User talk:Mdennis (WMF)/Archive 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For your attention

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

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 status...is 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

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

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

Unfathomable structure on the current community consultation

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

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 [5] "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

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

Hello, I saw you manually created some redirects you suppressed by mistake, but you forgot some dozens: [6]. 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

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

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)
Thanks Maggie. Those remaining files seem restored by Natuur12. Have a nice Sunday! Jee 01:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Maggie for finding the Caltrans letter and forwarding it, Wikipedia is making a difference, again, thank you and all the best Rnieders (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

IHello Maggie, trying to avoid any problem I Commons help desk and asked about uploading a City of San Diego image. The reply was that California is a "unique" case and referred me to Template:PD-CAGov which states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the State of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. That work is available pursuant to court interpretation of the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright." . I uploaded the image used by San Diego during the San Diego-Mexico airport negotiations in 1991 using the CA template and it was promptly selected for deletion. It is on Natuur12 talk page but attached is the reason by Ellin Beltz. The image was created for the City of San Diego and was used for the TwinPorts negotiations, it is not the personal property of a private individual. Ron Roberts was the main proponent, at the time he was a City Councilman and I do not understand Beltz's comment to me that "this is a case of project promotion gone wild" her entire reply was "I would again point out that Rnieders doesn't seem to understand the concept of copyright here; as "who distributed the... rendering" is not the same as "who created it". The PD-CAGov template would not be correct; these materials were made by private people not an employee of the state of California. A county supervisor is not actually an "employee" of the state, but an elected official. On the uploaded image he's listed as a City Councilman. Neither role is an "employee." I think this is a case of personal project promotion gone wild; Rneiders if you didn't create the actual images and/or if you don't have a COM:OTRS from whoever actually did, the image has no place on Commons. Fishing around various administrators isn't going to change the base message, please read and assimilate COM:L. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)" Jeevan Jose has asked another Administrator for clarification, I am on the road and will not be back in San Diego until the 15th but there are quite a few newspaper references to Ron Roberts and the City of San Diego TwinPorts project in 1991-3, I was directly involved in having this image delivered to President Salinas and initiating the Mexico-San Diego negotiations, I asked for help before doing anything, personal attacks are not necessary, thank you, Rnieders (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rnieders, I'm sorry that you are encountering difficulties. I'm afraid, though, that there is really nothing I can do in this case. While I was able to pass along the correspondence referenced above for the volunteers to consider, I am not permitted in situations where I am or have acted as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation to take part in assessing content for appropriateness on our sites, including copyright status. The WMF is an online service provider; it does not create or curate the content of Commons or the other sites we host. Instead, this work is done entirely by volunteers. I believe the best advice I can give you is to explain at the deletion nomination why you believe the tag applies so that the Commons community can consider the case. For what it's worth, I believe there are many, many people on Commons who are highly educated in copyright law, and I trust their collective judgment in such matters. Errors certainly can happy and undoubtedly will, but it generally will not be for lack of thoughtful evaluation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding and I understand your position. RespectfullyRnieders (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)#2015 Strategy/Community consultation

Maggie, if you know for a fact that there is a contractual obligation on someone to produce this report by a specific date known to you, then please do share that information with the community. Otherwise, speculation about the status of a contract and/or contractor is out of place in the discussion, and runs the risk of confusing the reader, and wasting Lila's time, to no purpose. If you feel it is important that I demonstrate understanding of some point about this contract to your satisfaction, please open a discussion on my talk page, not Lila's, and please do not be surprised if I am reluctant to pursue it. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rogol Domedonfors. :) I'm sorry if my comments have been unwelcome; it wasn't my intention. You had been speculating about the status of her role as potentially unpaid, and I was simply attempting to point out that her status may be different than that. My follow-up was nothing more than an effort to answer your concern about why I believed it added anything to the discussion, not an effort to elicit anything from you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I have not been "speculating about the status of her role" and I will thank you not to repeat that. We in the community have been given certain information about the arrangements for the delivery of that report, information that has changed from time to time. I have been attempting to demonstrate to your ED that, on the basis of the information we have been given, it is reasonable to assess the probability of its being delivered under those arrangements as being less than certain. The position remains, whatever the precise contractual details, that no current member of WMF staff is working on that report, that no current member of staff has a clear and firm date for its delivery, and that no current member of staff is accountable to the ED or to the community for that delivery. That deeply unsatisfactory situation was not made clear in public until your posting of 21:05 on the 16th, which revealed that the person in question was not, as I had been led to believe, a current consultant or staff member, but that her contract had expired without delivery. This is not speculation on my part, it is simply reporting the information I have been given, information which has been released only slowly and with considerable reluctance. From 19:52 on 22 June to 21:05 on the 16th August, the information available was that was a named member of staff currently responsible for delivery. It appears that this is not now true, and that is what I care about. You may well have better, or at least, different information about this situation which leads you to a different assessment of the probabilities, which is all well and good, but does not lead me to make any qualitative change in my estimate, namely, that it is less than certain, and hence is not relevant to the issue under discussion at Lila's talk page, which is, whether as ED she should tolerate the current situation, which I believe to be unacceptable, or alternatively take action to assign clear responsibility to a named member of staff to deliver that report by a specified date. It is clear that this latter is not the position the WMF is in at the moment, if the information we have been given is even approximately correct. I do not want information or speculation about staff or contractors -- I do not want further speculation or guesswork about dates -- I do not want vague assurances that the report will appear at some unspecified time in the future -- I do not want elaborate explanations of the difficulties of producing reports in an enterprise with 270 paid staff -- I do not want hands to be wrung or heads to roll -- what I want is the report. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I meant no offense, to be sure. I took your identifying her as someone who would "continue to work unpaid on an important deliverable" as speculation about her role, but obviously you mean it differently than I understood it. My note was meant as nothing more than acknowledging that the work may not be unpaid. It may be a term of her contract. In any event, I hope you shall soon have the report soon. I am waiting to hear further from her about it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A new sheriff in town

Your new sheriff's badge

Congrats. --Pine 07:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, PIne. :) It's a bittersweet transition, because I'm really going to miss Philippe! He has promised me he won't just disappear. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Question on defamation

Dear Maggie

I was advised to write to you for your advice by the volunteers on the live chat function.

