This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mdennis (WMF). 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.
Could you please add some handy shortcuts and anchors on wmf:Terms of Use, in the style of our policy shortcuts (as seen on WP:NOT for instance)? My particular request is for an anchor and shortcut relating to paid editing, which I find myself having to link to far too often. MER-C04:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MER-C! And thanks, Revi. :) Recently, James Alexander added an anchor to that section: wmf:TOU#paid-contrib-disclosure. We can probably add other anchors as long as hidden, but I'd need to get permission to add visible shortcuts. Do you want me to look into that? I wonder if we could host a list on Meta of anchors (and a local copy as appropriate)? I think the term is rather clunky, but that's apparently what was placed on Meta - he originally had used "paid". I myself would probably go with that term. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mdennis (WMF)! Pine✉ has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Pine✉21:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Missing Special Page at hi.wp
Hello.
I'm writing here since I'm not sure who to contact about this (been off-wiki for half an year now).
So I just came back on-wiki (hindi wikipedia) and a user told me that he was unable to review pending changes and getting a "Special page doesn't exist" error. I've looked around and here's what I found:
About seven weeks ago, you replied on my talk page to a request that I had made on Jimbo's talk page. You said, among other things, as the WMF always does, that each of the Wikipedia communities is expected to be self-governing. I partly agree, but the English Wikipedia "community" is so large, diverse, and fractious that it hardly makes sense to consider it to be a "community" capable of reasonable self-government. For that reason, I think that the WMF needs to show leadership. First, in particular, with regard to undisclosed commercial paid editing, "the community" is divided, while the WMF is united, so that the WMF needs to act to keep the English Wikipedia community as nearly free as possible of this cancer, with or without action on editors. The current restrictions in the Terms of Use were initiated by the WMF, not by "the English-language community", and that is probably how it has to be. Second, since "the community" is represented primarily at the noticeboards, it consists primarily of the loudest editors. The only mechanisms for dealing with conduct issues are, first, the Arbitration Committee, which has limited resources and is often over-stretched, and "the community" at the noticeboards. When an issue divides the English Wikipedia, there is likely to be no consensus at the noticeboards, so that only the ArbCom can resolve a polarizing issue. I would suggest that the WMF could take leadership in looking into some mechanism for secret voting (such as is used for ArbCom elections). I would also suggest that the WMF take leadership in looking into whether there can be some intermediate mechanism for dealing with conduct disputes (such as some sort of jury trial), since a group as large and fractious as the English Wikipedia isn't likely to take leadership.
A "community" as large, diverse, and fractious as the English Wikipedia isn't likely to take initiatives to govern itself without leadership from the WMF. Thank you for any future attention.
Hello, Robert McClenon. Paid editing is quite a challenge. Speaking as a volunteer myself, I know it's not always easy to identify a professional COI. I generally encounter them when doing copyright cleanup and some that I've thought were paid later seemed perhaps more likely to be people just copy-pasting from the website of the subject they were writing about. Since the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't review edits, there aren't really staff encountering suspicious content. I'm not sure what precisely the WMF might be able to do to keep the community free of undisclosed commercial paid editing without editor intervention. What kind of approach do you envision?
With respect to your secret voting ideas or intermediate dispute resolution ideas, have you considered floating them at the village pump to see if others in the community agree and can help come up with a system? It would be interesting to see what ideas might emerge. Again, as a volunteer myself, I understand how difficult these areas (especially the latter) can be, and I'm pretty sure there's broad agreement that they are difficult among users. I hear a lot about it. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation will be better able to step up to assist with clear mandate from the community, provided that resources can be allocated or obtained. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. I'd like to get your opinion on these 3 successive edits to WP:MOS from 6 days ago ... it hasn't been reverted, and looking quickly, I don't see a discussion. Among other things, it says that in some cases, it's preferable not to use quote marks when you're directly quoting a single word (or maybe more than one word, I'm not sure). It's certainly not an uncommon practice, but I'm wondering if there are slippery slope issues here with omitting quote marks. (watching here, of course) - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dan. :) Speaking based on my own understanding (I can ask the attorneys if you like), I believe that this is an editorial choice. From a copyright standpoint, from the U.S. perspective, I believe that the quotation marks don't matter in the context set out there. In my opinion, the in-text attribution and extremely limited taking eliminates any plagiarism concern as well. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much. I think it's likely the question will come up, and it's good to have your opinion on this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Someone may be impersonating me. The discussion is now quite long but the essence is that at least two administrators and possible more have been impersonated via email by paid editing scammers who offer editors with rejected AfC drafts to get them approved on payment of a fee. If they don't pay, the scammers threaten to (or actually do) have the article deleted under {{Db-author}}. OTRS volunteers are also reporting multiple instances of this. Is there any help/advice the WMF can give? Or is not something they would get invovled in even at the advice level? This is my latest comment there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Maggie. Further up in that lengthy discussion DGG also suggested:
"At the very least, the WMF ought to make public statement that a/nobody has the authority to promise that a WP article will be accepted or will be given a particular quality designation. and b/ that anyone offering to write WP articles without giving full disclosure of that fact on Wikipedia will be in violation of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure."
