User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Maggie, can you ask people to respond to the Wikimedia-l email threads about Sandole and leadership development? I'm surprised that no one has responded to the most recent questions about Sandole. I pinged Gayle about the leadership development questions because she seems very interested in that topic but no response has happened on the list yet. Thanks, --Pine 07:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Pine. I'm happy to ping people, but I'd probably stand a better chance with a targeted question than a general request for people to respond to Wikimedia-l threads. People tend to be busy, so in my own approach to staff I try to take them clear, concise questions with any background that they may need to respond. Those things are less likely to fall off the radar. :) Is it possible for you to frame such a question, or would you prefer that we just take our chances with a few general pings? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I think I was pretty clear with my request to Gayle but I am wondering if the ping got lost in her inbox so please just ask her to check her Meta talk page and let her know I would understand if she wants to delegate answering that question to someone else in her department.
As for the Sandole discussion, a number of users have asked questions in the Sandole thread that are still waiting for answers and it seems that the issue has fallen off of Sue's task list despite having implications for how chapters and thorgs do their work. If Anasuya wants to respond I think that would be ok although she may be busy with FDC activities, and Lila may not know enough about how these programs work to provide well-grounded answers. I think this is unfinished business that would be best finished before Sue leaves since at least some of the questions are about the announcement she made. If necessary we can ask Lila to modify Sue's decision later. Thanks, --Pine 06:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Pine. So you would like me to ping Gayle and see if I can get Sue to respond to the Sandole thread. Again, I'm more likely to be successful if I have a concrete question than to ask somebody to review emails on Wikimedia-L, but I'm game to give it a go. While I don't set their priorities, I'm happy to try. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, just noting here that we discussed this off-wiki. --Pine 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Pine. I have a response. :)

For transparency, this is the question we crafted in our discussion:

Sue wrote (here) saying that the Wikimedia Foundation would not fund direct content creation from our Wikimedians in Residence. The question is whether that directive would also apply to money that chapters receive or other organizations receive from the Foundation that they would then in turn, manage, redistribute to Wikimedians in Residence and then, one would hope, supervise and train their Wikimedians in Residence adequately. Does the directive about WMF-directly managed funds also apply to chapters and other orgs?

I’ve consulted with the grantmaking department, and may be able to offer some context here. What Sue said is that the Wikimedia Foundation would "not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus". The grantmaking department does not interpret this as a blanket ban on content creation and feels that there’s much room for useful and effective Wikimedians in Residence and other models, especially on the lines of suggestions that have already come from expert community members. What the grantmaking team continues to believe is that content creation should not be the “core” activity of these models, which should instead focus on liaising between the hosting institution and the community, including matchmaking, tours, training, volunteer-empowering and outreach to volunteers to work with materials provided by the hosting institution.

Hope that helps clarify things! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie, that is helpful. It also suggests to me that if another organization like a museum wants to use its own money to sponsor a WiR that adds content, then WMF won't object to that so long as the content is submitted in a way that is consistent with CoI and other policies. If I have a follow up question I will let you know. Thanks again. --Pine 03:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For your attention[edit]

Your name is mentioned here ([1]). Further, it seems some attention on guiding the community on the attribution requirement is in need. :) Jee 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Jkadavoor. :) I'm afraid that this one hasn't gone before legal yet - I wasn't pinged in the final note and missed it. :/ Can you please review the question prepared for legal review at w:Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review and let me know if that suits? If so, I'll get it to them today and try to expedite a response. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I didn't participated in that Wikipedia discussion. But we (me and Stefan2 had participated in a discussion at Commons' VP earlier. I discuused it with Fabrice Florin (WMF) too at that time.
My understanding is that sometimes it (the software) picks the attribution properly from the "author" field from the "file description page" in Commons. But in some cases, it fails. Then it try to attribute from the page history which is totally wrong. The page history only contains uploader name; not of real authors. I think it is a logical error in the script; don't know who is responsible for that section.
