User talk:Mdennis (WMF)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Possible legal matter being ignored at ANI

I'm a bit disappointed, because an IP editor posted a message at ANI and the reaction was hostile and administrative action isn't being taken on the issue. The concern was that someone had made edits under the personal name Jessica Darling. It is understandable that the administrators who initially responded thought that the person was referring to the ip edits, and it is possible that the editor was; however, it is clear that User:Jessica Darling was blocked for impersonating Jessica Darling. You can see User talk:Jessica Darling. I believe that User:Jessica Darling should probably be renamed something like User:732rhedfkjsadkf032h3a and User:Jessica Darling should be created with a no-index tag and instructions not to usurp. Do you have any thoughts on this? Is it an issue we should deal with? Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. The Wikimedia Foundation, I know, trusts the community to handle daily governance of the sites and is confident in the ability of the community to make the right decisions. They are sometimes able to offer clarification on general principles and to weigh in on development of site-wide policies and how they dovetail with Board resolutions and Foundation policies, but generally do not address specific instances for that reason, among others. Speaking for myself, not the Foundation, I'm wondering if you've proposed that at WP:BN? Administrators are not able to follow through with that, anyway, so it seems like it might be more of a BN matter. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that, thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy of Google translate = copyright violation?

User Kudpung กุดผึ้ง suggested I contact you regarding Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English#Copy of Google translate = copyright violation?. El reggae (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for touching base. :) While the legal team of the Wikimedia Foundation is generally very busy with Foundation work and is only able to offer legal advice to the Wikimedia Foundation, they recognize that the community may sometimes need background in creating their own policies, particularly in relation to legal matters. Please bear with me, and I'll run this past them to see if they have the resources to assist at this time. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention - a WMF mantra

Hi Maggie. FYI. Sorry, really sorry to have to mention this. The next time I'll go direct to arbcom. Best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: solved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kudpung. I'm glad to hear that the issue is solved. The WMF, of course, would expect that all of us who volunteer in our spare time be held accountable to the community just as any other volunteer is. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie. While I realise that employees are accountable for their edits as volunteers, I find it extraordinary that an employee would carry out an admin action that is in total conflict with the very paid work/find project of which they apparently claims to be the leader/coordinator. Namely, user retention. Perhaps WMF employees should think very carefully before continuing to be active in a volunteer and/or admin area that may be at odds with, or carry a high risk of clashing with their paid work. We all make errors, but the higher the office people achieve - and becoming a WMF contractor is a major promotion from the ranks and an important leap in the accretion of personal Wikipedia power - the less tolerant the rank and file will be of careless mistakes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Q: how is the WMF going to celebrate the 4,000,000 article?

Hi Maggie, First I want to thanl you for being such a positive force for the WMF and thank you for providing support to the community.

I started a draft for the 4 millionth article thingy at meta:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/EnWP 4 Million Article Milestone#Draft article and was wondering what the WMF has planned for celebrating the 4 millionth article. I'm not sure if they have a party planned (with cake and ice cream) or what not. I'd like to add something about it to the article. Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.45 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you. :) I'm not sure if they're going to do anything else or not; I haven't heard about anything. But I'll find out! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Maggie. If there is any type of celebration, it'd be great if somebody could take a picture so we could add that to any report. Thanks again. 64.40.54.88 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have checked, and there are no plans for cake and ice cream. I would imagine that it's possibly hard to manage with an uncertain finish date, but more than that I would myself feel peculiar about not sharing it with the primary people who made the accomplishment happen. :D As celebration is to be more cerebral, maybe we'll have a virtual cake. That would be well in keeping with the culture. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie. Looks like Dr. Blofeld is going to make the goal in a few more minutes. Thanks again for checking. Kind regards. 64.40.54.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The 4 millionth article is Izbat Al Borg according to chat on IRC pending confirmation. I am so happy because it was me who created the article. --Meno25 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thank you! What an amazing achievement. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on Staffer of the Year

Hi Maggie. I just read in the Signpost article that you were awarded Staffer of the Year by Jimbo in his speech at Wikimania 2012. Congratulations, it's well deserved. I'm sure your happy, but probably not as happy as I am. It warms my heart to see you get the recognition you deserve for working so hard. You have given so much to the community in your volunteer role and as a WMF representative. This project, Wikipedia/Wikimedia/etc. means so much to me and I'm really passionate about it. And those others, like you, that dedicate their efforts to making this a better place are incredibly important to me and I'm sure others, so I'm incredibly happy to know that others appreciate you as much as I do. Congratulations! Very warmest regards. 64.40.54.83 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to confess to being a little bashful about the attention, but it really means a lot to me to think that what I do may make a difference. I do my best and will keep plugging wherever it seems I can. Thank you for taking the time to be kind. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS 2012071510000454

