User talk:Mdennis (WMF)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

What a perfect fit

Rather than just pile on at your other talk page, I get to be first in line here to say congrats. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm next. Congrats. ww2censor (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ooh! Talk page usage! Thank you both very much. It's going to be an interesting ride. :D --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations and best of luck. It sounds like a very exciting opportunity. -- Avanu (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! :D --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Further congrats & best wishes. I'm sure you'll quickly figure which way is up; the WMF's confidence is very well placed. Well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
So, in other news, your banner - User:Mdennis (WMF)/top is still slightly broken. You had two instances of Special:MyPage, which always takes the user to one of the user's pages, not to your page. So this stuff works for you & fails for us, if you see what I mean. I've fixed the "About me" link - presupposing you were wishing to take people to User:Moonriddengirl. But I'm not sure if you intended your sandbox link to point to MRG or MDennis, neither of which seem to have a sandbox page right now. Replace "Special:MyPage/Sandbox" with "User:Moonriddengirl/Sandbox", or "User:Mdennis (WMF)/Sandbox", as you choose. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, goodness! What would I do without you? :D Thanks for fixing my usual tech-bumbling. I copied the template from User:Philippe (WMF), but, of course, have very little idea what I'm looking at. :/ Maybe I'll just change that link. Evidently, it's some kind of template for new users. Never having created an official page before, it seemed like a fine idea to me! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

<-outdentI just happened upon your news. Congratulations from me as well! LadyofShalott 02:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Add another. I just found out and had to offer my congratulations. You've been such a valuable member of the project for so long that I'm very happy to see you as an employee. This is really great for the project. Keep up the good work. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, glad they picked you. Congrats, Ocaasi c 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, the foundation could hardly do better than having you as a colleague. I remain endeared to you and in steadfast support. My76Strat talk 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure the above context is correct. I certainly mean that you are a dear wiki-friend, and all of the rest. My76Strat talk 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I follow your meaning, which is all that matters, and I thank you. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! I don't know much about the WMF staff, but my opinion of their ability to identify good additions to staff is certainly high. Good luck in you new role, hope you are able to remain involved in copyright, where you've done wonderful work, but the work will never be done.SPhilbrickT 11:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and I certainly am able to remain involved in copyright. This weekend was all about getting the new "clerks" position in activation and updating the instructions, but I hope to be able to help keep up CP and even CCI, once I get the "new job initiation" over with. Lots to learn! --Maggie Dennis (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Your energy inspires me :) -- œ™ 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help...

Hi, with reference to the discussion here, can you please let me know if there is a way to ensure that more number of accounts can be created on a single IP? TIA. --Strategyprof (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for contacting me about this. I am sending you an e-mail through your Wikipedia account. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Article feedback tool

Hi,

could you, in your new role, perhaps find something out for me? Currently, Wikipedia is testing this Article Feedback Tool on a number of articles. Can you find out, what the intended purpose of this tool is (or tell me, in case you already know the answer)? I have not been able to receive a satisfactory answer to this question here on Wikipedia, yet (see also this thread and this thread). This causes a lot of confusion, not only to me, but to a great number of other users as well (at least that's my impression).

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Logged in and on the clock, I see that when you asked your question at MediaWiki, you received a response from the senior research analyst, who certainly knows the project inside and out. As he noted, it provides an opportunity for readers to engage with articles in a new way, as most of them remain passive consumers. They read, but we usually don't know what they think. :) It's a bit of a gateway drug, too. We really need to recruit new users if Wikipedia is to continue to thrive, and WMF is actively looking for new ways to do that. It is also being used to track article quality. You can see some of the data collected at mw:Article feedback/Research. Erik Moeller, the Deputy Director of the WMF, gave a bit of insight in a brief overview at the Wikimedia Foundation's blog.
Meanwhile, I believe that Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool needed to point to the page describing it, so I've changed the soft redirect. I hope that will help Wikipedians who are confused by it get answers more quickly. :) And I'm sure that if the answer you received at that page doesn't satisfy you (and these links don't help), you can ask a follow-up. Understanding community response to ideas is an important part of data collecting, too. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I now see this tool as a way to invite people only reading an article to actually start participating and editing it. So this actually has the potential of becoming very useful in recruiting new editiors (whom I think Wikipedia needs). My opinion simply is, that the more regular editors could have been given a bit more information prior to starting this (I might be a bit influenced by the absurd discussion about the pending changes trial, where there happened to be a lot of confusion :) ). And I also participate in another project that is about to start a trial soon (has to do with combatting linkrot), where I hope we can avoid some of the confusion from the pending changes trial. So I might be a bit quick in being critical of changes that have such wide reaching consequences.
Anyway, thanks for your efforts, I really appreciate it. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Foundation communication