I think that's within their remit, but it's not likely to be a quick thing. It's a relatively small team with a lot of duties. :/ I can ask them, but my the question would likely be where they would make this statement that it would be effective. Do you have any thoughts, Voceditenore? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
LOL, Voceditenore. :) I will bring it up to legal to ask about the possibility of including such a statement in the FAQ or issuing one elsewhere. I'll let them know that DGG is planning to write to the legal queue, since I'm not sure whom he addressed invidually. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I need your help on something. Some years ago Newyorkbrad wrote an excellent essay at WP:Guidance for younger editors which I later recast, without altering the content, to a language level appropriate to the target audience. There is now a dispute after all these years between some users about whom youngsters should contact if they want advice. It may not be a foundation remit to intervene so whether you voice an opinion there or here as an employee or as MRG I don't mind, but I really would like your opinion before I stray too far in the argument. I don't know how other Wikis, such as the French and the German address this issue, but there is a faint chance that it may be within the remit of the Foundation to offer a solution after all. The discussion is here. Best, Chris.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the project talk page. You referred in your reply to, ' A solution to the the question of what constitutes reasonable protection for vulnerable users and the people who mentor them, particularly in balance against our commitment to openness'. I do not see any conflict between openness and protection. I am suggesting that all contact with young people should take place on-wiki and that we we should not suggest that young people make private contact with admins, or anyone else. This is as open as you can get, as everyone can see what has been said by both parties and it is inherently safe for the same reason; any attempt at any inappropriate conversation will be quickly noticed.
Before my edit the page said:
'Administrators are people we trust a lot. If you want some advice but don't want to ask it openly on a talk page, most admins will let you email them by using the Wikipedia email system. It's not like putting a public message on a talk page, as it is just as safe as ordinary email: it won't tell the admin anything about you that isn't in your email or email address, and nobody else can read it, unless they forward the message'.
I think that this is extremely bad advice, which could potentially cause serious harm young people, admins, and Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Martin Hogbin, I'm sorry, but while I shared a few of my personal thoughts I can't really enter into specifics on the debate around this subject. As I am an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and was involved in the question in my staff role, I need to leave that to community consensus. You might consider bringing it up at WP:VPP to get further feedback. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Maggie, as I understand it the WMF get involved in BLP issues. This issue is even more important. If a serious incident were to occur the fallout for WMF could be enormous. You said, quite rightly that, 'The safety of our users is a pretty critical area of concern for the WMF', Encouraging young people to privately contact unknown (to them) people could seriously threaten the safety of your users. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Martin. as I have mentioned elswhere, while I fully respect your concerns, I feel Maggie has sufficiently contributed to the discussion on behalf of the Foundation and that we at en.Wiki should should now be discussing possible solutions in an appropriate venue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Maggie, I have tried to bring what I consider to be a very serious matter to the attention of the WMF through you. If there is a more appropriate channel or if it is not clear in any what I consider the dangers to be please do not hesitate to contact me again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Martin Hogbin. The WMF does not get involved in content issues except in extremely rare circumstances. You can see more about this and what these circumstances are at WP:OFFICE. It is also extremely rare for it to involve itself in community governance, as generally the communities manage this just fine. I understand that you consider this language to be alarming, but you say above that you have removed it. The language is not on the page; there is no present danger. If you bring up your concerns to the WP:VPP, others will have an opportunity to weigh in and consider your assessment. If the language is restored and you wish to find out if the WMF considers the issue an area where intervention or advice is necessary, I am happy to help you pursue that. The legal team may or may not be able to assist. They have a pretty heavy workload, though, so generally we wouldn't ask their involvement regarding language that used to be in a page unless the removal of it created problems in the first place. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This and a series of related articles are lists of the most popular classical music broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I nominated these articles for deletion in 2011, contending that they are non-notable and a probable copyright violation. Fans leaped to the article's defense, and the article was not deleted. But the copyright issue remained unresolved. Recently interest has revived in the article, which drew my attention to it once again.