Would you mind taking a look at #2012071510000454. I believe that's something within your (vast) field of competence. Thanks! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 06:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to look into it. I'm on a hotel computer at the moment, but will be back at my home computer on Wednesday. I'll see what it's all about and what I might be able to do. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to have disappeared from the queue. Maybe it was merged into another ticket? :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems somebody moved it, so I can't access it anymore either. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 09:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if that software left a redirect or something? <sigh> --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It sure would! I've still got 3 or 4 tickets on my watchlist that have been moved to queues I can't access – so I'm unable to remove them from the watchlist. Our very own Catch 22! Acually, it would be a lot simpler if all queues were whitelisted by default, and only a few special ones made inaccessible. It's not as if we're going to vandalize info-tr if we have the chance, is it? Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 04:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ten wikimedia contact details

Looking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Deleting contact details from Wikipedia which linked to [1], I wonder if there may be a wider problem as a I see a lot of phone numbers there. While the people provided them voluntarily, I suspect quite a few didn't realise the implications or expect them to be shown in perpetuity. I had a look at a few other cities including some others in India and it appear to be primarily a problem on the Chennai page but in some of them the organisers did provide phone numbers. A number of others had email addresses which seem to have been partially obfuscated (I guess this is automatic or was done with a bot) to reduce the chance of them being picked up by a spam bot) so that's probably less of an issue even if someone sends the list around. Perhaps consider courtesy blanking any phone numbers? I guess Ten will need to be reopened temporarily as least for admins or whatever while someone sorts it out. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nil. That's an interesting issue. I routinely redact contact info I come across as a volunteer. I'll run this past staff and see if there's a protocol for this kind of thing. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nil. We're in our weekly meeting right now, and I brought this up. Apparently, this kind of thing is a volunteer matter, handled by the stewards. Meta:Steward requests is evidently the place to go. Philippe suggests you asks for deletion of the specific content at meta:Steward requests/Speedy deletions#Manual_requests, which he believes is the closest thing to a board on this issue. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal

Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Adventure

Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Philippe

Hi,

If you were at my place, what else would you say : 'you collaborate to this !'... ? What a shame. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pluto. I've just spoken with Philippe, who says he plans to email you today or tomorrow. I'd look for response soon in your inbox. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. Thank you. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. I still received no email. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pluto. I've written him to ask him to resend it or, if he hasn't hit "send" yet, to please go ahead and do that. He is on vacation, but I would hope he'll be able to get that out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Maggie. Thank you. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Maggie,

What you write should be transated by me as please be patient and comprehensive : he is on vacation or he was ill or he was busy or he had little time but this has been the case for 4 months now and he (directly or by your intermediary) already promised 4 times to answer in the coming days.

Could you please put me in contact with somebody else in the WMF who can take care of this issue ?

Thank you for your understanding. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pluto. Philippe tells me he sent you an email over the weekend. It could be about 10 hours or so, due to his schedule, but he is going to resend it to you and carbon copy it to me. That way, if there's something wrong with the email address he has for you, I will at least have it as well and should be able to transmit it to you in spite of his vacation. I go off work myself in about an hour, but I'm not on vacation and will be available if there are any problems. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pluto. The email is in my inbox, so I hope that you will have found it in yours as well. If you didn't receive it, please drop me an email at liaison

wikimedia.org so that I can try to get that to you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie,

I have just received this.

In order to move forward and straight. Philippe didn't investigate anything but just send me a general answer such as the ones sent to anybody. As a proof : he writes Rather, I've found a series of unfortunate comments, by you and other people, that have increasingly escalated.. That would be very difficult given the comments I am talking about were written in February and that I haven't edited wikipedia since December 2011.

I want that somebody who really cares his responsibilities works on this seriously.

To the question of knowing if the contents of these edits potentially threathens my life or the one of my familly or my wellness, the answer is obviously : YES.

That a lazy boy doesn't care is not an answer and WMF collaborates to this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pluto. I'm sorry that you are feeling threatened. :( Since I have your email address now and you may not want this all publicized, I will reply to you via email rather than discuss the matter further here. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Maggie,

I don't feel threatened. I am.

It is of course better not to advertise the fact that WMF and wikipedia website collaborate with the threatening and defamation of somebody.

