User talk:Philippe

This user may have left Wikipedia. Philippe has not edited Wikipedia since April 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Did it again. :-) -Philippe (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Klug&curid=31658515&diff=672163636&oldid=670779637--TM 19:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems reasonable. Certainly not done to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing it out. -Philippe (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Philippe, I suggest that we should not be speculating on an editor's mental health; even when tempered with what may or may not be best for it. — Ched :  ?  07:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, you're quite right. I will remove that portion. Not sure what I was thinking there. Thank you. -Philippe (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philippe! Just to let you we're deactivating the all-access UTRS account associated with Philippe (WMF). If you want, you're absolutely welcome to request a new account from Philippe and we'll activate you right away, as well as flag you as a CU. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Philippe.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1063 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1063 of Precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<3 . -Philippe (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user Helmoony is mass-removing "Tunisian arabic" in articles that was in place since several months. after the debate in Tunisia portal in september, an admin finally decided to grant the mention of Tunisian arabic for the names of people and places. Things were so settled since then, but the user Helmoony is recently removing all the mentions, could you please do something about it ? Thank you.Zangouang (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to take a look, but honestly it will likely not happen until this evening at the earliest. If you need quicker action, you might want to leave a note on WP:ANI for an administrator there to have a look. -Philippe (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. -Philippe (talk)

• I've just activated your account, and asked our developper to flag you as CU. Glad to have you back! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a former employee of WMF, you could perhaps give me some insight. You know the results of the harassment survey that were published (I saw your reaction on the mailing list). You may or may not know that those results were hugely inflated because they counted all responses, including those where people gave a value of zero (for the question: how many times did you experience the following types of harassment).

Quick overview:
The first two days of the survey, people couldn't skip items that didn't apply (Kalliope (WMF) reported on nov 4 that it had been fixed). This will have resulted in a lot of zero answers present.
The raw data of the results confirm that zero values were included: the average and standard deviation for revenge porn and hacking are mathematically impossible with only values between 1 and 100. The revenge porn results contain at least 381 zero's. It's a weak lower bound, the actual number cannot be determined from the average and standard deviation (doxxing for example could contain even more zero's, or none at all, the lower average/sdev ratio makes it impossible to conclude anything )
The revised report simply dropped the percentages (respondents who reported each type of harassment) and instead gives the averages for each type. This is useless information, because people gave inflated numbers. The average and sdev for hacking for example are only possible if the 14 highest responses add up to more than 1000 (49% of total). People having their account hacked more than 70 times?? The most likely explanation imo is that with 10 sliders from 0 to 100, people will have indicated the importance, rather than the number of incidents (or the sliders were difficult to move accurately, or a few trolls..).
There has been no straight answer to the claim, it seems obvious to me that they don't want to admit the error and give the correct results. The qualtrics application may or may not provide a way to count non-zero results (the help page for slider controls mentions limited analytic tools as a possible drawback ), I don't know, but the site explicitly mentions the option to download all data if users want to perform additional processing.
The most likely reason why they won't address the issue, imo, is that the real figures are much lower, and releasing them would raise the question why they didn't double-check the very unlikely results.

That's the short summary. Few people (outside the WMF) know the exact details I think, my first (erroneous) hypothesis (a technical error, forcing users to enter non-zero values) was based on a feedback post from nov 3 (saying he could only proceed to the next question after entering non-zero values for all the ten types listed), and it was this version that people posted on reddit and on Jimbo's talk page. People reading the survey talk page could also easily get the wrong idea. The two versions would give the same results btw, in both cases all surveys from 2 to 4 november would be affected. The big difference (which I should have realized much sooner): it's pretty unlikely that hundreds of participants would submit wrong answers because they couldn't finish the survey otherwise, and only one of them would report it.

My question: if you accept this version of events, do you think there is a chance that the WMF will publish the results eventually, or will they ignore such request because the impression of a "botched survey" is preferable to the alternative? I've seen little interest from the community, Patrick Earley's reactions (on the survey page and on his talk page) don't answer my questions, so I've given up trying to get answers on-wiki. I'm currently considering which science journalists or statistics blogs might be interested in doing a story about it.

BTW: Do you think any of the resignations last week (and the comments from Siko) could be related, or am I simply too focused on this case? Prevalence 12:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should begin by saying that while this report was issued by members of my former team, I had nothing to do with its execution, and was not around for most of the time period in question, so I am not privy to any details about how this was constructed or what design choices were made.

