The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
20 June 2011

News and notes
WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
In the news
Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief
WikiProject report
The Elemental WikiProject
Featured content
The best of the week
Arbitration report
One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
Technology report
Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief
 

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/In the media


2011-06-20

Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Jarry1250

Engineering department restructured

According to Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation Erik Möller, the foundation's Engineering Department will be reorganised with immediate effect. The department, which handles the technical side of the WMF's operations, will now be split into four sub-departments (wikitech-l):

These four departments will be augmented by three special "architect" roles, representing "an additional career path for our distinguished engineers beyond 'become a manager'". Two new roles will therefore be created to accompany the existing position of Lead Software Architect held by newly returned ex-CTO Brion Vibber: Lead Operations Architect (Mark Bergsma) and Lead Platform Architect (Tim Starling). Möller also acknowledged the current positions of Senior Product Manager (held by Howie Fung) and Senior Research Analyst (Dario Taraborelli) to help the Engineering Department to integrate with other stakeholders in the wider movement.

Möller added that he will be taking on the role of overall head of the Engineering Department, at least on a temporary basis. As such, no new CTO will be recruited to replace Danese Cooper, who announced her resignation a fortnight ago (see previous Signpost coverage).

Developers told: "break it and be reverted"

In theory, all changes to the MediaWiki software should be run against an automated test suite, incorporating parser tests, unit tests (tests of individual actions, such as page deletions); since May's Berlin Hackathon, this list has included JavaScript tests. However, in practice MediaWiki has not run as tight a ship as some of its larger counterparts such as Mozilla. For example, before October last year, the system for automating parser tests was considered broken. When that system was replaced in favour of an automated test system known as "CruiseControl" (implemented as part of the phpUnderControl suite), hopes were high that MediaWiki could move to a more rigorous system of speedily reverting any changes that broke the software. Nonetheless, the system immediately suffered from the fact that tests took so long to run that the results were out of date by the time of their publication. In May this year the decision was announced to exclude these long-running tests. Even so, though tests were now quicker, the consistent failure of a number of tests hurt the ideal of a fast revert for all bad code.

On 15 June, developer Chad Horohoe announced that work on reducing the number of permanently failing tests to zero had been successful (wikitech-l mailing list). This has delivered two benefits: firstly, it means that the current bleeding edge code (known as trunk) is free of the many bugs tested for by the suite (check its current status). Secondly, if a test fails in the future, it will be possible to pinpoint the revisions that broke the software, and revert them or otherwise fix the problem within minutes. "From here on out", wrote Horohoe, "I'm going to take the stance that if you break a test, it must be fixed or reverted on sight". Those who follow the MediaWiki development cycle will no doubt hope that this will significantly reduce the time needed to get code from trunk to production, and so help MediaWiki towards a faster release cycle. In a separate announcement, developer User:Krinkle noted that a parallel set of JavaScript-based tests are now also functioning (also wikitech-l).

In brief

Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/Opinion


2011-06-20

WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/In focus


2011-06-20

One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

The Arbitration Committee opened one new case, and closed one case. Two cases are currently open.

Open cases

MickMacNee (Week 1)

The case was opened to examine allegations of incivility, unnecessary aggression, battleground behavior, disruptive editing, as well as inappropriate and unnecessary use of the blocking tool. A few days after the case was opened, arbitrator Risker blocked the filer of the case, Chester Markel (talk · contribs), as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Arbitrators noted that this development will not invalidate the case, the case will continue as scheduled, and that the Community might want to make suggestions on how to mitigate its potential influence on the end result of the case. During the week, 9 editors and the now-banned sockpuppet filer submitted 43 kilobytes in on-wiki evidence.

Tree shaping (Week 8)

See earlier Signpost coverage for background about this case. Additional comments were submitted on the workshop proposals that were submitted last week.

Closed cases

Racepacket (Week 8)

This case was opened after allegations of harassment, outing, sockpuppetry, and disruptive editing. The case was to address the behavioral concerns surrounding Racepacket (talk · contribs), the subject of this case, and to review the behavior of all editors involved in the GA processes concerning netball articles. 13 editors, including one recused arbitrator, and a now-banned sockpuppet, submitted evidence on-wiki. Several proposals were submitted in the workshop, including a proposed decision by drafter PhilKnight, all of which received comments from arbitrators, parties, and others. Drafter PhilKnight amended the proposals before submitting them in proposed decision for arbitrators to vote on. Additional proposals were also submitted, several of which were drafted by arbitrator Risker. 12 arbitrators voted on the decision, before the case came to a close yesterday.

What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
  • Involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about; in such cases, a user should not be acting as an admin. Generally, involvement is construed very broadly by the Community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
  • Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is prohibited from taking any further admin actions with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale (talk · contribs).
    • Hawkeye7 is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes.
  • Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia until 19 June 2012.
    • LauraHale and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another in any forum related directly or indirectly to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes mailing lists, IRC channels that use the word "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in their name, or any WMF-hosted project. They are also directed not to seek sanctions on each other either publicly or privately through any means, except through arbitration enforcement processes. Administrators who receive any such requests for sanctions are requested to inform the Committee.
  • A user's conduct outside Wikipedia (such as sending private e-mails or commenting in other forums) is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. However, a user who engages in off-wiki conduct which is damaging to the project and its participants may be subject to sanction (e.g; a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's employment). Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment by an user may cause an editor to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, particularly where the incident is an isolated one, the editor's concern should be sufficiently resolved if the user has discontinued the objected-to behavior (or apologised).
  • Posting another user's personal information is harassment (outing), unless that user has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.
  • Wikipedia:Good article (GA) assessment is a process by which nominated articles are reviewed and assessed against community-established criteria to ensure that a certain level of quality has been attained. These criteria include NPOV, the quality of article prose and organization, and the appropriate use of reliable sources as references (including the absence of close paraphrasing). Users are encouraged to ensure that the article meets criteria prior to nomination, respond to concerns identified by the reviewer(s), and are required to assume good faith on the part of all participants in the process. Users are discouraged from reviewing articles in which they have had editorial involvement. While the involvement of WikiProjects in the GA process is encouraged, there is no obligation for articles to adhere to WikiProject criteria to achieve GA status.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-20/Humour

If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0