Jump to content

User talk:Mdennis (WMF)/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Governance of the English Wikipedia

Here is one more comment for the WMF, that is a component of other issues that I will identify shortly. Should I also post this to User talk: Jimbo Wales, or will this suffice? I am deeply cynical about the WMF board collectively. It is only individual trustees whom I trust. The board collectively seems to have reached the point where it is no longer trying to communicate in a two-way sense with any of its communities. That is, it is no longer listening, only talking. That may be the result of the fact that it is now self-sufficient in terms of earnings, assets, and revenue, and so doesn’t really need the confidence of the readers or editors. I haven’t seen any recent effort by the WMF board to ask for input from the readers or the editors. Its interests seems to be its own travel, its own splashy campaigns, and poorly documented grants. If I have misunderstood, then it is the Board that needs to explain better, because most of the outspoken editors are in complete agreement with my cynicism. Do I have your assurance that some of my concerns will go to the Board, or do I need to post to User talk: Jimbo Wales, which has useful comments but also flamers, malcontents, and trolls?

The basic problem has to do with the governance of the English Wikipedia. I am aware that the WMF Board takes the position that each language Wikipedia, and each WMF Wiki in general, is self-governing. That is a valid general principle, but common sense is needed. Because the English Wikipedia is said to be self-governing, it is ungoverned. It has an unworkable governance model, and, because it is self-governing, it is not capable of its own governance reform. The English Wikipedia is said to be governed by consensus, but consensus is often not feasible for a group as large and diverse and fractious as the English Wikipedia. Consensus governance doesn’t work in the English Wikipedia, at least not with regard to policies or conduct. It works reasonably well for content in the form of Requests for Comments. However, the idea that the English Wikipedia can, on its own, change its governance to something other than consensus is just unrealistic. We don’t have a consensus as to what form of governance we want. From time to time, editors have said that they would like a constitutional convention. There is usually agreement that a constitutional convention would be good. However, consensus, in the sense of supermajority, is elusive. Any constitutional convention for the English Wikipedia will anyway require some sort of support from the WMF Board. Does the WMF Board think that its responsibilities include helping the Wiki communities achieve effective governance?

To be more specific as to my assessment of the self-governance of the English Wikipedia, we do a good job on Requests for Comments. In my opinion, we are essentially always stalemated on any policy matter, because we are deeply divided, and the consensus model of governance does not work for a large, diverse, fractious community. (We have had a few policies enacted for us by the The one body that we have that is exempt from consensus is the ArbCom, which was created by Jimbo Wales (not by the community), is elected by majority, not by supermajority, and acts by majority, not by supermajority.

In short, is the WMF Board sufficiently satisfied with its own perception that each of its communities can self-govern (that they will ignore evidence to the contrary), or are they willing to work with a very large, nominally very successful community (but never successful at governance) to achieve practical governance?

Can you and/or the WMF Board help the English Wikipedia, which is very large, very diverse, and very fractious, achieve more or less effective governance, or do you have a principle that you can’t get involved in communities, or something else?

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above, Robert, you can post your thoughts to the Board directly on Meta, at m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. They may not respond (I believe sometimes they do), but I know they are aware of and alerted to matters posted there.
That said, I'm not sure the extent to which you are mingling the Board and the WMF in general. I do not work with the Board. I work with the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, including the executive director. The Board generally consults the community through consultations managed by the WMF. Such as, for instance, the current and ongoing strategy consultation or the m:Harassment consultation 2015 (phase two of that will launch soon; we just released the preliminary survey report) and the cyclical public input into individual engagement grants. In such conversations, the WMF routinely asks for input from readers or editors, sometimes explicitly on request of the Board and sometimes as part of routine outreach to inform its work.
The WMF Board clearly wishes to help the Wiki communities achieve effective governance - as I linked above, they recently extended the responsibilities of the Ombudsman Commission to include ensuring that local CheckUser and Oversight policies (where concerns are voiced) conform with global standards. That said, whether the Board would choose to step in on guiding policies that might lead to better self-governance is likely to depend in part on the demonstrated need for such. (Other considerations would include resources to resolve and the urgency of the issue related to other work that is being done or could be done.) You mention "evidence to the contrary" of effective self-governance: evidence is exactly what would be required.
In the immediate, however, this is something you should be voicing at the strategy consultation, because we will be nailing down our next strategy very soon - and major projects that are off-strategy are unlikely unless there is a clearly demonstrable emergency. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Comments

I will be directing my future comments elsewhere. I had been advised to communicate with you, but, as you said, you are staff and not Board, and I was looking for the Board. Unfortunately, the obvious place in the English Wikipedia to communicate with the Board is User talk: Jimbo Wales, but it is full of trolls and flamers as well as reasonable people. Also, I am aware that the staff and the Board do not communicate with each other effectively (and statements to that effect keep coming up in connection with the discussion of the removal of James Heilman from the Board). I will have to find a different way of communicating with the Board at meta. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. As linked above, the m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard is a good place to reach out to them. Meanwhile, I hope you do choose to share your thoughts at the current strategy consultation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I need an office action, or at least an admin action - DMCA followup

Ref: wmf:DMCA If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.

