User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

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

Ok[edit]

No thing Bungsuaja4 (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Double delivery at Novial[edit]

Novial (novwiki) received two copies of your last missive. They also received two copies of the preceding one.
I was intending to delete the duplicates, but thought you should have a look first.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Varlaam. Sorry about that! Those mailing lists are reused, and it seems that at some point Novial must have been double-added. User:PEarley (WMF), you helped connect me with the list. Can you check to see if duplicates on the master you found are gone? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Varlaam, not sure why that was delivered twice. I have nov:Wikipedia:Li komun chambre on my list, but only once. I'll see if MassMessage has any similar errors recently ... Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I've left a query here, Varlaam, if you want to watch that page. Looks like that problem has been happening for a while, and with different target lists. Best, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There is doubtless a rational explanation.
As a software engineer, I can say that investigating a seemingly trivial matter can expose something of greater importance.
That can be the main reason to pursue it.
Varlaam (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mdennnis![edit]

I noticed that your talkpage contains the words: "One of my core goals is to improve communication between community members and staff. Do you have questions? Do you have ideas? Please let me know."

What have you achieved so far in order to reach that goal?

I have an idea, maybe the WMF should stop treating the community like shit. Do you agree? I think the WMF should apologize to the community for its incompetence and the fact it has wasted so much time and money. All WMF people should be fired, and only a handful (just the ones who are competent) should be rehired. Do you agree that the WMF should apologize to the community? Do you agree that it would be a good idea to fire everyone, and rehire the ones who aren't incompetent? I think that this is a great way to save money. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The Quixotic Potato. I think good communication is a two-way street. Happy to talk to you, but not with this tone. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mdennis. What does that smiley mean? I wrote this on Danny's page, but the same applies here: "Would you have treated me better if I would've lied to you and manipulated you into believing that I am a positive person? If so, then I am willing to adapt". I am not a very optimistic person. But OK, my tone will be as positive as I can make it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The smiley means that I want you to know I do not harbor ill will towards you in spite of the tone of your approach. I don't believe that I treated you badly. I have invited you to talk to me, just in a different tone. It has nothing to do with optimism, just collegial conversation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, then I promise to try to be as "collegial" as I can be, OK? As far as I know you haven't treated me badly, TBH I barely know who you are so I have no reason to like or dislike you. I dislike certain companies, but of course I do not dislike every single employee they've ever had! Can you please reply to my questions now? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any questions that aren't of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety, The Quixotic Potato? I'll answer questions that aren't phrased to insult and humiliate people. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know none of the questions above are phrased to insult and humiliate people.
"What have you achieved so far in order to reach that goal?" is not an insult, nor an attempt to humiliate you or anyone else. It is simply a question from a curious potato. I apologize if you felt insulted by this question, because that wasn't my intention, but I do not believe that that question is humiliating or insulting to anyone.
I will rephrase the rest of the questions for you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Interjecting as an admin who has Maggie's talk page on my watchlist: The Quixotic Potato, your approach here is nowhere near my understanding of generative and respectful communication. I'd suggest you reflect on more than the mere phrasing of your questions. Maggie, from my perspective you've been remarkably patient here. If there's any way I can help around this let me know. -Pete F (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Hi Pete. I am not quite sure what you mean, but you made me curious. What do you think I should reflect on? Your userpage contains the sentence: "The Wikimedia Foundation misunderstands the movement it was created to support, and consequently undermines it." I agree. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I used the word "shit" and I said some negative things about the WMF. Mdennis has been an admin on en.wiki since 2007 so I would be very surprised if Mdennis would need your help to deal with that. If you really want to help someone, please make one of the following links turn blue: Kathy Ferguson, Danica Draskovic, Heather Dean, Hörður Tryggvi Bragason, María Elísabet Bragadóttir, Lóa Björk Björnsdóttir, Nicole-Claude Mathieu, Julka Hlapec-Đorđević, Lidia Falcón, Kehajia Kalliopi, Carol Keyes, Barbara Leon, Patricia Mainardi, Niamh McLoughlin, Carol Moore, Agnes de Silva. Thanks in advance, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mdennis (WMF):
  1. Do you agree that the WMF (as a whole) should treat the community better than it currently does? I believe that this is a big problem, but maybe you disagree.
  2. Do you agree that it would be a good idea for the WMF (as a whole) to formally apologize to the community? I think that this is an important step towards a better future.
  3. Do you agree with me that it would be a good idea for the WMF to fire many people and hire many new people? For example, I believe that it would be a good idea to hire many new coders to work on phabricator tickets.
I hope I have phrased these questions in a way that is acceptable for you. I think most people use smileys in response to jokes/funny stuff. Maybe it is better to invent a new symbol to indicate that you do not harbor ill will against someone, because using a smiley can be a bit confusing. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello, The Quixotic Potato. I consider the open - mouthed smiley - :D - in response to jokes/funny stuff. To me, a smily - :) - is the equivalent of a friendly face. If you came up to my desk to talk to me (if I had a desk), I would smile at you. If you pop by my talk page to talk to me, I'm likely to smile at you as well. I do it a lot, as my talk page history will show.