I had to expose the case openly because and only because Phlippe (so WMF) didn't react since end of May despite my patience and polite requests to feed-back.

I would higly appreciate if somebody with a real reactivity and will to deal this case could take contact with me by email.

When all is solved, this discussion should be deleted as well.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want you to feel that my failure to discuss this in public was part of any cover up. :/ I am comfortable saying these words anywhere, and now that the letter has been written realize that it doesn't reveal anything that you have not said here yourself. So I will reprint my reply here.

As I wrote to you in my email, I know this issue is very important to you. I can understand; if I felt like I or my family were being threatened, I'd want to have it investigated promptly and thoroughly as well. Since Philippe is on vacation for the next several weeks, I didn't want you to have to wait for him to come back to ask him to re-examine the situation. I contacted one of the lawyers on the Legal and Community Advocacy team to run through Philippe's response and see if there was anything missed, based on the limited information we have. Unfortunately, it seems that there's nothing the Wikimedia Foundation can do unless you do have clear diffs demonstrating immediate physical threats to you or your family. If you can provide those, I'll follow up and see what may be possible. Without these diffs, the only assistance that I can offer you is to try to help you find the right avenue for community assistance.

If you can provide me with clear diffs demonstrating threats to you or your family, I will be able to help you further in connecting with somebody at the Foundation. Otherwise, the only thing I can do for you is to help you with the community. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"g-webs.com" mirror site

The site http://en.wikipedia.g-webs.com/wiki/ which uses the WP logo and an "en.wikipedia" address is not only still there, it has come alive. Up to now, it seemed to be a static dump of en:wp as at 8 April, but it has updated itself: the main page now shows yesterday's (11 Aug) version, and its version of the Recent Changes list is, as I write, actually up to 08:45 (UTC) today, 12 Aug, less than an hour ago. Pholm (WMF) (talk) responded to my note on Geoff Brigham's talk page, but his talk page does not seem to be active and I don't know if he watches it - could you ping him? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: Google is indexing this fake site, so people are being sent to it. Out of curiosity, I just Googled "Jonathan L. Langer", a hoax we deleted 18 months ago, to see what traces were left on the Internet, and the third entry in the result seems to be our AfD, but is actually "gwebs.com"'s copy of it. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Massive sigh. :( I'll ping Peter. Thanks, John! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the WMF should ask Google not to index this site or, if they must index it, not to present the result of their search so that it looks like a genuine WP entry. JohnCD (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As it's using a copyrighted image (the logo) and otherwise purporting to be a WIKIMEDIA project, isn't this a straightforward DMCA takedown notice-type situation? Franamax (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

JohnCD, thanks again for keeping me posted on the latest developments. Sometimes it may take a little longer to determine who is responsible for the site, due to anonymization strategies such as whois obfuscation. I am still working on it, and I will keep you updated when we make progress. If you have any information that might be useful, it is always appreciated. Pholm (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see it's now gone - "404 not found". Well done. JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for keeping up with it, John. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks again JohnCD. Pholm (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Terms of Use update / Ninth Circuit (revisited)

Hey Maggie. I wanted to know if you'd heard back on this old topic. To save you a click, the question was: does the WMF having its head office within the Ninth Circuit mean we should assume Twin Books v. Disney is a valid precedent for copyright cases involving the Foundation and related parties? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jarry. No, I'm sorry. I sent out a reminder about it on 4/25 and then, I'm afraid, I let it fall off my radar. I never received a response. We are once again about to get a new batch of interns. I'll pick it back up and put it on my issues list to make sure it doesn't get lost this time. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! On the one hand, it's probably not a precedent that is ever going to be applied, but IANAL, and it seems to me that we have quite a few PD-US-1923 claims around, could be worrying... - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's on the list of intern projects. :) I don't know a delivery date yet, but I'll keep up with it! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is delivered. Peter Holm, intern extraordinaire, has posted some information at meta:Wikilegal/The 9th Circuit and Works Published Without Formalities. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It is a very thorough report. Unfortunately, thorough here means "worrying": I'm not sure if you've read the report, but to quote the killer line, "Per the holdings in these two decisions, just because a work was published before 1923 does not automatically mean that it has entered the public domain [in the US]".

Of course, one does wonder if the WMF legal team would actually advocate compliance with such odd law: the situation is a little complicated (as I understand it, the WMF legal team has rejected at least one DMCA, which is presumably evidence that it feels it would be the likely target of any legal recovery action rather than individual uploaders, but that's surely not trivially correct) but unless the WMF can genuinely promise to protect uploaders, the latter are likely to prefer compliance regardless of what the WMF actually advocate, so I think we can leave that as a moot point pro tempore.

