Jump to content

User talk:Mdennis (WMF)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Nutshell: all of the above

Okay, I'm synthesizing this in preparation for offering a report to staff. Although I will link to this page, so that the entire conversation can be read, I want to be sure that I have a good grasp of current position.

Perhaps first on the table is the overweening question of the Wikimedia Foundation’s role: Thatcher asks what responsibilities WMF holds for its projects and volunteers, including when it should step in to address problems with its own resources and what kind of responsibility it may have for ensuring that those with trusted levels of access are suitable for the role. Thatcher suggests that the Board should be more focused on expertise in running organizations of this sort and that WMF should undertake regular review, with community input, of what its responsibilities should include. They should follow this up with a list of issues, annotated by division of responsibilities between WMF and volunteers (with note of risk involved for volunteers). Jehochman also explicitly supports the idea of discussion groups wherein limitations are explained.

In terms of responsibility, several people seem to hold the view that ArbCom should not have to deal with certain kinds of issues, including (among Jehochman’s account) sexual predators, mentally ill editors, crimes, hacking and real world harassment of Wikipedia contributors. (Since emergencies & suicide threats are already handled by the WMF, I’ve removed them.) These instead should be handled by a professional abuse department. LessHeardVanU feels that child predators in particular need to know that they have no right to a “hearing”, but instead should be summarily ejected with whatever process is decided by the community. WMF’s “terms of service” should make clear that those who are not here within the spirit of Wikipedia have no reasonable expectation of using the site. Johnuniq seems to feel that WMF should leave ArbCom to handle matters that are clearly not illegal.

There are serious concerns about security: both in the role of WMF to maintain security and to protect those volunteers handling sensitive information. Jehochman recommend professional legal advice, IT security and insurance--Acroterion says this should at least be extended to Arbs but may be made available to administrators, with Section 230 issues eliminated by making it a donor funding choice, not administered by WMF. Thatcher wonders how much liability may face those with access to secure information: might they be hit with personal subpoenas to testify or present records they may have retained of older investigations?

Questions may remain about security of older records and what should be done with them, although the very informative Risker may have resolved some of these. It's possible that Philippe's note above has resolved others.

Is this about the long and short of it? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I intended to example child predators as the type of individual whose contribution histories may not cause concern, but whose presence does (or should) - and may need to be removed without the process historically accorded by ArbCom - rather than focus on it. Otherwise, yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is another responsibility that the WMF should assume: There are a number of serious long term abusers who soak up too much time and energy from good editors. A full time staffer should have the responsibility of reporting long term abuse to ISPs, following up cases, and pursuing any other legally available and reasonable remedy proportionate to the disruption caused by the abuser. Of course there is no magic fix, and a staffer can't do much about open proxies, and a staffer would not stop abuse. However it is absurd that the abuse response project has to rely on volunteers to contact ISPs (and that project handles only IPs, not serial sockpuppets). Bursts of vandalism and spamming are easily handled by the community, but the handful of serious LTA pests require superhuman management from volunteers and should not be tolerated on a major website with a large revenue stream. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I've already been working on the long term abuser issue with the Wikimedia Foundation, with the legal team and with the technical team, and I have a fairly good idea of what's on the table with that one (although, as I said above, I could not go into details here, even if I were authorized to speak for the WMF on the issue). I think it's probably not a good idea to add it to this contact because it might cost us focus on other issues at this point, but if the WMF does decide to create a discussion where responsibilities it should and should not have can be addressed, they may be able to include some indication of where it stands on this one. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding my own perspective: the community has much more power and capacity than the foundation for most of these tasks, not to mention practical expertise. So we should be investing in better tools and workflows, and possibly assigning staff or ombudsmen to work on high-importance projects like abuse response, to support them and prioritize whatever they need. But I don't see reasons for WMF to "take over" or replace community work in most of these areas.
In some cases, we mainly need new process -- if we have troublesome users who 'need to be removed without the process historically accorded by ArbCom' the answer isn't to avoid all community-maintained policies and have a new Staff group that handles them... it's to have a better process in those cases, period. Of course dealing with these energy-draining people is another high-importance task, so again it's a good area in which to have dedicated staff time helping improve toolchains, communication, and helping do some of the work.
Anyone working directly with harassing or litigious users needs legal protection -- again, whether staff or otherwise, we need to be sure that we are providing such protection. Claims of conflict with section 230 immunity sound specious to me; before believing such claims I would want to see the opinion of our counsel or another trusted lawyer.
Finally, the question of division of responsibilities between WMF, other groups including elected experts from within the community, and individual volunteers, is closely related to ongoing discussions of movement roles, and I encourage those affected by the discussion here to suggest topics for the upcoming meeting to discuss such roles at Wikimania. – SJ + 04:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Current status