Hi, I need revision 662966055 to 692307169 (inclusivly) be RevDel'ed per your DMCA-removal here. You only removed the content from the live article, not old revisions, which need to be done per RD1, and probably per the Safe Harbour Agreement. Thank you. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Josve05a. Revision deletion is not part of the DMCA process, which is pretty clearly defined. I do not have the mandate to use it, although I can explore with legal whether they would like to add it to the process. (It would not only affect this article.) However, there is nothing to stop community from going further, if they so choose. :)
Speaking from my experience as a volunteer, WP:RD1 is not mandatory in copyright removal - Wikipedia:Copyright violations does not mention it in discussing the removal of copyrighted content, and we do not always use it at WP:CP and certainly not at WP:SCV. If it is to be made mandatory, policies should be clear on this. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that our policies should reflect this and I'll start a "campain" to get that on it's way soon.
Do you think you could ask legal if a DMCA was recived to remove content from publicly accessible history logs/revisions would be acted upon? If so, do they belive that they've fuflled thier duty when not complying fully with e.g. this DMCA, since it has failed to "expeditiously [...] disable access to” the infringing content upon receipt of any DMCA notice?
Anyways, I'll request a {{copyvio-revdel}} from the community instead/in the meantime. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, does not really seem consistent. Bold text. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
True enough. Different counsel. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio follow-up: Triple J Hottest 100, 2010

It's been four years since the main list on this page was wiped due to copyright issues (the notice for which is still existent in the page code), and replaced with a link to the chart page. Now, I understand that this was because of copyright concerns, however, as far as I am aware, this copyright concern was since cleared up (as evidenced by the OTRS notifications on the talk pages of the older lists; I assume this was extended to the newer ones since), which makes the absence of this sole list a bit of an oddity, unless there was some exception that made the list still in violation. Can I please request an update as to what the case is with this page? --JB Adder | Talk 14:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JB Adder. This is my work account; my engagement with that content was purely in volunteer capacity. I'm afraid I cannot discuss the matter here, or with this account. If you'd like to bring it up again at my volunteer account, I'm happy to discuss with you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Threatened RL Intimidation of Editor

An administrator becomes antagonistic to an editor and works to get her blocked. Sometime later, chumming with his pals, he says "Maybe I'll submit to the medieval get-together in Leeds one of these days and LOOK UP MARINKA VAN DAM AS WELL, on my way to the "Manchester circle and sausagefest", to shake y'all's hands and look at the ferrets. Drmies 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)" (caps added) ([1]).

Again keep in mind despite the jocular tone, that Marinka and Drmies are not friends, and that she was alarmed by his statement and the apparent prospect of Drmies showing up unannounced at her residence or workplace.

I tried reporting this at the Administrators Noticeboard, but it is quickly deleted by Drmies' allies (which may well have been the case 15 months ago). Floquenbeam, Favonian, and RickinBaltimore are among the noticeboard regulars that delete the report.

Ms. Dennis, I don't need any comprehensive account of your response, but I'd appreciate a mere acknowledgement that you have read this, otherwise I guess I'll keep trying to reach you, or someone else there at WMF. Colton Cosmic 14:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. We have a dedicated trust & safety team to receive and review such concerns. Please contact ca@wikimedia.org. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ms. Dennis, I did email that address as you directed but, after a full work week, am unable to get a response, or even an acknowledgement of receipt (which I asked for). Would you confirm receipt of my email time-stamped 02/26/2016 07:12 AM? The purpose is just to have a reference point to look back to in case Drmies acts out on his statement that he would "look up Marinka van Dam." Colton Cosmic 14:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I have checked our email archives, and we have received only three emails to that address since February 21st. No emails were received on 2/26. All of the emails have been responded to, and none of them seem to relate to this. I'm afraid your email may have gone astray or been spam filtered for some reason. If you would like to try resending, and cc me personally, I can try to make sure it shows up where it should. My email is mdennis@wikimedia.org. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I forwarded the emails (there were two) from my "Sent" folder as you asked. I believe my email account to be in working order and there is no reason any email software should regard it as "spam" given that I use it responsibly and actually fairly infrequently. Colton Cosmic 15:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that it was in my spam filter. The only reason offered was that it was similar to other spam messages. I don't see any other legitimate email in there at the moment, so I'm not sure what exactly caused that issue. I have forwarded it to ca@ myself and have verified that my forward is in the box. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(TPS) If the sending account is @rocketmail.com, @ymail.com or @yahoo.com, then this might be the reason. Last week, Jimmy stopped using his @yahoo.com account to post emails to wikimedia-l because they were ending up in people's spam folder.[2] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Mdennis (WMF). Please check your email – you've got mail!
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.