Of course, I think it's incredibly important that before we worry everyone, we can turn this good legal analysis into a practical system for copyright tags. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the WMF legal team actually take control of US license tags and make sure they are as thorough as possible, easing the burden on volunteers. At least the very least, I'd be interested to know if changing the wording of PD-US-1923 from "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923." to "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the US (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923." would a good start, and if so, what publication "in the US" actually means in practice.

Apologies for such a long post - you're just too good at replying to my messages. Do feel to simply forward it on to the relevant people, naturally. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. I don't think the legal team is able to review and advise on licensing tags without crossing the line from being an online service provider to a publisher. They don't control or curate content or policies, at the local level. (They do, of course, have site-wide policies, but leave it to the volunteers to enforce them.) But, if you want, as community liaison I can find out. :) I'm not sure if the WMF has ever officially rejected a DMCA. I know I was involved in one where on investigation we found out that the complaining source had copied a governmental site - the same one our users did. When this was pointed out to the attorney, they withdrew the request. WMF didn't reject it; they just pointed out the issue. I am quite sure that the Wikimedia Foundation would never advocate ignoring applicable law. :) It's written into the WMF:Terms of Use. (I agree with you - from my Moonriddengirl perspective - that this legal research is worrisome.:() --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the example I was thinking of, I must have misremembered the details.

Fair enough that WMF Legal don't want to edit anything, I totally understand that. I can nevertheless see a need for some direct reasoning here on where Commons (and en.wp) should stand on these kinds of issue. I mean, ideally, I'd like to see a WMF-friendly version of the Cornell/Hirtle chart created, taking into account the aforementioned research and everything else too; but as a more immediate question, I'd like to know what WMF Legal understands by the term "published inside the U.S." on this context, and also their view on the quoted obiter dictum re: pre-1909 works. (Should I be emailing these questions directly to Peter? Or to Legal's general email?)

Finally, I didn't mention it before, but could you pass on my thanks to Peter? Thanks again, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I will pass on your thanks to Peter. :) I'm not sure when Peter's internship with WMF ends (he'll be missed!), but I'm afraid it may be soon. Nevertheless, at this point you might want to ask on Peter's talk page or on the talk page of that Meta page. If you'd rather email, the legal email queue is generally fairly full with other matters, but you might try emailing legalquestions

wikimedia.org. I'm on that email list as well for that and can help make sure that material is tracked...so we don't overlook it again. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For the avoidance of duplication, I'll put the questions I wrote above via email directly, don't worry about doing that. Still in a state of concernment (is that a word? it should be), I have to say... - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, email sent. I think it made sense :) Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed. :) I'll put it on my list to monitor. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK Online Magazine

Hello,

I would like to run an online monthly magazine called DYK on Issuu, featuring extracts from different wiki projects, inlcuding images and texts. Is it ok? I can upload Wikimedia Strategic plan up and embed it on my blog to show you how it works. -- RexRowan Talk 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid that I'm not allowed to give you legal advice regarding reuse of our content; as Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content notes, "Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the authors of material on Wikimedia sites provide legal advice. It is the responsibility of the reuser to determine how a license applies to the intended reuse." That sounds unfriendlier than it should; in fact, it's for your protection. Most of us (including me) are not lawyers, and those of us who are lawyers may not be licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Even if they were, there is the potential conflict of interest, as with the attorneys who represent the Foundation.

Nevertheless, there is some guidance on reusing text and images in our Terms of Use. See section G of the Licensing of Content for more information. I'd also recommend a read of Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Image licensing can be more complicated than text. :) The Wikipedia community has drawn together some thoughts of their own at Wikipedia:Reuse. People can and do feature extracts from Wikimedia projects. You simply need to assure that your usage meets the licensing conditions.

It is important, though, to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation owns very little of the content it hosts. If there were licensing problems, it would be the owners of the content who might approach you about them. So if you have any doubts about the reuse, it would be in your best interest to consult an attorney.