Mdennis - woo, congrats. Once you've had time to take your coat off and get a coffee...mmm, I was about to ask you the same thing - re. the helpdesk posting and the threaded thingy I wrote. It's not just because of the mess of pending changes introduction...it seems a regular concern, that WMF introduce things without enough discussion with the community (vector was another). I'm sure you'll sort it all out :-)  Chzz  ►  21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a concern I also share; one of the things I'm here to do is generally improve communications between staff and community. I think an issue is that portals for announcing these kinds of things seem a bit scattered, and most Wikipedians don't know where to find them. Collecting announcements in an easily accessible way that is not intrusive for readers may be a bit of a challenge. I'm kicking around ideas but am oh so open to hearing yours or anybody else's. :D --Maggie Dennis (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
One serious lack occurs on the Community Portal page. There's zero foundation presence. They could have their own small noticeboard to post blog and tech updates, staff news, upcoming events, ongoing discussions, links to mailing lists, requests for hire. It's our community portal, but we should facilitate the interplay more for our benefit. I think. Ocaasi c 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea to explore to me. I was thinking about a village pump announcement page, but any easily accessible community gathering point would be a good thing, I think. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to second Ocaasi's idea and perhaps suggest that you make sure that all recent actions by the foundations and associated discussion forums are reported in places like Signpost and the other language equivalents, Sadads (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
An announcements page would be excellent. I think that Wikipedia:Community portal is underused, but I also think that it's too cluttered, contains too much irrelevant material (i.e., the "Guidelines, help & resources" part basically duplicates Help:Contents) and is too unfocused (what is the point of that portal? It's for news, events, tasks that need doing, getting help, and finding groups to join, apparently). As the Signpost is pretty popular, perhaps a new section there would be good for foundation announcements? Usually, they get mixed in with the other stories and it's hard to spot them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear you like the idea. :) I've actually already kind of tossed that one to staff and am waiting for feedback. There are, of course, challenges in implementation. If we do get some kind of announcement board, we may need to manage summarizing it for Signpost or other points internally, since the Foundation might be lobbing these at every project. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Pointer: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Developer_communication_suggestion Ocaasi c 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Good idea separating that out, Ocaasi. :) That one's on my list. Thanks. (BTW, I did intend to review your project yesterday, but, alas, an avalanche of other stuff intervened. It's also still on my list!) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

One other thing—back to article feedback, where is the best place to leave feedback/questions/comments? I wanted to say that dab pages like Saint Regis probably shouldn't be rated (what's an untrustworthy dab page?), but I'm not sure which page would be the best place to leave a comment that someone will see, or if this is already a known bug. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, mw::Talk:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Workgroup is for technical issues. Otherwise, I'd drop it at mw::Talk:Article feedback. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I was actually amused to see article feedback ratings on redirect pages as well.. -- Ϫ 04:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Startling where and how quickly they appear. :) In my "other hat", I had one show up on an article I had just replaced for copyright problems this morning. I wonder, if the template had not been on default-blank-all option, if it would have shown up when it was blanked. :D --Maggie Dennis (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Researcher user right

Can you help resolve the intention of the researcher user right and how a user could request it? If it is within your purview, consider this also a request for the right. Best - My76Strat talk 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I doubt that it's within my purview personally (I'm kind of more of a go-between at WMF :D), but I will certainly find it more about its intention and use. I'll get back with you as soon as I get an answer. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked into, since I had never heard of this before, and this right was created by the Foundation to enable outside researchers to conduct sanctioned studies that require access to this data. As I understand it, currently only a staff member has the right. If you were interested in conducting research that required the right, you would want to talk to the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee (RCom), but I'm not sure that it would be given to anyone other than staff (including contractors) and Fellows. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for vesting the time necessary to provide that thoughtful reply. Until now, there has been little information regarding that right. Liaise on! My76Strat talk 19:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A recent message was posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Researcher user right. My opinion is that granting of such rights should be very restricted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What an odd coincidence of timing. :D I would agree with that. I see that User:DarTar created a log at meta:Research:Special_API_permissions/Log and that five other users have now been granted researcher permission, all Fellows working with the Summer of Research. I've expanded a bit at Wikipedia:User access levels#Researcher. As I noted there, they're evidently working on policies related to this right now. (There's a discussion area about it at meta:Research talk:Committee/Areas of interest/Non-public data permissions, though it's hardly busy. :D) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Diplomacy

Thank you Maggie, 'Diplomacy is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as they look forward to the journey.' (I apologize if your American, for the word that may be offensive, but it's the exact one for this quote)

But in this case, it does not apply, I genuinely like these two editors, and I'd be seriously saddened by the loss of either one. I feel differently about my recent request for arbitration though.

Penyulap talk 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick rhetorical note to let you know that both editors are back editing ! ex-cell-en-tae !! Penyulap talk 22:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you said it was rhetorical, I'll just add here that I'm glad to hear it. That's the goal. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Annotations

Hello Maggie,

That was my grandmother's name btw (like you wanted to hear that!). Anyway, I was hoping you might be able to help bring the right people together to resolve an issue that has been ongoing for, I dunno, 7 or more years now over at Wikisource. It's in regards to annotated works. For example, The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde (c.f. the non-annotated version).

Some people believe Wikisource should only be for curating texts, like a library, and texts should not be marked up and modified with original content, like with annotations. Other people want a place to work on annotating texts, and have used Wikisource over the years to create annotated works there. There is currently a discussion about it, though it's not the first, and probably won't resolve. The usual idea is to move annotated works to Wikibooks, but Wikibooks usually rejects the idea since they are more interested in CliffNotes type classroom material, very different.

So basically we have a small but unorganized number of editors at Wikisource who have created annotated texts over the years, and a core group of admins and editors who don't want them on the project at all, but no one has been able to achieve consensus. In the end, it negatively impacts Wiki by discouraging potential editors from contributing annotated works, which can be quite amazing if you take a look at some of them. They are the ugly step child no one wants, which is really a shame.

I personally think we need someone from MediaWiki "home office" to clearly say if Wikisource's charter is to include user-generated content like annotations, or not. Or Wikibooks. It is a fundamental lack of definition that has haunted the project since day one, creating a lot of confusion and conflict over the years, and held back editors from contributing. If Wikisource had embraced annotations and encouraged it over the years, we could have seen many more examples like the J&Hyde above. But instead its been beset with a political divide between curating librarians, and creative content makers.