I believe the articles are a clear copyright violation. Wikipedia:Non-free content and your essay on the subject suggest that the factor in determining copyright status of a list is whether criteria for selecting the candidates for the list were objective or subjective. A rereading of the ABC website indicates that the candidates for the "Classic 100" lists were selected from pieces broadcast by the station, that is, selected subjectively by the editors of the programs. The ABC website states here about one of these lists: "Producer Phil Carrick selected music that included much idiosyncrasy, hopping between instrumental music, opera, medieval chant and a substantial serve of Australian contemporary classical music." Presumably, the other lists are based on selection criteria equally subjective.
If you agree with me that these articles are copyright violations, I would appreciate it if you would handle the deletion. I already nominated them once for deletion, and I don't want to be the bad guy again. Of course, if you disagree with me, I accept your superior judgement in this matter.
Ravpapa, I believe you have contacted the wrong account here. :) The Wikimedia Foundation and its employees are not involved in editorial judgments on content and cannot be. In my work role, I can only involve myself in copyright concerns where DMCA processes are followed and the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent contacted by copyright holder. With my volunteer account, User:Moonriddengirl, I can act just as any other editor can.
Since I think it's Moonriddengirl you want here, I'm responding with that account.
In my volunteer capacity, I agree with you that the content is protected by copyright. I truncated it during the AFD but restored it when the ABC wrote an email to the permissions queue granting license to the the text of the ABC Classic FM Classic 100 Countdown lists. A record has been made of that on the talk page of the article, and a note of the license is at the base of the page. Any ABC Classic FM Classic 100 Countdowns released prior to March 18, 2011 should be covered by that release. I would not use lists released after without additional license statement. The license did not release future lists. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Book creator bugs - being looked at?
Hey Maggie, I apologise if this is the wrong place!
While working on OTRS, one thing that astounds me is the number of reports of book renderings failing with "non-zero code: 1", and no further information to aid diagnostics. When I reported this in the bud tracker (phab:T94308) several months back, there are loads of other cases of this occuring (I merged a load together, but still more exist). I wonder if you knew if this tool was still being worked on, and if not, why not when there are this many bugs in it still?
Now you get all the grief Philippe has put up with for years? Tis true, no good deed goes unpunished. Congratulations. NE Ent00:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I am deeply saddened that Philippe is leaving, but I do realise that all things must change. Fortunately I have a very warm feeling that you will continue his good work and that you will also be the same voice of encouragement to the volunteers. Kindest regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Jusdafax, NE Ent and Kudpung. :) I am also really sorry to be losing Philippe; he has been an amazing manager, mentor and friend. At least he can continue in that last position. :) And I'm really grateful to him for all he has taught me. I hope I will be able to maintain his high standards. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Maggie will have no stronger supporter than me, as she starts down this road. It's impossible to even imagine this job, until you're in it. I have full confidence, though, that Maggie will be amazing at it. -Philippe (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. I'm a bit concerned from their edits that user:SHust (WMF) may not be a genuine employee. Could you please check this out. If they are then there is no harm done. If they are not, then I would have to consider blocking a troll. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Kudpung. :) She is a newcomer and does not yet have the staff template on her userpage. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I don't want her misidentified, so I'll go ahead and apply the basic staff template on her page. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I apologize for bothering you on your talkpage but I have a problem which I am not sure how to address. I was going to post it on Jimmy wales' TP but as I started reading I saw your name among the foundation members so thought it would be better to start with you. Even If you are not able to help me perhaps you will be able to guide me.
The problem is that the wikipedia page Ahmadiyya in Urdu language along with all other Urdu pages connected to Ahmadiyyah are being used as hatepages and are full of anti-Ahmadiyya rhetoric instead of facts. Now this may sound as "off" to you but it is the truth. I have tried to remedy this but as most of the editors on Urdu Wikipedia are from Pakistan they hold anti-Ahmadiyyah views, any edits by neutral editors are drowned in a sea of hate rhetoric. You only need to compare the English and Urdu versions for just 1 minute and you can see that the Urdu version is just a hate page. Can you be of any help in this? or can you be kind enough to guide me as to who should I be asking for help. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, FreeatlastChitchat. I'm sorry that you're having this frustration. :/ I am unfortunately not able to tell easily that the Urdu version is a hate page because I do not read Urdu myself and even using the Google translation is problematic when I am unfamiliar with the entity. However, since the Wikimedia Foundation does not create or curate content, it would not be my opinion that matters there anyway; biased content needs review of and resolution by the community of volunteers. I see from its interwiki links that there is an Urdu version of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which should talk about how to resolve disputes on that project. It's not a very long page, and it seems there may not be much advice on advanced disputes. This isn't uncommon in smaller wikis.