What legal can do is to advise the development team how to handle attributions. In another discussion I contacted LuisV (WMF) regarding another attribution issue. Hope the legal can handle all the attribution issues together. :) Jee 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I have commented on the discussion at w:WT:Copying within Wikipedia. I don't know if the request to Legal needs to be revised further. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Works by WMF staff[edit]

What is the official stand of WMF on works by staff? See Eloquence's comment here and the ongoing discussion, now. See point #2 by Peteforsyth there. Jee 05:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jkadavoor. :) What User:Eloquence said matches what I have been told by the attorneys in the past. But I will ask them if this is still the case just for verification, since I don't review contracts myself. :D In terms of this statement however ("If this is the justification to be used, I hope that WMF can document its policy very clearly, so that we can refer to it for readers' and reusers' benefit, and so that there is no perception that we are "playing favorites" with the WMF, and granting them special leeway with regard to Commons policy that is not available to other organizations."), I may be misunderstanding what is meant, but speaking as a long term OTRS volunteer, it's not favoritism to the WMF to accept the assertion by one member of staff of an organization that an image is licensed on behalf of said organization. We do it almost every time we take an email at OTRS. :) All we ask is an email address that clearly traces back to the organization and a statement that the individual is an authorized representative. The only difference here is that we know the uploader is connected to the WMF because of the confirmed account and not because of an email sent to OTRS. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie. I think Peteforsyth just meant by the above comment you quoted is that "we need a reference to a policy or statement at the WMF site to consider all staff uploads in that way". Now we have only an "informal" comment by Eloquence; it will be nice if you can provide a formal link. I think we can include that link at Template:WMF-staff-upload to avoid further issues too. Thanks. :) Jee 14:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I understand, Jkadavoor. I'm just saying that this isn't playing favorites for the WMF. :) Where's the published policy that says that employees of Walmart, for instance, have the right to speak for their company in licensing content through OTRS? There isn't one. We confirm the relationship to the employer and if the person affirms agency, we accept their word. That's the extent of it. We don't ask them to link us to a policy of Walmart's that says they can do this. :) This may be doable for the WMF, since they do have a special relationship with Commons obviously, but speaking purely from the perspective of a long-term OTRS volunteer there's nothing special about taking an employee's word for the license of content by their employer that they upload. We do it all the time. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
But here there is a small difference. Most of them are uploaded by Fabrice Florin (WMF); but some of them depicts him, so chances that they are taken by others for him. That is why Pete is demanding for OTRS. I don't know how it works since usually an OTRS mail can come from any employee of an organisation. There is no need that the particular employee should mail from his name specific mail account. Moreover sysadmins can mail from any email address under that domain, if needed (if I understand correctly). See this discussion. (For me it is enough if one employee of an organisation said an image taken by his friend in the same organisation has also released in a particular license. But I don't know I'm playing favorites for the WMF. :) Jee 16:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure OTRS needs to be part of the equation -- actually, if there's a more transparent option, I think that would be preferable. But yes, as @Jkadavoor: says, the thing that strikes me as different here from the Walmart example is that the photos have been taken by an individual. If the organization uses an employment contract in which it claims copyright over its staff's photos, that's something that should be documented. (I didn't sign any such agreement when I was hired in 2009, but it sounds from what Erik said that one exists now.) If that also applies to "WMF volunteers" (which I suppose is something different from a "Wikimedia volunteer"?), that should be documented too. And once it's documented in a general way, it should be clearly referenced in each file's metadata (analogous to how an OTRS ticket is usually referenced). Maggie -- does this align with your understanding of the situation?