Just wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia Foundation has been discussing these issues and has put out an invitation to ArbCom to send a couple of representatives to the Foundation office to see what can be worked out. (I'm sure there will be some challenges in finding clear spots in everybody's busy schedules, but I personally hope that we'll be able to sit down some time in September, since I'm supposed to be there, too.:) Wikimania makes the beginning of August out of the question, and there are personal issues with the end of August for several key people who would attend that meeting.) Realistically, I'm sure that not every point requested can be met, but having had meetings on this issue with staff when in SF last week, I know they've been putting a lot of time and research into determining how they can best assist. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I just wanted to say that though I may not be posting very much in this thread, that I am extremely interested in the topic, especially as I create a Voter guide each year for the ArbCom elections. Please do continue to give us regular updates on how things are going on your end, thanks! --Elonka 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could we please get an update? Thanks, --Elonka 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm actually working on it right now. I hope to be able to give you specifics on a meeting date within the next couple of days, but nailing down people's calendars is a challenge. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I was really hoping to be able to give you a firm date by today. We had something worked out to the point that I have actually purchased my tickets, but I understand there may now be a conflict for that date, too. :( I'll let you know as soon as I have something solid. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Nothing solid, but I wanted to let you know it was not forgotten. I still have my ticket, and am waiting to hear if ArbCom is going to be able to make that date or if we'll have to try again. I'm told we should expect information soon. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. With ArbCom elections looming, I was actually wondering if this should be one of the campaign issues for discussion. Do you have any thoughts on that? --Elonka 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, honestly, I hadn't thought about it at all. :) Under this account, I speak with my contractor hat on, and in my contractor hat I'd have to say that the Wikimedia Foundation should never and I think would never try to influence what the community considers as a campaign issue for discussion. Putting myself in volunteer position, I regard this all as still "pending", and I think all I can really conclude at this point is that it is very difficult to get busy people together in one location. Finding dates that work for both the ArbCom chosen liaison(s) (I'm still not sure how many will attend) and the key Wikimedia staff has been challenging. The members of ArbCom are fairly scattered and as volunteers have real life conflicts. Wikimedia staff have conflicts, too. (Back at the beginning for instance, Wikimania cut whole weeks out of consideration.) That said, I have only recently been personally tasked to coordinate this scheduling (since the second half of September), and I won't stop trying until something happens. :) My calendar is dotted with self-reminders to poke until we get there. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Meeting scheduled

We finally have a date when at least most of the people who are supposed to be there can be. (I can't attend in person, alas, but will attend remotely.) The ArbCom meeting is scheduled in SF for November 4th, and travel plans are being booked. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your take

Maggie, I'd like your take and input on the question I've asked Eric Moller here. The Signpost exchange took place here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think you've asked the right person. :) Erik is in best position to answer your question, and he is generally very responsive to the community. In terms of input, your question seems clear and cordial enough. The word "fiat" can have negative connotations, but does not always, and I expect that Erik in any case would not bog down on it. I'll watch for his response. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview

Thanks for your note Maggie. No problem: I am a complete ham and I am happy to talk to anyone (from one person to 20,000) for any amount of time about Wikipedia, at the drop of a hat! What happened is, I replied to Aaron by email. I did not hear back immediately, and then Matthew left me a similar note the next day, but erased it when he realized Aaron had already left me one. So I also replied to Matthew, just in case my email to Aaron had gone astray somehow. And today Matthew got back to me via email. (I hope I am not complicating matters by causing one person to poach on another person's domain.) So anyway, if you prefer I talk to Aaron, it's all equal to me! Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie. I have a lot of respect for you, but maybe you already know that. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So... I did the interview this afternoon. I enjoyed it, but have no idea if I said anything that will be "useful" to the cause. Basically I am better at giving a long (even impromptu) presentation than I am at coming up with a short "quotable quote". But I talked at considerable length, so maybe there is something short that is good in there. Invertzoo (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

CorenBot

Hi Maggie. As you probably know, I'm working with Brandon, Ian, Steven and Erik, on solutions for improving NPP and article creation work flow. Could you tell me in a nutshell, without me having to search the site, if any inroads have been made to the CorenBot problem, or give me a link to where it's being discussed. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I can. As you may suspect, I have a personal interest in this as well. :D The only public venue where I know that it has been discussed is this thread on Coren's talk page from late August. In the absence of visible progress, I passed on word of the problem to the Wikimedia Foundation a couple of weeks ago, and deputy director Erik Möller has very kindly stepped up to the plate to see what the Wikimedia Foundation may be able to do to help with the issue. On the 30th, Jimmy put Erik in touch with his contact at Google, and Erik is evidently intending to work with a few others there as well to explore our options with them. Given that corporate pace is much slower than Wiki space, I don't know that a resolution will come of all this tomorrow, but I'm very happy to say that it is getting attention on our end. :)
I am aware of no inroads within Wikipedia itself (other than a few expressions of dismay), although I did have a personal conversation on IRC with User:Dcoetzee about alternatives around the middle of last week. Derrick has authored several tools that I use heavily in copyright cleanup (the duplication detector, the contribution surveyor). He suggests that it might be possible to create a tool (not a bot) by which an article reviewer could manually trigger a search. Google's terms of use do not permit automated searches, but if certain steps are initiated by a human, he thinks we may be able to get the benefit without violating their ToU. Knowing that such a thing might be possible, of course, is not as good as having it on hand. That's a theoretical solution at this point, but if all else fails we can bring Derrick into the conversation about it to see what we can come up with.
If you're working with Erik, he ought to be able to keep you up to date with what's going on there, and maybe you can pass that information along to me. :) My volunteer half is especially concerned about the matter. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks enormously for that update Maggie. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I just thought I'd let you know that there is a flood of new articles from the Wikipedia talk:India Education Program. You may wish to see the latest comments there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung. That's discouraging. :/ I'm happy to say, though, that Nitika (who responded there) is planning a meeting with User:Philippe (WMF) to talk about some of the issues, and Philippe is also talking with Hisham Mundol, who is the Consultant for the India National Programs. I'll see if I can keep on top of that. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie. Please do if you can, because our NPPers are now barely able to cope with the situation, and even I am now deleting pages as fast as they get recreated. The problem is exacerbated by CorenBot being down and having to use the duplication detector manually. The detector is also largely ineffectual because the new pages are pieced together with sentences from many different sources. The project ambassadors' pages are also being deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, my. I'll pass that on immediately. Do you by any chance have any examples of articles by ambassadors that have been deleted? It would be helpful to pass that information along. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. If the meeting beyween Philippe, Nitika, and Hisham Mundol hasn't taken place yet, there are a couple more copyright issues that have arisen and ought to be brought to their attention. First, we're now finding copyright images uploaded to Commons by IEP students, and declared "own work". There are currently at least 5 11 of them nominated for deletion (with probably more to come), and it's a slow process at Commons. Second, students are putting copyright text in their sandboxes not realizing that it cannot be put anywhere on Wikipedia. I've outlined both problems here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've passed this along to Philippe, and I know that he has broached the matter with Hisham, at least. Hopefully, we'll be able to craft a good approach to this soon. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mdennis (WMF). You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is a message to Mihir, but I think it concerns everyone involved with IEP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