The advice that we generally give people who write in with such concerns is, if there isn't a clear path for requesting broader participation in discussions, to find the central discussion board on the wiki where the problem is and request guidance there - either on where and how to raise the issue or on the issue itself. Some projects are happy discussing problems on their village pump (or equivalent); others have created other processes.
If a problem cannot (after an attempt is made) be resolved on a local wiki, it may be possible to seek other opinions and feedback on Meta through the meta:Requests for comment process. I think it's really important if you go this route that you be succinct but specific as to what the problems are, since your audience is not likely to understand the language and may likewise be unfamiliar with Ahmadiyya. Demonstrating how content violates core policies such as verifiability and neutrality and how efforts to correct that are thwarted might help raise attention to any concerted bias going on. Showing that you have reasonably tried to resolve the problem on the wiki itself would also be critical here.
Just to be clear, I do not believe that ordinary disputes over content belong on Meta. What is concerning you here, though, seems to be a concerted effort by editors on a wiki to bias content. This would be a Meta concern, but will also require a strong demonstration of evidence that the problem exists and that it is beyond the ability of the wiki to resolve itself.
On the Wikipedia page on How to Run an Edit-a-thon, there is a suggestion to advertise the edit-a-thon on Planet Wikimedia, and your page was linked as someone who could assit in this endeavor. I am a student editor helping to organize the event as part of an internship, but I am still learning how to use Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I have already pitched the info about the Edit-a-thon to Signpost, but I was wondering if you could inform me about how to get this information onto Planet Wikimedia:
In remembrance of Adrianne Wadewitz, the Aphra Behn Society is organizing a five hour Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. The Edit-a-thon is a pre-conference event for the Aphra Behn Society Conference 2015, but anyone interested in Wikipedia editing is encouraged to participate. From 2011-2012, Wadewitz worked with the journal ABO: Interactive Journal for Women in the Arts, 1640-1830, which is an open access, scholarly journal created by the Aphra Behn Society.
In a 2007 interview for Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode35, Wadewitz commented that her work on Wikipedia is a “public service” that is an integral part of being a scholar. More information about her work in the English Wikipedia, her integration of Wikipedia into the classroom, and her efforts to to build bridges between Wikipedia and the Digital Humanities can be found in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-09/Special report. With a grant from the Wikimedia Project and Event Grants (PEG) from the Wikimedia Inspire Campaign, the organizers of this event will continue Wadewitz’s efforts in increasing three areas: 1) the representation of women in Wikipedia, 2) the number of female Wikipedia editors in order to address gender disparity, and 3) overall academic interest in Wikipedia.
This five hour Edit-a-thon will occur on on November 4, 2015, between 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM EST. The Aphra Behn Society welcomes all Wikipedians to participate in this event, and encourages interested parties to sign their usernames on the event page Wikipedia:Meetup/Aphra Behn Society Editathon. For those new to Wikipedia editing, the organizers have supplied a list of helpful links about editing and will provide live online support through social media on the day of the event. It is the hope of the Aphra Behn Society that participation in the Edit-a-thon will further Wadewitz’s goals of feminist activism on Wikipedia during the event and in the months to follow.
These three paragraphs are the main ideas that I wanted to convey in a blog post. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Hi, Beachmirage. :) I'm afraid whoever added me to that page as the person to contact about this has added an unnecessary and not-particularly-helpful middle man. I've updated the directions there and appreciate your pointing them out!
For a little bit of clarity, though, there are two different proposals in that line. One is to talk to somebody who has a blog displayed in m:Planet Wikimedia. Planet Wikimedia is a blog aggregator - it's not for hosting individual blog entries. It's for automatically taking feeds from blogs that relate to the movement. Basically, if people have a Wikimedia-related blog, it will automatically display that content. I cannot help you with that; you'd need to look at the blogs aggregated there and reach out to somebody who is being displayed.
What you want is an entry in the Wikimedia Foundation blog. :) You should go to m:Wikimedia Blog. There are directions there for posting your draft blog entry, and the blog's curators will work with you on it from there.