I will answer your questions, understanding that I am speaking for myself (a staff member who also happens to be community, albeit not as active at the moment as I want to be), and not as some kind of global spokesperson for the WMF.

Question 1: I do agree that the WMF should treat the community better than it currently does. Moreover, I think the bulk or perhaps even all of the WMF would agree. There's a lot of room for improvement on how the WMF engages and where. For instance, we've been hoping to get out for some time a hub that will raise transparency and make it easier for people to talk to staff. It's in the works, but we have rather a shortage of people to work on it right now. There are only seven of us in Support and Safety (who would probably primarily staff the conversational part). We're heavily engaged in the strategy consultation and in our harassment project. Hasn't been abandoned, though - still in the works.

Question 2: No, I don't. I think formal apologies are political gestures and kind of empty. I think apologies have best meaning when they are specific and related to the incident being apologized for and when they reflect the feelings of individuals. "We regret any inconvenience...." "We are sorry to say...." No, to me that's not the same.

Question 3: No, I don't. We may need more resources in some areas and less in others, but I lack the data to support such a sweeping statement. I don't think coding is all that the WMF should do. I think we need to be smart about assessing the impact of WMF work and figuring out where resources should be allocated. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mdennis! Thanks for your response. Of course I understand that you are not the WMF and that the WMF is not you (pars pro toto & totum pro parte).
To me, as an outsider, "Support and Safety" sounds very important so I am suprised to learn that there are only 7 people in that team.
If we do not agree on what the problems are then it is very difficult to solve them so I think it is good news that many people in the WMF believe that the WMF should treat the community better than it currently does. I think many members of the community are unaware of this, or very sceptical about it.
I agree that formal apologies can be empty and meaningless. But I know from experience that apologizing is also a powerful tool that allows both sides to move on. Because of the lack of an apology it seems (for those on the outside) that the WMF isn't learning/improving. Maybe if the WMF would apologize for some of its mistakes the community would stop being mad about them. It is far easier to forgive someone who made a mistake and apologized than someone who made a mistake, refused to admit it, was finally forced by the community to stop making that mistake and then simply stopped talking about it, which I believe to be the current pattern.
Maybe an apology is too much to ask. But I do think it would be good if the WMF would at least acknowledge the fact that they've made a mistake (instead of claiming that the community is opposed to change). The community really wants the software to change... as long as it is an improvement!
Creating this "hub" sounds like an excellent idea. I imagine it would be a centralized place where the community can post feedback and ask questions and the WMF can respond. Is that correct? If so, then we need that yesterday.
It would be nice to have a FAQ, and a place where WMF members can describe the projects they are working on and invite the community to give feedback. Currently, the community isn't able to see what the WMF people are working on. More transparancy = more trust. Another problem is that the community is unable to give feedback on projects that are unfinished. I think a lot of time and money is wasted because the WMF does not ask the community for help when it should (in the earliest stage possible). Certain members of the community are ready, willing and able to point out the mistakes made by the WMF and some can even fix/improve the code written by the WMF.
Because the community doesn't know what the WMF is working on we have to wait until the WMF releases something, and then everyone complains and the WMF is forced to undo the changes that were made.
There must be someone in the WMF's hierarchy who is able to allocate more resources to the team to speed up the process of creating this hub. Do you know who that might be?
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There really isn't at the moment, The Quixotic Potato. :) We're tasked very heavily at the strategy consultation. But we are hiring, and as our capacity increases and we get through strategy and annual plan, we should be set to go.
There actually is quite a lot of information out there on what the WMF is doing, from early stages, but many people don't know how to find it - which is a big problem that's improved in recent years, but not enough. We see the Hub as not only a place to talk to the WMF, but also to clearly link to where you can go to become more involved in various projects. You can learn a lot about what products are being produced at mw:Wikimedia Engineering (and linked subpages, of course). You can read about education and other efforts at outreach:Main, at which site exists the education newsletter. We want to make it easier for people to know what's going on and to know where to go to get involved - ask questions, challenge ideas, suggest new ones, help out.