Do you have any thoughts on who might be the right person(s) or forum to look at this? Thanks,

--(Steve) Green Cardamom (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. :) If an issue has been going on for seven years, I can certainly see why you'd like assistance straightening it out! As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation leaves content up to the communities, but I can certainly see if there is any clarification about mission or suggestions for how to move forward. The bulk of the office won't be awake for a bit, and it may take me some time to work out who to talk to, but I'm on it. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Steve,
Maggie pointed this out to me yesterday and I hadn't made it here til just now to comment. My sincere apologies. Yeah, what a crazy situation. I've been tangentially aware of the issues with annotation for a while, but I haven't done any in depth study of it. I'm going to change that as a result of this inquiry, but I want to tell you that most likely, what will happen is that WMF will - as Maggie suggests - point out that content creation and project scope are within the areas that we have traditionally left to the community. If there are ways we can support the local community in working this out, I'd be happy to advocate for that, but we will not likely make a determination one way or the other. So, creatively thinking, is there a way we can support you? Are there resources we can bring to the table? Anything like that gives me something that I can attempt to ask for. Sorry to have an unsatisfactory answer.  :( Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Philippe,
I'm heartened to know you were aware of the problem. I'm not sure what support or resources WMF has available, if you can point me to a FAQ or if you have any suggestions? My experience with WMF is little to none (other than sending a check each year:-)) Over at the above-linked thread I proposed a way forward, to frame the problem by defining the different "types" of annotations, from which we can then vote on each one as acceptable or not, since everyone seems to have some types they want and some they don't. Breaking it down like that might make it easier. So far two people have agreed on the idea conceptually, but we need to work up a project page next. Anyway thanks for looking at it and hope you'll keep an eye on things. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just to toss an idea out there, have you considered starting a separate project? I have absolutely no experience with wikisource, but I could imagine them hosting purely the original text and then having a prominent link "Wikiannotations has annoted versions of this work, click here to browse them". Yoenit (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yoenit, I've thought of this, but just assumed it would probably get tossed back to WS or WB since there is so much overlap with those existing projects. But maybe my assumption is wrong, do you know where to find a forum to discuss with those more knowledgeable? Green Cardamom (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The place to propose it officially would be m:Proposals for new projects, but whether that is good forum I don't know. Yoenit (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Milhist self-assessment

Hey Maggie. The project newsletter has just gone out with a paragraph on the self-assessment (under "Project news"), so I hope that you'll get many more comments in the next few days. Please don't kill me if you have to rewrite the summaries, I didn't think of this until now. :D Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! No killing. I'll be thrilled. :) I've been very pleased that you guys are helping me out with this (and I'm hoping to learn how to best present these to other projects from you), and the more answers the merrier. That's a great idea, and I appreciate your thinking of it. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion over at AN/I regarding WikiAlpha

Since you had participated in previous discussions, I felt it would be helpful to notify you of the current discussion regarding WikiAlpha. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikiAlpha spam (again). (I wasn't sure whether to let you know on this account's talk page or your non-official admin one. Either way, I've let you know.) Thank you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) While I encountered the thread at village pump while working, I helped them out as a volunteer, so I went ahead and responded in that capacity. I may respond more later, depending on how the conversation evolves. BTW, I appreciate your offering context at Jimmy's talk page. And I note that there's a whole lot of confusion out there about Wikipedia's copyright policies. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of confusion about Wikipedia's copyright policies. (I'm sometimes still a bit confused about them myself, though I think the July discussion helped clear up some of it for me.) And in regards to the context, I felt I had to, as the discussion had spun into a licensing dispute (which had already been discussed). Jasper's comment regarding your edit over at WikiAlpha, taken completely out of context, also made me twitch a little.
Anyway, we'll see how both of these discussions turn out. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice regarding a "Legal Notice"

If you could take a look at the legal notice sectionon my talk page, I'm really hesitant to do anything more with the IP address. As a WMF representative, I would appreciate any insights you might have. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I responded to this one via e-mail. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding India from some Chapter members