You ask

• if you accept this version of events, do you think there is a chance that the WMF will publish the results eventually, or will they ignore such request because the impression of a "botched survey" is preferable to the alternative? - I do not yet know enough to know if I accept this version of events. However, my experience with this team suggests that if errors were made, they will be corrected.
• Do you think any of the resignations last week (and the comments from Siko) could be related, or am I simply too focused on this case? - No, my understanding is that none of them related in any way to this case. Rather, they were exactly what they appear to be... a mix of people moving on for various reasons. I would place this case's importance in those decisions at around 0%. -Philippe (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my scenario the decision would have come from the top, not from inside Support and Safety or CE. It hasn't exactly been a good news show lately, maybe they wanted to avoid yet another WMF controversy on top of it. Thank you for your answer. Prevalence 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the fullness of time, we will realize that this is exactly what it appears to be: errors that were made at an unfortunate time. Sometimes with hoofbeats you chase zebras... but sometimes, they're just horses. This is all horse, I think. -Philippe (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Patrick Earley gives "the data and graphs weren't as informative as they should have been" as motivation for removing the percentages and displaying the averages instead, what else can one conclude? I changed my opinion about the team not responsible for the decision btw, I just noticed that even though these averages are useless as averages, they do correspond fairly well to the number of users who would have reported each type of harassment (if you take 30 as corresponding to 100%, most values seem reasonable). So the team could easily justify it for themselves, no harm done...

Doesn't change much as far as I'm concerned, for someone who understands averages, the results for the rare types are still absurd. And they introduced another error: saying that the statistics are based on 1215 respondents, instead of on the specific number of responses received for each of the ten questions. For hacking there were 760 responses, which gives a total of 2044 (760*2.69) reported incidents, not 3268 (2.69*1215). Prevalence 15:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to give you thanks for conducting that gigantic CU at Isla Riordan, and some coffee to help you stay awake through it. Much appreciated! GABHello! 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks! Much appreciated.  :) -Philippe (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me if you need a hand. Risker (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I salute your decisiveness when recommending a duckblock for Gushtasp as a Egaplaicesp sock. Egaplaicesp is however definately the same person as the prominent sockmaster Tirgil34. Having this fact established by an administrator would be of great help to future SPIs. Aside from their same behaviour of promoting Turkic at the expense of Indo-European history in Central Asia through edit warring and extensive socking, their connection can be proven with solid evidence:

• Proto-Turkic language/Urheimat: Tirgil34 (IP sock)[1]/Egaplaicesp[2]
• Haplogroup R1b: Tirgil34[3]/Egaplaicesp[4]
• Identical way of marking edits: Tigil34 (IP sock)[5]/Egaplaicesp[6]
• Quoting "starling.rinet.ru" source: Tirgil34[7][8][9][10][11][12]/Egaplaicesp[13]
• Promoting the image "Eickstedt Europe Turanid.jpg": Tirgil34 (image created by Su4kin)[14]/Egaplaicesp[15]
• Pazyryk culture/Pazyryk rug: Tirgil34[16]/Egaplaicesp[17]
• Karasuk culture/Karasuk languages: Tirgil34[18]/Egaplaicesp[19]
• Quoting "ncbi" source: Tirgil34[20][21]/Egaplaicesp[22][23][24][25][26]

Regards. Krakkos (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it would be useful for future purposes, I have a fairly strong belief that checkuser is a tool of last resort - when we can demonstrate account relatedness in other ways (as we very clearly can here), there is no need to use Checkuser. Using it probes into the activities of anyone using the same IP, and any innocent parties deserve to have their privacy protected as much as possible. Therefore, where we have behavioral evidence that can clearly connect users, I always consider that a better way to do so. I agree with you that this evidence is damning, and would consider it to make the connections. -Philippe (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe, can you explain what exactly is going on at User:Gmartin1122/Wikia? I was just dating the draft and it looks like you created a WP:UP#COPIES of Wikia with incomplete attribution which is fine but why is it in the userspace of another editor who's only edit was a COI notice and why are you working on it there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gmartin is a coworker of mine at Wikia. We are collaborating on a new draft of the article to present on the talk page as a beginning point for an update to the article, in hopes that we can convince some folks to make the necessary updates. That is also why both of us placed COI notices up pertaining to Wikia. We won't be directly editing the article, of course, just providing a draft as a starting point, on the talk page. -Philippe (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks. The userspace choice was a bit unusual to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I absolutely understand that. Obviously, we're working very hard to be sure that we are within policy here - when we take the suggestions to the article talk, we will again disclose our COI, and use the appropriate templates. At the same time, because this article is a derivative work of the one that's already there, the attribution issue will also be cured. If there's anything we can do to make this more transparent, I welcome the suggestion. (Obviously, the intention was to lay all of this out when we go to the article talk, you just beat us to it - and beat me to getting the article cleaned up and ready as well, btw.) -Philippe (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philippe.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Philippe! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 17:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You're invited to The Black Woman is God Edit-a-Thon at SOMArts in San Francisco on Saturday July 22, 1-4 pm. It'll be at 934 Brannan Street (between 8th & 9th). Everyone is welcome to join this editing event, held in conjunction with The Black Woman is God exhibition to raise the online visibility of Black women artists and challenge the gaps in art history that erase or minimize Black women’s contributions as artists, activists and social change-makers. (Message requested by Dreamyshade and delivered on 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC). You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this note here, because I know that many people still have me watchlisted. I am disclosing a COI related to Atlassian. I am an employee of Atlassian, though any edits made here are unrelated to my employment. With that in mind, I've added the new Atlassian logo, and left a note on Talk:Atlassian with a link. Would someone please swap out the infobox logo? Thanks. -Philippe (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:New logo for Atlassian Corporation.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.