In terms of your tone, I really hope on reflection you can recognize that your initial approach here was unfriendly. I see you questioning User:Peteforsyth above - I appreciated Pete's input. Your initial approach felt like an attack, and his calling that out was a kindness and something we should all do when we see aggressive behavior. Whether I can handle it is beyond the point, really - I shouldn't have to. And it's not really the most productive approach for you, either. People are much more likely to respond to you in an open and frank manner if you talk to them like colleagues. Your last round of questioning was something I felt comfortable responding to. Your first round wasn't. I know you have valid criticism, and I'm happy to listen to it and respond and help how I can in a collegial manner. I imagine I want better relations between the WMF and the Wikimedia volunteers as much as you do. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mdennis,
I do not like meta-discussions, but I think that you need to carefully re-read the stuff I wrote.
You are not the WMF. I am annoyed by decisions made by a constantly changing group of people over the years.
There was one single question about you, and it was phrased neutrally, and multiple questions about the WMF that were phrased negatively.
Maybe you feel a bit uncomfortable answering them because you belong to that group; but it would be incredibly unlikely that you personally made the decisions that annoyed me.
If I say something like "humans should stop mistreating animals" then you would agree with me, despite the facts that you are human and that you personally do not mistreat animals.
I don't know about you, but personally I am a member of a lot of groups. I can say many negative things about these groups. Many of those things do not apply to me, but I do not feel insulted if someone says (for example) that potatoes are terrible dancers. I know I am a great dancer, but I do not deny that potatoes in general suck at dancing.
Pete was actually quite insulting to the both of us (by implying that you cannot handle having a conversation with me and vice versa), so I gave him a list of articles to work on. I took the names from the article "List of feminists".
So no, my initial approach was not unfriendly. I understand you feel some loyalty towards co-workers and the organisation as a whole. Unlike many WMF members you actually started as a member of the community. At the moment, the community is yelling I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore. You should too.
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we disagree on that, then. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
About the initial approach being unfriendly? It is only unfriendly if you deliberately misinterpret my comments. And deliberately misinterpreting someone's comments is unfriendly. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sorry to bother you again, but Pete is trying to cause drama. Someone who intentionally makes non-constructive edits with the goal of provoking an angry reaction from other users is a troll. I have deleted his comment and I have responded to him on his own talkpage. Instead of giving him the reaction he was hoping for I have posted a polite request to help me with a very boring task. Face-grin.svg The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Maggie, Congratulations on your new role. May I take the opportunity to repeat to you some suggestions I made to your predecessor -- I frankly admit that they did not find favour with him. Perhaps you may be more interested. This says it all, I think. I hope you find them useful. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Rogol Domedonfors. Thanks for your good wishes. Just to be sure it's clear, my role is interim. :) I realize you didn't imply otherwise, but it's something I like to be explicit. :D I'm here while we get somebody permanent in place, whereupon I plan to head back into my Support & Safety neighborhood.
I think those are good ideas. One of them Luis already put in the planning process - we are hoping at some point soon to create a hub/portal/title-yet-determined where information is available and where staff are available to talk. We are fairly far along in the process of hiring an additional community advocate and hope that after the hire is made and they're brought up to speed that we'll be able to staff this. Even if that takes longer than anticipated to get that hire up to speed, I hope we'll have more staffing capacity anyway once strategy/annual planning settles down. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, Maggie, while you may lack a background in grants, I think that your good attitude is a wonderful fit for the Senior Director role. Especially while there are so many questions about the governance of the organization, your steady and positive personality is a wonderful asset, and it's generous of you to take on an additional hat at this time. --Pine 05:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, thanks for your positive response. I quite understand your position, and that you would not wish to make major strategic decisions that would inhibit the freedom of action of your successor. Nonetheless, I would urge you to do all you can to make progress in building a better engagement with the community. To be blunt, your words "we are hoping at some point" are not as definite as I would have wished: I was hoping for something more like "we will definitely do this by [date]". If we have to wait for your successor to be appointed before the "hope" can turn into "plan", let alone "do", then I am afraid that it will be too late. The gap between community and foundation is widening and the longer that is allowed to continue the harder it will be to bridge. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, @Pine:. :) Rogol Domedonfors , one of the things that seems to concern you in the link you left above is lack of follow-through. That's a concern I share. I would like to be more definite, but I really can't at this stage. I wouldn't make a commitment I don't feel pretty sure I can keep, and any exact date would be speculation on my part.