Hi Maggie, I have a question pertaining to India, Indian editors, an upcoming chapter-meet up, and a map. You can see the most recent discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Map of India, the WikiIndia meet, etc. The concern of a number of Indian users is that the map most commonly used on Wikipedia (and hosted on Commons, I believe) does not reflect the Indian government's preferred version, specifically with reference to disputed territories like Jammu and Kashmir (see Talk:India/FAQ). Furthermore, there is apparently a law in India that says that openly promulgating a map that doesn't reflect the official government stance could be punishable as a criminal act. Now, you and I, not being residents of India, of course have nothing to be concerned about, and neither does the Foundation, not being located in India. Indian editors, presumably, would be told that its their own responsibility for editing in accordance with local laws. The Chapter's concern, though, is that simply by meeting as an organized group, they might be held responsible (or, at least, some politicians might like to hold them responsible) even for content which they never personally edited. That is, they're concerned that their existence as a group, along with their ability to hold public meetings, may place them in danger even if they as individuals never actually add that map to a Wikipedia article. The discussion I pointed you to says that there was some indication in the past that issue was being considered by the Foundation's legal staff, but no final word was ever received. Could you check with the WMF and find out if this is an issue that they are aware of, pursuing, and if yes or no, provide some feedback to address the concerns of the Wikiproject? It's a very difficult discussion to even discuss, because editors even discussing it can easily stray (or appear to stray) into WP:NLT territory, which can often result in swift blocks given our very low tolerance for the issue. So, any input that the Foundation might have (even if its to say that its not their problem) would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To clarify few things. Its not a Chapter event. Its an event by the community. To my best of knowledge, No one on the discussion there at WT:INB are chapter members(except User:Gkjohn and myself). This issue is potentially explodable given the seriousness Indian government showing on maps online, but I must say we are blowing too much out of propotion when there is no actual threat.I would assume this as another way to push POV of certain editors.Tying knots on unrelated thing like a edit issue and legal problems for the conduct of the conference is totally unwarrented. On a related note there will be talk on the same at the event Patriotism,_Nationalism,_Jingoism Srikanth (Logic) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for the background. It sounds very complicated, and I'm glad to hear that the legal staff may be already aware of it. That'll make it a lot easier to explain! I'll be happy to check in with them and see if there's been any resolution on what feedback they may be able to provide. It'll probably be a couple of days before I'm able to update you, as email communication is a bit slower than the Wikipedia userpage model. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Right at the start of the thread referred to above, I reported the issue at WP:ANI. Since I have now referred to this thread there, the link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Veiled_legal_threat_posed_as_a_query.3F. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I didn't know that you are MRG until Q's post at WT:INB! Eitherways, I don't think the content itself is the issue -- like Logicwiki stated above, anything will be twisted to promote a particular stance. I think the more realistic concerns are expressed on Talk:India/Archive_30#Map by Planemad and Sodabottle as that is specifically related to editors being able to follow WP policy/guidelines. I'm personally not concerned, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to explain the reasons. RegentsPark elicited this response from NYB. At the end of the day if there's no response from "whoever can provide one" it's a personal choice -- if the editor doesn't want to associate themself with the map, they are free to not edit the relevant article(s) -- the servers are in the US, this is a voluntary project and that's that. —SpacemanSpiff 11:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's me. :) That's why I'm temporarily less available these days; until my contract expires, I've got a lot going on elsewhere. :D
I'm not involved in the outcome of this, as the attorneys will have reviewed the matter and will recommend whatever seems appropriate to them. I'm just the go-between. :) But I'll make sure that they are aware of that thread in case it can help them in expressing any opinion they may have. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have spoken with the legal team on this, and their feedback on the matter is as follows:

Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation is not able to provide legal advice on this matter. We do note, however, that editors should not make edits that violate their local laws. See m:Legal/Legal Policies. Users who are concerned about their own actions or contributions may wish to discuss with local counsel.

From my own perspective and not speaking in any way on their behalf, I would interpret that to suggest that concerned contributors need to determine how local laws may apply to them and what activities they feel appropriate for them based on that information. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, even though the WMF was, not unsurprisingly, not very helpful. I've added a link to this conversation in the original noticeboard thread. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure they wish they could give more. :/ The WMF attorneys are genuinely nice people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of local laws, and as much as they might wish to help they are undoubtedly wisely aware that interpreting local laws is best left to those most familiar with them and the legal environment that created them. (Again, those are my thoughts. The only statement I have is the one in the box. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, I didn't expect any other answer :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, this was what told earlier too. So WMF maintains status quo on legality of this. Yes and Indian IT law is getting crappier day by day. Thanks for getting us the clarification. Srikanth (Logic) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagline

Hello.

I wanted to ask if the foundation has any role in the decision regarding the tagline of wikipedia(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia) and its equivalents in different languages. I've initiated a discussion at the hindi wikipedia village pump about a minor change in it, and wanted to be sure that the foundation would have no objections with it. My major concern is whether there's a legal status(copyright, trademark etc.) associated with the tagline, and if present, how a change would affect it.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I believe the Foundation did have a role in that, but I'm not entirely sure. :) I will certainly see what I can find out for you and get back with you as soon as possible. Although it may not matter to the question, can I ask more about the proposed change? Google translate suggests that what you want to do is remove the comma to avoid potenial misunderstandings among Hindi readers; is that right? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. And you are right, it may not matter to the current question, but I think it would be best if the matter was clarified beforehand.
As for the change, the current text is विकिपीडिया, एक मुक्त ज्ञानकोष से . This wording is such that there are two possible meanings. The obvious meaning is roughly From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia. However, if someone wanted, they could interpret it as Wikipedia is from a free encyclopedia. This effect is mainly caused by the comma, but just removing the comma doesn't remove the ambiguity entirely. The proposed text is मुक्त ज्ञानकोष विकिपीडिया से . This removes the ambiguity and can be roughly translated as From the free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia . I hope this clarification is enough. However, if a more detailed explanation is needed, I'd be glad to provide one(and possibly ask others to contribute, if you want me to). Thanks again --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I think that clarifies matters just fine, and I will pass that along. I hope to be able to have a response for you within a few days. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
And our amazingly responsive legal team strikes again. :) While the WMF does have a role in the tagline, this recommended change would be fine if the community supports it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the effort (to everyone who took time out for this).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Project Gastropods

Hi M, I just wanted to let you know that by far the most active contributor to the Wp gastropods project is User:Snek01 who has been contributing for over 4 years. Some time after one of his run-ins with authority/guidelines, he apparently got disgusted and resigned from Wikipedia, at which time he removed himself from the list of gastropod project page. However he stayed away for only about 2 months and then came back and resumed his activity in the project, i.e. he is still (as before) extremely active, more active than I am, especially in terms of creating new articles. But he declined being listed on the project page. However because he is so extremely active on gastropods you might want to consider asking him too. It's possible he may not want to answer, but I don't doubt he has strong opinions on the questions. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your decision to invite people individually to respond to the questions about the gastropod project seems to have helped the process. Good. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Formal request re: CorenSearchBot and copyright issues