As a final note, if you want to feature trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, that is something that the Foundation would want to talk to you about. In that case, please let me know, and I'll connect you with the Trademark team. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, so complicated! How about hosting the content on Wikipedia itself? :D -- RexRowan Talk 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would make it much less complicated. :) But I don't mean to discourage you. It's entirely doable. Lots of people do reuse our content, and we even encourage it. It's just the legal reality that you would need to be the one to make sure you were using it correctly, since you would be the one held responsible if you weren't. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making it more clearer to me! Originally, I was thinking something like National Geographic Magazine format which is produced by National Geographic Society. I thought it was a fine way of educating people and raise awareness of the non profit organization at the same time. I don't think it's a one man job but I remain interested and would like to investigate further. It'd be good if we can make an version that is available for iPad and so on. :D -- RexRowan Talk 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Classical Chinese Wiki

Hi Maggie, is it true there's no administrator on Classical Chinese Wiki? There's one guy from Hong Kong seems rules over the whole site, but not sure whether he is administrator or not. I made a service awards table and am looking forward to develop it further, not sure if I can make vertical userboxes on there. [2] -- RexRowan Talk 12:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know, I'm afraid. :) I'm not aware of any central list of admins. But you can check on any project to see if a person is an admin or not. For instance, to check my rights there, you'd follow this link: [3]. You can enter any username you like. Alternatively, you could ask him or at their help desk, assuming they have one? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Maggie! I tested it and found out this guy is a chief editor and minor editor and have electing rights but the chief editor page is blank with no description, strange. Here is the link: [4]. There seems to be some communication difficulty there, many editors' articles got deleted and many don't know how to write in classical, it's like Latin, quite difficult. The standard seems very high and it is not very appealing to the public. Hmmm, a challenge. -- RexRowan Talk 13:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Spam at scribunto.wmflabs.org

There is a system under WMF development to use wizardy called Scribunto and Lua to speed up template processing. A test wiki was set up (although I think it's not current any longer as there is another one). While reviewing some documentation there, I noticed that the wiki is infected with spam. When I looked, the last 500 recent changes all seemed to involve spam (and that was only about two hours). Perhaps you can find someone to shut down the public access? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. :) I'll see what I can do! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I fit helps, I pinged Tim S on IRC about this early (though he was away at the time). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it might. :) I wrote to him and Philippe a few hours ago. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, scribunto.wmflabs.org has been fixed. However, while I was looking to see if there was anything more I needed there, I noticed a link to another wiki (wikisource-dev.wmflabs.org), and it also appears to have a lot of junk/spam (see its recent changes). Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've once again passed this to Tim and Philippe and hope that Tim can assist again. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.

A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments

Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Mdennis (WMF). Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Pine^✉ 01:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've looked, but I can't find it. :( Can you resend it to Mdennis

wikimedia.org in case it went astray? Or tell me the subject line so I can search? (I looked in my spam, just in case, but didn't see any likely candidates there.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie, my email was in response to someone else's email on Wikimedia-l. I replied to Wikimedia-l and cc'd you at the liaison email address. I'm hoping that you can forward the email chain to the right person in WMF Legal. Pine^✉ 07:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. :) I found it. I have Wikimedia-l email filtered into a separate box, and even though you cc'ed the liaison, the filter still caught it. I generally check that box once a day. I'll certainly move it forward. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie, it's been awhile. Has there been any response from WMF Legal to that email? Also, I sent you another email at the Liaison address regarding a different subject. Thanks. --Pine^✉ 19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Pine. Sorry, but not yet. The attorney I reached out to first is out on leave at the moment, so I forwarded it to the man who is picking up her workload on the 1st. He was at a conference all week, and the office is closed on Monday. :/ It's on my list of "unaddressed issues", though, so it's not fallen off the radar. In terms of your other email, I've just seen it. I'm afraid if you mail it to me and to a mailing list, I might not notice it quickly because of the filtering I mentioned above. I don't generally read Wikimedia-l on weekends, and since I don't read every thread even on weekdays, I might never see it at all. :/ I've found the thread and have pulled it out of the box and into my inbox; I'll look into it when I'm officially back at work on Tuesday. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your responsiveness! :)