IES

Hi Maggie. I read your note on my talk page, but I feel it's best to respond here in your capacity at WMF, and illustrate that copyvio - your Wikipdeia domain and the one that is mainly being discussed - is not the only problem. When I refer below to the 'community' in this concept, I mean the relatively small core of dedicated Wikipedians who are in many ways as qualified as the staff, and who have the distinct advantage that they are also on the 'factory floor', so to speak. There is disquiet among this community at the way the IEP has been prepared and rolled out, and once again we are faced with a situation where the role divide between the community and the WMF is not clear, and perhaps not even sufficiently transparent.

The en.Wiki is suffering from a critical lack of experienced editors for carrying out maintenance such as the unenviable tasks of patrolling of new pages, copyvio detection, and reeditiing. An even smaller number of editors have agreed to cooperate with the WMF to develop a user friendly landing page for new editors, and research into the improvement of page patrolling. Unfortunately, such developments take time, and although we are well on the way to focusing the priorities, the issues surrounding the IEP have come at an inopportune moment when the new solutions are still a long way from completion. There appears to have been little or no forethought for the impact that the IEP would have on the work of the community and again the volunteers have expressed uncertainty about the WMF's role and understanding of this and other situations.

Outreach and education programmes are good and are entirely necessary to guarantee the growth and continuation of Wikipedia, but little is being done, or seen to be being done, to reach out to that core of dedicated volunteers who are expected to carry the burden of content management generated by such programmes. But as you have seen (if you have read all of today's lengthy discussions on my talk page), the organisers, ambassadors, and students of the IEP, are fully expecting us , the handful of experienced volunteers, to mop up the mistakes. I'm almost sure that I am trespassing on WMF domain by getting involved, but when my talk page becomes the turntable for such a major issue, the volunteer community puts me, another volunteer, under pressure to do something about it. I've spoken again with Hisham today at some length and made some suggestions for improving the knowledge of the campus ambassdors, but he is apparently not in the chair. In fact none of us here in the community actually know who is. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi both. I decided to add a voice from the "factory floor" to Talk:Wikimedia Foundation - India Programs/Education Program. Don't know if that was appropriate, but nevermind, too late now. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's completely appropriate, and thank you very much for doing that. :) You'll note that I responded there in my volunteer capacity. I felt it was more appropriate for the situation, even though I'm quasi-involved in both roles.
There are challenges to my straddling these roles. :/ I do my best with my spare time to keep up my volunteering in the copyright cleanup area (my edits as Moonriddengirl are on my own time), but when a major issue like this one comes along, I'm in a bit of trouble. The Wikimedia Foundation does not control content; it was made very clear to me when I took the contract that I could do as I liked as a volunteer, but when I became involved in an issue as a contractor, I was to abide by that principle. I didn't anticipate any conflict there because I didn't honestly anticipate any copyright issues coming up in my contractor role. Talk about short-sighted. :/ Anyway, I'm trying to keep my roles separated here and make sure that I contribute as much as I can without crossing any lines. Sorry if I get confused or confusing; it's a bit tough.
I know that there is some confusion about role division between the WMF and the volunteer communities that both sides are working on defining, but I think there are probably few "off limits" areas. For instance, over the past month our attorney, Geoff Brigham, has been actively engaging the community in developing the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of use. Even though this is a legal document representing the Wikimedia Foundation, he has put more hours than I could easily tally into reading and considering input, responding to questions and concerns and modifying the document. I can't say there are *no* sacred subjects (because I'm sure there are some things the WMF cannot talk about, like active litigation), but I believe that the WMF wants to work closely with the community and encourage transparency. In fact, that's one of the reasons they contracted a liaison. :)
I believe that there are not currently enough efficient avenues for local communities (en wiki, fr wiki, etc.) to find out about and keep up with plans. I'm sure that the Global Education Programme seemed like a natural extension of the Public Policy Initiative, which I know from personal experience ran into some problems, but nothing on this scale. And I'm sure it was discussed, probably extensively, but I don't know how people on the factory floor could know about it, without leaving the factory floor (which needs us). The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for ways to improve the spread of information and especially to get feedback early on new initiatives, when it is most needed. I had been working on an idea for that myself some time back, but the Wikimedia Foundation has hired a contractor whose job includes finding good ways to get out the word: User:Tbayer (WMF), better known to us as User:HaeB. Things do not move as swiftly at the Foundation level as they do on Wikipedia; it took me months to get the Answers system up and provisionally running, but I'm sure that solutions are being considered. They could actually be pretty well developed; I'm not in the loop on that.
In the meeting today about the IEP, I will see if I can find out if there are any concrete plans for evaluating articles for concerns without unnecessarily relying on other volunteers. It's a little challenging. We could ask the campus ambassadors to look for it, but the recent note at your talk page, Kudpung, illustrates that people who are not familiar with searching for these issues may not always find them, even if they understand the principles themselves. :/ I think for legal reasons staff cannot do this, but perhaps there are alternatives we can come up with drawing from other areas of the volunteer community.
And certainly (painfully!) we have learned some really valuable lessons that need to be put into place moving forward. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, this too shall pass. I think we just have to calmly work our way through the IEP articles after it's all over. We've done enough now to demonstrate that it's a huge problem and the Foundation needs to take responsibility for fixing the planning errors that created it. Asking the CAs to repair copyvio is really unfair on them—many of them are simultaneously students on other courses in the IEP (another bad idea). It puts them under impossible pressure. Apart from their lack of skill in the area, if they're doing it under pressure, they're going to miss a lot of copyvio and mark articles OK when they're not. Unfortunately, a lot of these articles aren't a straight copypaste from one source (they're fairly easy). Many copypaste from multiple sources. In one case, it took me over an hour to find and remove all the copyvio from just one article, and I'm pretty experienced. Anyhow, what was left was so poor that it got re-directed. :/. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DD172 and Damon Dash