Hi MRG. I'm really glad you are our Community Liaison for the WMF. As we know, CorenSearchBot is down because of the issues with Yahoo. Like you, I think this is a significant issue. The last I heard, talks about getting this resolved have stalled and no prgress has been made. I would like to ask, in an official way, that a representative of the WMF attempt to contact the various search engine companies (Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.) to see if we can work together to find a solution to check for copyright issues by using their search engine. Could you please let me know who I should contact to make such an official request? I feel this is an important issue and think it's in the WMF's best interest to have an "official person" working on this until it gets resolved. Thanks very much for your help. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hydroxonium, I'll check with Jimmy and find out what the current status is, and if he believes it's advisable for us to have someone get in touch, I'll be happy to follow up on that. I don't want to pre-empt anything he might be doing. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Philippe. I sincerly appreciate the help with this issue. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 09:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshallsumter and Wikiversity

Hi there--was directed here by The Anome. In case you haven't heard, Marshallsumter (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely after it emerged he was using Wikipedia for some sort of research project, per this Wikiversity page. Further investigation revealed that a large number of his articles were copyvios. After it emerged that he was actually transferring his articles, copyvios and all, to Wikiversity (at least seven of his Wikipedia articles were confirmed copyvios, and maybe more), this was endorsed as a ban. See the relevant discussion at ANI.

What concerns me the most is the cross-wiki issues. I'm no lawyer, but even I know that in transferring copyvios to Wikiversity, this user is placing the Foundation in off-the-charts legal danger. It doesn't seem that much is being done about it, so if there's any way you could have a look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Blueboy96 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have heard (in fact, I have contributed just once to the thread under my volunteer account. I will check with staff to see if this is something that needs attention at the Foundation level. Since the Foundation does not control content, though, it may be that the communities will need to handle it ourselves. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I just saw your reply at WP:VPT#Article feedback tool + WikiLove feature. Thanks for that. I have a lot of discussions to look after, so I initially missed it. :) Much appreciated. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


ArbCom and security

This is still pending

Hi, it seems that you are the person to talk with about ArbCom-WMF-Community issues. I have a few concerns or ideas:

  1. ArbCom needs to get out of the business of handling emergencies, suicide prevention, sexual predators, mentally ill editors, crimes, hacking, real world harassment, etc. These serious issues require sensitivity, legal input, and confidentiality. These matters should be deal with in a secure office environment. Spreading such information among a number of volunteers (e.g. 18 ArbCom members) to their personal computers and personal spaces is not secure. It is also exposing them to legal liabilities and risks, and might even result has resulted in attempts to blackmail or harass them.
  2. ArbCom needs to get rid of the confidential info they are now holding related to past incidents of the above nature.
  3. Checkusers have access to confidential information that may be regulated in some jurisdictions. We need to ensure that information is dealt with properly and that somebody understands what the legal obligations are and follows them.

Please let me know your thoughts. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm actually kind of the go-between, to make sure that the right person responds. :)
I work remotely, which means that I'm active at slightly different hours than most staff, but after reading Shell's note I had already written to open a conversation about security issues and to advise about other concerns. I think those are well worth reviewing. As I mentioned (purely in my own opinion--not an "official" statement of the WMF) at Shell's page, I think we do need to clarify which tasks should be handled by whom. Once I get some direction on where to go with this, I might have a better idea how best to iron out these issues. (I'm still working on that communication system, so can't rely on it yet. :D) I think voicing them here is a good start. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Friendly amendment for Jehochman's consideration, "might even result in" under item 1 should be changed to "has resulted in" as evidenced in the Purloined Letters. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the WMF will ever provide proper protection or legal guidance to its volunteers, because that would risk its section 230 immunity (or at least, they think it would). However, if you are interested, I can suggest a couple of areas that need to be looked into. I'm sure others have more exhaustive lists.

  1. What is the legal exposure of checkusers who retain results on their own computers for future reference? Hypothetical: Bob Smith complains to the WMF about libel in his biography, and serves the WMF with a legally actionable demand for the IP addresses of the editor who added the libel. The WMF replies that since the libel was added more than 90 days ago, the checkuser data is no longer available on the server. Could Bob serve the WMF with a demand for the name, address and other identifying information for anyone with checkuser permission who may have run a check on the editor back when the data was still fresh? If WMF gives up the names of the checkusers, can Bob then subpoena the checkusers for any retained records they have? What are the duties of a checkuser to retain data, and how does that duty change once a demand letter is sent? Can Bob compel a checkuser to testify as a witness in a civil suit as to the identification of the vandal? How does the exposure of checkusers to this kind of risk vary from country to country? Does it depend on the country of residence of the WMF, or of the checkuser, or both?
  2. What responsibility does the WMF have to stop vandalism? I'm not talking about 12 year olds writing "penis" in an article, I'm talking about long-term serious vandalism that crosses all WM projects and is so persistent and grotesque that it forces the developers to write new code to try and slow it down. Costing the WMF a non-zero amount for the developers, server downtime, etc. At what point (if ever) should the WMF send a cease and desist letter to the vandal's ISP and the vandal himself, and be prepared to back it up with teeth.
  3. What responsibility does the WMF have (if any) when a person gets so angry about something that he decides to use his own off-wiki presence (blog, etc) to harass long-time editors, admins or arbitrators, including such tactics as publishing their real name, address and phone number, and encouraging his readers and followers to make harassing phone calls and home drive-bys?