Pine^✉ 20:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Kitten! Thank you. :D And I appreciate your patience. (One of the bigger culture shocks for me moving from community to staff was the different rate at which conversations are conducted - I think WMF is much faster than most organizations, but it's still very slow compared to the usual speed on Wiki!) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Responsiveness from WMF staff seems to vary a lot depending on the person. There are some WMF staffers who seem to be total internet addicts and respond to emails and IRC pings 24/7/365. (I think that one of your staff has his phone set to ring in the middle of the night if he gets an email). There are others who seem to think that it's a lot to ask to participate in a one-hour meeting at noon on a Saturday. So the dedication varies a lot. Sometimes it's understandable that responses take a few days or a week, sometimes less so, although most of the time when the responses do come they're usually pretty thorough and sometimes accuracy is more important than speed. So it's a mixed bag. :) --Pine^✉ 18:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Have mentioned you here, in both your capacities. Per my comments there, ILT pages are exceptional circumstances in my opinion, and I think the WMF should be prepared to brush the cobwebs off their veto if necessary to overrule the normal rules of attribution and wipe the histories. (Clearing the "current versions" was such a draining task, nobody wanted to treat the root problem of the article histories, particularly after the Camelbinky and Rlevse unpleasantnesses, but it doesn't mean the issue ever went away.) – iridescent 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This one bridges my roles, obviously, as you say yourself. :)

As Moonriddengirl, I'll say that I don't think the WMF has authority to override the normal rules of attribution. They don't own the copyright to any of the content in the articles; that's owned by the contributors, who are the only ones with legal standing to waive licensing requirements. If the WMF waived attribution, it would be party to infringing on those contributors. But, still as Moonriddengirl, I'll add that it is my understanding that the histories are not required so long as we retain a complete list of contributors (which in accordance with GFDL can be filtered to reduce those with minor contributions). As Moonriddengirl, I have more than once created an attribution page with a list of contributors for that reason. I have also created them in talk space hierarchy - see Talk:Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union/Attribution for one example. Since rev deletion came along, this has been much less common, but I have used it occasionally when the histories are too extensive to rev delete. I frequently transclude that to the main talk page, but it should suffice to note it in the edit summary, as [5].

Putting on my work hat, I'll add that the decision to do this almost certainly has to be a community decision; because of it's position as a service provider and not a publisher, the Wikimedia Foundation can't make editorial decisions. If it crosses that line, it risks losing OCILLA protection, for instance. This is, as I understand it, why when I get emails as staff about content issues I am not allowed to address them even when I believe I could, but have to go find a volunteer to take over. (Frustrating for me, since quite frequently I could do it faster than I can recruit somebody else.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping. Per my comments there, the WMF's policies on copyright and on attribution are fundamentally incompatiable. I understand why the WMF doesn't want to get involved, but since it exposes the WMF to liability either way, someone needs to flip this particular coin. – iridescent 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, speaking from my understanding, under Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, the WMF is not exposed to liability as long as it responds to official takedown notices filed by copyright holders and otherwise complies with the DMCA. Had an official takedown notice been received, it would have deleted the article entirely, thus eliminating the concern. If an official takedown notice is received now, they still will. It is their legal responsibility. To my knowledge, the copyright holders have not issued such notice.

I'm not sure where you're seeing a legal requirement to "have no copyvios visible in the history". I am unaware of any requirement of that sort issued by the Wikimedia Foundation; it isn't in the Terms of Use, for instance. Wikipedia's own local policy has long indicated that permanent removal depends upon contacting the designated agent. If you can provide me a link to the source of this understanding, I'd be happy to put it on the agenda for discussion at the legal team meeting this week to seek clarification.

In terms of attribution, again, this is reflecting my work as a volunteer, but our Terms of Use have long required individuals to agree to being attributed as part of a list of authors. Specifically that section says:

Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself. When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);

Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website; or

Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions).

While it is preferable for many reasons to maintain the full history, showing who said what, option 3 does not require us to keep a record of which words individuals added. It only guarantees that users will be included as part of a list of all authors. We sometimes have resorted to this, as with the page I linked for you above. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; have posted a correction. Back to faded obscurity now, this is too much like work. – iridescent 19:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mdennis (WMF). You have new messages at MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning.
Message added 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Quinn (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbullying

I'm not sure, Maggie, whether to put this here or on your personal talk page. Perhaps, if I have it wrong, you might lift it up and paste it there? I don't want simply to spray it to all the places I can find! I know WMF does not of itself make policies here, and yet I feel the foundation needs to be interested, primarily because, in a similar manner to personal threats of harm, it may need to become directly involved. A channel such as the emergency email address may need to be offered or created for such things. This means it needs to be at the very least aware of a discussion since it knows what it can do and cannot do, and can choose to guide a discussion away from the things it cannot do.

Some time ago I started the essay Wikipedia:Cyberbullying prompted by the sad cases of teenage suicide after cyberbullying. These cases come to a head rather too often, exemplified recently by the Suicide of Amanda Todd, who will not, I am afraid, be the last. It seemed to me that Wikipedia was missing in some manner a way of dealing with this issue when editors see or suspect it.