Just to let you know, there's a minor issue with the pages that you recently blanked for office oversight purposes — namely, because they're sitting in articlespace without categories on them, they're getting picked up by the uncategorized articles toolserver. I realize that there's a sensitive office issue preventing them from being treated as normal articles, so I obviously can't categorize them normally, but I still have to get them off that list somehow. So just to let you know, I'm going to add them to Category:Temporary maintenance holdings, within the Wikipedia maintenance queue, so that they stay off the toolserver list while you resolve the issue. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I didn't actually blank them - I just took "Article Feedback Tool" off of them - but I doubt I would have thought of that either. I'll pass that along, though, because that might be a good approach for the future. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bearcat, Maggie... I appreciate your resolution on this one. Hopefully we won't have those pages blanked long. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your confidence in me Maggie. Yeah, they let me know how well it tested, and that was really a surprise to me. Who knows how these things work... Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that what Cinnamon colbert meant was that when you give something to Wikipedia, anyone can take it and use it for whatever purpose; they can even use a contributor's work for purely commercial purposes, and that is something that Cc feels is unacceptable. I do understand that would make some people feel that they don't want to contribute their work to WP. Invertzoo (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IEP clean up

Hi Maggie. Please see recent comments here by me and Vodeditenore. I have some suggestions to make, but I believe (and I think Voce shares my opinion) that the programme organisers are still missing some vital points, and I have some further suggestions to make. However, my other concern is that some of our postings are just seen by some as rants, so if you you would like to hear our ideas, perhaps the three of us could join up over Skype or IRC without the backgound noise. regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, Kudpung. :) I had just reached out to Voceditenore about the IEP, and a group conversation would be fabulous. I have no idea how to skype in plural, but if we can't work that out, IRC would do fine for me. It's unlikely that we'd be able to coordinate this before the first of next week, since today I'm involved with some meetings between ArbCom members and the Wikimedia Foundation, but if we can work out details, I'd really like to find a good time to make that happen. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Up to three people can video conference on a free Skype account. Other than that, Skype chat is much easier than Wikipedia's IRC channels (that I have never been able to log into). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Opera self assessment

I did said that I would contribute to this discussion if at least four other people took part. Well, that never happened, but here are my thoughts anyway.

Scarabocchio (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will be sure to include a link to that conversation in my report. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


2012

Season's Greetings & Happy New Year. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! :D And to you as well, History2007. (Boy, wouldn't that be something to see in person? Of course, maybe you have, but things are not so grand around here!) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Trouble in FAville

Hi. I'm not quite sure of your role here, but I've mentioned you as someone who might be the most appropriate person to get an RfC off the ground.