MER-C 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

To reply to your question: yes, please do. MER-C 11:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi Maggie. The quality control of newly created articles is a critical issue affecting all Wikipedia projects. My proposed presentation for Wikimania 2016 was rejected (appaently simply because the committee misunderstood its importance, and it was too late to do anything about). I have therefore applied for a slot in the discussions program instead which I sincerely hope will be retained (see New Wikipdia articles: Controlling the quality and relevance - a critical cross-Wiki issue. I'm sure that the other projects have the same issues and would like to discuss possible solutions. Unfortunately, in spite of being a near-native speaker of French and German, I have no idea what those projects call their NPP systems and therefore have no idea where to look. Can you help? Thanks. Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chris; I'm sorry to hear that. :( My first recourse is to the language links on the side of the pages. The German equivalent of NPP seems to be de:Wikipedia:Eingangskontrolle. French does not seem to have an equivalent, although there are 12 other languages linked from WP:NPP. Not being fluent in French myself, if I were trying to figure that out, I'd probably look for a French user who speaks English. :) They use Babel boxes on the French Wikipedia, but not being fluent in French I'd probably start by checking fr:Wikipédia:Liste des administrateurs and seeing if there's anybody I recognized there. I'd start there just because administrators should presumably know their way around the project pretty well. :D And, wow, their list is pretty awesome, because it includes notes on who has fluency in English and other languages. That said, you're fluent in French, so you could ask any one of them - much easier for you! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you enormously for this, Maggie. Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Maggie, you've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As you probably know, we are currently struggling to find a new API for copyright detection work. Phabricator thread, Village Pump thread. It was stated in the Phabricator thread that using Google would be too expensive. User:Crow and myself both asked in the Village Pump thread as to how much the Google service would cost, but we never got an answer. I was wondering if Google is still being considered, and if not, why not? And we would still like an answer as to how much Google would charge. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. :) I'm sorry to hear that. I'll see what I can find out. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I've emailed Kaldari about this to double check (I think he's on a plane for most of today, unfortunately), but I talked to NKohli (WMF) in the meantime and we think this has mostly been answered in the phabricator discussion you linked, specifically in this reply by Kaldari: "For CSE users, the API provides 100 search queries per day for free. If you need more, you may sign up for billing in the Developers Console. Additional requests cost $5 per 1000 queries, up to 10k queries per day." Niharika says that to the best of her knowledge, we've exhausted our contacts at Google as far as hoping we could get those limits/pricing adapted to work for us, so Google is off the table for now, but we'd put it back on the table if we found a new contact who might be able to help us work with Google. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): I am still not clear why this does not work. It works out to about $50 per day ($1500 per month) for 10,000 queries a day (300,000 per month). Is the problem the price is deemed too expensive, of is 10,000 queries a day insufficient to meet our needs? — Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Diannaa:, yes, the price is deemed too expensive. If I recall correctly, until now we were paying USD 500 per month for the Yahoo BOSS API access. Besides, our bots frequently cross the 10k queries per day limit. We'd need something that provides more flexibility in terms of usage. NKohli (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I find that to be quite a shocking decision, considering what I am seeing on the Annual Report as to how much money we have in cash, with an increase of $7.3 million in cash over the last year and a total of $35 million of cash and equivalents on hand as of the end of the fiscal year (June 2015). What were you planning on spending the money on, if not this? How can we be taken seriously as a world-class website if the content is riddled with copyright violations? I ask you to reconsider. — Diannaa (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I must also express some shock that $18,000 per year (3x BOSS) is considered too expensive to use the worlds most comprehensive search database to ensure that we protect the intellectual property rights of potentially 3.6 million owners per year (assuming max count of hits per year). It has already been demonstrated that "lesser" search engines do not catch significant percentages of copyrighted material. Likewise, even if we do exceed the daily hit count, is that mere possibility enough to discount it entirely? I'm pretty sure the previous 10k searches that day will have been worthwhile. In light of the financial report linked, this has me scratching my head and wondering how seriously copyright violation is actually taken when all the cards are on the table... CrowCaw 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Crow; Diannaa. I need to acknowledge that I have a bit of a conflict here, given my copyright work. But my conflict is not much of an issue, because this budget doesn't belong to Community Engagement.  :)

COI disclosure aside, I can speak to the history of this a bit, which might help you contextualize. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't so much have a big bucket of money that can be assigned to whatever we want, even if in aggregate it looks like our budget is big-bucket-like. We actually have a pretty tight (and more or less binding) financial plan that is signed off on by the Board every year. When the WMF took on footing the bill for CorenSearchBot, it was an emergency situation, where the bot had ceased to function and the process would not work if we didn't pick up responsibility for it. Engineering took it on even though it wasn't part of the annual financial plan and has continued to support it because the cost could be sustained and the work matters. (I was uninvolved in making that decision.) However, it's important to note that it's a bit of an anomaly for the WMF to pay for a volunteer-run service that focuses on one project in one language without community review, and it was a big deal for us to make the leap to devoting resources to that.

