User talk:Mdennis (WMF) - Meta-Wiki
Jump to content
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment:
20 days ago
by Mdennis (WMF) in topic
WMF ban of Serbian users
How can we help you?
I am currently Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability for the Legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation. Do you have questions for the Foundation? Do you have ideas? Please let us know. You can e-mail the Foundation at
answers
wikimedia
org
. (See
Answers
for more information.) For confidential issues, you can e-mail Trust & Safety at
ca
wikimedia
org
Archives
Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Wikipedia
edit
Latest comment:
3 years ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
Dear Maggie,
I would like to inform you about my
Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Wikipedia
Best regards--
GFreihalter
talk
11:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Can you update the links on this page?
edit
Latest comment:
2 years ago
3 comments
2 people in discussion
Can you update the links here?
Wikimedia Legal Disclaimer
. I found you in the file history.
While you are there, can you make sure it is up-to-date?
Thank you, --
Ooligan
talk
17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Ooligan
That is a community page, so if a link is broken, feel welcome to fix it. If you have a suggestion or are uncertain, then please use the corresponding talk page to make that suggestion. If a page is protected, then use {{
edit protected
}} to bring attention to a required edit. No need to ping Maggie for minor changes.  —
billinghurst
sDrewth
21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Billinghurst
, Ok, thanks.
Ooligan
talk
21:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Reply
UCOC?
edit
Latest comment:
2 years ago
3 comments
2 people in discussion
Hi Maggie Dennis, I have tried for months to find out where one could file a complaint, point out some processes with which one does not agree with, (Per conflict is inevitable, combat is not) and well, no chance, I believe not even replies, at least not at the [[Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ#Where the ***##[][#Ç∑[|]®]°†≠ui43zqpzq can I file a case?|UCOC/FAQ]]. I suggest that an archive of past cases and discussions should be posted to the UCOC/FAQ and someone involved in the UCOC puts the UCOC/FAQ on their watchlist.
Paradise Chronicle
talk
04:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Hi
Paradise Chronicle
. I am sorry it was not easy for you to find how and where to file a complaint. I hope you have found the resources you needed, but I’ll respond here in case anyone else is wondering. While the Universal Code of Conduct aims to document minimum standards of acceptable behavior and the essential guidelines by which the violations will be handled, it does not standardize the way in which community concerns are filed. The U4C will be a future body to look at UCoC violations where community processes are not in place - the
draft charter for that committee
is under review right now, and hopefully that committee will have elections soon and be in place to hear concerns. If your concern is regarding another community, you might check with a steward or administrator on that project and they can direct you to the appropriate resource.
I also want to acknowledge that I hear your concern regarding the difficulty people encounter with filing complaints on-wiki. Best regards,
Patrick Earley (WMF)
talk
15:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Thanks a lot, sigh. So actually the UCOC is not ready yet to receive concerns. Thats ok, I can wait. Then it also makes sense that then there is no place where to place concerns. Maybe it would be good to mention that somewhere, likely at a prominent place of the
FAQ
or the
enforcement guidelinces
of the UCOC.
Paradise Chronicle
talk
18:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Talk:Human Rights Team/Impact of the war in Gaza and Israel
edit
Latest comment:
2 years ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
Hello Maggie, did you see what I wrote four days ago on the page
Talk:Human Rights Team/Impact of the war in Gaza and Israel
? I tagged you. To make it easier for me, I am copying here what I wrote there.
User:Crocodile2020
User:Crocodile2020 is a Wikipedia editor and a resident of Ein HaBesor in Israel who was attacked by Hamas on October 7, 2023. He is an elderly man who hid in the shelter. The residents of in HaBesor were lucky, because they had a large standby squad of 76 people, and they managed to repel the murderous attacks of Hamas. Even now Ein HaBesor is emptied of residents because of the proximity to the Gaza Strip and the perceived danger to their lives. On Friday January 19, 2024 we had a winter meeting of the Wikipedians at the Hebrew Wikipedia. User:Crocodile2020 told us his story. Did any of you contact him and ask how he can be helped? When you are busy with the Internet problems in the Gaza Strip, 130,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Israel. Not to mention all the murdered. You can read about the battle of Ein HaBesor in the Hebrew Wikipedia in the article
קרב עין הבשור
Hanay
talk
03:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Reply
How do you feel about this map?
edit
Latest comment:
1 year ago
3 comments
3 people in discussion
--
2601:647:5700:1F0:23A4:8090:F9EB:CCC9
09:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Reply
Mdennis (WMF)
217.218.49.181
15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Reply
Hi. I'm not a Twitter user and won't follow the link. If you want to add context that might explain what it is and why it relates to my work, I may be able to assist, but I'm afraid otherwise I can't help. However, I seldom visit this talk page. --
Maggie Dennis (WMF)
talk
16:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reply
WMF ban of Serbian users
edit
Latest comment:
20 days ago
6 comments
3 people in discussion
Thank you for your detailed explanation and for taking the time to respond.