The subject of the RfC is being batted about at WT:FAC#FAC 2012, and I suggested that the FA leadership needs to change via an election and much edit-conflicting has ensued. User:Wehwalt and some others support this call. The incumbents mostly not. This is of course all tied up with the civility mess that's landed at the arbitration board. One the questions there is has the hostility around FA driven anyone off, and I've encountered a user who's about to leave over this. User:Lecen from Brazil has written about eight FA on Brazilian topics (Empire of Brazil...) and has lost interest in ENWP over poor treatment at FAC. Not losing him would seem to fall within your remit. There's a longish talk with him on my talk page. Thank you. Alarbus (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Maggie, I would second the request for your involvement, as you have the respect of many people who frequent FAC without being one of those people yourself :) I don't agree with everything that Alarbus says above: the discussion doesn't have anything to do with the ArbCom case, other than that a lot of people are participating in both, and Lecen has in part brought it on himself through a lack of willingness to work with certain people. However, if you would like to look in on the discussion and comment, or, as requested above, help to formulate the RfC, you would be more than welcome! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Alarbus, Dana. :) (And thank you, Dana! :D)
Just to clarify what I do as a contractor, my role here is to facilitate communication between the Wikimedia Foundation and the various members of the communities involved in pulling toward our common mission. Some of what I do includes answering questions about the Foundation and putting people in touch with Foundation staff, making sure that the Foundation is aware of important events going on in the community, helping staff find community members to assist with matters beyond their purview (such as those related to content or governance of the projects), and helping coordinate conversations between staff and volunteers. (For instance, I put a ton of time recently into meta:Talk:Terms of use.)
Because my role is to aid in relations between the communities and the WMF, I don't have any particular "authority" within any community, and, in fact, somewhat less than your average volunteer when I am in this role. Since the WMF does not control content or govern users, my hands are sometimes tied in what I can do. For instance, if somebody contacts me as a liaison to point out a problem in the article, I have to find a volunteer to work with them. I can't do it myself, even if I switch over to my volunteer account.
Since this is a matter of internal governance, while I might be able to help in some clerical capacity, I wouldn't be able to moderate an RfC and I'm not sure if it would be in scope of my contract to draft such an RfC--I'd have to check. Whether or not I could help there, I think, might depend on what you have in mind when you say "get an RfC off the ground." I can certainly take a look at the discussion and see if I have any input. Just let me know what you have in mind.
As far as User:Lecen is concerned, I'll send him an email. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood your WMF role. I've been all over WMF level things since Sue Gardner's UK video. Perhaps you could be involved here as MRG? And thanks for anything you can do to retain Lecen. Alarbus (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all. :) I've weighed in at the talk page; Dana's suggestion that I might work with Mike seems like it could be a good one. I don't know much about the processes, but I should be able to determine if the issues are being presented in a clear way to others like me, to help make sure that the wider community can give input. Certainly, I can do that in my volunteer time. It's perfectly appropriate, though, for me to write Lecen as community liaison, and I'll do that now. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll go see what you've said. I've nothing against Mike; don't know anything about him. I'm just after uninvolved input. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

MRG, since you are much loved and respected all over the Wiki, your offer to help out Mike is much appreciated; the input of someone as respected outside of FAC as you are, along with someone within FAC who knows the issues and history, will hopefully lead to a better RFC. I've never seen anyone get much by you, but will point out that Alarbus (as a person with limited knowledge of FAC) might not be aware of Lecen's background at FAC. You can search the WT:FAC archives, there is more at WP:TFAR that is not archived, or read some of his FACs to see how combative they are, or I can dig up and point you to the number of times delegates have recused from his FACs because he is so combative. He doesn't respond well to constructive criticism, he's dug himself in to a place where few reviewers will go near his FACs, and it's unfortunate that Alarbus is making proposals and recommendations around cases that aren't representative of the many writers and reviewers working to produce FAs. I'm glad you might be able to reach out to Lecen in your WMF function, but for the purposes of the RFC, Alarbus is not fully apprised of why Lecen in particular is seeking a scorched earth policy at FAC. I also like Alarbus's neutral section heading here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy. :)
Just for the record, my letter to Lecen wasn't written from a perspective that he was shabbily treated, only that the experience was frustrating for him. In a nutshell, I noted that he can contribute content for readers without going through the featured process, if he prefers, as readers find value in articles either way, although I also noted that I do find featured content and the featured content process valuable. I also pointed out that he can take part in shaping community processes, if he doesn't like the way something is done. I encouraged him to continue as an editor and thanked him for his articles, if he does not. I emailed him solely to keep the drama quotient down, whether people agreed with him or not. You know how these things can go.
I'm sorry if he's been combative. While as you know most of my work is on copyright, I do know from that how much harder processes are to complete when contributors aren't cooperative.
I'll be happy to give Mike some input. Alarbus, I feel pretty sure that I'm neutral here with respect to the FA process, and I do know Mike. I think an RfC will be in good hands with his drafting. If perchance I do see something that seems like it could be made more neutral, I have all confidence Mike would be open to that, but I really doubt it would be an issue. I expect the most value I could offer would be in going "Wait a minute; I don't know what that means." :D RfCs being open to the entire community, it'd be important to present anything in such a way that people who aren't familiar with the process can still follow the arguments. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, MRG-- between the two of you, FAC is in as good of hands as possible (which is all we can hope for on a project where anyone can edit and everyone has an opinion :) BTW, Moonriddengirl was much more poetic ... I hope I won't be persuaded to post over here instead ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I like Moonriddengirl better as well. :D Too bad I couldn't carry it over! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems we've lost Lecen. I believe this was salvagable until the above attack. I chalk it up to long-term hostility on the part of Sandy and some others dug-in there. I remain optimistic though that things can change: Wehwalt for FA Director. The only question that the FA RfC needs to pose is when are the elections. Thanks for trying. Alarbus (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC page