$18,000.00 is not a small sum of money. I know it looks small against the entire budget of the WMF, but keep in mind that we’re not drawing from “all money the WMF has available”; we’re drawing from a much smaller set of dedicated budgets. Aside from salary, it is more than the entire annual operating budget for FY 2016-2017 of the Chief of Community Engagement. That’s all the money the CCE has to spend for the year. The Support and Safety team, which expects to have a staff of eight during the 16-17 year (we're hiring!), requested just shy of $75,000 to operate for all of next fiscal year. This includes all travel, non-standard equipment vital to our work (like our emergency paging system), support for community convenings (last year, we brought the stewards to San Francisco to have in-person meetings) and support for programs like OTRS, staff training and conference attendance, and intern/contractor support for child safety. To meet our goals, we are still working to find ways to cut an additional $6,000.00 from our spending. I don't have that much personal insight into the budget of Engineering and/or Product, but I suspect a change to $18,000 would be no easier for them to absorb, particularly when it was unexpected and hasn’t been planned into any budgets. We're all tightening spending in every area, and in that context, an $18,000 expenditure for a one-project, one-language tool seems likely to be very hard to justify.

It seems like the Community Tech team are, however, looking for alternatives to Google’s more expensive services; in addition there is an alternative funding model that might be able to provide $18,000 a year, subject to community review: Grants. I've asked the Resources team which Grants avenue might be able to support this, and somebody (maybe me; maybe Karen) should get back with you once I hear more about that.

I’m sorry that this is not as easy as it feels like it ought to be; if we could pull money from an unlimited pool and lightheartedly sign off on everything that could be useful to communities, we would love to do it. :( --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I need to P.S. this, 'lest I cause anybody difficulties. I haven't talked to engineering or product about this. If I'm misrepresenting their position, my apologies. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks MRG, that does put things in some perspective. All I can add by way of commentary, for whatever it is worth to the inner discussions, is to mention that with the Biggies out there, "X as a service" is all the rage these days. Just taking the CSB history as a natural evolution - it was free, then the provider realized they could make money off of "search as a service". Anyone with any kind of comparable offering will have already realized this too, so we're going to have to pay someone to get this working again, as unexpected as it is. Though I still think that Bill Gates would take Jimmy's call and could help making something happen there. :) CrowCaw 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if money to support this task could be built into future budgets please. — Diannaa (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Sorry for the delay, just got back from Berlin. A few answers to your questions. Yes, we have requested limited funding for this for FY 2016–2017. For the current fiscal year, however, we do not have any additional funding budgeted, so we are trying to match the Yahoo price or better. Also note that there are other community members who have objected to us spending any money for a commercial search API, so we want to be diligent about exploring cheaper (or free) alternatives. Also note that FY 2016–2017 will be a tighter budget than FY 2015–2016 so there is no guarantee we will get the full funding we asked for. Hopefully we will though. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why budgets are tight when I look at the annual report and see there's $35 million in cash and equivalents, $7.5 million of which was added in the last fiscal year. The function of the Foundation is Not to accumulate cash, but rather to help support the work of the volunteers who build and maintain the website. — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. :) As a non-profit organization, the Foundation does need an operating reserve for fiscal responsibility. Our goal is not to operate this year, but to meet our mission of sustaining our resources in perpetuity. We need to support the work of volunteers this year and next year and the year after that and ten years from now, whatever may happen to our fundraising model. It's not really (or even remotely :)) my area of expertise to determine how much of a reserve the WMF should have to shore up this mission, but it makes absolute sense to me that an operating reserve needs to happen, whatever proportion that should be. I presume that the decision on the amount is made at the Board level, potentially in consultation with Fundraising and Finance? As m:2014-2015_Fundraising_Report notes, the decline of desktop readers is a challenge for our fundraising models. We need to be sure that our asks are sustainable and sensible, which has factored into the reduced budget request in next fiscal year's plan at m:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2016-2017/draft. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I may be reading this wrong but Table 11 at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/draft#Appendix_2:_Program_-_Non_Staffing_Expenses seems to suggest that there is funding for FY 16/17 for this purpose? 3rd party resources required for the program activities described under Product. Including Bi-weekly regression testings, daily QA, bots/APIs for both copyright/plagiarism detection, and miscellaneous contracting cost to support the program objectives. Not to beat a dead bot, but since the comment period for this proposal ends tomorrow, perhaps some comments there are appropriate? CrowCaw 21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, I'm not convinced my what you say about the budget, even for this fiscal year. All organizations have a certain amount for contingencies. Furthermore, the WMF is, quite reasonably, using a good deal of the incoming funds not for the current operations, but setting aside a reserve as an endowment. This money is also in principle available if it's really needed. Budgets of organizations change during their fiscal years as things happen. Contingency funds get drawn on; reserve funds get drawn upon. In those organizationsI am familiar with the first two of these are under the control of senior management--obtaining money from the reserves is a matter for the Board.
The question is not whether the money exists. The question is whether this situation is serious enough for the money to be asked for. The purpose of the WMF is to maintain the projects, and one of the principles of all the projects is observing copyright. A gap here will have negative consequences for years to come. Not only will all submissions during the gap need to be re-checked, but the many new users whose copyvios pass undetected will become accustomed to writing in that manner--all quite apart from the harm to our reputation. The situation is in my eyes sufficiently serious. I know that you as an individual in an organization cannot push too hard for some particular emergency unless you are certain you can convince people it is really an emergency. From what I know of you, you are probably pushing as hard as you deem feasible, so it is not you that we need to convince. It's time to escalate, and in my view, the best way is to call the problem to the attention of the community. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@DGG: If we don't have any resolution from Microsoft by our next meeting with them on Monday (see T125459), I will request emergency funding from Finance to cover the cost of using Google's API until July (at which time we will have funds available from the Community Tech budget). I know that every day the tools are down is painful, but it would be irresponsible of us to spend thousands of donor dollars without making sure that the alternatives are not feasible. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@DGG, Crow, and Diannaa: Also note that it's not completely clear if Google will actually be a viable option either, as Google's API has a hard limit of 10,000 queries per day (which we would likely exceed). The Bing API has no limit and would be far cheaper, so I'm still holding out hope for it, but we'll have to wait until Monday to see. If you want to read the notes from our last meeting with Microsoft, see my update on the Phabricator ticket. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm very glad to hear that the situation is indeed being viewed with sufficient urgency. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about WMF staff training