I think Erik's note on my user talk page is probably sufficient to cover staff and contractors, but not volunteers. It does seem a little silly to adopt a practice of referencing a talk page comment as an official statement, but on a technical level...sure, it works. -Pete F (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
A related point -- not directly relevant to this specific case, but worth considering -- Maggie, do you know if there has been any discussion at WMF about licensing certain files, that are intended for broad reuse, as CC0 instead of CC BY-SA? For instance, files like these: commons:Category:Wikicons There is a good deal of "friction" associated with CC licenses that require attribution. Wouldn't it be better to release files that are expected to be reused in many different circumstances under a public-domain-like dedication? -Pete F (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Pete F. The template itself was meant to be the more transparent option. (I know, because it was made at my request after some earlier confusion - c:Commons:Village_pump&oldid=75160212#Template_for_WMF_staff_uploads.3F.) If it's used only by staff in their staff accounts, then it's the equivalent of the OTRS approach - an assertion being made by a verifiable employee of the organization in capacity of agency for said organization that the organization owns or jointly owns license (at the time the template was made, this varied in some contracts) and they are authorized to upload it under said license. Even Walmart's photographers are individuals, of course - the difference is that the WMF uses joint ownership, while Walmart may just claim it all in traditional work-for-hire sense. WMF has traditionally preferred that attribution go to the individual who did the work when possible. According to our unsourced w:work for hire article on English Wikipedia, individual attribution has no particular bearing on copyright. :)

Co-licensing isn't in my original contract in 2011 either. I've got a question in to legal to see if co-licensing is still the case.

I don't believe it applies to volunteers; I don't see how it could, unless they signed a specific contract. They certainly aren't bound by an employee contract.

I don't know if there's been any discussion of CC0 - not in my hearing. But I'll ask! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the first question, I have confirmation from legal (via User:LuisV (WMF)) that this is still true with respect to our contracts, so the template remains accurate. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But the "joint ownership" concept is a bit complicated as it requires both parties must be attributed as the copyright holders. If it is a simple Work for hire, attributing the creator is just a courtesy to respect his moral rights. So if WMF case is "joint ownership", the uploader (Fabrice Florin (WMF) here) must take care to properly attribute all original photographers. Am I right? Jee 02:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell me where it requires that, User talk:Jkadavoor? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think all existing uploads are "fixed"; but with some vagueness on who really own the copyright. Fore example:
File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - January 2014 - Photo 12.jpg. If this is a "joint ownership" case, then author field should be "Gergo Tisza (WMF) & Wikimedia Foundation"; not one alone. Source should be "Self photographed" or name of both parties as in author. (corrected)
File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 21.jpg. It seems a different matter, since "Aaron Arcos" is only a volunteer; not a staff. Jee 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying about the author field but am unsure why you say so, User:Jkadavoor. :) For instance, [2] doesn't seem to me to require that all copyright holders be attributed. They require "identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated)", which seems to allow latitude for the licensor to request attribution in any reasonable manner they desire. If the WMF specifies attribution to the photographer alone, this seems to me to be well within the bounds of the CC license. Moving beyond CC, I know that there are authors who work in tandem but publish under one name; I understand that w:Lars Kepler kept their real identities secret for years (see [3]). Copyright notice in one of their novels simply says "{c} Lars Kepler". Other authors have done this, I know. :) If you're familiar with a source that says otherwise (or a policy), or if you believe I'm misinterpreting that, I'd love to read it, as I'm unfamiliar with it and it's an area of interest to me. :)
In terms of File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 21.jpg, it doesn't seem that Fabrice is relying on joint ownership as his rationale for upload there, but instead on the explanation he provided at the deletion debate, which makes it a different issue. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Joint ownership under US copyright law gives each author individual authority to license the work, so that either author can license separately. So "Employee & Foundation" is not necessary to use in the templates (though not incorrect if someone does want to do it that way). —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure; CC licenses allow the copyright holders a lot of flexibility ([4] "(i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties")"). But the attribution is not set by me here; the "/ Wikimedia Foundation" part is hard coded in that WMF staff template. :)
I only added the same words to the author field; it is more for representing who is the copyright holder. :)
