User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

How can I help you?

I am the Director of Support, Safety and Programs for the Wikimedia Foundation and the volunteers of all the communities supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. My goal is to increase communication between community members and staff. Do you have questions? Do you have ideas? Please let me know. You can leave me a note here or e-mail the Support and Safety team at cawikimedia.org.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Seriously disappointed to learn that you won't be coming to Esino. Just hoping it was nothing of my doing ;) Warmest regards, Chris, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Chris. :) Just inconvenient timing! Hope you are enjoying it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maggie,

There is a new proposal that is starting to gain at least some traction at the village pump in regards to a new way to grant adminship on the English Wikipedia. The proposal is to have bureaucrats appoint admins they deem worthy bypassing the normal RfA process. My question for legal, is in regards to the viewdelete right. Previously, attempts to unbundle the viewdelete function to individuals who have not passed a community RfA-like process was rejected by WMF-Legal. The exact phrasing was allowing non-administrator users to have access to deleted pages would vastly increase the frequency and volume of legal complaints. Would the same apply in this situation? They would be admins in name but they would be appointed admins. Would you be able to get in touch with the WMF's legal counsel regarding this proposal and see what they have to say? It would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Majora. I will reach out. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Majora. They released a statement a few days ago that is reproduced on that page - I mentioned that another possibility being discussed was having bureaucrats vote on these appointees. This would satisfy the community overview requirements. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Maggie. And thank you legal team! --Majora (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mr. Dennis, I again did forward emails (there were two) from my "Sent" folder to that address as you directed but, after a full work month, I am still unable to get a response, or even an acknowledgement of receipt (which I asked for). Would you confirm receipt of my email time-stamped 02/26/16M3 07:12 UTC? The purpose is just to have a reference point to look back to it in case dRMIES acts out on his statement that he would "look up Marinka von Dam". I believe my email account to be in working order and there is no reason any email software should regard it as "spam" given that I use it responsibly and actually fairly infrequently. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.85.98.24 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colton, apologies for the delayed response on this (For some reason I already thought we had acknowledged it by email). While we can not discuss the investigation with you I want to ensure you know that we did receive it (and began the investigation immediately despite forgetting to respond to you at the time) and obviously Marinka Van Dam is welcome to reach out to us directly if she wishes. Jalexander--WMF 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maggie, hope you can point us in the right direction regarding this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#51.171.156.10. There are two issues I'd like to get clarified:

1. Does the foundation maintain a central list of Sensitive IP Addresses that we can refer to here on enwiki?
2. Is meta:Communications_committee/Notifications still active and part of a process the foundation is expecting us to follow?

Thank you reviewing this, please help point me in the right direction. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey xaosflux - replying on Maggie's behalf here. In response to both of your questions:

1. There is no such list, mostly because these IPs are not totally stable in a lot of cases. It is unlikely such a list would be developed or maintained by us. The system is something of a legacy from the early days of the Wikimedia Foundation, in that a block of a sensitive IP could result in an uptick in press. This perhaps isn't as major now as it was back then. I'll check with the Communications team at the Foundation on this.
2. I'll also have to check with Communications on this. This is still useful information in case a block of this kind is reported on by the press, but I'll double-check that this is still something that is being maintained. (The Communications Committee still exists, but has a much-reduced role these days.)

Hope this helps. I'll let you know of any replies. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will wait to hear back. Our lists have forked, and we didn't want to reinvent the wheel to reassemble them - it certainly is still useful on enwiki to have some sort of "think twice" type list, especially for range blocks - but our local project can deal with it if WMF doesn't want it. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xaosflux: Regarding question #2, as Joe mentioned, it is very helpful for us (the Communications Committee (ComCom) and the Foundation Communications team) to know when a sensitive IP address is blocked, and we’d generally like to continue with the email notification process for ComCom. We don’t have a formal list of sensitive IP addresses as the list can change often. However, I generally consider the criteria for a senstive IP address outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_due_to_public_relations_implications to be of use for our communications purposes. That is, any IP address that might be associated with a large government institution or agency, a corporation, or an IP address spanning a significant region (for example, Qatar) would likely constitute a sensitive IP address with PR implications. We (the Communications team) are also updating the meta page for ComCom to reflect a clearer scope of the committee as it stands today, criteria for what constitutes a sensitive IP address block with press implications, and the preferred notification process of sensitive IP blocks. We really appreciate the notification we’ve received in the past as it has allowed us to prepare statements, messaging, and other materials as needed to address questions from the press. We’re currently speaking as a team about the best way to disseminate the sensitive IP criteria, notification process, etc. to other local projects. I hope this helps clarify, and please let me know if you have any follow up questions, concerns, or suggestions for an alternative form of notification that might better suit. Thank you. SLien (WMF) 17:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SLien (WMF); again we are fine with the notification process and will keep it up - as far as the actual list, we had 3 or 4 disparate lists, and are working to merge them together (c.f. Template:Sensitive IP addresses). As far as the content of the list, is WMF OK with us managing this locally (here on the English Wikipedia) by the community, as far as additions/deletions/changes go (in line with the updated criteria)? (This will generally be managed enwiki trusted users.) — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, Happy to have you folks manage this locally, thanks for clarifying. I might also suggest keeping the language for what constitutes a sensitive IP address somewhat flexible, allowing other editors, admins, etc. to report other IP’s that may be sensitive, but don’t explicitly fall in line with the criteria above. Thanks again. SLien (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]