I have a question about what training the WMF provides its staff - specifically about free content licensing, attribution and so forth. I couldn't work out who to contact; could you please advise me who I should ask? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BethNaught. I may be able to answer your question. I helped produce some of the training documentation on that. If not, if you give me more specifics, I may be able to better determine who can. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My concerns are coming from this Commons DR and this other one. They concern files where WMF staff members have uploaded screenshots of Wikipedia and such, without attributing a) MediaWiki developers b) Wikipedia authors c) image contributors, and the respective licenses of each, and simply claiming own work. In the second one, JKatz wrote that "Nirzar and I were not aware that attribution requirements applied to screenshots of Wikipedia for use in discussing Wikipedia". This is very concerning. JKatz has been at the WMF since 2014, so I was surprised he had not been given training (it seems) in how to attribute the WMF's own projects. He also wrote that he will be learning how to correctly attribute later this month. It seems that now the WMF is giving employees training in this matter - what will this involve? BethNaught (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, BethNaught. We've had licensing documentation for onboarding since at least June 2012, which includes a direct link to commons:Commons:Screenshots as well as a caution about following the license of the product. I suspect the problem has been consistency of delivery of that onboarding, I'm afraid. :/ While there've been steps to make sure onboarding is consistent, in the past it has largely been up to the individual hiring manager. I'll look into this and see if I can figure out what the current practice is and what steps may be taken to rectify any gaps. I'll let you know. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and for looking into this. BethNaught (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, there are more examples: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DannyH (WMF), c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KHammerstein (WMF), c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Okeyes (WMF), c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Howief (WMF), c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steven (WMF) (though the last set may not all be problematic, some are borderline). Pinging Courcelles. BethNaught (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Joy, more work. As if the current arbcase wasn't eating enough brainpower ;) On my list of things to look at, though. Tomorrow night at my own computer might be best. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania

Seriously disappointed to learn that you won't be coming to Esino. Just hoping it was nothing of my doing ;) Warmest regards, Chris, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, Chris. :) Just inconvenient timing! Hope you are enjoying it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maggie,

There is a new proposal that is starting to gain at least some traction at the village pump in regards to a new way to grant adminship on the English Wikipedia. The proposal is to have bureaucrats appoint admins they deem worthy bypassing the normal RfA process. My question for legal, is in regards to the viewdelete right. Previously, attempts to unbundle the viewdelete function to individuals who have not passed a community RfA-like process was rejected by WMF-Legal. The exact phrasing was allowing non-administrator users to have access to deleted pages would vastly increase the frequency and volume of legal complaints. Would the same apply in this situation? They would be admins in name but they would be appointed admins. Would you be able to get in touch with the WMF's legal counsel regarding this proposal and see what they have to say? It would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Majora. I will reach out. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Majora. They released a statement a few days ago that is reproduced on that page - I mentioned that another possibility being discussed was having bureaucrats vote on these appointees. This would satisfy the community overview requirements. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Maggie. And thank you legal team! --Majora (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Threatened Coarse Intimidation of Editors

Okay, Mr. Dennis, I again did forward emails (there were two) from my "Sent" folder to that address as you directed but, after a full work month, I am still unable to get a response, or even an acknowledgement of receipt (which I asked for). Would you confirm receipt of my email time-stamped 02/26/16M3 07:12 UTC? The purpose is just to have a reference point to look back to it in case dRMIES acts out on his statement that he would "look up Marinka von Dam". I believe my email account to be in working order and there is no reason any email software should regard it as "spam" given that I use it responsibly and actually fairly infrequently. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.85.98.24 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colton, apologies for the delayed response on this (For some reason I already thought we had acknowledged it by email). While we can not discuss the investigation with you I want to ensure you know that we did receive it (and began the investigation immediately despite forgetting to respond to you at the time) and obviously Marinka Van Dam is welcome to reach out to us directly if she wishes. Jalexander--WMF 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sensitive IP Addresses