I agree; the discussion on File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 21.jpg is going in a different line. So not relevant here. :) Jee 15:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
commons:Template:WMF-staff-upload is something I've only seen recently, but I've found it a little perplexing. It explicitly says that it doesn't indicate the copyright status of the work (at least, by default). It also doesn't have any WMF staff in its edit history (unless I'm missing something). So as it currently stands, I don't think it says anything significant, in itself, about licensing. It could be updated to link to my user talk page and this user talk page, if there's a desire to use that tag to demonstrate copyright that desirable? I guess it all comes down to -- what is the intended purpose of that tag, and how can it best be made to fulfill it? -Pete F (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That line is coming from Template:Copyright-tag-still-required which is integrated in Template:WMF-staff-upload/layout. It is not required since a license tag (CC BY-SA 3.0) is also integrated with it. Jee 16:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But in my understanding the "author" is not necessarily the copyright holder and the copyright holder is not necessarily the author, User:Jkadavoor. :) For example, if I purchased the copyright of a photograph (not the photograph itself, obviously, but the actual right to license), I suspect I would not be credited as the "author" even if I am the rightsholder - even the sole rightsholder. User:Peteforsyth, staff involvement there is not obvious, and I had a linkfail above, it seems, but it's at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/08#Template_for_WMF_staff_uploads.3F. The template was based off of commons:User:Mdennis (WMF)/Staff uploads, which was developed in consultation with the legal team. I lacked the template skillz to make it an actuality, but people help. :) If you would like me to edit it myself to demonstrate the staff involvement more obviously, I'm happy to do that! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the discussion behind this -- very helpful info. Yes, I do think that putting your name in the edit history to more clearly indicate the authenticity of the template would be helpful. I did temporarily add a statement referencing what @Eloquence: said on my user talk page, as a suggestion.
But in reading Erik's statement more closely, I think clarifying this contract provision still falls short of what is useful in cases like this. Assuming Erik's summary is accurate, the provision covers contributions -- which means (?) things that the staff or contractor uploads to the projects. But if Joe-the-WMF-staffer takes a picture, and then Alice-the-WMF-staffer uploads it to Commons, is there a place in that process where Joe agreed to joint ownership with the WMF? I.e., at what point in the process would this have been a "contribution" of Joe's? -Pete F (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see also my suggestion here: commons:Special:Diff/129221860/129223882 I think this is probably a cleaner way to go about cases like this going forward, but it would require two things: (1) Commons would need to adopt a policy along the lines of what I suggested, and (2) WMF staff (like anybody else using this process) would need to be diligent in their statements, by clearly soliciting and asserting the transfer of copyright. (This could, in the longer run, be supported by appropriate tweaks to the Upload Wizard's UI.) -Pete F (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Maggie: Copyright holder and author can be different in some cases. But we've only one field to store both information, unfortunately. So a comprimise as here is most practical. :)
@Pete F: If I understand properly, Erik's comment covers all works by staff as part of their job which are eligible for copyright; not just "uploads to the projects". This is just like works by employees of US Gov. And this is a progress from the idea when that template is created. (The template only says "works are co owned"; but from Erik, "[the employee] gives WMF discretion as to which open source / free content licensing regime to use for distribution under its control. My reading of the agreement is that it would already give WMF full discretion to distribute such content with whatever form of attribution the organization deems appropriate, including to WMF itself." Jee 02:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor:, I don't know precisely what Erik's comment means, and can't know, because I don't have access to the actual contracts. Your interpretation is certainly the desirable one from the perspective of Commons readers and editors: it would be very convenient if all works authored by WMF staff and contractors are jointly owned by WMF, permitting other staff to place them under any license of their choosing. But I don't know whether or not that is the case; Erik's word "contributions" could be interpreted to mean various different things. Hopefully a more formal statement from WMF will be forthcoming, and will remove that ambiguity. -Pete F (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hope Maggie can (or LuisV (WMF)) help us in clearing the doubts. Jee 16:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have another inquiry in just to be sure. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Works authored by WMF employees in the scope of their employment, such as slide decks that they present at Metrics Meeting, are covered by a joint ownership clause in our current standard contract terms. If for some reason they are not covered by that clause, they are works for hire under the copyright statute. In either case (joint ownership or works for hire), licensing them under CC BY-SA is clearly and obviously consistent with Foundation policy.