Cheers. Thatcher 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be a start for WMF to convene a discussion group and explain their limitations. Then we editors, admiistrators, checkusers and arbitrators could take whatever steps might be necessary to protect ourselves. The Wikipedia websites are a multi-billion dolar value to humanity. Surely we can find a way to obtain professioal legal advice, insurance and IT security. Jehochman Talk 03:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that conversation would probably be a good idea, Jehochman. Thatcher, I've already worked with Foundation staff on the question of long-term vandalism a bit when approached by another Wikipedian. There are things I wouldn't really want to go into here with regards to that, but I know that discussions about what WMF can do effectively in that area are actually ongoing now. I haven't seen question 3 raised. That's an interesting one. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a good start, but we need to be careful that WMF doesn't succeed in deflecting the conversations onto side issues (e.g., preventing vandalism) while shunting aside the main point (personal liability). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in on the subject of some form of liability insurance coverage for arbs at least, and possibly down to admins. Such coverage need not be especially expensive: my personal experience with professional liability insurance is that it could probably be purchased for a fairly nominal sum when spread over 1500+ admins, given the ten-year record that Wikipedia has amassed for accurate risk assessment. The Section 230 issue might be dealt with by making such coverage a matter of donor funding, not administered by the WMF, perhaps structured as a cooperative; I have no idea if there's any legal precedent for such an arrangement. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Section 230 is being misunderstood. Comcast has a department that deals with abuse. If you use a Comcast account to abuse other people on the Internet, they will eventually cut off the activity and may refer the matter to police. WMF needs to have the same sort of professional abuse department to deal with these issues. ArbCom should be reserved for editorial disputes. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As a personal comment (not an official statement) I support that view, also the view in your opening post. I have no idea why we would have an 18 member committee voting on whether or not userX should be blocked under the child protection policy. Re RL harrassment, after a frustrating period, the WMF does seem to be slightly more stepping up to the plate, but dealing with criminal activities such as rl stalking should not be in the remit of Arbcom. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
One problem is that the community should have much higher standards than required by (Florida?) law. For example, I hope Arbcom will continue quietly removing editors who display an unhelpful stance with regard to pedophilia—that may not be easy if such issues were handled by a legal department. Also, whereas the WMF should provide real assistance with long term abusers, and should take action where any credible threat to an editor occurs, we need Arbcom to decide whether a particular editor should be banned in cases that do not involve clear illegality (e.g. persistent yet subtle threats which would not be legally actionable). Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can set whatever standards it likes, "terms of service" or "terms of participating", and eject anybody who doesn't follow them. Illegality need not be the threshold, but clearly if there is serious illegality, that matter should be handled by a professional, not a volunteer. Jehochman Talk 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, more specifically, the Wikimedia Foundation can set whatever terms it wishes, and so far it has decided to be an open project with rather limited exceptions. Luckily, most of the behaviour you identify falls into those exceptions. For some time now, threats of violence and/or self-harm have been passed on to the WMF, by both Arbcom (if someone notifies us) and the community as a whole, and an ever-decreasing number of these come to our attention; this is a good thing. There are many other shades of grey, though. Some people watching here might want to comment at m:Global blocks and bans, which seeks to remove seriously problematic users on a global scale. Risker (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to say that I've approached staff to make sure that they know that this conversation is happening and given them a broad overview, but I want time for people to give feedback here before asking specifically what kind of steps I should take to make sure community concerns are considered. The Wikimedia Foundation has been really stellar about working with me. Take Thatcher's 2nd point above, for example; this was one of the first major issues I was asked to work on, and I was really impressed that within a matter of days I had been put in direct communication with one of the directors of technology, several members of our legal team, and a security expert at another major internet service. I realize that I may not be seen as entirely uninvolved at this point (:D), but, so far, I haven't seen any efforts by WMF to "deflect" any conversations I've raised. They've been straightforward with me even when their answers don't make me happy. (That doesn't mean, of course, that everything they say can be published. Taking that 2nd point again, the last thing I would want to do is put up a page on Meta somewhere saying, "The WMF can take action when this happens, but not when this does." Talk about your beans.) It seems to me at this point that what we're leaning towards here is the need for some kind of conversation about the division of duties between ArbCom and the WMF as well as some clarity on what the WMF can do to support and protect contributors. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Results of the lack of direction previously from WMF on ArbCom