I wrote my first article and was pleased that it was published yesterday: see Mark Clarke (politician). However I showed it to a lawyer friend of mine and he was very alarmed suggesting that the article was defamatory and could lead to Wiki being sued and certainly the author, me.

I have been very careful in the article to ensure all sources are good and relevant, and very careful to state that any allegations are that - allegations only. I have given the subject a section which explains that the allegations are refuted by him entirely. Nevertheless I just wanted to get in touch to make sure that both Wikipedia and myself are protected. We know from articles in the press that the subject is looking to take legal action against the newspapers which have published the stories alleging blackmail, sexual assault, harassment and bullying - and these newspapers are the ones I have used as references.

Apparently to my legal friend, merely disseminating someone elses defamatory story (newpapers we have referenced) could lead to legal action being take against us.

I just wanted your advice on this matter. Should the page be taken down until the legal actions are finished and a clear picture is made of the outcome? Is it ok as it stands? Is the subject able to induce Wikipedia to give him my details as author? I might be being a bit careful but its my first article and perhaps I should have chosen a softer subject rather than something which is dominating the newspapers and political scene in the UK at the moment.

Many thanks

Baron667

Baron667 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrative subdivision

Hi Maggie, it seems that James now has his own administrative subdivision for Trust and Safety. With that done, does leave headroom in CA capacity to take on new responsibilities, like improving WMF communications and transparency with the community in broad terms (an ax that I am currently grinding)? Thanks, --Pine 08:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pine. :) The answer is kind of yes and no - that is, we're working on communication and transparency, but not because of additional capacity. We still have the same workload in CA; we've just distributed management of tasks that our entire team share. This is not to say we don't have specialties. We do and always have. James and his task team (currently, Kalli) specialize in trust & safety, but everyone on CA still works on emergencies, still works on abuse investigations, and James and his team are still working on projects that are not trust & safety, narrowly defined. (Broadly defined, much of what we do has a t&s component.) In the long term, we've created a system that we hope may eventually allow for complete specialization. Right now, we are of necessity still very intertwined.
That said, one of CA's projects this quarter is to find a way to take our existing role of correspondence management (most directly comparative, Answers) and create, experimentally, a component of that on Meta for people who prefer to ask questions that way. (Experimentally because it might not be the final approach to this problem; it would be a trial to see how it works.) There are a lot of challenges to doing communication right. I imagine most people who have worked in any kind of corporate culture know the bane of meetings. Talking can get in the way of doing. We need to figure out how to be available to engage and open to engagement and yet still productive in other critical tasks. Hopefully, we'll get that right. :) I expect it will take some tweaking, but we'll be working on it, and more should be emerging on that within the next few weeks, although we are also going to be heavily focused as a team on the Harassment consultation 2015, which has been kind of a huge focus of ours since around June. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OK. That harassment issue is getting a lot of attention inside and outside of the community and I'm glad that it's getting some systematic attention from WMF. By the way, did you see Danielle Citron's presentation at WikiConference USA?
  • I'm sure that the communications muddle is going to take some work so sort out, and some sustained attention. As you know, WMF-community communications have been a mix of good and not-so-good for years. I might mention this issue to Boryana because this issue can be approached from an organizational culture angle and I think she might be able to help with that.
  • Yes, I'm very familiar with having lots of meetings that seem to consume lots of time while producing mediocre value. I think that every organization has this issue, at least from time to time, and of course departments vary in how they conduct their meetings. I'm wondering if Team Practices could help with enhancing the productivity of meetings in general. Thoughts? --Pine 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re, Citron, oh, yes! I thought it was really very good, and I'm very proud to say that CA helped make that happen. :) In terms of meetings, I'm generalizing to communication in general - just as meetings within the organization need to be effective, we need to find efficient ways to communicate between the WMF and community so that time isn't wasted on either side. The shotgun approach we have right now creates a lot of waste, I know, as people reach out through multiple avenues to get the same information. This means ten different people may ask the same basic questions at ten different locations, and if they're lucky some of them might find a response. Waste for them; waste for the staff who stop working on other things to try to get them information that somebody else could or should be conveying. We need to find some way to make it front and center, so that the people who want information know where to go to get it, at a staffed location. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I like how you think. (: --Pine 23:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem

Hello, thank you for the communication and no problem for the mistake. :) --Malore (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Community consultation

I read your post https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia&diff=150395867&oldid=150393752 here, clicked to the page 2016 Strategy/Community consultation and was rather shocked. The least problem is that the German translation is, well, moderate. As a German, it is easier to read it in English if you want to understand what's the matter. A much bigger problem is that the questions themselves are heavily biased. This is the case in all three questions, but most significantly in the last one, knowledge.

"What do you think is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to adapt to changing knowledge needs of readers (short snippets, diverse formats, language, etc.) and to help facilitate content quality?" Sorry, I'm not at all convinced that the "knowledge needs" (whatever this is) are changing in the direction that is intimated here. "Short snippets" you will get anywhere (especially via Google), you certainly don't need Wikipedia for this, not at all. On the other hand, why not define the thing from our own side? We should ask: what can we give that others cannot? These are issues like in-depth knowledge, interdisciplinary knowledge, personal partners you can address, and most of all, learning by doing, i.e. by contributing knowledge. Moreover, acquiring knowledge is always a process that needs effort. What you can acquire without effort is not knowledge. The thing about knowledge is that before you get acquainted with a subject you don't even know what you "need". How should I answer such a question? The only possibility is to reject the question itself. My opinion is that the WMF is preparing to drive on in the wrong direction, only faster than before.