While I understand the need to protect individuals, reporters, and the integrity of the process, I must express serious concern about the lack of transparency in these situations. From the perspective of the community, decisions that significantly affect users—especially without publicly available reasoning—create confusion, mistrust, and speculation.
In this particular case, the WMF ban appears fundamentally non-transparent, which is deeply problematic. When such a serious action is taken without any explanation, even at a general level, it becomes very difficult for the community to understand the basis for the decision or to trust that it was applied fairly and consistently. This level of opacity can give the impression of arbitrary decision-making, regardless of the internal rigor you describe.
I acknowledge that the Trust & Safety process is described as thorough and subject to internal legal and executive review. However, without any insight into the nature of the issue, the community has no way to assess proportionality, consistency, or alignment with established norms. This also prevents the community from learning from the situation or understanding how similar cases might be handled in the future. For communities that rely on openness and consensus-based governance, this is particularly challenging.
Regarding the Case Review Committee, I understand its purpose and limitations. However, the fact that only direct participants can request a review further limits meaningful oversight. From the broader community’s perspective, this effectively removes any practical avenue for accountability or engagement with such decisions.
To be clear, the concern here is not about disputing the need for Trust & Safety mechanisms, but about how they are applied in practice. A balance must exist between protecting privacy and ensuring transparency. In this case, that balance appears to be missing.
I strongly encourage the Foundation to reconsider its approach and provide at least a minimal level of public explanation in cases like this. Without it, actions such as this WMF ban risk being perceived as opaque and unaccountable, which can harm long-term trust and the stability of the community.
Thank you again for your response.
~2026-19931-17
talk
17:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Hello
~2026-19931-17
. I absolutely understand your concerns. There’s a tight line we walk between transparency and safety. In Trust & Safety matters, where transparency is very limited, I understand that a decision might appear arbitrary or capricious to those who haven’t been involved. I have to note that it would be very hard for Trust & Safety to implement anything arbitrarily, because there are so many levels of review and sign-off in our internal processes. Of course, errors can happen in any human-built system, which is why there are so many levels of sign-off and review, but also why we created the Case Review Committee as a checks and balance system. I understand you would like community members who are not directly involved to be able to appeal decisions, but that would not be practicable in reality. However, in almost all cases, individuals who are sanctioned are able to appeal to that committee as are reporters of incidents investigated, particularly if they feel the sanctions are not strong enough. In this particular case, I can tell you that while the reviewers of the investigation all understood it would be contentious and difficult, they all also agreed it was the right action under our Terms of Use.
That said, I do hear and completely respect your feedback about the challenge communities face in understanding issues and addressing them in the absence of transparency. I personally am a supporter of the approach that protects individuals involved–both those who complain and those who are complained about. It is not our desire to endanger or shame anyone involved in Wikimedia’s projects. It is our goal rather to ensure that we are functional and compliant with the broad legal and social ecosystem that helps us meet our mission of free knowledge resources for the world.
Cases that involve individuals in this number remain rare. Perhaps in such cases we can find ways to be a little more transparent if we can do so without risk of harm to anyone directly involved in the matter. I share your concerns about the health of the community in the wake of Foundation actions, and even in the circumstances am very interested in understanding how to help communities recover and regain their momentum when we must intervene in this way. --
Maggie Dennis (WMF)
talk
16:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Mdennis (WMF)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for engaging with these concerns.
However, I would like to address several inconsistencies in the reasoning presented, as they are at the core of the community’s concerns.
You state that it would be “very hard for Trust & Safety to implement anything arbitrarily” due to multiple levels of review and sign-off. At the same time, you acknowledge that decisions may “appear arbitrary or capricious” to those not involved. The difficulty here is that, without any level of transparency, the community has no way to distinguish between a rigorous process and an arbitrary outcome. In practice, this means the distinction relies entirely on trust rather than verifiable accountability.
Similarly, while you emphasize that there are “many levels of review,” you also note that “transparency is very limited.” This creates a situation where the robustness of the process cannot be independently assessed. A system that cannot be examined externally—even at a general level—cannot effectively demonstrate its own rigor to the community it governs.
You also acknowledge that “errors can happen in any human-built system,” yet in this specific case emphasize that all reviewers agreed it was the correct decision. Without transparency or the possibility of broader review, this assertion again rests solely on internal consensus, rather than on standards that can be understood or evaluated by the community.
Regarding oversight, the Case Review Committee is described as a “checks and balances system,” yet community members who are not directly involved are unable to initiate review. This significantly limits the practical function of that mechanism from the perspective of the wider community, which is nonetheless directly affected by such decisions.
You also mention that allowing broader community appeals would not be practicable, while at the same time recognizing concerns about community trust and health. This highlights a gap: the concerns are acknowledged, but the structural means to address them remain unavailable.