The essay needs further work, that almost goes without saying, and I hope to encourage editors both to add and remove the things that need changing, and to move it forward for eventual discussion as and adoption into policies and procedures, certainly for the English speaking Wikipedia, and potentially, after translation, into other tongues.

I'm very open to help in promoting this, though tend to shy away from self promotion. I am not, as you see, wedded to the words in the essay, simply the concept of having something of some useful description in place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Fiddle Faddle. :) First, I really appreciate your interest in helping deal with the bullying issue. It can be very serious, obviously. I ran your proposal past the legal department, who also applaud your proactiveness but think that this kind of thing is probably better left to the community to organize and run. Obviously, when bullying rises to the level of credible threats of violence, it is within the remit of the emergency system already. But unfortunately we don't really have the resources to man such a system. :/

Speaking personally, in volunteer mode, I do not think publicizing this for discussion would be or feel (to others!) like self-promotion. It's not like you've named it "Fiddle Faddle's Guide to...." :) Putting it out there is a way to actually increase ownership by others. If it were my essay and I wanted more feedback, I'd probably take it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if others feel it could be improved or needs to be formalized in some way. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken that advice, and have placed it at The Village Pump. I understand with precision the issue of resources. I think it was important to run it past relevant WMF teams, and I thank you for that. I agree that the community is likely to be the best vehicle. It has always proved to be so in the past and I see every reason for that to continue. I hope you will contribute yourself in either your superhero or your Clark Kent identity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is now a substantial amount of useful input, and a substantial number of folk who seem to enjoy missing the point, so all is good. Anything you can do to make it of wider interest would be appreciated. I am now no longer the essay's mother, just its father! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You are laudably patient with people who seem to be reacting as if they've read only the title. :/ I did a few minor tweaks mostly meant to help clear up confusion in people who read the first few lines and nothing more. What I would do at this point is wait until the discussion archives off village pump (since it may yet have legs there and could develop further) and then consider the best approach. Incorporating it into other, related essays may help raise awareness. ==Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Militant patience is the only way. I confess I became a teensy bit sharp with one. It amazes me the calibre of some of the folk we have here. But WIkipedia attracts all sorts. In another area I had a very amusing (!) discussion with a bureaucrat who decided to put words into my mouth and call me a troll. I deal with him with sadness and patience too;) I'll keep it unarchived for a while at the VP and then see what else can be done. Very happy if you 'see also' it in other essays, by the way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Fiddle Faddle, I suggest that if you want more readers for your essay that you could submit it or write an alternate version for a Signpost editorial. --Pine^✉ 21:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Tutor me, please? SIgnpost is an area I am unfamiliar with. I think an alternative version is inadvisable, but submitting it to places is useful. Though I hesitate to cal it 'mine' now :) I want to achieve good editor familiarity that leads to adoption in whatever final form it takes and as whatever vehicle is appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest that you contact the Signpost editor-in-chief, user:The ed17, on his talk page. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear that another editor is interested in contributing content to the Signpost. --Pine^✉ 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done or will have very soon Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Assuming MRG doesn't mind us discussing this here (if so, feel free to boot us to my talk page, or Fiddle, feel free to respond on my talk page), may I ask exactly what you're proposing? You would like to run a version of WP:Cyberbullying in the Signpost? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If appropriate I'd like to see it or something about it run, I think. Though I have not met SIgnpost so far :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry—the link is at WP:Signpost. We strive to be the newspaper of record for the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement. :-) While I wouldn't want to publish a copy of the page, I'd be happy to look at proposals for an op-ed calling for improved awareness and action on cyberbullying on Wikipedia. Feel free to browse through our opinion desk and see if it would be something you're interested in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it :) It is a paper and it needs brief précis pieces? BUt what if I'm not the person to draft the op-ed or feel I am not competent to do it? Is help available or, if the item is interesting, is there someone who could/would take that on? It's only worth starting the hare runnngf if it can finish the course :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather have more than a summary—I'd be looking for a piece that argues (a) what it is, (b) why we need to address it, and (c) why we need a policy on it. I think that would be both more interesting to our readers and more effective for your cause. If you wrote the cyberbullying page, I'd think you would be the one to write it, but you are of course free to find others to help out. The Signpost people—typically me and Tony1—provide copyediting assistance and are happy to provide comments on the piece itself (though we don't want to write it, for obvious reasons). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the bull by the nettle and grasped its horns. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Newsroom/Submissions/Wikipedia:Cyberbullying looks like a half decent attempt and is, I hope, both long enough and short enough to do the job Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, in terms of use of my page, I'm delighted. Thanks so much, Pine, for the suggestion and Ed for following up. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Do pop over there, too, and look at the oped as it stands and the comments on how it might be improved, and add your tuppence-worth :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the best place, because this is where we are discussing the piece. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please help Topeka Wikipedia Day Event Jan 15 2013