I could say similar things concerning "reach" (I will never understand why "traffic" should be a good thing in itself!) or "community" (I will never understand why "health" should be a suitable term to describe an active community) but "knowledge" is the most problematic issue. Why isn't it possible to ask truly open questions? This thing looks as though WMF "knows already" what is right but the communities are permitted to answer minor questions about the way how to reach these top-down stated goals. I don't like that at all. And I'm a community member since 2005, with a history of featured articles, meta work and sysop work.--Mautpreller (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mautpreller. I'm sorry that the German translations do not yet seem to work for you; you are very welcome to help out! Translations are open to ongoing collaboration.
I think if you feel that the questions are themselves problematic, that's worth noting in your response to the consultation in the individual talk pages. Our strategy consultant will be reviewing those answers, and reading your thoughts will help her in summarizing trends.
Your open ended input is certainly welcome and is invited as "option 7" of our approaches to each of our focal areas. If you think we should be doing something entirely different, please do indicate there. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
First: Sorry for the sub-prime translation, I think it's a bit better now (THX Jcornelius), I'm obviously not that good in it.
But I have to agree with Mautpreller. While I translated this, I often asked myself: This looks like a "Guided Democracy", a putinesque charade by those higher ups to pretend that the unwashed masses have some input. The WMF is not the avant-garde of the proletariat, it's just a service agency of the true bosses, the communities. Whom have they asked in the communities beforehand? Where was this pre-consultation in deWP, enWP, nlWP, esWP etc., that had to be somewhere, as without involvement of the communities from the very beginning, this is simply not valid.
Without community vetting, no decision by the WMF is valid, full stop. Without full and open community involvement from the very beginning, no process has any validity at all.
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sänger. Your support with translations has been much appreciated. We were not able to give much time for that, and you have really helped out a lot.
One of the bases for this consultation is the 2015 Strategy/Community consultation. There were also several small community consultations in the weeks before this was put up for translation - I'm afraid they were small, mostly because of time limitations. As 2016_Strategy/FAQ#Why_this_process.3F notes, we have to finish this process quickly. When the WMF hired an external contractor in mid-December, we thought it was important that her preparation for this broad, movement-wide consultation on WMF strategy include hearing about the movement and its needs, and about the WMF’s role in the movement, from a broad range of contributors, not only staff. While the holiday season and our own Foundation annual meeting made the timing tight, we accordingly reached out to around 45 people with diverse perspectives and backgrounds to set up conversations with her. Because we would not be able to supply translators, we did need to look for people who could converse in English, but otherwise our goal was to reach out to people from across the world with diverse areas of work, including volunteer developers, stewards, OTRS correspondence, movement affiliates and content contributors. We by no means had involvement from all projects (although I'm happy that a few Germans were present). I do not have permission to publicize the list of attendees from the attendees themselves.
One of the things our strategy consultant is doing is putting together a list of best practices for us going forward so that we do, for instance, start this process sooner and not find our time so limited. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a short info: I've proofread Sänger's all translations now, I've done some fixes and corrected some terms, now all German translations should be consistent and correct. Especially the term "knowledge" can't be translated to German without loosing some significance, I've added a footnote for that. Best regards and good luck with the consultation! (I appreciate it, especially comparing to last year's "consultation".) --Jcornelius (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, please make a dummy edit here: 2016 Strategy/Knowledge – I've put the pagedisplaytitle to translation but it cannot be translated untill the bot wakes up, thanks.--Piramidion 06:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, User:Piramidion. Please let me know if I didn't do it correctly. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The pagedisplaytitle can be translated now, thanks. It's not a big deal, but there's a visible spacing between lines on the top of the page (between "translate this page" and the <languages/> block). So to do a dummy edit without visible changes it is recommended to insert or remove a space inline. You may use the "languages" tag for this purpose, like this: remove space here <languages /> or add a space here <languages/>, this doesn't affect the visual appearance of the block itself --Piramidion 16:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok

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

Double delivery at Novial

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!

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)

Clarifying the name of the 2016 WMF strategy?

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 and 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

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: [7]. 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!

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

[8] [9] [10]

