courtesy of checking with me on administrative actions... I think it's a courtesy to check with the administrator who makes any action before overturning it. -- Philippe 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as a general rule, pages should always be editable by as many users as possible. I thought this was policy for every Wikimedia project, that's why I didn't see the need to ask you about it before changing the protection level, sorry about that. I disagree that we should "exclude both parties" when we clearly find that only one of them is disruptive. Also note that a full protection would not exclude Dedalus, who is a sysop here and has also reverted the disruptive IP adress. Excluding both parties from editing is only if there is a dispute and no clear resolution to it. However, this is not the case here, we basically have consensus that proposals should be categorized and this does not constitute an endorsment; there is only one users repeatedly changing the page and not respecting the consensus. Usually this would result in a block of the user rather than a protection of the page. As this user is using a dynamic IP adress, a block would not be feasibly without massive collateral damage, so unfortunately we need to protect the page against all IP adresses. I can, however, not see a reason why we would prevent autoconfirmed users from making constructive edits to the page. Regards, --ChrisiPK 19:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good night. Can u delete this page, please. - Iniquity 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the link.

But any discussion of funding seems to be well hidden. I could find little reference to it.

(Mind you, somewhat hampered by the lack of a [Search] in Wikimedia Strategic Planning. Why is there no search function ?)--Richardb 00:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. -- Philippe 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Didn't notice it had moved from left hand side navigation panel.--Richardb 00:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC) OK. If you are an administrator, perhaps you could do me a favour. Change the name of my grandly named page from Strategy for Funding to Funding Ideas. No need for redirection. Thanks. --Richardb 01:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wow that was quick.--Richardb 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages to be deleted

Sorry to bother you, but you're the only admin I know, and I don't see any board on pages to be deleted. Can you take a look at Category:Deleteme ? Thanks. MarianoC 12:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) For future reference, admins are listed at Strategic Planning:Admins. You can leave messages at the administrator's noticeboard, which they should be watching. -- Philippe 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thx! --MarianoC 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One day -> Infinite

I take it I was too friendly, this time?  :-) Regards, Wutsje 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]