For more context, last quarter Support and Safety put together a plan for a hub that we could deploy, experimentally, to see if it would serve the communication need, but deployment was put on hold as we were assigned to support the strategy and annual plan consultations while also maintaining other commitments (our core work - including trust & safety functions - and our ongoing harassment consultation). While we have been working towards a hire to increase our capacity, the concept of the hub has been expanded a bit, with other teams and departments who have been considering hubs of their own looking towards how to make it even more useful as a single portal of information. My hope is that we will have resources to put the hub on our goals for quarter four (April-June), but that's always going to depend on what other work needs to be done, the prioritization of that work (which is not all "me" dependent), and the people we have to do it. What I think is very important is that we not release the hub if we cannot staff it. Right now, we could not staff it. Having a poorly staffed hub would not improve anything. :/
The 2016 Strategy/Community consultation lists as a potential focus for next year (beginning in July) increased communication and transparency, including from the WMF. Right now, that consultation is still open, with people weighing in on what they think we should be prioritizing. There is also an open question about community health and free fields for suggesting your ideas. It would be great if you added your thoughts there. Our strategy consultant will be reporting out trends and priorities suggested by that consultation, which closes Monday. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been asking for improved communication and transparency and for clear and effective dialogue for so long that I am sorry that it is still only a "potential focus". It seems odd that the WMF is unable to resource it when it has nearly 300 staff and nearly a hundred million dollars. I suppose it is because the WMF mindset is that communication with the community is an overhead: that is is entirely a cost with no benefit. I think that's quite wrong and that effective engagement would more than pay for itself in added value to the projects. I do urge you to try it! Thank you for offering me the opportunity to ask for it again in yet another forum but I am sure you will understand why I find that suggestion a little underwhelming. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Rogol Domedonfors. I really understand that perception. :) However, there's a couple of points that need to be considered. First, the staff we have are not generalists who can be repurposed to any area with equal facility. The admin team is probably not best positioned to manage the hub, for instance. :) The community engagement department - which would seem best positioned to do this work - is slightly over 40, I think. Those ~40 people support grants and product releases and help triage bugs and support the international education programs and support affiliate organizations and process DMCA takedowns and support the OTRS admins and the stewards and the Ombudsman Commission. Among other workflows. These people are communicating constantly with community - every day. Other departments, too, are frequently communicating with community - on MediaWiki and Phabricator, for instance. So, the important second point is that what we're talking about here is not "community conversation" versus "no community conversation." Community conversations happen all the time, as so they should. It's about optimizing the ways and places that those conversations happen in a sustainable, sensible way and opening it up transparently for easier access. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The WMF surely controls its own recruitment and the balance of skills on its staff. There has been plenty of time to recruit the people needed for this work if it had been decided to do so: although I see that in the short term it's not so easy. As I see it, those members of the community looking for a more effective mode of dialogue with WMF, especially about planning,have the opportunity to respond to a survey which might result in a strategy consultant making a recommendation which might be decided on, which might result in a plan which might be resourced, which might result in action. Meanwhile the gap between community and WMF widens, WMF embarks on software projects that the community neither wants nor can use,and the expertise of volunteers who are trying to cooperate goes to waste. I don't see how I, for one, can help you to fix that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
To an extent, definitely. Like many organizations (and especially nonprofits), WMF hiring is pre-planned by its annual budget, which is tied to its annual plan, and submitted to the Board of Trustees towards the end of each fiscal year. (Sorry for being inexact; I'm traveling and have limited tech.) The priorities of hiring are determined by the WMF and the Board, with an emphasis on meeting annual strategic goals. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A member of staff pointed me to phab:T124022 which seems relevant. Let us hope that moves us all in the right direction. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying the name of the 2016 WMF strategy?[edit]