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


Well, Maggie, it is all irrelevant nonsens by blocked user, what els can I do than to wish your and your foundation lots of succes. With lots of porn, nonsens, copyvio and wonderfull Wikimedia-NL. By the way, did you notise if 1500 people give ten euro, it is just enough to pay the Wikimedia-NL party? 1500 people? Who think there money is well spend? Best regards, Graaf Statler (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)
I thought I would ask whether you see any progress on the issues we discussed here back in February? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, I see that the Phabricator task I was pointed to back in February has now been abandoned. I think there may be further action in this direction underway but really, nearly six months later, this is a very disappointing situation to be in. If indeed this initiative has been restarted then I suppose that's better than being abandoned completely, but this is not a picture of an organisation that is giving priority to its relationship with the community of volunteers. At best this initiative has been under-resourced for years, at worst this is deliberate procrastination. I ask to to give this question your consideration and make a statement to the community with explicit commitment to goals and time-scales. The position that the WMF cannot afford to get this right is no longer sustainable. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rogol Domedonfors: hi there, I'm the owner of the previous task. It was closed as it was dissolved and rescoped - when initially set up, the goals were unclear, as was the methodology with which it would work with Product teams. You can find the relevant goal here: T138339, a part of which is the Technical Collaboration Guideline but also includes facilitating the adoption and use of the guidelines within the WMF and communities. The TCG is high priority - it's in the annual plan - and will provide advice and recommendations for communicating and collaborating with communities. It's not the end-all solution, but a part of work in adjusting product development to the environment of working with our communities and community members as well, often, and practically as possible. Hope this helps clarify that the WMF has more than not abandoned the goal, we've rescoped it to make it more useful and relevant and raised its priority up to Annual Plan level. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that is indeed the "further action" I referred to. But there is a dismal pattern here: initiatives for involving the community start up, community members spend time and energy on them, then they seem to run into the ground, and another similar initiative starts up. I refer to such previous projects as Community Liaisons/Process ideas and Community Liaisons/Product Surveys, which occupied the community's attention in mid-14 to mid-15. As far as I can see neither of these had any lasting legacy. Then we had phab:T124022. Now we have phab:T138339. Can you be explicit about what went wrong with the previous iterations and why this time you're going to get it right? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent question. Keep in mind I'm going to be speaking in a broad generality - the issues, like everything in life, is far more complicated. But in a nutshell: the first two links that you point to were efforts from the CL team, on our own initiative, to integrate community ideas and feedback into product development. I think the efforts were laudable, but they missed something in their development: collaboration with the actual product teams in developing the pages/systems. We were working in a vacuum and as such the reality of product development at the time did not match the plans that we had for community engagement. For the Phabricator task that brought this up, that kind of had the opposite problem: the draft mw:Wikimedia Product Development Process was written with minimal input from our team in regards to community engagement, and so the plans would look good on paper but won't actually work.
To get it right this time, product teams and the CLs (now part of the Technical Collaboration teams) are working on developing a better way together, both internally and externally. We're developing a sense of shared responsibility to work with communities and community members, and attempting to break down the silos that were causing miscommunications, which lead to mistakes, which lead to problems. I'm not going to pretend it's an easy thing, or something that will and can be done with any speed. Getting large groups of humans on the same page is a hard task, following it up with proactive results, even harder. I'm optimistic, though - the pains of previous years have not been enjoyed by anyone, nor are they wished to be repeated. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That is frank, thank you. In the same spirit, I'll say that the current process does not yet seem to have reached very far into the community: you may want to cast your net a lot wider -- here at Meta, for example -- that is, assuming you want community input, which I think you should. At this point, I'll only say: plan for success. In other words, once we collectively come up with the processes and structures we all want, be sure that you can get them implemented and resourced. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Inviting WMF staff to WikiConference USA in San Diego

Hi Maggie, if WikiConference USA happens in San Diego this year, I hope that you will encourage as many WMF staff as possible to attend, especially the San Francisco office staff who don't usually go to conferences or Wikimania. What do you think about the concept of having a charter bus from San Francisco to San Diego, for both WMF staff and community members? (Also pinging DrMel who is the conference coordinator, since she may have ideas as well.) --Pine 19:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Pine. :) I am aware! I'm planning to attend myself, even though it's moving to the opposite coast. Knock wood. I know word is spreading among staff, but there's always a bit of a balance there. Sometimes community members aren't happy when staff vastly overwhelm volunteers at events. We try to be conscious of that when scheduling participation at any event, and also to make sure that everyone we pay to send anywhere is a good use of donor dollars. :) Don't know about the charter bus idea - I can ask about it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Maggie. I was thinking more about staff attendance rather than staff presentations. I agree that WMF staff presentations should be kept to a modest percentage of the total presentations offered. With regards to participation as conference attendees, I think that this would be a wonderful opportunity for back-office staff like HR, finance, legal, admin, and tech infrastructure to mingle with a substantial number of content contributors, researchers, GLAM+STEM activists, educators, and community organizers. I think that the staff would enjoy the experience and it would give them a broad vision of Wikimedia, far broader than they might get from reviewing trademark contracts, purchase orders, or hiring reqs. I also am hopeful that the experience at the conference would inspire increased pride in their work and better understanding of how their workflows affect the big picture. (: So please consider encouraging staff to attend and mingle with the community, especially back-office staff. Thanks, --Pine 23:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pine! This Con is going to be unique - San Diego wants it very very much, and is such a beautiful place to host it in. The more WMF staffers that can join us, the better - a great chance to get away on a group outing. Amtrak has a great route down here from SF if you want to travel together. Talk soon? DrMel (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about Foundation grant

I left some concerns regarding a grant that was approved on its talk page. Would you be willing to respond?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The Devil's Advocate . I have full confidence in our grants team and in the organizers of that conference to make sound decisions about attendees and events. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Interview Request on Engagement Report

Hi Maggie, I’m a researcher and author of an upcoming report commissioned by Mobilisation Lab at Greenpeace and Change.org slated for publication in early 2017.

I’m conducting interviews in September to increase our understanding of whether NGOs, nonprofits and even for-profit companies can increase reach and impact if they invest in and empower volunteer leaders. We're talking to everyone from Airbnb to Planned Parenthood.

We'd love to talk to somebody at Wikimedia about your volunteer relations work, particularly with what I'll call "top-tier" Wikipedians. The interview will take no more than 45 minutes and is very informal. We’re talking with organizations who excel at volunteer engagement to uncover patterns, insights and best practices that we can share with the rest of the nonprofit sector.