I'm looking into clarifying the template, but it is a low priority for me with Wikimania coming up, and with many other important legal issues on our plate with much broader impact. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Luis Villa (WMF). I think "works for hire" is more useful here. So WMF can claim copyright for any works (like photographs) by employees, if they are carried out as part of their job. Jee 02:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
We don't get to choose which one we want; we'd have to interpret the contract (each individual contract, because they are different for older employees than for newer) to fully understand which applies. But one or the other should apply in all cases that I am aware of - almost always joint ownership.
Note that, as I implied above, joint ownership is a slightly misleading concept - the only thing that is "joint" about it is the right to share profits. Everything else is pretty independent - i.e., each individual owner can make licenses, publish the work,etc., without approval of the other. So I think in our context either joint ownership or work for hire are equally convenient. Hope that helps clarify. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Luis. :) So, User:Jkadavoor, commons:Template:WMF-staff-upload should cover both material produced as work for hire and joint ownership and seems analogous to the OTRS situation. Pete F, I'll put a note about the history of the template at its talk page. :) Maybe that will help clarify confusion in the future. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie. One more doubt: Does this cover works by mw:User:Aaron arcos? I don't know much about the WMF volunteer-ship concept. Jee 11:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking from my own understanding, volunteers are (obviously) not covered by the work for hire situation, and their contributions are not co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation unless they arrange that independently. I believe it is potentially useful in the latter circumstances but would question it myself to be sure the uploader was correct in understanding the situation if it were used that way, just in case they are mistaken. It seems to me like it could be a good idea to add "usage" instructions on that template. While Luis notes above that there's a lot going on, I'll see if I can put that on my list to help avoid inadvertent misuse. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. And see the outcome. :) Jee 12:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So, it does seem that the thing Maggie considers obvious (and I'd agree) was missed by the closing admin of that discussion @AFBorchert:). I don't mean to suggest that AFBorchert erred in any really important way, but rather that the complexity of the situation led to a less than optimal result. I think this underscores why it would be worthwhile if the artifacts resulting from this discussion (like the template) convey information in a way that's very clear and actionable.
Here's my understanding of what's been discussed above, and that I'd suggest WMF summarize in a clear and concise page somewhere. I'm presenting them in the hopes that if I've misunderstood anything, it can be corrected.
  • As of July 2014, going forward, both the WMF and the author control the copyright for all materials produced by all Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors in the course of their work.
  • In practical terms, this means that either the author or the WMF may decide to release the work under any license.
  • If the WMF is determining the license, any WMF staff member may make the determination of the license, and that determination reflects the decision of the WMF as an organization.
  • Volunteers (which presumably includes interns?) are not subject to any of this; as a rule, they control the copyright to their own work exclusively.