Finally, the justification for limited transparency is the protection of individuals involved. However, the suggestion that “perhaps… we can find ways to be a little more transparent” indicates that the current level of opacity is not strictly necessary in all cases. This reinforces the concern that the balance between privacy and transparency may not be optimized.
To be clear, the issue here is not the existence of Trust & Safety mechanisms, nor the need to protect individuals. It is the absence of any verifiable transparency in cases with significant community impact. When decisions of this magnitude are both non-transparent and insulated from broader accountability, they risk being perceived—reasonably—as opaque and unaccountable, regardless of internal process.
I hope the Foundation will take these concerns seriously and consider whether more consistent and minimally sufficient transparency can be introduced, especially in rare but high-impact cases such as this one.
Thank you again for your engagement.
~2026-20203-16
talk
21:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
~2026-19931-17
: Thank you again for your thoughts. I want to acknowledge your concern about valuing transparency and the ability of the community to review and offer feedback on Foundation decisions and processes, but at the same time, I need to reiterate that there are strong legal and ethical reasons why Trust & Safety does not currently share more details about its cases and decisions. We do understand that the way we fall on that balancing act won't be satisfying to some people, and we regret that we cannot offer details to the level that would satisfy everyone. If it were possible to offer satisfactory-to-everyone detail while maintaining our other obligations, we absolutely would do so, but unfortunately that's not possible at this time, and we must prioritize the security of the projects and the safety of their users.
We are always willing to hear feedback and to evolve our processes where and as possible, and as I said in my previous reply, we are listening to the feedback you're offering; however, Trust & Safety cannot safely be more transparent in this case than they are currently being.
Where I would be interested in considering whether we can be helpful now is whether discussing the positive expectations of communities as defined in our Terms of Use and the Universal Code of Conduct could help the community itself feel more secure in its own systems. In at least one instance, a community impacted by a collective decision decided to create an arbitration committee that is able to work with the community and the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee in community guidance in accordance with the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines. It is not our goal to interfere in community self-moderation and never a decision we make lightly.
Apologies for not linking the various documents! I'm between meetings, but did not want to leave you unanswered despite a rather busy day. I appreciate your constructive engagement here in what must be a frustrating moment. –
Maggie Dennis (WMF)
talk
16:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Mdennis (WMF)
Following your previous response, I would like to raise several serious concerns that I believe require further attention and clarification.
Based on my operational work on this case, I have reason to believe that, in the period from 2021 to 2026, private user data may have been submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation with the intention of triggering global bans (WMF bans). There are indications that a user known as “Aca” may have been involved in providing such information. I understand the sensitivity of this claim, and I am presenting it as a concern that warrants internal review.
Additionally, the timing of these events appears to coincide with media coverage in the Serbian weekly Vreme. In particular, the article titled:
“Posle pisanja ‘Vremena’: Desničari najureni sa Vikipedije na srpskom”
(English: “After Vreme’s reporting: Right-wing editors expelled from Serbian Wikipedia”), published on April 1, 2026.
In that article, a statement is attributed to Filip Maljković, President of Wikimedia Serbia, claiming that the banned users would no longer be able to access Wikimedia projects. I have reasons to question the accuracy and authenticity of this statement, and whether it may have been misrepresented.
Furthermore, an earlier article published on June 5, 2024, in the same outlet:
“Nacionalizam, revizionizam i desničarenje”
(English: “Nationalism, Revisionism and Right-Wing Tendencies”),
was written under the pseudonym “Jovan Kalem.” There are concerns regarding the identity of this author, as no verifiable journalist by that name appears to exist in the Serbian media space.
Both articles target the same group of users and present similar narratives. This raises concerns about possible coordination or external influence. In that context, there is also a concern that the individual referred to as “Aca” may have been in contact with journalists or even contributed to the preparation of the June 5, 2024 article. I acknowledge that this is a suspicion, but given the overlap in timing and narrative, I believe it is relevant to mention.
Given the seriousness of these concerns — including potential misuse of private data, external influence, and reputational targeting — I kindly request that the Foundation review whether any internal processes may have been affected and whether appropriate safeguards were followed.
I understand and respect the need for confidentiality, but I would appreciate any clarification you can provide within those limits.
~2026-20203-16
talk
20:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
~2026-20203-16
, thank you for reporting your concerns. The Trust & Safety team generally reviews such matters. As you probably know, T&S does not take or discuss evidence for cases in public; if you wish to submit evidence against a user or users who you believe have violated the Terms of Use, please contact the Trust & Safety team at ca@wikimedia.org with that evidence. They generally acknowledge such submissions within two working days, although it will take longer for them to evaluate material submitted to them. I am not able to engage with such allegations myself, as I'm not part of the investigatory process. I am one of the final reviewers of cases and must remain unbiased before investigations reach me.
Maggie Dennis (WMF)
talk
16:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Retrieved from "
User talk
Mdennis (WMF)
Add topic