I'm guessing that you're the best person to talk to, but if there's somebody else at Wikimedia, let me know. If possible, please email me at darren at darrenbarefoot dot com--I don't check my Wikipedia notifications very often. Thanks! Dbarefoot (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dbarefoot:! It would be great if you could email your request to press@wikimedia.org. Our communications team, who watches that, will be able to connect you with the best person for the interview whether that be Maggie or someone else within the org. Jalexander--WMF 20:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Dbarefoot (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Locked account with staff rights

Hi Maggie. Does Geoff still need staff rights? His account is locked and he's left WMF. Maybe you forgot to request us the removal? Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 11:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Marco. He most certainly does not. Thanks for noticing that. I don't actually do that request - it's a workflow through our human resources team. That said, we have since Geoff's departure added a member of the Support and Safety Team to the offboarding process for staff, which will hopefully help avoid such matters being neglected in the future! I'll point this out to Joe and ask him to look into it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Did they already get removed? Or are you talking about a different account? :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Joe. I removed Geoff rights' based on Maggie's above statement. Please let me know if that was wrong. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 06:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's alright - I was going to remove them myself but saw they had already been removed. Thanks for that. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest

Hello Mdennis, I hope this message finds you happy and well. As your time permits, please review a question I asked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#WMF_approved_role_accounts. Your decision to comment or not rests with your discretion alone. I will be glad simply knowing you are aware of it. Sincerely.John Cline (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello John Cline! I just wanted to let you know that Maggie has asked me to look into this issue for you (she's travelling for meetings this week, and my whole team has just returned from a different week of meetings, so we're playing a bit of catch-up). I am going to ask around my team and see if anyone can help supply an answer for you; will get back to you here (and ping you!) when I have more information. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply. I appreciate the many things WMF staffers do to ensure Wikipedia has her needed things. I am humbled that amidst fulfilling that charge, time is set aside for a team of professionals to research the answer to a question asked by a single editor, especially when that editor is one like myself.John Cline (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Code of Conduct

Maggie, when you have a moment please review the progress that has been made at mw:Code of Conduct/Draft. I invite you to consider whether that progress is satisfactory, or whether, as has been suggested at mw:Talk:Code of Conduct/Draft#Nine months and mw:Talk:Code of Conduct/Draft#What happens next?, it is now time for your staff to move this project on to its next stage. In any case, this is another area in which I do not see any way to help you. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