Hi, Maggie -- would you take a look at my post at FAC from the point of view of an editor who doesn't participate in FAC, and give some feedback there (in one or other of your personae) if necessary? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'm off work, so I think I can do it in this one, for consistency. I'll just note that I'm off duty. And that was fast! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No feedback seems necessary from me there. You seem to have captured the issues very well, and it looks like a good approach to me. Personally, I like the idea of giving it a few extra days for the reasons others have expressed there. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the extra time and have posted to that effect. Thanks for taking a look.
You know, I sometimes wonder if there's a role for something like a managed RfC. If (and it's a big if) you had an editor regarded as neutral by a large majority of the participants, you could try a process in which a roadmap for discussion was laid out and agreed to, and during which comments that were felt not to follow that roadmap were moved to a subsidiary page in order to minimize the work to be done by those who want to participate without following every ancillary discussion. I wonder if that would bring back editors like Brian Boulton and Ealdgyth, neither of whom want to comment at WT:FAC in the current atmosphere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your recommendation

Hi, Maggie; per your recommendation the other day I posted the question to Jami again. Thanks for your advice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Mike. :) Hopefully Jami will have an opportunity to respond soon. Please touch base if you need my assistance. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi, Maggie, on a more cheerful matter, may I ask if there's been any progress on the JSTOR thing? I had sent you and Philippe a note on how it can be done for one person; I had not received a reply but didn't want to push the matter because of the holidays. Should I send another email? Or just await events? My experience is that if you await events, though, they don't tend to happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; I haven't been part of any communications about it. I'll "bump" Philippe. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were cc'd on all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! I meant subsequent. I don't know if there's been any progress as I haven't been part of any communications after yours. :) I've bumped Philippe; hopefully, you'll get feedback soon. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked with Philippe, and evidently Sue's work on meta:Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Recommendations is relevant here. The fund dissemination materials she's drawing together includes, in her third recommendation, "Expanded grantmaking to individual volunteers, to provide support for work that requires it, e.g. reimbursement of travel expenditures, lending or purchasing of equipment and literature, provision of t-shirts and event materials." Philippe says he is looking into funding for the JSTOR idea, but that these kinds of requests may wind up being held as the larger issue is decided.

From my volunteer standpoint, I think it's a pretty exciting idea. I know some other groups have been interested in obtaining access to resources. Wouldn't it be grand if we could make more of these available? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would be exciting. I would say that it is a small price to pay for improved content. They can look into it, but at some point , is there any difference between that and terminal red tape? We are talking about $98 here, per person, and beyond the usual suspects, I doubt there would be any demand except from hat hunters, and those could be filtered out. I doubt if WMF would spend even a thousand a year on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that red tape is a never-ending reality for a non-profit organization. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Granted, but at some point even I admit that there's no point in beating the old nag.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Wehwalt, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. :) If you mean you've given up, I would encourage you not to. I don't know when you first started exploring this idea with Philippe, but things move far more slowly at the Wikimedia Foundation than they do on Wikipedia itself, which is both a side effect of having red tape and of having less than 100 people on staff. There's always a lot going on. It took months to negotiate a settlement of the problem when User:CorenSearchBot broke (especially since that involved negotiation with other companies), but eventually it did happen. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but it is hard to tell the difference between "actively being worked on, result soon" with "placed in the trash folder". However, I shall be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'll make a note on my calendar to look into this in a couple of weeks so I can try to help keep on top of things on my end. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That is fine. I've been teaching Siri how to sock, I shall have her leave a note for you :)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a segue from the JSTOR topic and I haven't been around recently: but what's this about CSB having broken? I'm just curious, but I'd rather not have to go searching through talk page archives to figure it out. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Verno! Lovely to see you. :D CSB was down for months! Google changed/clarified(?)/started to enforce(?) it's Terms of Use such that we could no longer use bots to scan for text matches. Jimmy tried and failed to work something out with them, but Erik Moeller was able to get something set up finally - I'm not sure the terms. But for all that time, SCV was still and silent. While it made it a lot easier to keep up with WP:CP, I don't like to imagine how may future CP listings will result from it. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Baby Ruth

Looks like we almost had a full blackout!  ;-) Stubbleboy 05:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently there were others, but, yes. :) The OTRS agents received a complaint and couldn't fix it. It's hard to imagine anybody objecting to removing blatant vandalism still visible to mobile users. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights states at the top that it is a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". Does that mean it applies to all language wikipedias? If it does, do any other pages in Category:Wikipedia legal policies apply to all wikipedias too? And finally, if they (one or many of them) do apply to all language wikipedias, shouldn't they be moved/copied to meta? Thanks for any help that you may be able to provide.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll check on this, but my personal opinion would be that, no, it doesn't apply to all language Wikipedias. It is a local document meant to help explain the Terms of Use and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which do apply to all projects. Projects are free to explain the issues in their own languages, I would imagine, as long as their locally drafted policies are compatible with the Foundation's requirements. Likewise the WP:BLP policy is our local explanation of the principles of wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people. But, again, I'll double check. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. :) Individual policies can present the resolutions in their own way and create policies guiding practices on their projects, so long as they conform to the Foundation principles. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, and sorry for replying so late. This clears the matter well-enough :) Thanks and Regards --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WMF appointment