Hello Maggie, hope you can point us in the right direction regarding this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#51.171.156.10. There are two issues I'd like to get clarified:

  1. Does the foundation maintain a central list of Sensitive IP Addresses that we can refer to here on enwiki?
  2. Is meta:Communications_committee/Notifications still active and part of a process the foundation is expecting us to follow?
Thank you reviewing this, please help point me in the right direction. — xaosflux Talk 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey xaosflux - replying on Maggie's behalf here. In response to both of your questions:
  1. There is no such list, mostly because these IPs are not totally stable in a lot of cases. It is unlikely such a list would be developed or maintained by us. The system is something of a legacy from the early days of the Wikimedia Foundation, in that a block of a sensitive IP could result in an uptick in press. This perhaps isn't as major now as it was back then. I'll check with the Communications team at the Foundation on this.
  2. I'll also have to check with Communications on this. This is still useful information in case a block of this kind is reported on by the press, but I'll double-check that this is still something that is being maintained. (The Communications Committee still exists, but has a much-reduced role these days.)
Hope this helps. I'll let you know of any replies. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, will wait to hear back. Our lists have forked, and we didn't want to reinvent the wheel to reassemble them - it certainly is still useful on enwiki to have some sort of "think twice" type list, especially for range blocks - but our local project can deal with it if WMF doesn't want it. — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Xaosflux: Regarding question #2, as Joe mentioned, it is very helpful for us (the Communications Committee (ComCom) and the Foundation Communications team) to know when a sensitive IP address is blocked, and we’d generally like to continue with the email notification process for ComCom. We don’t have a formal list of sensitive IP addresses as the list can change often. However, I generally consider the criteria for a senstive IP address outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_due_to_public_relations_implications to be of use for our communications purposes. That is, any IP address that might be associated with a large government institution or agency, a corporation, or an IP address spanning a significant region (for example, Qatar) would likely constitute a sensitive IP address with PR implications. We (the Communications team) are also updating the meta page for ComCom to reflect a clearer scope of the committee as it stands today, criteria for what constitutes a sensitive IP address block with press implications, and the preferred notification process of sensitive IP blocks. We really appreciate the notification we’ve received in the past as it has allowed us to prepare statements, messaging, and other materials as needed to address questions from the press. We’re currently speaking as a team about the best way to disseminate the sensitive IP criteria, notification process, etc. to other local projects. I hope this helps clarify, and please let me know if you have any follow up questions, concerns, or suggestions for an alternative form of notification that might better suit. Thank you. SLien (WMF) 17:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks SLien (WMF); again we are fine with the notification process and will keep it up - as far as the actual list, we had 3 or 4 disparate lists, and are working to merge them together (c.f. Template:Sensitive IP addresses). As far as the content of the list, is WMF OK with us managing this locally (here on the English Wikipedia) by the community, as far as additions/deletions/changes go (in line with the updated criteria)? (This will generally be managed enwiki trusted users.) — xaosflux Talk 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Xaosflux, Happy to have you folks manage this locally, thanks for clarifying. I might also suggest keeping the language for what constitutes a sensitive IP address somewhat flexible, allowing other editors, admins, etc. to report other IP’s that may be sensitive, but don’t explicitly fall in line with the criteria above. Thanks again. SLien (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

YGM

YGM. Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE protection for terms of use verbiage

Hello, please see User_talk:Mpaulson_(WMF)#Terms_of_Use_notice. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mdennis. Do you think you could ask WMF Legal for their general thoughts on a matter? There is currently a legal dispute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Images of Area 51 which concerns pictures like File:Wfm x51 area51 warningsign.jpg, in which there is a sign that clearly says "photography is prohibited" under this statute. The dispute revolves around the following questions:

  • Are File:Wfm x51 area51 warningsign.jpg and similar images legally produced photographs?
  • If they are not legally produced photographs, then is it unlawful for Wikipedia to disseminate them?