We discussed this at another page in June. Are you still satisfied with the progress being made on this code? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm told it's going well and is probably not far from completion. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not know who has told you that, but if you had asked me I would have given you a different answer. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Let me just follow up on that. I note you didn't answer my question as to whether you regarded progress as satisfactory. Let me give you some reasons to believe that it is not. It is now over a year since this project was started, and it is not yet finished. That is in itself quite deplorable. The ultimate object of this and indeed any other such code must surely be to reduce the level of misconduct in Wikimedia technical spaces and make those spaces more civilised, more pleasant, more fulfilling and more productive to work in. You know better than most of us what some people are suffering from in those spaces, and unnecessary delay in promulgating a code of conduct is unacceptable for that reason alone. The management of the drafting of this code, and indeed almost all the drafting work, has been in the hands of WMF staff. This may be inevitable in that paid staff probably have more time to devote to this task than volunteers, but speaking as a volunteer attempting to contribute, I felt excluded by actions of staff. One, not quite trivial example: in September I raised a legal question which I felt need attention from WMF Legal. Quite by chance I discsovered some months later that a member of staff had taken on themselves to tell Legal (through some other channel that I was not privy to) that the question did not need to be answered. The conduct of the discussion has been managed, even micro-managed, by members of staff who have taken it on themselves to declare whether and when consensus has been reached. The rather few non-staff participants left have on several occasions posted comments to the effect that they do not recognise this as a community consensus. I agree with that position.
Well, let us suppose that you regard it as satisfactory that this code should be drafted by your staff and promulgated on the authority of the WMF. This is a tenable position, just not what was initially envisaged or hoped for. Let me now address whether this project is being effectively delivered on those terms. There has explicitly never been a timeline or schedule for delivery, even though I have asked for one. There is no published stakeholder mapping or communications plan. There is no sense of pace or any of the other positive outcomes one might expect from such a closely managed process. This is quite unsatisfactory, and the result is that after more than a year there is no code and no plausible date for the delivery of a code. This is not what I would recognise as success.
Having said which, let me suggest some positive actions that you may wish to consider. There needs to be an actionable plan for delivery to the community and generation of consensus; there needs to be a set of metrics for the success or otherwise of this code that you can use to determine whether or not it is succeeding once it is in place; and there needs to be a timetable. I am sure you agree with me that this project is capable of being effectively delivered and being of benefit to the community as a whole. I ask you to take steps to make that happen. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Am I satisfied? Based on my understanding, yes. Am I delighted? No.
I would have been delighted to have a quick and effective solution, with universal agreement, that would ensure that people could feel safe working in technical spaces with the knowledge that, if they were mistreated, they would have willing assistance from others. That said, this would never have been my expectation. Through my years as a volunteer and staff I've watched (or lightly participated) in conversations trying to figure out how to solve this problem in another space, English Wikipedia (my Wikimedia birthplace as it were :)). There, the Personal Attack Noticeboard of 2005 lasted less than two years before it was closed due to the contentiousness of the board and its perceived ineffectiveness. In 2012, the Wikiquette assistance program went down for similar reasons, with a consensus to find another alternative. (Transparency: I opposed. I thought we needed to fix it.) So far as I'm aware, no alternative was ever created, and in 2014 en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct was also shut down for inefficiency. What this all comes down to, I guess, is that I'm sadly aware how difficult it is to create effective processes for dealing with misconduct and to reach agreement on those, and as delighted as I would have been, I'd have never expected it to be swift or easy. Behavioral policy and enforcement is arguably the most complex and challenging topic our communities have to navigate. I'd rather see a slowly hammered out code that will work and will last, and I hope that the time and effort that have gone into this one will be so rewarded.
My experience as a Wikimedian - overall, not specifically as a WMF employee - is actually that volunteers can drive projects quite ably. Volunteers’ energy and ability to achieve is pretty spectacular; it's the base on which this whole thing was created, after all. :) Because of that, even given the complexity of responding to behavioral issues, I don't think it's inevitable that staff lead drafting the code, but I can see many reasons why staff may wind up doing so. In relation to this, staff are a large component of the technical spaces and so are deeply impacted by behavior there themselves. And it’s particularly likely that staff may lead if there's not any particular group of volunteers who are able under the circumstances to hammer down on solving a difficult situation. I know from Support and Safety's exploration of harassment last year that some in community are afraid of becoming too visible in this area, because they've become targets after doing so. (For that matter, so have some staff.) I am sorry to hear that you feel the process hasn't been as collaborative as you'd like - I don't know what question it is you felt legal needed to answer or who decided on what basis that it may not have been necessary to consult them. If you still have unresolved questions there, I'm happy to ask somebody to look into it, but I can't promise that legal will be able to specifically answer the question (they can only give legal advice to the WMF).
I imagine you know that this plan was not born in my team or even in my department, but that rather it came out of those staff and volunteers who worked in the technical spaces themselves. My awareness of it has accordingly risen as it has grown and as my own role has evolved. What I've been told by both staff and volunteers who've discussed this with me is that progress on the Code of Conduct work has been slow, but steady, with consensus reached on each section as it is complete. (I don't imagine consensus will mean unanimity, and I do hear that you don't necessary agree that consensus has been reached at points.) I am told that it is approaching the final stages, which would seem quite satisfactory to me. I'm not sure that I agree with you that a timetable is essential when it comes to collaboratively agreeing on an approach to a problem that has been demonstrably so difficult to handle. Such conversations shouldn't go on forever, of course. But building the right approach may be time-consuming, and - if it is the right approach - will be worth it in the end.
In terms of metrics to evaluate its effectiveness, we are building review of community health in our Community Engagement Insights surveys, which I hope will deliver regular data on people's sense of safety in the various spaces of our projects and also in the effectiveness of techniques and policies to handle issues. This should allow us to assess what our effectiveness is and to adjust as we go. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are satisfied, then all I can do is wait for the process currently underway to complete at some point in the indefinite future. I am increasingly disappointed with how hard it is to help the WMF. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Maggie, I just want to say thanks for that summary. My mind is too full of other issues to keep on top of the TCOC as well, but I am hopeful that we will make some progress on the broad issue of civility in the community, particularly in regards to how it affects contributor diversity and attrition. I'm not sure that a COC is the tool that I would choose to invest so much time in; I think that some of the themes and projects being developed in the anti-harassment campaign may be more fruitful. But I am glad that people are viewing the problem of incivility with enough seriousness that they are trying to make it better.