Dear Maggie!

Currently the 2016 WMF strategy consult is at 2016 Strategy. But it's a Foundation strategy, not a global one.

To avoid the confusion we had last time with a single strategy for both, what do you think of moving it & subpages to 2016 WMF Strategy? Then the community can engage in a broader 2016 strategy discussion in tandem.

Warmly, SJ talk  06:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point, SJ. :) 2016 Strategy is actually a redirect to the consultation subpage. The intent was to turn it into a disambiguation page, since soon there will be another consultation. If there will be movement-wide strategy conversations, those could be linked from it as well, and everyone with an interest in strategy discussions in 2016 will be able to easily find them. Do you think that would serve? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that works. Thanks! I started a page at Strategy/2016; happy to merge that somehow when you create a dab. Warmly, SJ talk  16:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I've turned 2016 Strategy into the disambiguation page. :) Open to format changes, always, but I was hoping this annotated list approach would make sense. I also asked Patrick Earley to move the next phase of our strategy consultations to make clear that it is WMF focused. If possible, I would like to keep the first round of consultations where it was, because those pages have been linked from literally every project we have. We could always hatnote if something else needed to go at 2016 Strategy/Community consultation, but I worry it might cause some confusion. Anyway, does that work? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked again at those pages; I think it some parts can stay without being confuding (including the many consultation pages), but there should be a new base page for the cluster of WMF-focused strategy efforts: including the draft & final outcomes, and the FAQ. As for the consultation pages, if there is no other public consult this year, they could stay; else a new name scheme can be developed and the historical pages moved to fit that scheme. Definitely no new pages should be created with different content at the current titles. Be well, SJ talk  22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Some suggested renames & pages:

2016 Strategy/Draft WMF Strategy --> 2016 Strategy/WMF/Draft Strategy
2016 Strategy/Community consultation can stay -- it's a general consultation, usable by WMF and movement efforts.
2016 Strategy/FAQ --> 2016 Strategy/WMF/FAQ (there will definitely be parts of "2016 Strategy" that aren't focused on the WMF, so it's not an FAQ about that base page.
missing --> 2016 Strategy/WMF : details about the current roadmap. Including the consultations, resulting document (which I believe will be focused on a 1-2 year horizon), relation to the 2016-17 Plan, relation to movement strategies, and followups in the coming year(s).

