User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

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

Need help[edit]

I have to follow the procedure to put an office action in a case of harassment, but it's a mobbing case (since 2 months, non stop) I have tried all others options in two months, but noting work's, please, may you please help : giving me an example to follow, where posted it, ect. IT is a serious case, I dont want to do a bureaucratic error. Idéalités (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Idéalités, you can send abuse reports of this type to the WMF Trust & Safety team at ca(at)wikimedia.org. Please include a clear description (it doesn't need to be in English - we have a native French speaker on the team) of what the problem is, as well as any diffs that demonstrate the problem or behavior. The team will then investigate the situation. Unfortunately, there are no examples I can point you to about what a report should look like, as these reports are not shared publicly in order to protect the privacy of all concerned. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I did my best to be clear. 24.114.82.201 21:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Community wish list[edit]

Hi Maggie. I read with interest your new appointment. Community Tach has completed its annual 'wish list' survey for requests for new and/or improved software. Our bid for urgently needed improvents to the Page Curation system for New Page Patrolling came out top of the list. However, the requirements are many and complex and in order to address and accomplish these requests, it may compromise the team's capacity to address other well deserving requests in the remaining items on the top-ten list. Personally, as Page Curation was a WMF development in 2012 - largely with my collaboration, I realise that this is a large and important task, so I am wondering if a special team could be allocated to this. Warmest regards, Chris. Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Chris. :) I’m happy to hear that you’re still very active in this area and contributing to evolution. I do not myself have a direct role in staffing product development - in my new role, I will be closely integrating with a number of community-facing functions, but product remains firmly in the purview of our Audiences department. I’ll ask our Community Relations team to pass your note along, however. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie. Kudpung (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Discriminatory Practices on AM.Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Maggie! Sorry to bother you with this, but does the WMF have a global policy regarding discrimination against users on the bases of sexual orientation or is there something in the TOU that would protect users? This has come up on AM.Wikipedia, where it has been brought to light that this project has routinely been blocking users on the bases of their sexuality or perceived sexuality. This has gained attention from multiple users from various projects, myself included. The relevant discussion can be seen here. I know the WMF doesn't condone this type of behavior, but I'm hoping that there is a policy that protects users from minority groups. --Cameron11598 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Thanks for bringing this up for discussion! I'm just leaving this as a quick note to let you know that we've seen your question and we're working on putting together a substantive answer. We should be back to you soon (probably early next week, at a guess) with that. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): Thanks! --Cameron11598 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF):, I just came across this it looks like up until 2017 the WMF's non-discrimination policy protected users but was changed in March of 2017 by someone from WMF legal to only include staff and contractors. Its the only policy that I can find other than a board resolution adopted in January, 14 2006. I was wondering if you could provide some context on why the change was made that removed general users from the policy? Thanks! --Cameron11598 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: Thanks for your patience on this! After looking into it, here's what we've found:
The old policy raised in the community discussions, despite the ambiguous language, has historically been read only to apply to staff. The confusion did arise in the past, notably in early 2015 when a proposal to create women-only spaces was under discussion. Back then, the Foundation’s then-Deputy General Counsel clarified onwiki that “the non-discrimination policy does not prohibit users from setting up a women-only discussion in their user space, because the policy was passed by the Foundation board to apply to acts taken by the Foundation and Foundation employees, not individual users.”

So the reading of the policy has been consistent for a long period of time. More information about its 2017 overhaul was published at the time on the Foundation’s blog.

The Terms of Use set the boundaries within which project communities are developing and enforcing their own governance. Alongside those expectations, we also have our publicly available Values, which reaffirm our commitment to inclusiveness - as that page says, ‘It’s about saying, “We see you and you belong with us.”’ In the past, we have stepped in when communities made policy choices that were in contradiction to the ToU or our Values.

Our Trust & Safety Policy team are currently examining the particular case that you cite, including the local policy that was cited as reasoning for the block. While we are not a fast-response team except in cases of life-threatening emergencies (which are handled under a different protocol, as you may know already), we are focused on fully examining the issue and coming up with reasonable and viable outcomes. Meanwhile, our review and any potential outcome deriving from it do not prevent the community from continuing to take actions as they see fit and in accordance to global and project policies, as they are already doing. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverse DNS lookup subscription?[edit]

Hi Maggie. Years ago I remember that one of the IP lookup providers offered WMF a number of free subscriptions for some of their lookup services, and example https://whois.domaintools.com. Do you know if these are still on offer from these providers? If yes, who should I be approaching to discuss access to a service for anti-spam work at wikimedia?

BACKGROUND. When the subs were previously offered I had a reasonable free service that I managed within the limitations. Since that time the tools have been put behind paywalls, and now with the increased, targeted spambot activity and I am seeing specific domain server IP addresses, and to proactively neuter these spambot attacks I want to start doing lookups, collecting the range of problematic domain names at the IP addresss and blacklist the F out of them. :-)

As a general comment that the spambots are getting through our defences so easily—or maybe it is just brute force of numbers—is truly problematic and quite wearing. When I have addressed this matter quietly to a number of sympathetic personnel, I find that it falls between teams and no-one team evidently taking ownership. And I know that I have harped on this matter for numbers of years, but I still do wish that there was more that we were doing, or maybe it just not evident doing to some of us lowly volunteers.

Thanks. Hope all is well with you. And just for smiles ... some bird song from my place

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you for bringing this up for discussion! I also want to thank you for sharing detailed background information as it is very helpful in addressing current spam issues. I will go ahead and look to see if this is still something that providers are offering. Once I receive an update on the current state of DNS lookup subscription I will leave an update here to continue the discussion with the hope that we can work towards addressing the concerns around spam. THargrove (WMF) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 11 February 2019‎ (UTC).
@THargrove (WMF): Any word on that update? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Thank you for your patience in regards to receiving an update in regards to Domaintools. Unfortunately, this item is still under investigation as the original Domaintools concept was out of scope at the time. The spam workflow has only recently resurfaced again in security -T&S workflows. I hope to provide a more substantial update at the end of the month. THargrove (WMF)
@Guy Macon::@Billinghurst: Thank you both for you patience in regards to receiving an update. After investigation it was discovered that we do not have a subscription to Domaintools at this time. It has been suggested that in the meantime that you all take a look at https://stat.ripe.net/. It offers reverse hostname lookup. Please let me know if this is sufficient for what you are aiming to achieve. THargrove (WMF)