  • Rogol Domedonfors I appreciate your asking questions about the progress of this matter. I've communicated occasionally with Maggie for years, and I'm confident in her ability to do as well as anyone could reasonably be expected to do in her position. On a personal level, in some ways I don't have much choice but to trust WMF people to do the right thing because I'm too stretched -- and the organization is now simply too big -- for me to try to keep track of numerous important initiatives while also trying to make progress on my own projects both on and off of Wikimedia. While I have some vivid memories of WMF doing things in ways that were harmful, I'd like to suggest to you that you choose your priorities carefully. Of the issues that I see as the biggest risks and those with the highest potential benefit to the community, I might suggest that this is one which none of us should lose sleep over. If you'd like to help WMF, I'm sure Maggie could offer some good suggestions about areas in which your input could be particularly helpful. I like that you are trying to do the right thing. (: --Pine 07:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Unfortunately the overlap seems to be narrowing between those areas where I believe the WMF needs help; where the WMF is ready, willing and able to accept help; and what I personally can do. Incidentally, it is not a question of wanting "to help WMF", it is a question of wanting to support the mission. The WMF and the volunteer community are or ought to be working together to that end. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought I would mention that two months after our last exchnage on this subject, the Code of Conduct still has not been completed, and is apparently still bogged down in issues that were first raised by WMF Legal over a year ago. I invite you to consider whether you still regard this as satisfactory. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Rogol Domedonfors. Thanks for modifying the time-stamp - I'm afraid I missed the original notice. My status is largely the same - satisfied, yes. Delighted, no. I wish this was complete and fully operational, but people have reservations with specific points that need to be discussed, and this work is being conducted as secondary to main work tasks. Not ideal, but progressing. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I have already explained why I personally would not accept this as satisfactory progress. It is now over a year since this Code became in effect a WMF staff project. External consultants were brought in to help WMF staff on this in January and no report of their activities or recommendations has been published (indeed, I do not believe they ever returned a formal report as such). It is stalled on the same problems that were under discussion with WMF Legal in September 2015 (is there any action you could take to help to unblock that?), it has no timeline and, as you reveal, is of secondary priority. I assess the probability of this Code ever appearing as being less than 100%. Rather than dwell on the details of this specific project, let me say that this is a depressingly familiar picture. You will perhaps recall the discussion we had in August 2015 about the unsatisfactory progress in completing and publishing the report on the 2015 Strategy/Community consultation, arising out of a discussion between myself and the then ED. That was another example of an initiative in which volunteer time and effort was consumed initially, followed by the follow-up actions from WMF staff stretching out apparently indefinitely until an outside consultant had to be brought in to finish the work and deliver the outputs. The pattern is the same. Do you think it is unfair of me to suggest that the WMF still has some way to go culturally with its follow-through on such matters? Is there any way in which lessons can be learned from this repeated pattern? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have more faith in a positive outcome than you do, Rogol Domedonfors, but at the same time I think very little is 100%, aside from the proverbial death and taxes. :) I know that the staff working on this are still committed to it, and I get regular reports on this and the suite of other approaches being taken to harassment. I think it's a bit soon to count it out. From what you say, I'm not sure you are fully remembering the situation with the 2015 Strategy/Community consultation - the outside consultant was not brought in to finish the work and deliver outputs; the outside consultant was the one who did the work and was contracted to deliver the report. Unfortunately, the delivery of her report was delayed. But it was the same person, from start to finish. As I mentioned to you at the time, delivery of the report was part of her contract. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, thanks for such a quick response. It's not a matter of faith, but an assessment of probabilities based on what I see. But you will have a different view, of course. I probably am not aware of the precise details of the situation with the 2015 Strategy/Community consultation, as an outsider who over the course of trying to find out what was going on was given quite a bewildering variety of not entirely consistent explanations. Presumably you took the view that the minor discrepancy between your recollection and mine so completely nullified the pattern I believe I see that you didn't feel any necessity to address the wider question of whether there were lessons to learn, or whether they have been learned. I was consciously and explicitly trying to move the discussion on to learning from the past in order to do better in the future, and away from simply replaying old debates. I would hope that we could all sign up to that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess to me it's a little more of a major difference than a minor discrepancy, Rogol Domedonfors. People generally do tend to want to set the record straight when they see disagreements of fact that they consider substantial. That said, you offer two incidents which you refer to as part of a repeated pattern: the slow progress of a difficult and new Code of Conduct discussion being carried on by staff in their spare time and and a contractor's delay in producing a report. These things are not the same. I do not see the pattern from which we can learn that you evidently do. I'm happy to acknowledge that things do not always move as quickly as I want even now. The Code of Conduct is a great initiative, and I applaud the staff who are giving of their extra time to work on it while meeting their committed work targets in our annual plan. I also appreciate the volunteers who are engaging in conversations around it. I support them in that effort, and I have not lost faith in their ability to succeed. Is there a learning for doing better in the future from this singular issue? "Assign more resources to this work," perhaps. But I realize that resources are needed in many areas, and there is also other important work to be done that can't be neglected. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Then I have indeed failed to make it clear what I see as the pattern underlying the two projects I described, which of course are not the same (if they were, there would only be one of them). Each started off with high hopes, a lot of involvement by staff and community, and then it became clear that there was nothing delivered and no more staff resource available. The commonality was not lack of resource as such, but failure to plan for and deliver the resource necessary on the time scale required to achieve the project. In the 2015 case the project was completed by using an external consultant: I do not know whether there was an initial timeline but I do know that the timescale proved incorrect. In the current case I do not know whether or how it will be completed, but I do know that there is no timeline. This pattern was also visible in the earlier projects Community Engagement (Product)/Process ideas and Community Engagement (Product)/Product Surveys about which the then ED commented It did not have an expected outcome and a timeline (which projects should have). So to reiterate, the pattern seems to me to be – Good idea; enthusiasm; lots of community and staff involvement; lots of work; unclear timescale and/or success criteria; hence impossible to plan for staff resources; staff resources are not allocated; staff resource not available; staff and volunteers get bored/bogged down/jaded or work is harder than expected; effort slows down below critical; project fades away with little or nothing delivered or heroic efforts/special measures introduced to deliver less than expected later than expected. Does this seem familar to you? It is to me. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, just to follow up on the historical aspect, since you are keen to set the record straight. You might wish to view the page Strategy/2016-2017/Audit of past strategy processes where the 2015 Call to Action / discovery work on strategy Overview section states March 2015: Kim Gilbey (strategy consultant) hired and the analysis was delayed because a contractor was brought in to complete the report after the strategy consultant completed the initial front-end since they are are not consistent with what you wrote here yesterday [11] the outside consultant was not brought in to finish the work and deliver outputs; the outside consultant was the one who did the work and was contracted to deliver the report. Unfortunately, the delivery of her report was delayed. But it was the same person, from start to finish. As I mentioned to you at the time, delivery of the report was part of her contract. You may wish to comment on that point at the discussion I have started at Talk:Strategy/2016-2017/Audit of past strategy processes. However I believe that the discrepancy, whatever its resolution, will not significantly affect the nature of the lessons that can be learned from that and other episodes I have mentioned here and really hope that you will have time to contribute your thoughts on how to take them forward. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for pointing that out, Rogol Domedonfors. I've dropped a note to Suzie for clarification. Perhaps we hired a consultant to help with the report, but I have no doubt of Kim's role in producing the report - double-checked her emails in August and the attribution history of the draft report. In any event, you and I see these situations differently, obviously. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you are convinced that there is no pattern here, no lessons to be learned, and no consequent improvement to the WMF way of working to be made, then we must indeed agree to disagree. Thank you for your time and attention. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This "hub" thing