There are some who have argued that the photograph was taken outside of the boundaries of the defense installation and is therefore a legal photograph under freedom of panorama laws. However, some users have pointed out that the photograph includes areas that are within the boundaries. Others argue that even if the photograph was illegally produced, the law does not explicitly prohibit the photograph from being disseminated. In other words, the person who took the photograph would be liable, but not anyone who later uses the photo. Is there an official answer? Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Area 51#Illegal photos is another relevant page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mz7 and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Maggie is travelling today, so she asked me to look in on this. I've reached out to our Legal brains about it and either Legal or I will get back to you here when we have an answer. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mz7 and Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've had a chance to take look into this a bit. Legal disclaimer first, the thing I can't do here is tell you whether it's okay to keep this specific image or not, you'll need to decide that on your own. What I can say is that I don't see any need for the Wikimedia Foundation to do a removal here. I think this is a really interesting area of the law. There are a couple statutes that are interesting here including both 18 U.S.C. §795 (which you've all been discussing in the article talk page) as well as the related 18 U.S.C. §797, and there's even a really old but still outstanding executive order (number 10104) that looks like it tackles the issue. This is also somewhat similar (but not the same) as our article about publishing classified documents under the espionage act. Overall, U.S. law does have some penalties for individuals who publish photographs of things designated as "vital" by the president, which includes classified installations and equipment. But while that makes it easy to figure out the obvious cases, it doesn't help with more ambiguous cases like establishing the borders of an installation or defining exactly what the terms covers. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) While there may be legal issues with some photos such as these, I suspect no judge would find you guilty of contravening the law for a photo taken outside the boundaries of this facility, The panel clearly states the terms but taking a photo from 1 foot inside would certainly be a legal issue. I have always understood that taking photo from outside the boundaries of a facility are permitted, so If anything "secret or restricted, or of vital military or naval installations" of a facility can be seen from the boundary then they have not placed their boundary at a suitable point to avoid photos from outside the boundary. However, I don't see a problem with the image in question: it's outside the defined boundary and shows nothing of any real interest, so neither we nor the photographer can be guilty of an offence under the legal orders mentioned above. ww2censor (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Jrogers (WMF), thank you so much for your insight into this matter. Given the ambiguity of the case (i.e. it's not clear whether it is actually photographing classified installation or just the publicly accessible boundary of it), and that the Foundation does not find the legal issue egregious enough to warrant intervention, I am inclined to let the image I linked above stay. On the other hand, photos like File:Area51 Tikaboo Peak 07.2008.jpg and File:Groom Lake and Papoose Lake.jpg are a bit more concerning, however, since they seem to deliberately get up high and photograph the actual base with buildings, runways, etc. It would be especially problematic if we accidentally distributed a photograph of a classified military aircraft being tested at the base, so I would rather we didn't host such photos at all. Pictures of the base from outer space taken by satellites is something that I think isn't an issue, since most of them are actually distributed by the US government itself (i.e. NASA). I will think about the issue this weekend and may nominate some images for deletion on the Commons on Sunday. I'm interested in pinging Jakec, the editor who first brought the issue to our attention, for their thoughts. Mz7 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning

Hi!

Do you know if this warning by Philippe should also be applied to other languages (e.g. ptwiki)? Helder 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the much bigger 'warning' is at Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. — xaosflux Talk 03:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Helder and xaosflux. :) It certainly wouldn't hurt - anything we can do to prevent people inadvertently changing the copyright notice to introduce errors or ambiguities can protect the movement, our reusers and our contributors. We've seen some communities that have added variations that have caused unfortunate problems. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!
BTW: is there any problem in linking to the translation which is at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pt instead of the (official?) English version which is at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/? Helder 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not know of any, Helder, but I will double check with legal. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Helder: There is no problem linking to a translation of the summary of the license (and doing so is a good idea!). Be sure that it's a translation of the unported license summary, though, and not a version of the license that has been ported to a particular jurisdiction. –CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right! It is all good then. Thanks for clarifying! Helder 01:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Prerequisites for viewing deleted content

I assume this is the right place (also asking Kbrown (WMF), since I don't know who is on "clinic duty"). At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments#Must be an admin? the question has come up whether users with access to deleted content (which Oversighters and CheckUsers do on this project, per Special:ListGroupRights) need to pass a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to receive such access. This has been stated here and here a fair amount of time ago but isn't documented anywhere. Thus I'd like to ask whether:

  1. Whether it's still true that such a policy exist.
  2. Whether a community consultation would satisfy such a requirement, rather than a RfA proper.
  3. That if such policies exist, they be documented somewhere on the Meta wiki - there are a few other projects where such considerations are relevant.