Is that all correct? -Pete F (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Peteforsyth I think so, except the "and volunteers" part you included in the first point. Volunteers are not covered by "work for hire" or "co ownership" (as in your last point). Jee 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, good catch! I meant "staff and contractors," it was a (particularly bad) typo. Thanks -- corrected now. -Pete F (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have been pinged here for my closure of the DR, I would like to add a small comment: Whether the work of volunteers can be considered as work for hire in regard to copyright is, as far as I know, an open question. Due to Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid we have some criteria in regard to work for hire which do not necessarily imply a fixed salary. Based on this, there exist opinions that this could cover also the work of volunteers in cases where they work like regular employees. But my closure was independent from this as I accepted the point that Fabrice Florin can be considered as creator. However, I would appreciate it if we do not need to go over the same line of arguments again. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Pete F, I will ask, but as Luis indicated above there's quite a lot going on. It may take a bit of time. However, I'm not sure if they will weigh in on "in practical terms" if those practical terms don't accord with the law. As I understand it, in joint ownership, each party has the right to license the work non-exclusively independent of the other. If contracts don't add limitations to that ("He who licenses first licenses last"), I'd be surprised if they issue any statements that do so. :) Joint ownership is not a new situation for the WMF; the template was made almost two years ago to reflect the situation then. When you say "volunteers...are not subject to any of this", what do you mean? If you were hyperlinking "this", what would it point to? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Maggie. I'm comfortable with you guys taking it from here. If there is somebody at WMF who wants an outcome that is actionable and useful, maybe they will pick it up and do a better job of what I tried to guess at above. If not, as I see it, we remain at the status quo -- i.e., that Wikimedians should make no assumptions about how WMF-produced files may be licensed, or who has the ability to make those decisions. We can just treat them like we do uploads from organizations that we don't know much about. I don't see that as a problem, up till now I've been participating in this discussion because some others seem to think it's a problem.
It does seem to me that the template in its current form serves only to add confusion, not to remove it, so if it were up to me I would argue from its removal from already-cluttered image description pages. -Pete F (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad, Pete F. :/ Its purpose was to help it avoid confusion - it is in essence meant to be the equivalent of an OTRS tag: verification that a representative of the organization has uploaded and verified license. That's all OTRS tags do, but in this case, we know which member of the organization did it, and staff users are encouraged to identify the actual author of the work. But I'll see what I can get. :) I appreciate your working to help straighten things out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to discuss concerns regarding the {{WMF-staff-upload}} template at Commons, preferably at the copyright section of the village pump. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Maggie -- it does seem to me like this is fixable, just that there are questions that need to be resolved between (a) staff who want to communicate useful, actionable information to the community and our readers through the use of this template, and (b) staff whose primary responsibility is ensuring that official statements like this represent existing agreements and policies in a way that is legally accurate. It seems like much of the necessary work has been done, but to get it over the finish line, I don't think is possible for somebody outside the organization. -Pete F (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Maggie, I appreciate your opinion here too. We need a clear statements on how WMF person's contents are licensed. I don't think every work need OTRS, as it is rather bureaucracy and time consuming. :) Jee 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jee. Jimmy doesn't work for the WMF; the copyright status of employees doesn't apply to him. While he's a member of the Board, he's not bound by our contracts. I'm afraid that it's a separate situation from the above. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Odd request[edit]

I identified to the WMF a few years ago for account creator rights on en.wikipedia at the Identification noticeboard but I changed my username back in March from User:TимофейЛееСуда to User:TLSuda and I was wondering if I needed to re-identify, or if that could be updated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: No, that's fine, I can make an update in the records. Could you do me a favor and link me to the rename log entry? Jalexander--WMF 22:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My request at en.WP & my request at Commons. Apparently, I am too technology inept to find the actual logs where it was changed. I can find userpage move logs, but that's all. Can you point me in the correct direction? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jalexander: 00:10, 23 February 2014 Andrevan (talk | contribs | block) renamed user ТимофейЛееСуда (21485 edits) to TLSuda (WP:CHU)  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that, I dunno what I couldn't do it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Because it seems that the search function fails to find "TимофейЛееСуда" in "user rename log". Not sure of what is the issue, though maybe it is the cyrllics. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is because ТимофейЛееСуда (result) is different from TимофейЛееСуда (not that I can visually detect the difference).  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Libels against IAC by Wikimedia Chapter (India) on WMF servers[edit]

<redacting> For official correspondence with the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, please contact legal(at) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfathomable structure on the current community consultation[edit]

Can you please enlighten me about the intended structure of the diverse archives and sub-pages of the current community consultation? it's everything but self-evident what paragraph is where and why.