Hiya!

Please ping me when responding. I was wondering if any progress has been made on the "hub"-idea, and when we can expect to see it in action. TBH I think it is very very important. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:The Quixotic Potato. Progress is being made, yes. This year, the “central Wikimedia resource center” (as it’s currently titled) is part of the annual plan, as a series of quarterly goals being lead by the Learning & Evaluation team. It is in early testing phase, and I hope will be rolled out before too much longer. I expect to be hearing the results of the testing by the end of this quarter. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The objective appears to be "Develop a Wikimedia Resource Center that allows community leaders to design, deliver and evaluate core programs more efficiently – through semi-automated tools and infrastructure". Please tell us who those community leaders are, and how they were involved in the planning stage. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to have someone explain the difference, if any, between this new Wikimedia Resource Center and the Communications/Resource center. The latter seems to be a revival of the (presumed defunct) Communication Projects Group, and overlaps somewhat with the Communications committee. Please consider whether there ought to be a single locus that explains the remit and status of all these activities, groups, centres, programmes, and how to interact with them. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rogol Domedonfors, I'm responding to your questions below:
1. Who these community leaders are and how they were involved in the planning stage. We refer to program leaders here - those Wikimedians who develop and manage programs, like editathons, photo contests, writing workshops, educations programs, etc. We consulted with many of them in different one on one conversations through November last year. After that, we had an online conversation about our Program Capacity and Learning strategy, which was drafted based on these ideas. You can see the plan on Program Capacity and Learning page, and the conversation on the the talk page. Although that team has split into the Learning and Evaluation and Programs teams, we are still working on the same shared strategy and projects. Consultations were also conducted at various pre-conference Learning Days amongst programs groups by L&E (and, formerly, PC&L). These consultations, however, are not over. As we launch and develop the Wikimedia Resource Center, we will continue to gather feedback as Wikimedians begin to interact with it in order to also improve its usability.
2. Differences with other resource centers and comment on committees' roles. The Wikimedia Resource Center is an umbrella that includes the Communications Resource Center. We aim to connect from the WRC all resources available for Wikimedians. One of them is the Communications Resource Center. There are other resources, as well, for example: Program Toolkits for Wikimedia movement leaders, Technical Collaborations Guidelines for Mediawiki volunteers, Support and Safety public question posting system, just to name a few. As you state, the Communications Committee is expected to oversee, contribute and promote to the Communications Resource Center, and this will continue to be the case. As a a group of people with expert skills and the capacity to mentor others on diverse communication topics, we will continue to connect people to them and we hope to do this through the Wikimedia Resource Center, as well. So there will be two types of content linked from the Wikimedia Resource Center: (1) guides like toolkits and FAQs, and (2) people that can give direct support. We will also explain in which ways Wikimedians can contribute.
I hope this gives more clarity about the project. Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments. María (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. To my mind, "community leaders" is different from "program leaders" and in particular I would have hoped to see a wider consultation than direct personal approaches to those already benefitting from the current system. You might have taken the opportunity to capture the views of those who do not participate in these programmes already, and find out why not, for example. Your comments on the Wikimedia Resource Center are most interesting. The multiplicity of resources available underline, I think, the suggestion that I made above to Maggie, which I reiterate for clarity here, that she "consider whether there ought to be a single locus that explains the remit and status of all these activities, groups, centres, programmes, and how to interact with them". I do not believe the Resource Centre is intended to be that locus. I look forward to hearing Maggie's response to my suggestion at some point. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hiya! Me again. Please ping me when responding. I basically still have the same question that started this thread. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The Quixotic Potato. You should reach out to María (WMF), per her invitation. She's managing the project and should be able to update you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi The Quixotic Potato, yes, there has been a lot of progress on the Wikimedia Resource Center. I am creating a prototype on my Sandbox. You can follow the progress on Phabricator, and should expect a launch of the alpha version in December. Please message me if you have follow up questions. María (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


Personal information held on WMF servers

Bom dia, good morning to Maggie, Maria and all and a happy and prosperous 2017. Saturday's edition of the London Times discusses the World - Check online database of personal information. It comments

Anyone may request a copy of their personal data from World-Check. If you are on it and believe that the information is inaccurate or out of date you can request that your entry be updated or removed. The final say is with Thomson Reuters.

As the legislation applies equally to all databases, the reference to World-Check could be replaced by "Wikimedia Foundation." This is my formal request to you to delete the inaccurate information on the profile en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Two independent observers, Anna Frodesiak and RedPanda25 have certified that the page is scurrilous, criminal harassment. You will note that RedPanda25 has tabulated his findings on the associated talk page. 80.5.88.48 07:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 80.5.88.48. To communicate formal legal requests, you may contact legal@wikimedia.org or to reach out via mail to
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
c/o CT Corporation System
818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
You may also send a FAX to +1 (415) 882-0495. I would encourage you to identify to them what information on that page you believe constitutes private information, since it may not be readily apparent. I trust they will be able to offer you all due assistance, expeditiously. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Legal would only need to become involved if the community cannot resolve this matter internally. The issue is not so much the release of private information as the posting of false information to hold an editor up to "hatred, ridicule or contempt". A request for correction was made to and approved by an autoconfirmed editor. The details were as follows:

As a result of the intimidation Pikachu RP25 and RedPanda25 (who are the same person) never made the correction. It can be made by any autoconfirmed editor - although of course anybody who does it is going to be intimidated. Some people are not amenable to intimidation - for example any administrator who tried it with you would not be an administrator for much longer. All the best, 80.5.88.48 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I cannot assist you with a formal request for something to be resolved internally by community, as I do not have authority over the community of volunteers. If you are seeking community assistance with an on-wiki matter, you will need to go through community processes. If you are unfamiliar with avenues available to you, you may be able to get advice from the volunteer email response team. Please note that this email address is operated by volunteers who have no special authority over content on Wikipedia or other projects. They may, however, be able to guide you to the appropriate avenue of appeal. You can reach them at info-en@wikimedia.org. If, on the other hand, you feel that there are legal issues here that require Wikimedia Foundation intervention, I would encourage you to reach out to our legal team. They are quite experienced at determining what laws apply to material hosted on servers owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and taking appropriate action. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but it is standard community practice for an IP editor who wants to edit a particular page but can't because it is protected to raise a "protected edit request". Am I on the right track here? 80.5.88.48 06:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- Vote X is messing with you -- Stop feeding the troll

Everything Vote X says is BS. It usually is. Read their LTA page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Vote_(X)_for_Change
For example, in the section above Vote X wrote: "Two independent observers, Anna Frodesiak and RedPanda25 have certified that the page is scurrilous, criminal harassment.". This is obviously intended to mislead you. The proper way to deal with Vote X is en:WP:RBI. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :) The way I respond to communication is not necessarily going to be the way that you would do, given our different responsibilities. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wanted you to be aware of these facts, if you wanna feed a troll then that is your decision, IDGAF. The Quixotic Potato (talk)
Thanks. :) I've been a Wikimedian for a while, although alas I'm not as active on EnWP as I'd like to be. I am familiar with en:WP:RBI. But I also need to make sure that somebody who wants to communicate a formal request to the WMF knows how to reach our legal department. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rpa 80.5.88.48 07:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol, I was blocked once because a young admin made a stupid decision based on a misinterpretation, do you want me to post your full block log here? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)