What is apparent from the above, and leading from the Shell Kinney resignation statement, is that the failure to provide en-Wikipedia with a clear mission statement has lead to a community elected group of volunteer editors - on the basis of their dispute resolution capabilities - attempting to put into practice a process by which they can handle issues outside of editorial behaviour in relation to content editing; for good or bad they have followed the lead of those with a legal background in attempting to deal with this. Although it has worked, up to a point certainly, so far it is obviously a stressful and time consuming process, by which evidence is weighed and judged and a fair and neutral decision (hopefully) arrived at. This is reasonably good in dealing with editors who have transgressed the rules regarding content contribution, and even effective when handling individuals who have sought to evade editorial practice to promote or deprecate a subject or viewpoint - it is not, however, suitable for dealing with people who simply wish to use the access provided by the English language Wikipedia for their own purposes.
I have been reviewing the Wikipedia Wikimedia Foundation page where I note it says "The foundation's by-laws declare a statement of purpose of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally", and "The Wikimedia Foundation's stated goal is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge." Nowhere does it state that it endows any individual with the right to be able to participate in any of the projects, and even the the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" slogan on the Front Page only notes that access is generally available within the terms of the mission statement. The general public, including all of the Wikipedia volunteer editors and every grade of functionary and responsibility drawn from that group, are permitted to help improve (or maintain, as their skill set provides) the project. It is apparent that any individual, for whatever reason, who is not participating in an attempt to usefully contribute to the furtherance of those goals need not be allowed to remain involved with the project(s).
As noted above, the English language Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee whose initial responsibility is the last resort in dispute resolution, when other options have or are likely to fail, and the dealing with violations of the consensually approved editorial policies and guidelines. To that end, thoughtful and good faith deliberations help affirm those standards to the benefit of the wider contributing community. In dealing with those issues and individuals whose purpose falls outside of the proper remit of editing an encyclopedia there is no need for extended consideration of conduct and the circumstances - these people have no right to be permitted to remain part of what is for all intents and purposes a private website; they should be told that their access is revoked, that their participation is not wanted and there is no possibility of appeal, that this is a private website, and in that their conduct has raised concerns it is the within the remit of the elected representatives of the community to remove the privileges previously provided for them.
I would welcome you broaching the subject with the WMF that there is no right to a resolution process for those whose activities are incompatible with the aims of the WMF bylaws and stated goal(s), and that those persons found to be conducting themselves so may have their access and privileges summarily removed. How the Wikipedia community should deal with reviewing, deciding, and acting upon such instances, however, is a different issue - although one that the WMF may usefully be part of, as their responsibilities to the editorship and the readership may be involved. For my part, I am going to link my post here to Jimbo's page (and add a suggestion) and see if any discussion evolves.
I think it is time that the project clarified how it should conduct itself in regard to the differing issues that are presently the responsibility of the Arbitration Committee, and I look forward to hearing what you think you, Maggie, may be able to contribute to this effort. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

LHVU, at least 95% of all blocks are of "individuals whose purpose falls outside of the proper remit of editing an encyclopedia". Generally speaking, the community has little trouble dealing with most of these situations. The problems come when an account establishes itself as a (potentially) viable contributor but has other behavioural issues. Even then, the community manages the majority of these cases with relatively little difficulty. I think you might want to spend some more time working out exactly where you think the problems are, because between what you've written here and what you've written on Talk:Jimbo Wales, I'm finding it unclear what problems are going unaddressed or improperly addressed. Risker (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not made myself clear that I am not referring to editors whose behavioural difficulties centre around or are observed via their editing, or their viewpoints on certain subjects, but to those who use WP to gain access to people for purposes other than constructing an encyclopedia. Even the worse types of content pov editors work on the basis they are improving the project, by their standards. My point is in regard to those who are here to prey on members of the community, with no regard to content except where it might engineer a contact with another editor. I am saying that where such improper interactions are instigated the methods used by ArbCom - which are dispute resolution based - in addressing them are inadequate. This is not a criticism of the members of ArbCom, or of the ArbCom process; it is a suggestion that the ArbCom model does not cover this type of individual/issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually it does; we just had a new Arbcom policy ratified by the community last month, which includes such issues (although not explicitly listing them). Nonetheless, Arbcom's remit is best described as behavioural issues that adversely affect the project. I'm not saying there's no alternative method of dealing with certain types of behavioural issues, but I cannot think of a single case that we have ever addressed, including most of the ones that have raised concerns, where content issues were essentially peripheral, except for obviously harassing vandals. In fact, I would say that content manipulation of some sort is almost invariably involved. Risker (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I sense that we are talking past each other, I recognise my style can be quite difficult to decipher (by me, upon review, sometimes) and I am not sure your points are addressing the specifics I am alluding to. I shall give this a last try, and then let it rest. Bluntly, I am referring to online grooming. There are those participants whose contributions are within the norms of editing guideline and policy, and who are outwardly civil and collegiate in their interactions - but whose intentions are not orientated toward the content of the encyclopedia but toward formulating a relationship with other editors, who are of an age or disposition where their vulnerabilities may make them susceptible to the offers of "special friendship", or self identify as belonging to a group of interest to that individual. There is nothing in regard to the edits and communications that transgresses WP policy and guideline, and might not even be recognised as improper by the targeted account, where the ArbCom would find it able to remove such "influences" via dispute resolution rationales. I think that there should both be a clear direction from the WMF, that such conduct is antithetical to the purpose of the project, and that the normal arbcom practice of providing a carefully weighed consideration is unnecessary and that the account is banned without ceremony and with an explanation of the individual "not being in the interests of the project and community". LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your very detailed feedback, LessHeard vanU. :) While you guys are discussing the particulars, I want to just answer the question you asked of me. What I hope to be able to do here, personally, is make sure that the community's thoughts have a fair hearing. Basically, the Liaison's role with the WMF is to help the Foundation stay in touch with the communities and vice versa. What I intend to do, probably the first of the week, is to summarize the thoughts placed on my page so far and present them to staff (linking to the full conversation, of course). From there, my job is to find out who can and should address these concerns, and in what forum. I know that the WMF is already working closely with ArbCom on a number of issues (I'm not part of those conversations at this point, although I've been told that might change); some of the thoughts presented here may be already on the table, others may need to be added. I am not an advocate, per se--I don't feel it within my remit to presume to speak for what's best for the community--but I do hope that an appropriate staff member will be able to give some public information about what is being done about these concerns. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Not advocating, but forwarding the issues raised here is all I suggest. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WMF responsibilities

I think it is important not to get bogged down (yet) in the details. Liability and vandalism and security are all sub-issues. The big over-arching issue is this: What responsibilities does the WMF have to its projects, its staff, and its volunteers. This seems like a simple question but it is not, and it is a question that every organization needs to ask itself every couple of years as it evolves. The answers to that question in 2011 are likely to be very different from 2002, or 2005, or even 2009 when I left. It is not clear whether the question has ever been asked, and if so, how it was answered.