Thanks in advance, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF, Kbrown (WMF), and Jrogers (WMF):, since I picked the wrong template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, this has come up as a question occasionally and overall we're ok with non-admins being appointed by arbcom to CU/OS in the current system. The important part here is a good method of vetting and in this case we feel that happens both in the feedback garnered from the community and the arbcom's own election process where they become representatives of the community in this regard. This is also reflected in the Checkuser and Oversight policies on meta which is why they allow selection to be done either by a community election (with 70-80% support including at least 25 supporters) or by Arbitration Committees "whose members have been elected with the support of at least 25-30 members of the local community" . (cite). Jalexander--WMF 02:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jalexander-WMF. Can this be documented somewhere on the Meta wiki, so that it doesn't keep coming up? Also notifying @Rschen7754 and Ajraddatz: as they commented on the question in the other discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Also helpful would be an explanation as to why viewing deleted content requires a good method of vetting. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
WMF legal has predicted that a community vetting process of some kind will prevent a certain percent of legal complaints related to admins+. I'm not sure if I am comfortable with that logic myself; surely if they wanted to reduce complaints about admins, the answer is to make them less anonymous and have a more in-depth review process rather than just make them one-time elected by the community. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit of a departure from past WMF statements, i.e. those made by Philippe - does this reflect a change of policy? --Rschen7754 16:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that this is a departure from Philippe's previous comments, or from anything that the WMF has told us during the last decade. There must be community vetting in some form. It need not be the exact method used at this particular wiki (e.g., it can equally be the method used by the German Wikipedia or by MediaWiki.org or any number of other wikis), but there must be some form of community vetting that determines whether that local community trusts and accepts that person. What makes you think that this is a new idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: virtually every other comment Philippe has made on the matter, including: [3], [4]. --Rschen7754 23:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that it is a departure, from for example (in Rschen7754's first link), 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. Where Phillipe effectively apologized for not making it clear that one had to be an admin in order to be a functionary. Now James is saying that a community process with 75% support of at least 25 people or an arbitration process (where the members were elected by at least 25 people) is RfA-identical-enough process for a non-admin to be a functionary. Noting that on en.wikipedia we do not use a community election process, we use an arbitration appointment process, with a community consultation. Yes, this does seem to be a departure from past statements. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
...though it finally brings WMF staff perspective in-line with global policies approved by the Board and community. As such, I think they are to be commended for their change of opinion. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I have always interpreted Philippe's statement that an RFA or an RFA-like process as meaning adminship itself is not strictly necessary, so long as access was granted through an RFA-like process. I cannot think of any possible interpretation of phrases such as "or an RFA-like process" that mean "must have been exactly RFA itself, and nothing similar is good enough". (The apology was specific to the confusion around the single process in question, which is not sufficiently RFA-like. It was not an apology about all non-admins applying through all processes everywhere.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A follow-up

Hello each and everyone. I feel that I have to bring to you a rather complex issue, regarding the above, from the Finnish Wikipedia. We have an Arbitration Committee that is elected by "popular vote" as usual. Everyone can become a candidate, and each year we elect five users to be proper members of the ArbCom. Subsequently all the other candidates, who have received at least a single vote, become automatically "deputy members" for a year. The rules state that when a member resigns from the ArbCom, a deputy takes his place. All fine and dandy there. But there's more: The Finnish ArbCom members have been given the right (by a special user group arbcom) to view deleted text (i.e. deleted pages). The right is given to each full member of the ArbCom, but it will also be given to those deputy members that succeed a resigned member and become full members of the ArbCom. On several occasions the Community has given just one or two supporting votes to the candidates. This happened again this year, where there are three deputy members, two of which received 16 votes each, and the last deputy member received just one vote of support. Now this could theoretically create the scenario where an user account could be given the right to view deleted material without any real support from the local community. Do you see this as a problem that should be addressed seriously? While the legal standpoint of the Foundation seems to be that viewing deleted material should be restricted to as few people as possible, the problem I described, however, will not open any flood gates but might in a sense be more academic. --Pxos (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Job for Stewards/Global sysops? Or who else?

Dear Maggie, I would like to ask you about something of interest to WMF relating to site "Janevistan" (see about case[5]). It has not been resolved yet by Jimbo (see Talk Page), but as I can see we have here fundamental violations and disrespect of the Wiki Terms of Use, including the rule of civility. "Janevistan" is a text full of violations, such as, racial offences, brutal insults and mockery about Macedonia and Macedonians, plus harassment, death threat(s), and violations of basic procedures, and all other blatant stuff, and this site was actually protected by local administrators ! Please see history of the page Janevistan [6] i.e. Template (delete|racial offences, insults and mockery about Macedonia, Macedonians and the state of the Republic of Macedonia, harassment, massive abuse and massive trolling, defamations, disruptive and superflous edits and disrespect of the Terms of Use [7]), and than see the active protection of that site by the sh.wiki admins. (Plus, Janevistan appears as a regular page [8].) Is there anyone who can remove that offensive site? Sincerely yours,178.222.77.248 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 178.222.77.248. I would recommend reaching out to [email protected] if you would like to explore possible approaches to issues. They will very probably have to refer you to processes on Meta for disputes with a project, as it is very rare that the Wikimedia Foundation acts directly on content - see Wikipedia:Office_actions. But they can review the particulars in case action is possible or necessary and, if needed, confer with our legal team. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Maggie.178.222.77.248 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't bother Wiki is unable to do anything. Its playground for kids or high school students, nothing else.178.222.89.14 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. Would you please notify WMF legal about Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.. A statement on whether or not legal's previous statement still holds should be sufficient. If there is a better place for me to request legal's attention, please direct me there. Thanks! — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey JJMC89 - on Maggie's behalf, I've pinged the Legal team about this over email. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail! Jee 06:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can handle this?

Happy New Year MRG; long time no see. I commented on the commons copyright page c: COM:VPC#Picasa images now in Google photos which will likely require the foundation's lawyers to get involved directly with Google per the reply. Is this something you can start or should it go to someone else? ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ww2censor. I'm replying on Maggie's behalf to let you know that we've seen your question and that I will ask our Legal team to look the conversation over. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, so say hello from me. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, ww2censor! Hope all is well with you. :) Thanks, Kbrown (WMF). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)/Archive_10&oldid=1084052629"