Regards, SJ talk  22:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sj, Maggie asked me to jump in here, since she's short on uncommitted time and since any eventual moves, etc are likely to be my job anyway. So: I think you have a good point about the page naming structure. What we have right now is sort of ad hoc (mostly thrown into place by me based on best guesses of what would sound reasonable), and we've sort of inadvertantly co-opted the entire "2016 Strategy" space despite the WMF-driven strategy process being only part of the equation. The elegance of your suggested system appeals to me, though I'm inclined to rest some of the weight on a better system of categorization as well as page naming. My worry at this point is similar to Maggie's, though: how much disruption would revamping the system mid-steam cause in places where links currently exist to the current/original page names (particularly places like mailing lists, where we can't run a "what links here" to fix it)?
You get one redirect for free. As long as the existing links in email are a single redirect away from the final page, and the original page title isn't reused, readers won't notice the move. Just make sure not to create any double redirects. SJ talk 
Even if double redirects get left in by mistake, I believe we have bots on Meta that take care of them pretty quickly, and (certainly, for high-profile work involving experienced Wikimedians) you will have plenty of help in eliminating them. Don't worry too much about this. -Pete F (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm a visual thinker, so I put together a chart of what the new page/category structure might look like, to think the process's feasibility through. If you wouldn't mind, could you take a look and see what you think? I'm particularly concerned with not invalidating extant backlinks any more than we have to (so making liberal use of redirects where necessary, not moving things that don't need to be moved, etc). Feel free to tweak my sandbox tables if you see any errors or improvements that need making. If the new system makes sense to you, I'll run it up the flagpole to check for hidden contingencies, and then see about implementing it. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kbrown (WMF), thank you for putting so much thought into the naming structure. I looked at your user page -- good job laying out the issues. It seems to me that redirects (and, if/when absolutely necessary, disambiguation pages) can entirely address the issues of existing links out there in the wild -- so I don't think we should worry too much about that issue.
I do think this would be a good moment to reconsider the use of sub-pages. Please take a moment to look at this page: Should we use sub-pages? TL;DR: If pages are properly categorized, and if navigation templates are properly designed, there is zero advantage to using sub-pages, and there is the disadvantage that we can't use plain-English names (e.g., Community consultation for WMF strategy, 2016). (But the page isn't really "too long" -- I hope you'll take a closer look.)
Also, I think it's worthwhile considering that there could be many strategic planning discussions and documents. We've seen a strategic plan for Wikisource, and there's no reason to think we couldn't/shouldn't have strategic plans for any number of entities in the Wikimedia sphere -- projects, WikiProjects, chapters, user groups, etc. So the idea of a disambiguation page for all of them seems highly worthwhile. -Pete F (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, Peteforsyth, that page spells out some specifics about subpages that I had never thought about in detail. So it seems like the main strength of subpages in a case like this is the automatic "up one level" link it provides. In this case, the links we'd want would be mostly to 2016 Strategy/Community consultation, so the revised page names would look like this; however, using subpage names that depend on that page means (I think?) not fulfilling Sj's also-very-sensible "WMF" naming convention request. Alternatively, we could do more plain-English naming like this, but that means that all the up-one-level links would go to 2016 Strategy, which is of more limited use if people are trying to navigate around a particular domain of the strategy discussions (if you're following along the WMF strategy progression, for example, being bumped back up to the dab page means you have to dig yourself back down again). I'm on the fence about which of these considerations (useful backlink vs. plain-English titles) trumps the other; they both strike me as wholly reasonable strategies. What do you guys think? Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
"One-level-up" is merely one of many navigational needs. Frequently, the reader wants to go "sideways." The best tool for this sort of thing is a navigational template. Good contextual linking within pages is also important. Category pages help too.
An example is Wikimania 2013 jury. You might be looking at that page and want to go to the 2013 Wikimania timeline, or the 2013 Wikimania bids page. Or you might be more interested in juries in general, and want to look at the Wikimania jury pages from every year.
If all that stuff is done well (and why shouldn't it be, especially in a process that is planned out?), the "bread crumb" links created by sub-pages become redundant and cluttery. -Pete F (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Kbrown (WMF), I put a draft version of the kind of top-level nav template that I think could eliminate the need for (some) sub-pages. There is already a nav template within the WMF strategy pages -- that looks fine to me; ideally, these two should complement each other. Maybe a bit of design to ensure that would be in order, but it should be pretty straightforward. Also, templates can contain categories that get propagated where they are transcluded -- could be helpful in this case. -Pete F (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Peteforsyth, Sj: Sorry for the delayed response! I've done a revamp of the page names/categories (see Category:2016 Strategy and its subcats) based on your comments. I stuck with a (shallow) subpage structure for this time around, but pagenames are a bit more plain-Englished and categorization is much neater (and both allow space for parallel community strategy pages). I'm definitely going to keep both your points in the back of my mind for next time we start building a consultation, as well. Thank you both for your advice! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks great on a quick review, Kbrown (WMF)! Thanks for all your efforts around this, and thanks for the update. -Pete F (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I like this. SJ talk  22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Usurpation and licensing[edit]

