User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

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

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)

linking IPs to (real) names[edit]

Why is this allowed? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DanielTom. While those are community policies, I imagine it's because the IPs were made public (that is, information on the IPs were not obtained via CheckUser) and their connections to your account (by the name you gave it, whether real or not) were implied by the IPs themselves. The tag does not say that the IPs were used by the person who created the account DanielTom, but only that an editor is concerned that they were. If the information had been obtained through the CheckUser tool, you could ask for review by the Ombudsman Commission to see if it violates privacy policy, but since the IP was openly used, I'm not entirely sure what body would hear your concerns. If you believe this is a violation of your privacy and would like me to look into what body you might contact to explore the matter, please let me know, and I'll see what I can find out. If your concern is simply with the policy of associating publicly used IPs with publicly named accounts based on behavioral evidence, that might be a matter for community determination, but I can ask (if you like) if that violates the WMF's core privacy policies. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The trouble is, I can "suspect" pretty much anything I want. So, can I (or anyone else) create a Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mdennis (WMF) page on Wikipedia for (say) any IP that edits your talk page, if they take your side on some dispute? Apparently, I wouldn't even have to be an admin, or even present any evidence, or go through any check, to do it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is a legitimate area of concern DanielTom, but it's a community practice, not something designed or enforced or participated in by the Wikimedia Foundation, as far as I know. So I'm not sure what Maggie can do about it. If you want to have the practice changed, it would probably be better to bring it up at Wikimedia Forum or similar venues on other wikis. -Pete F (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@DanielTom: If wish to stop your IPs being identified at enWP, then I would suggest that you stop avoiding blocks. Please deal with the root of your issue, not the consequences of editing around a block. IP addresses will be publicly identified as a last resort means to stop people editing around blocks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I have never edited while blocked anywhere. You don't know what you are talking about. Those IPs (not mine, not used by me, and against my wishes) edited my talk page while I was still free to edit Wikipedia (not blocked). And I didn't want them (or whoever was behind them) to edit my talk page. I didn't want anyone to edit my talk page at the time. And, if you notice, what the IPs did was undo Drmies and his pal Dennis Brown. But I myself, after that, undid Dennis Brown's trolling message to my talk page (obviously using DanielTom, because that's how I edit). See? (I was only indef blocked after that.) This is not about "editing around blocks"—which I have never done, and never will do—so stop muddying the issue. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Templates have been removed as they were pointless anyway, three pool, and one known OP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Mdennis, we had discussed this issue before. Maybe you'll remember that on 21 August 2013 I suggested to you that: "Deskana is untouchable. He uses his influence to get what he wants, is completely unaccountable, and I daresay is more powerful than ArbCom." (emphasis added). And later: "To be clear, I do not know whether Deskana has actually exchanged emails with ArbCom members saying that they should go along with his nonsense, yet I would bet my life that he has done so" &c. Today it was revealed to me (via email) that, to my surprise, Deskana actually has been and is on ArbCom's mailing list (unelected, as far as I can see). So it seems that I was correct back in 2013 (at a time when I didn't know anything about these kangaroo courts). But it would have been helpful if you had told me then that my complaints to ArbCom about Deskana's patent dishonesty and incompetence were actually being read and "judged"... by him. Well, maybe you too didn't know what "Arbitrator Emeritus" meant, or you didn't feel it was pertinent to tell me. Or you were busy with other things. I am actually sorry to have taken up your time with this—even I, years later, feel it's been a waste of time. Hopefully this is the last time I bother you. Take care, DanielTom (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have some doubts, DanielTom, that whoever told you that information is correct, although as I am not on the arbitrator mailing list I cannot be sure of that. Functionaries do not routinely retain access to mailing lists after their roles in those functions have ceased. For instance, I know beyond doubt that OmbComm members lose access as soon as their terms expire or the last case they were working on closes (generally within weeks), whichever comes first. It says at [1] "subscriptions (allowing receipt of messages sent to the list) are limited to current Arbitrators and Jimbo Wales." --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I've confirmed that Deskana was removed from access to that list in 2009. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course you're not telling me anything new. The problem is, there have apparently been many people who, while not arbitrators, still had (and, if what I've been told is correct, have) access to the lists. So this, to me, is a matter of faith, quite simply because I don't have access to the full list of people with access to ArbCom emails. (And, what's more, I don't think you have access to it either.) Still, the expression Deskana uses, "Arbitrator Emeritus", is very interesting, because it doesn't seem to be in line with the actual meaning of the Latin word. Maybe you can clarify it for me. If I search for it on Wikipedia, I get things like: "The arbitrator's mailing list is private, and "emeritus" [...] users have access to it." and (worse): "My perspective is to some extent affected by my presence on the arbitration mailing list (which I have access to as an arbitrator emeritus)". Has this changed? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
DanielTom, the conversations you link seem to both be over 7 years old. :) The link I gave you and quoted above is current as to who has access to the mailing list. Whenever that changed, I have confirmed Deskana's removal in 2009. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ticket:2015012310013387[edit]