I would like to ask for help promoting the meetup and getting swag Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day at the Library at 6:30 PM

here is the poster : PDF Version

thanks, mike

James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, James Michael DuPont. I'll certainly be happy to see what I can do. I'll send out some emails. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia/Wikipedia thumbnail purging bug

Thanks for supplying the Bugzilla reference to last year's thumbnail purging bug at the Village Pump. I copied your comment and my acknowledgement to the parallel discussion at Commons. At some point, if we can get the attention of the MediaWiki coders, the discussion will probably need to be consolidated in one place. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :) I remembered having discussed the issue with somebody last time it came up. Do you happen to know if a new bug has been opened or the old one reopened? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any new bug filings. I searched on "thumbnail purge", "thumbnail" and "purge" in Bugzilla on the the MediaWiki product, but the returned results didn't appear to be addressing the present problem. The results that appeared to be tangentially related turn out to be for MediaWiki 1.18 or 1.17, but Wikipedia is running on MediaWiki version 1.21wmf5 (9e4fc3a). Who would normally file a bug report? — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Anybody can file a bug report. I have done it myself, both before and after taking on work at WMF. I'd be happy to file this one, but honestly it is well beyond my technical ability to understand. So much better if somebody can file it who might be able to offer more information than "This isn't working right." :D These are the steps: mw:How to report a bug. You would need to register for an account. Are you comfortable filing the report? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A crying shame

I know you will agree with me. See User talk:SchuminWeb for details. No-one should be made to feel like that by other people here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, nobody should. :/ I'm sorry that he feels that way. Speaking personally, I'm afraid, though, that his "causing me to dread seeing the orange 'You have new messages' bar come up, because it inevitably meant having to listen to more whining" leads me to some concern that he might not have been comfortable with the collaborative requirements placed on admins. As a long-time volunteer admin myself, I know that it can sometimes be hard to have to answer questions about your admin actions (not so much the question, but they're not always asked in a friendly manner), but it's essential if you're still doing them. I wish when he started feeling the stress of burnout that he had switched his activities so that those contacts would have stopped bothering him. :( If work in one area becomes too stressful, there are so many alternatives. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think his actual departure was triggered by someone questioning his user name in the end, suggesting he made some sort of commercial benefit from it. There is a discussion about that somewhere. There are so many ways of bullying and hectoring other editors in nasty and subtle ways. I know the chap (chapess?) not at all, and have only ever had correct interactions, though by no means always agreeing. That is as it should be.

Failing to step back when getting burned out nothwithstanding, something is very wrong when volunteers are harmed by their volunteering. If we can take any message from it, the message is that we need, somehow, to protect our peers from their peers. Wikipedia can be a joy to edit, it might even be fun to be an admin (something I have chosen never to be), but it is often hostile, urgent, almost violent, and all done with great civility. It is Lord of the Flies without actual physical violence. All Piggy ever wanted was to be safe. Piggy died, Horrid book, but it seems to be applicable in so many places.

The reason I brought this departure to your attention is simply because your role is in a unique position to seek to create some sort of change. I have always viewed WP as an interesting social experiment first and an encyclopaedia as an excuse to hold the experiment. My part in the great experiment is to seek to improve it as a virtual place to play. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I actually am in unique position to seek to create some sort of change in this role, although it would be wonderful if I were. I think we'd all agree that there are issues that could stand fixing (I'm equally sure we would not all agree on the best methods for doing so :/). But the Wikimedia Foundation largely takes a hands off approach to community governance. There are some recommendations and a few legally based policies, and there are activities that may be initiated or stopped based on its current mandate, but otherwise the community is left to make its own policies and practices and to enforce them itself. (I can go into the reasons for this if you like.) In any event, I'm glad that you're trying to improve the environment. :) But I think you might have to be a catalyst within the community itself for this kind of thing. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

MIRROR and infringing books

Maggie, reading quickly, I don't see in WP:MIRROR or WP:Republishers how to proceed if the infringement isn't a website but a guy writing and selling a bunch of books with Wikipedia's content, claiming that he wrote them. The complaint is at User talk:Dank#Issue related to Fort Dobbs (North Carolina). (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)