Hey MRG! Hope all is well. I just wanted to drop you a note in case you didn't notice my ping to your personal account. Some years back you had helped me work through the 'username usurpation licensing concerns' - I can't find the thread, but if I recall correctly, you advised that usurpation of usernames does not, in fact, present significant licensing concerns for GFDL/cc-by-sa. Is this still your understanding, and if so, perhaps you could place your analysis at m:SRUC#Snow Rise@global? As we have moved to the global renaming model, there does seem to be some differing beliefs that I would like to clear up as we move forward towards establishing a global usurpation policy. TIA. –xeno 16:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, user:xeno. :) I didn't notice it - haven't had a lot of time lately and thus hadn't logged in as a volunteer. :/ It looks like I missed my window on that one - I'm sorry! I'm logging in as Moonriddengirl here because this is my volunteer opinion, and I cannot currently remember if I sought legal opinion on this question or not. It was a long time ago. Since my volunteer work is heavily copyright-based, I've just forgotten! If you'd like, I can ask the attorneys to consider a Wikilegal posting that could help inform a global usurpation policy. My own opinion is that this is right - licenses do require that we attribute by pseudonym if designated, but gives no guarantee of exclusivity of pseudonym. Which makes sense, because John Smith doesn't get to own exclusive attribution rights, and IP contributors do not get exclusive attribution rights, either. I think we'd be on shaky grounds if we changed the pseudonym altogether, but adding disambiguation to it (User:Foo (2014)) seems okay to me. But that's just my opinion, and legal opinion may differ. Would you like me to speak to the legal team? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries about the delay, it got declined for reasons other than simply the licensing angle. I think it would be useful to have a firm legal opinion if they have time, since the proposal that is about to be advanced suggests that if an account has "meaningful contributions" or "any content contributions which add worthwhile information to a project, then usurpation is not possible, regardless of when the edits were made", but to my mind this is too strict and is borne of potential confusion and a layman's interpretation of the licensing requirements. –xeno 16:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, that part of the proposed policy was added by me to appease the German cabal. While most projects are unconcerned with usurping accounts with a few edits, some believe that accounts should never be usurped, and I'm trying to find some sort of common ground to establish a global standard on. To the best of my knowledge, attribution is satisfied so long as the edits are attributed to the original account that made them - that's why we have the import function. Renaming shouldn't cause any legal issues if it's the same account attributed to the edits, regardless of name, though a final ruling on the matter could be useful. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks, just a note to say that Maggie's asked me to follow this up on the WMF's end. I'm going to reach out to Legal and see if we have any guidance we can offer (or put together and then offer) on this topic; hopefully we'll have something informative to add here or to the new RfC in the near future. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI: [1]. I would appreciate if you clarify these kind of issues together with this request. Samat (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I've looked into this a bit. It's not really appropriate for a full wikilegal analysis because there's just not that much out in the world about attribution. It's not even really a copyright law issue, it's just an issue about how the CC licenses work. At any rate, as one example what the CC 3.0 license says is that a reuser must "provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied..." The "reasonable to the medium or means" language along with the "if applicable" provides a lot of flexibility under these licenses. Typically, the pseudonym isn't applicable because there are many authors, so a page would just be cited to "Wikipedia" or whichever project it came from. Even where a specific contribution can be identified to a single editor and one would want to identify that editor, if there's a policy that usernames can occasionally be changed, that would most likely be reasonable to the medium and not an issue under the licenses. So, I don't see usurpation in the context of the projects as a problem under the CC licenses, and it has nothing to do with the rest of copyright law. --Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They don't even look at your plans![edit]

This is the solution for the gender gab of Wikimedia-NL:

[2] [3] [4]

etc, etc etc. Porn! Graaf Statler (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)