And there's an error in the programming of the input page for the users, that creates a wrong hierarchical headline for the comments. See here. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ♫ Sänger. Happy to. :)
The daily pages were created because the consultation grew quickly to a size that was causing the page to break for people with sub-optimal internet connections. We didn't want to remove them to subpages completely because we wanted them to remain visible so everybody can read current conversations easily, though, so that's whyt they are transcluded onto the main page. This keeps the entire thing readable in one place. After 72 hours of inactivity, comments are being archived because they will no longer be monitored by staff. New comments on those pages may not receive response or be included in the spreadsheet we are using to track trends and suggestions. I saw you removed the archive notice from those pages - on my to-do list for this morning is a more specific template that will explain that if people want new comments to be seen by staff, specifically, they should open a new section. (This is a standard process for WMF community consultations of this scope, since obviously we're not talking about a small number of participants. We have done this since at least the Terms of Use consultation.)
I'll reach out to James Alexander about the programming issue, but he's in San Francisco (I'm not) and might not see it for a few hours. Thanks for thinking about the issue; maybe he can do something about it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I just saw what you changed in the archives. Imho it's still a bit dubious what will go where when and why, with a) the archives, that have no relation to the posting date and b) the archives named after the posting date. And it's not just about new posts, that should definitely go to the main page, but about answers to existing posts, that should go to the existing post even after 72h. OK, most of the posts are just very short statements that don't merit a lot of answers, but imho the archives named after the posting date are enough, the other ones are unnecessary. I still haven't found my original post anywhere in this thicket. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, ♫ Sänger. Unless I'm misunderstanding it (which is always possible), the archival system where archives are named after the date the archive is opened is standard on Meta. That's why the archival header that they use here says, "This is a discussion archive first created on [date], although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date." I'm more used to the English Wikipedia system myself, where archives are numbered 1, 2, 3, etc, but do my best to follow local conventions. (Oh, and I saw and appreciated that you moved my 2/29 date to 3/1. I wasn't thinking when I did that one. :))
In terms of why things are being moved, it's not possible for staff to answer all comments, unfortunately. There are just too many. Even if no response is offered, though, they are being tracked and compiled. Management is spending time every day reviewing and responding. (I have suggested delaying the 72 hour archive for the weekend, though, since they're not doing the "response sprints" on Saturday and Sunday.) If we didn't archive anything, we'd either have subpages with active discussions being removed from transclusion or a main page with potentially thousands of sections in it, making it very difficult for people to review the page to locate ongoing discussions. With the system we're currently working with, it's intended to be easier to see on the main page where conversation is still happening so that new comments are not overlooked.
The archive search box makes it a lot easier for me to find specific sections. :) One reason for keeping the archive pages from getting too large is that at one point, at least, the function of that box was impaired when pages exceeded a certain size. Your original note is at Talk:2015_Strategy/Community_consultation/2015-02-27#S.C3.A4nger_S.G. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I can live with archive sub-pages, although I'm with you that it obviously either should have 72h workdays as the limit, or they should work on the weekends at WMF, if not (they got more then enough money for overtime payment). But why then these other sub-pages with /Day_X? If you want an ordinary archive, those are futile, if you want to order by posting date, archives are futile. To have both is just annoying. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, some of us at WMF work on weekends, ♫ Sänger. :D (And for what it's worth, even if the response sprints aren't happening on the weekend, management is still following. I can see who else is in the spreadsheet with me, and I have repeatedly seen Lila and Kim Gilbey in there today and yesterday. I wouldn't be surprised if others are there as well, just not at the same time as me.) The other sub-pages with Day_X are just temporary holding bins that can be transcluded to the main page to keep it from breaking for people who can't handle the size. As individual sections from those pages are actually archived, they will shrink until they are empty, when the transclusion from the main page will be removed. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)