Pleaae check this ticket. :) Jee 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Curious. :) Thanks, I'll look into it, User:Jkadavoor. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Jkadavoor, the picture was taken by a WMF contractor as part of his assigned duties. As soon as I saw the picture I recognized it, and my colleague User:JEissfeldt (WMF) identified it - it's a crop/reduction from File:Lila Wikimedia video.tiff. See also File:Banner itwiki fundraising 2010 2.jpg. So the license is right, but the authorship information was inaccurate (since there wasn't any). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Then I will request at Commons to restore it as a derivative of File:Lila Wikimedia video.tiff. Is it OK? Jee 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely derivative of that content. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Done; thanks. :) Jee 17:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten redirects[edit]

Hello, I saw you manually created some redirects you suppressed by mistake, but you forgot some dozens: [2]. Please fix. --Nemo 16:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nemo. Can you please be specific? I'm not sure which redirects in there you believe are important. Certainly not every page I've moved has required redirects, like this one. If there are some you believe have incoming links that I've missed, I'm happy to. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I asked somebody to run data on incoming links, and it looks like redirects may not be the issue so much as that the translations didn't follow my move. The pages that don't have redirects appear to be "talk" pages. I'm trying to repair that, with James's help, but it's complex. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Okay, I think that's repaired. In terms of suppressed redirects, it didn't seem to offer me an opportunity to leave redirects when I moved the translateable pages - James says this is because translated pages have many subpages that don't need redirects, so the option is not offered. The main pages all have redirects now, that I can see, although the talk pages do not. I haven't been able to locate incoming links to any of those. If you see any main pages I've missed or know of any talk pages that you feel need the redirect, please do let me know. And if it's some other page in there that you think needs a redirect, again, just let me know. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

E.g. this one has incoming links both here on the wiki and elsewhere (in the social media team, we have been pointing people to that analysis for years, in mailing lists posts, private emails and talk pages on other wikis). Or this one is now a broken link in a past WMF monthly report. I would suggest going through FuzzyBot's move log, which contains more such mainspace redlinks stemming from the February move. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tilman. I've created redirects for those. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The link was helpful, Tilman. :) I narrowed FuzzyBot's moves to these and went through looking for movements of policy pages. Hopefully I've picked up everything lingering. There's a batch of redirects that were moved because the pages had been retitled some years ago. I've asked for data on if any of those redlinks that have incoming links in case a redirect is needed - obviously, not a double-redirect (which is what FuzzyBot would have done in the first place), but to the new targets. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Community discussion on harassment reporting[edit]

There are many current proposals as part of the 2015 Inspire Campaign related to harassment management. I’ve created a page, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting meant to serve as a central space where the various stakeholders in these proposals and other community members can discuss which methods might serve our community best so that we can unify our ideas into collective action. I encourage you to join the conversation and contribute your ideas! OR drohowa (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, OR drohowa. :) I look forward to reading through it and hopefully participating! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rnieders[edit]

Hi Maggie, have a look at this. As he claimed he received a "copy of a letter sent by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to Wikimedia legal", hope you can look into it. as it is related to ticket:2015010210007101, you may merge it too. As I'm no more in OTRS; so some other like you or Natuur12 need to handle it. Have a nice day. Jee 06:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jee. :) Always nice to see you. I am looking into it and have just written to legal. I can't process it as a volunteer once I'm involved as staff, but if I can get the materials to the right queue I imagine we can find somebody to evaluate it. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Maggie, the Caltrans correspondence was sent to Jacob Rogers, he did write back stating that Wikimedia does not become involved with Wiki Commons issues. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) is a California state agency and I could find not formal address or permanent individuals for Wiki Commons. I had the same problem when Congressman Juan Vargas' office was willing to confirm my identity but required a formal request coming directly from Wiki Commons. The Caltrans letter should be in San Francisco addressed to Mr. Jacob Rogers, legal counsel . I apologize for all this confusion Rnieders (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information, Rnieders. It's still early in San Francisco, but I am happy to try to make sure the content winds up where it is most useful. :) I am sorry that you ran into this issue. I know it is sometimes difficult to figure out which address to write to. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Jee, Rnieders, I have forwarded the attachment to OTRS for processing. :) Jee, do you want to reach out more directly to Natuur12, or would you like me to ask somebody to look at it on the mailing list? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie. Natuur12 will handle it as he already processed some of Rnieders's files. Thanks for the quick response. Have a nice day. Hope evening there. :) Jee 02:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)