Thank you, Maggie for suggesting that I contact the Wikimedia blog. I created a blog draft and emailed an editor to see if the post could be included in the blog. Have a wonderful day! Beachmirage (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
WMF position on 500 / 30
Doug Weller has referenced a "WMF" position -- apparently communicated verbally -- on a proposal to limited editing based on number of edits (500) and length of account(30 days) here [1]. Of course, there's no one named "WMF." For the sake of clarity can you provide a statement of the WMFs position on the proposal? Thanks as always. NE Ent00:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, NE Ent. I sought feedback from the legal team and from the director of community engagement on request of ArbCom on the proposal, and there is no objection to the proposal to limit editing in this way as a step in limited circumstances to protect article content from excessive sock puppetry, disruption and vandalism. If it were proposed as a site-wide or even broadly-used measure, that would probably require considerably more exploration. Please note that the WMF is not weighing in on whether this is or is not a good method or the best method, but whether this is a case where the WMF would object to community autonomy. It isn't. While we may not be able to assist with tool creation if requested for such a measure, the decision to tighten restrictions on a specific subject area in response to demonstrated disruption is a community governance matter best left to EnWP to determine. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Mdennis, thanks for your input. Could you clarify please what you would consider "broadly-used"? I do not mean to in any respect draw you into the current local debate. However, the sanction as worded at this point could apply to thousands of articles. I did a quick look through of possibly affected articles and rapidly crossed a thousand. I expect the total is in the several thousands. All of these articles would be off limits to anyone who did not meet the 500/30 bar. Thus, a clearer indication of "broadly-used" means would help clarify the WMF's stance. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hammersoft. :) I'm sorry for the lack of clarity there. I think we'd all agree that ideally we would restrict access to articles only when essential and only for as long as we must. The WMF wouldn't want a measure like this to be used as a blanket tool to restrict access to Wikipedia from specific user types, but we all understand that measures may need be adopted by communities to prevent disruption to a specific, defined topic area. This should not be a first resort for dealing with disruption, and if it became a go-to solution for every issue we would really need to talk about it to make sure we're balancing the need to keep our projects open (as one of our core values) and the need to keep content reliable and neutral. With respect to the current case, it would be a shame to shut down more articles than necessary, but the WMF has to trust that the community will prudently assess what articles need to be limited to protect the project from disruption. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was clear enough. Except for the part about feedback "from the director" -- thought you were talking to yourself. Had to go wmf:Staff and contractors to figure out that in WMF-speak engagement is different than advocacy. Clearly there isn't a "NOTBURO" in WMF space ;) NE Ent22:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mdennis. A little over a week ago, a village pump thread closed with a consensus to temporarily replace Wikipedia's current logo with a decorated version celebrating 5 million articles in English (we are only about 10,000 articles out right now). There is now a community request for comment for ideas regarding what logo exactly should be used, and it has been noted on the RfC's talk page that the WMF has guidelines regarding how Wikimedia logos should be used. The guidelines appear to specifically discourage decorating the Wikipedia logo. I just wanted to make sure the Foundation is okay with what is currently proposed. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think the community has agreed on a specific timeframe, but I don't envision that it would last very long. However long that would be reasonable and allowable, I suppose. Few days? Week-ish? All the best, Mz7 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. :) @Mz7:, I just spoke to Heather and want to clarify a bit. Wikimedians are permitted to modify logos for unusual purposes on the projects themselves in accordance with the trademark policy. :) The WMF does ask that people follow the visual identity guidelines in doing so. In terms of duration, it's probably best to keep temporary fairly brief - more a matter of hours or a day than days. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Maggie. Thank you for asking the Foundation on their position about the logos. This will be useful for me, because I'll be able to refer to it next time I meet a violation of the policy. However, I'd like to ask you for further clarification. You say that “The WMF does ask that people follow the visual identity guidelines in doing so.” But the visual identity guidelines is exactly what says that the Wikipedia globe logo must not be modified, such as by adding overlays. If it is permitted to modify the logo for special events, which parts of the visual identity guide still apply, and which parts do not? – b_jonas16:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, b_jonas. :) trademark policy permits modification: "On the Wikimedia sites, you may use the marks in any form. You may create remixes of the wordmarks and logos, abbreviate them, and add to them." Remixes links to an example at Commons:Category:SVG_MediaWiki_logos. I would interpret the guidelines here as advisory - best practices - when applying to the modification specifically permitted for on-site use in the policy. I'd love to be able to give you a specific set of rules, but if there were any, they'd be linked from the policy. If you'd like me to, I can ask communications and legal for more clarity on the issue, but i'm not sure it would be a high priority unless there's a specific and pending concern. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't add an element to the logos.Yes, that's what the trademark policy says. I was specifically asking about the Visual identity guidelines, and in particular about the chapter foundation:Visual_identity_guidelines#toc-donot, which says “Do not add decorative shapes or borders to the accepted mark.” (I include the image that illustrates that point.) I interpret that as meaning that you must not overlay a banner (or a mop, or digits) to the globe. Overlaying another shape to the mark is what all these modified logos are doing. – b_jonas15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, b_jonas. I've told you all I have. As I said, if you'd like, I can ask for more clarity, but I'm not sure it will be a high priority unless there's a specific and pending concern. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I pinged you here but I'm not sure whether it worked. There is a proposal to create a new arbitrator usergroup which would include the ability to see the CheckUser log (checkuser-log), the suppression log (suppressionlog) and overighted entries in the abuse filter log (abusefilter-hidden-log). The question is, would the WMF allow the CU and OS rights to be unbundled in this way? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to devise some sort of hover box or color scheme or some such thing like that to allow people looking at the user rights log to see what rights a user has if they don't have a box checked for the tool but have it as apart of bundle? For example, I don't have "rollback" checked, but I do have the tool because its part of the admin kit. Adding a hover box or a green background on lines for rights I have but do not have checked could be useful in helping people see what tools contributors have and have not. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, TomStar81. :) I would imagine it's entirely possible, but will always be a question of who would develop it (a tool that community could put together? WMF engineers?) and at what priority. The WMF generally takes on tech needs that serve a broad need that require resourcing community hackers do not have (either because the job is complicated or because there's just not volunteers who combine the skills and interest). This is the kind of work that m:Community Tech is designed to do, if there is demand, but they are currently in the voting stage of proposals already submitted to them. (If you're interested in voting on any of the open proposals, I'd recommend popping by m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey.)
Hey Mdennis, I was looking around Wikipedia today, and I came across the Contributions Team. I noticed it was inactive, and it did interest me, and I was just wondering if you knew of anything like that that is still active?
Thanks,
JQTriple7 (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, JQTriple7. :) I've really heard nothing about that initiative since signing up as willing to help facilitate as staff in 2011, which is a shame, because I think that could have gone good places. I suspect it needed a couple of people who were willing and able to drive it. Staff focus these days tends to be more on global initiatives, but that doesn't mean there's not a place for strong, community-driven focuses on individual projects and that staff can't find ways to assist with them.
In terms of what is still active, you might want to check out Outreach wiki, where education,GLAM and Wikipedia Loves Libraries outreach is documented. These groups work on projects to increase contribution in more focused areas than the general improvement envisioned by the Contributions Team. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a shame... I've been looking around and found quite a few of these projects, but they are all defunct or inactive. Would love to see something like it again, though. JQTriple7talk00:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mdennis (WMF), I have added some words about the above at Talk:If You Give a Mouse a Cookie as a comment/response to an ip who talked of the violation. Hope this is okay? ps. i like kittens as well as mice
DMCA takedown notice on Ranking of Universities in the United Kingdom
Hi Maggie,
Thank you for leaving an explanation behind on my talk page as to why parts of my edits had to be removed.
Sorry, I realised beforehand that the Times/Sunday Times rankings were under a DMCA takedown notice however I thought that it would've been permissible given that the Milkround[1] posts the top 50 universities according to the Times/Sunday Times with no paywall and because all 12 of those universities had the Times/Sunday Times ranking on their respective wikipedia pages. Would it be possible to just say that the university is within the top 3/5/10 according to the Times/Sunday Times ranking? Otherwise, the third column of the table would look awkward. EmyRussell (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, EmyRussell. :) I can understand why you might draw that conclusion. Lack of paywall doesn't mean they don't have license for the use - nor, conversely, that they do. They may be hosting it in violation just as we once did. But even if they do have license, the copyright holder gets to decide who may host the material and under what conditions. They can display it for free at one site and refuse to display it at all at another if they choose. Additionally, mention within articles that a school holds a ranking on the list is different from creating the list, as WP:TOP100 notes.
The Wikimedia Foundation legal team is not able to give legal advice on specific content, unfortunately, so they cannot opine on whether this might infringe on copyright. But I did ask them if - if such statements were made - we would be required to remove them from the article under the existing DMCA. While a partial recreation of the table (even an updated one) does require removal under that DMCA, such general statements would not be, although if the publisher challenged the use of the material it might need to be removed as well.
In terms of whether it's a good idea to include, I'll note that I am active in copyright work in my volunteer role, but because of my involvement with this article on behalf of the WMF, I cannot opine on the question of compliance with policy or guideline here. I'd have to recuse myself from that role. You might want to ask for feedback at WT:Copyright problems if you have concerns. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie,
Thank for your quick reply and looking into this more! :) In that case, I will make no further edits on the table.