My heartiest congratulations Maggie, on your appointment to a permanent position. Very best wishes, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard ... that's exciting, Maggie! You might want to remove "this is temporary" above. While I'm here ... I've mentioned a few times over the years that I think it would be a good idea for the Foundation to approach any of the big six publishers, asking for greater electronic access to works they've published, at least for our volunteers who are working to keep copyright violations out of Wikipedia (and I would include many active article reviewers in that list). Now that senators are talking about the need for "compromise" on copyright concerns, this might be a great time to approach them, putting it in the context of "doing our part". What do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Kudpung, done, Dan. :) I'm excited about it. The work is sometimes frustrating and quite time-consuming, but it's challenging and stimulating and I love it. I'm committed to doing all I can in helping bring the WMF and volunteers together as an effective team. Rah rah. :D
I think it's an interesting idea, Dan. There are two ways we could approach that. First, as a kind of lightweight approach, you could draw your thoughts together, and I can run it past staff to see if it takes spark. Alternatively, you could run it past the village pump idea board and see if it has a lot of support or if people can contribute thoughts about how it might best be done, and then I could present it to staff. I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. A highly developed proposal might make for easier implementation for staff, and that's generally a good thing. My challenge there is always finding the person an idea or question best fits and, hopefully, finding them at a time when they are swamped with some other work. :) A clear-cut request ("Can you do specifically this?") may be easier for them to respond to. A more open-ended proposal, though, allows them to bring their own resources to the table more easily (they might have an approach that the community wouldn't anticipate) and also can prevent a lot of time being spent on something if it's simply not possible. When we have to rely on cooperation from other organizations, you never know. Even the Wikipedia friendly ones can't always accommodate us, as with the CorenSearchBot issues which could have been fixed more quickly and without expense if Google had been able to grant us an exception to their ban on automated searches. Since they either technically could not or philosophically could not, we had to find a workaround.
Anyway, long and short, I like the idea. Do you want to write maybe a paragraph that I try out on somebody now, or do you want to get more community input first? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we've already got the necessary community input ... that is, we know that a lot of Wikipedians feel strongly enough about the issue to volunteer their time to check for copyvio. We also know what's holding us back: the difficulty in finding the texts we can check against. I don't think the community is very good at, or interested in, assessing whether the SOPA debates have opened up (or closed!) opportunities to get access to additional texts through Google or Amazon or directly from publishers; we'll need professional help from connected people for that. I guess the idea that I'd like to suggest to the WMF is that it's possible that, post-blackout, there may or may not be two new routes to getting access to sources:

  • The "Big Six" book publishers have apparently lost their fight for now ... no one in Washington who's being honest is predicting that SOPA will come up again during this election year. Publishers may be open now to buying a little goodwill by helping Wikipedians who check for copyright violations to get access to the texts. Senator Ron Wyden has gained some clout on this issue, and might be an excellent intermediary.
  • Amazon and other companies who are routinely granted electronic access to publishers' texts may now have a better understanding of Wikipedia's role in protecting the internet against hostile legislation. Even if Amazon's "look inside" texts are only fully visible to their employees, there should be a way to give access to Wikipedians checking for copyright violations, which would protect the interests of the publishers, of Amazon, and of the Wikipedia community. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) tweaked ... just realized you were asking for "a paragraph", I went overboard :) 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that we want login access for a limited number of people, say 10 or 20 tops, who would be willing to sign whatever agreements necessary with the rights-holders? We would be looking for inidividual (not search) access to texts. Franamax (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I would present to the companies involved. Franamax (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks very good. Perhaps the WMF legal team could be convinced to investigate the possibilities. Looking for sources for an article this morning, I was frustrated yet again to see that more and more major news sources are putting their online archives behind a paywall. Ironic, when one considers that the information is freely available to those who have back copies, or access to the microfiche resources of their local library. Problem is, however, what small town US library holds records of all the issues of the English Times, or in the UK, the archives of the US TIME magazine, or all the books from which we would wish to reference to the pages. Some of us, like me who lives in Thailand, have access to almost nothing.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a completely different issue, the way I see it, getting this free access would be only for copyvio investigations, not research for writing an article. That is where all our interests are perfectly aligned - rights-holders don't want their material ripped off, and we don't want it in the encyclopedia. I think that's an outreach program that could actually fly. Beyond that, if things go well, another step would be for "content verifiers" who would have access to audit proposed good/featured content - but that's a whole 'nother, more difficult step. Free access for article writers, sure that would be great, but what's in it for the rights-holder? Many libraries actually are part of consortia that purchase group subscriptions. If yours in Thailand is not, I'd have to say tough luck and enjoy the awesome food. :) Or ask at our library - which is another point, CIL logins must not be used to feed the resource exchange, nor for general article research. I see this as kind of a "checkuser for books" role, where both we and the institutions agree on what we're doing. Franamax (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not quite so irrelevant, because it's directly related to copyvio investigation and control, and I fully understand your 'checkuser' analogy. If editors are making claims sourced to unfreely accessible sources, there is no way we can check. Ours in Thailand? Do we have libraries here? Yes, tough luck - and the food is nowhere near as awesome as you might believe. A week living from restaurant food here, and you've gone through everything that's palatable, but you can't survive on the same 20 dishes that are popular in Thai restaurants abroad all year round - for 13 years! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the broader the access the better, but I see value in starting narrowly (the "checkuser" model, for copyvio only), and demonstrate a solid track record, then consider broadening the request to support improved referencing. It is easy to make the case that access for the purpose of removing copyvios is in their interest, so absent the usual bureaucracy and inertia problems, this should be seen as a small concession by them resulting in a big win, both in real terms and in PR terms. The use of access for better references clearly supports our goals, but as Franamax notes, is tougher to sell in terms of what it gains for them.
Count me among those interested in testing this concept. I'm trying to contribute to CCI review, and I've had to skip over a number of items because the purported source wasn't in a free, online location.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I've gotten the ball rolling. I may have to roll it a few times until I find out where it should go. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Still rolling this ball around. :) Tried one avenue, have been directed to another that may be more appropriate. Just sent off another email, and I hope to have more information today or tomorrow. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've talked to a few people about this. The recommendation is that you put it through a Grants proposal. It's felt unlikely that this can be negotiated gratis, but it's the kind of thing that the Grants budget is created to evaluate and, where possible, accommodate.