There are, of course, many interesting and important sub-issues.

  1. What responsibility does the WMF have for private information collected by authorized volunteers? (The problems with the Arbcom mailing list also pertain to the checkuser mailing list. There is a lot of private information in the CU mailing list archives. Is it secure? Not only that, there are times when the WMF is served with a subpoena for CU information about an editor. Does the WMF check the CU mailing list for information that is responsive to the subpoena, because it probably should. When I became a CU, Mike Godwin was in the process of re-writing the privacy policy. He basically didn't want to know anything about the mailing list and that it might contain information covered by the policy he was writing, even though it was on WMF servers.)
  2. Does the WMF even have a thorough understanding of the kinds of sensitive information collected and stored on its servers, and privately by its volunteers?
  3. What responsibility (if any) does the WMF have for securing the safety of its volunteers?
  4. What responsibility (if any) does the WMF have for shielding volunteers from liability?
  5. What responsibility does the WMF have regarding granting and revoking advanced tools like OS and CU? (If a local project grants CU to an unsuitable person, can and should the WMF intervene, and if so, how and under what rules. cf. User:Cato on Wikiquote)
  6. Who should deal with threats of violence made against oneself (suicide) or others using WMF services?
  7. When should the WMF step in to a conflict? (Face it, the WMF is a big and powerful corporation with lawyers and publicity, and individual editors, even if they are Arbitrators, are just schmucks with an obsessive hobby. Sending a member of Arbcom out to deal with a user who was involved in identity theft in the real world is like sending Zargon the 7th level Mage out as an official spokesman for Blizzard Entertainment.)

Most importantly, the Foundation needs to start acting like it runs a multi-national corporation and not a lemonade stand. Maybe things have changed, but as of 2 years ago, the WMF board of directors mostly consisted of encyclopedia editors who wrote really nice articles and spent a lot of time building up their Wikimedia credentials. You guys have to realize that, even though you have a budget half the size of one megachurch in California, you have the global reach and influence of Google or Facebook. Judges cite Wikipedia articles. Google and Bing news list Wikipedia articles on news topics. You're on the first page of search results for any topic on any search engine. You need board members with professional experience running complex multinational organizations, with experience managing giant social networks, and with experience as major fundraisers for non-profits. Not guys who can translate an article about tree frogs into 7 different languages.

Then set those experts in managing global organizations to a serious review of the responsibilities of the WMF. Don't start with any one point of view, like liability or security or vandalism. Start bigger, keep an open mind, listen to your most committed volunteers, and set some priorities. Make some real decisions. If it turns out you need a larger staff to handle some of these things, then raise the funds and get the staff. Or whatever else you need to do.

Then, after your review is over and you've decided what the WMF should and should not do, explain it to everyone.

Then, in a year or two, start the review process all over again. Thatcher 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher, I know you've not been actively involved in the checkuser area for a couple of years (and more is our loss), so you are probably not aware of a few issues. First off, a checkuser wiki has been created and is under WMF control. Its purpose is to retain checkuser information about persistently disruptive editors — whether on one project, multiple projects, or cross-wiki — which can be retained under the Privacy Policy for an extended period. The Checkuser-L mailing list archives were scheduled to be completely deleted on July 1; however, given the recent situation, that deletion is on hold until the leak of the Arbcom-related emails/archives has been thoroughly reviewed. The checkuser wiki is reviewed regularly by WMF staff to ensure that the "pages" are related to genuinely disruptive editors. If a page relates to someone who does not appear to have been active for a very extended period, it can be deleted, and the deletion tables purged. (It's new so there have been no deletions so far, but this is the planned practice when the time comes.) All checkusers from all projects are encouraged to participate at the checkuser wiki. As well, the WMF has instituted a 24/7 email notification system to deal with threats of violence and self-harm earlier this year, and this has been used by all levels of editors/admins/arbitrators; they have taken on this particular role. I think that many of these longstanding concerns are starting to be addressed by the Foundation, at the Board, executive and staff levels, although I agree there is still much to do. Risker (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
All good, much still to do. Mind you, I'm not suggesting the WMF can cure all ills. But a starting point would be to make a list of concerns with "We've thought about X; here is what we will and won't do, and here are volunteer risks and responsibilities in this area." Thatcher 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thatcher (and everyone here!), thank you for the suggestions, and thoughts. It really is enormously helpful when there can be rational debate with solid examples like the ones we're seeing here. That makes it so much easier for me to go back to the rest of our team in the office and wade through these things. Obviously, we're not going to solve all these problems overnight, and there may be some where you don't like the direction we end up heading... but please know that doesn't mean the feedback wasn't appreciated and reviewed. I make a point of reading very closely everything that Maggie sends me, and she does an excellent job of making sure that I know what suggestions are being made so that I can pass them on. I like, particularly, the suggestion to spell out our thinking more, Thatcher, and I'll tell you that it's one that Sue's pushing for as well. I hope we'll be getting better at doing that. Thanks again. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)/Archive_1&oldid=1144606832"