Hi Maggie. I wonder if you could find out for me what the French and German Wikipedias call their New Page Patrol / New Page Curation systems so that I can take a look and compare. I am trilingual but without knowing what they call them I don't know where to start. Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Goodbye? Heck no, NE Ent. :) You are always welcome to talk to me! It's very true, though, that I don't get to actually just read as much as I used to. :( Karen is a huge, huge, huge help with keeping me up to date. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hallo
Ich habe ihre Nachricht in der mongolische Diskussionsseite (2016 WMF Strategy consultation) gelesen. Ich werde versuchen, in nächst möglichen Zeitraum auf mongolisch zu übersetzen. Außerdem habe ich eine Frage:
Wie fügt man auf eine Seite die Abrufstatistik ein. Die mongolische Seiten gibt es gar keins. Könnten Sie bitte dabei helfen. Mit freundlichen Grüß. Munkhzaya.E (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Moin Munkhzaya.E, vielen Dank für deine Mithilfe beim übersetzen. Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, welche Abrufstatistiken du konkret anstrebst. Auf den auf deinem Wiki bestehenden Statistiken aufbauend gibt es z.B. diese hier. Geht das in die Richtung, die dir vorschwebt? :) Gruss und Dank, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Jan, ich habe nicht diese Statistik gemeint, sondern was anders z.B. wenn du in deutsche wikipedia in eine Seite anguckst, dann gibt es ganz am Ende Abrufstatistik, in denen man sehen kann wie oft diese Seite in letzten 30, 60, 90 Tage abgerufen wurde. Wenn es solche Abrufstatistik bei der mongolische Wikipedia gäbe, würde vielleicht kleine Motivation für die Schreiber sein. Das ist nur meine Meinung. Ich finde, dass in letzter Zeit zu wenige Wikipedianer auf der mongolische Wikipedia aktiv sind. Deshalb dachte ich, dass diese kleine Werkzeug viele Leute begeistern könnte. Munkhzaya.E (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ruud. :) I am very much available to help out with questions for or related to the WMF, although I do have my areas of specialty. In general, "Support and Safety" (as we are now known, and of which I'm now director) is not involved in product. That is the role of m:Community Engagement (Product) (who have their own staff and director). But we do collaborate frequently, as our roles often do overlap (and questions regarding legal issues on the projects are very much in my domain, as liaison to legal). Moushira is the team member of CE(P) who is assigned to work with the Gather product, so she has considerably more insight into the development of the Product and the input of various departments to it than I do. I'm sure that legal has been consulted; it's part of the standard development of a product. Moushira may already know what legal's input has been on the potential legal ramification of this tool; if she does not, I'm happy to support her in reaching out to legal to find out. Moushira, do you know what legal's opinion has been on these kinds of concerns so we can put that on the VP discussion? Stuff like that example is really concerning. :( --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Next Question - WMF Financial Statement Is Not Transparent
There were recently some questions at User talk: Jimbo Wales about the WMF's financial statement. While the financial statement satisfies US federal law for 501(c)(3) organizations, there are some questions, and the community feels that it is not sufficiently transparent. In particular, the community would like more information about a breakdown of the different types of work done by staff, and would also like more information about grants. I can go back to the archives of the founder's talk page for more details. Against, is this the right place to ask questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Robert McClenon. Your best bet for a question like this is to email the wmf:answers system - answerswikimedia.org. Questions with a great deal of interest may be published on Wikimedia Foundation wiki, so please review the "terms of use" for that system. :) Since you're asking here transparently, I can't imagine that would bother you. I'd be specific with your questions, as going back and forth with clarification letter can substantially reduce the effectiveness of our assistance. We're working to try a Meta portal for such questions soon, but we're not able to staff it yet given the ongoing harassment and strategy consultations. Once we are, it could be a great place to ask such questions. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
IRC
Thanks for the talk, btw. While I can't claim that I think what I get from it is really 'right', I do understand it as pragmatic, and I'm glad to have it made more clear. Reventtalk00:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
First of Several Requests - Take Legal Action Against Reference Desk Troll
Is this the proper place for editors to bring matters to the attention of the WMF? User talk:Jimbo Wales somtimes has seem to be that place, but it is also full of trolls and flamers. This is the first of several issues. You probably know that there is a case before the ArbCom involving actions by two administrators. The underlying problem, however, is a troll at the Reference Desk who is causing considerable disruption. Is there some way that the WMF can take administrative or legal action against the troll? (Either getting its Internet access cut off by the ISP or a cease-and-desist order against the troll would be fine.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Robert. :) This can be a way to bring matters to the attention of the WMF, just as village pumps or the talk pages of helpful editors can be the way to bring matters to the attention of editors or Wikiproject members or admins. Just like the volunteer community, the WMF has divisions of duty and multiple ways of getting in touch that may get quicker attention than a forward from me. I'm happy to help or to point to the proper forum, though, as I can, as are the rest of m:Support and Safety, especially if I am busy and am slow to respond.