The introduction to the Grants process is at meta:Grants:Index. This includes all the links necessary to apply. You don't have to be a chapter or official organization to apply for a grant, but somebody will need to be willing to supply ID to the Wikimedia Foundation. This can be kept private.

Is somebody willing to shepherd this through the Grants process and see how it goes? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So the suggestion is to ask for grant money to buy subscriptions? That could add up to a lot of money. Or communication and time costs to contact publishers? It also doesn't really help us get access into say, non-snippet book views or publisher proprietary digitized text. I was thinking of it more as a WMF person going out and asking for free (or perhaps discounted) access and us listing all the "Wikipedia Partners" who do it (or doing that for the first few and helpimg us establish a framework for volunteers to ask more publishers), and negotiating at a senior level for access to material we can't just buy a subscription for. Hmmm... Franamax (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Bad faith" editors

Perhaps some guidance from a knowledgeable and experienced editor and WMF employee such as yourself will help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. Sorry for my delay in response; I had a project due yesterday that kind of consumed my work time.
I think, honestly, the issue here is probably in the use of the words "bad faith." When I read what Maryana wrote, it looks to me as though she is talking about battlefield issues, which I think most of us agree are serious problems on Wikipedia. But most of us wouldn't describe this as a problem of bad faith so much as an issue of bad practice. Most of our warriors are not operating in bad faith; they sincerely believe they're right. The problem is that, whether they are or not, they can create a poisonous atmosphere. Looking at my own volunteer work, for example, if I drive away somebody who violates our copyright policies who could have been corrected and encouraged to continue as a productive contributor, I've done my job badly. (There's one contributor I encountered over copyright issues of whom I'm incredibly proud, and he doesn't even know it. :D He went on to big things.)
While she undoubtedly intended to be sympathetic and encouraging to this user she'd been told was discouraged, I don't think she was in any way intending to judge the merits of any complaint as to the specific behavior of any individuals involved with him. Rather, she seems to have taken them at face value and responded to the issue which we know: people on the projects can be mean. At least, that's what I gather from her saying stuff like "by the kind of thing you're describing" rather than referring to specifics herself. Given that staff aren't supposed to get involved in mediating content or specific behavioral disputes, I imagine she was just going on what she'd been told.
I'll see if I can put out a general reminder, though, that trying to be neutral to specifics but positive in general can sometimes look like taking a side and that this is something to watch out for. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure is back

First, my apologies for being out of the loop on the project I started. Real life, distractions, etc. Good news, Dcoetzee is going to take it on for one of his school classes. So it's on! Come check out the new developments, and let me know if the Foundation has any thoughts. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 01:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. :) I'll keep an eye on the development with interest and pass along any feedback. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Roger Casement and the Black Diaries

Hello, I originaly left this message at your other Talk page, but perhaps this is the one it belongs at.

Thank you for your message about this article. You indicated that no rewrite to avoid the copyrighted material had been proposed, and that therefore the whole article was being deleted. I am sorry that I have had no prior experience with cases of this kind. I had offered earlier on the Talk webpage to help rewrite the article and asked for information about which the problem sections were. I assumed -- due to lack of experience of the process -- that I would hear back from an admin on the request and the offer. I am sorry to hear now that it has been deleted -- there was a good deal of solid work in the article undertaken independently by other users that had nothing at all to do with Mr. Mannerings (or his co-author) and their article. To be more future-focused, can I ask if, even now, you are able to share with me and other users the identity of the specific text passages in the WP article about which Mr. Mannerings (or his co-author) have made their complaint and assertion of copyright? With this information and a few days notice, as I've suggested before, I for one would certainly be willing to take a close look at the challenge and see if a rewrite seemed feasible. My instinct is that the answer would probably be yes. Nandt1 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One other query. I see that some details of this case are at a ticket on Wikimedia. It does not allow me to log in using my Wikipedia account details. Where can a user register to access this material? Nandt1 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've answered you at my volunteer account talk page. When I undertake actions at that account, it will generally be the one to use to discuss it. :) In terms of your new question, Wikimedia emails are available to a limit number of editors (called the volunteer response team) due to privacy concerns. This mailing list is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, but rather by a group of volunteers identified as "OTRS admins." If you'd like to apply to join the volunteer response team, you can do so at meta:OTRS/volunteering. They are less likely to bring you aboard the team simply to view tickets, I think, than if you are actually intending to volunteer to answer emails, but you can read what they say about it at that page. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Specific trademark case

Hello, I've come across a page which I think may directly relate to your post on trademarks on the village pump. Tofurky is branded product with an active registered trademark. Tofurkey seems to be "what people call that type of thing", with no references, and links to competitor's websites. Is there a noticeboard where things like this can be discussed? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I think there probably is not, unless it's WP:DRN. One of the reasons why a guideline could be useful there is to help with cases like this; if you didn't, would you mind putting a word in at that village pump discussion? If conversation slows down there, it might help underscore the need. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. I've re-opened the topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of non-genericized trademarks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)/Archive_2&oldid=1144763830"