I'd be happy to reach out to legal, but it would be really helpful if you supplied details. Are there diffs to demonstrate that this troll has risen to a level beyond community control? Has community banned, for instance, and been unable to enforce? Is there evidence of illegal activity? All that will be helpful in processing any request to investigate. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have diffs, but this is the opinion of the ArbCom, expressing the views of a very respected former arbitrator, User:Newyorkbrad.
The case request centers on a series of actions arising from persistent harassing behavior by sockpuppets of a banned user, Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log). In response to this case request:
1. The Committee will communicate with the Foundation regarding legal options for long-term abuse cases.
There is to the best of my knowledge no evidence of actual illegal activity. However, the user has been banned, and the community is unable to control the troll, because the troll is using IP-hopping techniques. Two administrators were recently reprimanded by the ArbCom for overreaction, but the real problem is the troll. I would like to know what the community can do, because the general impression among the community is that the WMF board does nothing. (I am absolutely serious. The community is very cynical about the WMF board. The Heilman matter made it worse, but the cynicism was always there, and I think that the community is right in that that WMF Board doesn't care about the communities. It could try showing that it cares, rather than saying that it cares.) Should I post this to User talk: Jimbo Wales for the attention of both the honest commenters and the flamers, or can you handle passing this on to the Board? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to be cynical. I want to believe that progress will be made slowly. I have no evidence of that. It looks to me as though the WMF Board just wants to be celebratory, and deal with petty ugly membership issues, and not really do anything to help the communities. The Board has no pragmatic responsibility to the community any more. Can someone talk to the Board about its moral responsibility? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, the ArbCom concluded that neither the community nor the ArbCom is able to mitigate the damage caused by the troll, because of IP-hopping, without aid from the WMF. The WMF does, if I am not mistaken, own the servers that are being abused. and the WMF's mission is to use the servers to provide free knowledge services to its readers and editors, and the troll is interfering with the WMF's mission. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Your notes on this particular case indicate that ArbCom is in communication with the WMF, or will be. ArbCom has its own liaison to the WMF. While their regular communication was disrupted by the impact of the holidays and our annual staff convening on our harassment report (released last week), they are resuming regularly scheduled calls this month. It seems that the case you link has just concluded; I would imagine they will be talking about it soon.
That doesn't mean there are instant solutions to such problems. Figuring out how to handle IP hopping vandals would help in many areas, and we are already talking with engineering about what technical means might work. (This is a request that we are also hearing in our current community strategy consultation, for instance from User:MER-C, who I know cares deeply about this topic.) Cease and desist letters have pretty limited value, but that does not mean they cannot be useful in some cases. However, better technical measures could go a long way towards mitigating the issue - which would help with harassers, COI editors, and ban evaders...pretty much across the board.
You seem above to have wandered beyond the question of long-term abusers into overall questions of the board's effectiveness and engagement. I'm not a member of the board, obviously, so I don't have insight into everything they do, but I personally was delighted when they recently resolved and implemented the Ombudsman Commission change of scope, as I have worked closely with the Ombudsman Commissioners on this. It looks like they also focused in that meeting on fundraising. You can follow what they're doing through such minutes and resolutions. They're helpful. :)
In terms of carrying something to the Board, this section seems to combined two issues, though. You began with a request for legal assistance with a disruptive community member. This would not be something we would take to the Board. Such issues are evaluated by the legal department. Issues with their own focus and levels of engagement would probably be better voiced at their noticeboard, where you can leave them messages directly. I do not liaise to the Board, but if you don't want to communicate your thoughts on Meta, I can link to this conversation to their staff liaison. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. Questions with a great deal of interest may be published on Wikimedia Foundation wiki, so please review the "terms of use" for that system. :) Since you're asking here transparently, I can't imagine that would bother you. I'd be specific with your questions, as going back and forth with clarification letter can substantially reduce the effectiveness of our assistance. We're working to try a Meta portal for such questions soon, but we're not able to staff it yet given the ongoing harassment and strategy consultations. Once we are, it could be a great place to ask such questions. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
