Last Wednesday, the first meeting of the association began with the nomination of Fæ, the UK representative, as the only candidate for chair, by Ziko van Dijk, the Netherlands representative. Fæ was elected with sixteen votes and two abstentions, apparently with no substantive discussion. This strong vote was despite the controversies that have surrounded Fæ on the English Wikipedia and Commons, most recently aired in a live case before the Arbitration Committee, filed by bureaucrat and steward MBisanz on the basis of "aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions". As a result of the ongoing case—now in its seventh week—Fæ has surrendered his adminship, which he gained only last year (his failure to reveal previous usernames at his RfA has been a matter of some contention during the ArbCom case). Other points made by parties have concerned:
Two days after Fæ's election an email was posted to the non-public chapters mailing list, arguing that Fæ's election "will result in unnecessary and undesirable controversy for the WCA, [which] may even bring the WCA into disrepute". The email—a copy of which was provided to the Signpost by its author, Wikimedia Australia president John Vandenberg—concluded that "the WCA was created to bring more accountability and transparency and visibility to the operations of chapters. The chair ... has spent the last year trying (unsuccessfully) to suppress his previous online profiles after they caught up with him."
On Saturday the Signpost asked Ziko whether Fæ had informed him about the ArbCom case before he nominated Fæ at the meeting. Ziko responded that he "didn't know about the allegations", but was highly supportive of Fæ, saying "I have the feeling we will be a great team". Ziko characterised the email on the chapters mailing list as "harassment ... you know, making allegations easily falls back to the person who makes them." Deryck Chan, Hong Kong representative and member of WMUK, told us: "I believe a significant proportion of delegates—certainly all those from the English-speaking world—were aware of Fæ's arbitration case. Fæ's 'sudden' election was purely the result of a lack of counter-proposals. Ziko's election [as vice chair] was contested and well-discussed." Fæ replied to the Signpost's invitation to put his view on the matter, but made no substantive comments.
In dramatic developments, it appears that Fæ approached a foundation employee over the weekend suggesting that the foundation intercede in the proceedings of the ArbCom case, on the basis that the committee's refusal to agree to conceal his previous usernames is "an ongoing security risk". Just before this edition was published, ArbCom had decided that "for numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia." Seven arbs supported the motion within the first ten hours after it was proposed (and four in the first ninety minutes), with no opposes and no abstentions, suggesting a high level of frustration in the committee about the matter.
Among the arbs' comments are: "Fæ has attempted to ask the WMF to intercede"; "two separate and unconnected allegations of attempts by Fæ to subvert the committee's investigations into his conduct were reported to the committee in the past couple of days, including an attempt to have a foundation official intervene in the committee's internal workings, communicated to that official while Fæ held a position as an official of a foundation-related charity"; "whatever Fæ wants to hide at this point likely isn't as bad as the extreme measures taken to prevent this Committee from reaching the truth of his conduct. What we know Fæ has done is bad; but the level of misconduct committed in the course of this case is so much worse that at this point there can be no choice but to separate Fæ from this project"; and "attempts to use the WMF as a way of avoiding scrutiny [are] beyond the pale." The Signpost has written to the WMF employee involved—inviting comment on the foundation's attitude toward the case, and on whether the foundation's general practice to preserve the self-governance structures of its communities was in question at any stage. At the time of publication we had received no response.
Deryck Chan told us: "My main concern with Fæ isn't the arbitration case, but the time he has for Wikimedia. With his election as WCA chair and continued involvement as WMUK chair, he needs to cut down his involvement with en.wp anyway. Fæ has suffered much harassment on various parts of the interwebs because of his position and advocacy. By all accounts, he doesn't handle them very well. ... Fæ is a very nice chap in person, and I believe that his exile from en.wp will let him focus on contributing to the Wikimedia movement in other ways, ones where he doesn't get trolled for every single thing he does."
A chapter member who preferred not to be named agreed to speak to the Signpost: "I've no idea how Fæ is going to function as chair. If you ask me, his indefinite ban is the nail in the coffin of the WCA's relations with the foundation. The entire mess is just more self-serving gossip, bureaucracy, and politics, with almost no focus on the true purpose of the chapters—to serve the foundation and endeavour in our shared mission to educate. At the moment they have all the dysfunctional workings of the United Nations, complete with a secretary-general."
The job of secretary-general, who will be in charge of running the WCA's operative affairs, was not filled at Wikimania. Sebastian Moleski, the departing current chairman of Wikimedia Germany, had announced his interest in the paid position; and the chair of the WCA steering committee, Tomer Ashur, offered a joint interim volunteer solution together with the German chapter's treasurer Delphine Ménard. However, the representatives rejected both and the council settled on establishing an election committee to fill the post and find a deputy.
While Belgium has been proposed as the place of registration by the steering committee, no consensus was reached on this during the conference. Representatives pointed to high taxes and labour costs in Belgium. The task of making a final recommendation was assigned to the budget committee; and a resolution in favour of Belgium, proposed by the representative of Wikimedia Italy, was not voted on by the council after consideration of the tax argument.
The meeting did not agree on a budget during the conference. While a draft budget of 450k euros (US$560k) was proposed by Ashur and Ménard, the amount and other details were criticised. Personnel costs were judged to be too high: the secretary-general alone would have cost €180k ($225k), an amount greater than the WMF executive director's salary of approximately €160k ($200k);1 and the amount reserved for chapter development, the WCA's main purpose, was regarded as too low, at €21k ($26k). Instead, the meeting decided to set up a budget committee to examine the issue and report by 30 August.
1Note from the author: As pointed out on the talk page below, the comparison neglects to account for any difference in "on-costs" between the jurisdictions.
Reader comments
Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
18 June 2012
Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI
11 June 2012
Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic
14 May 2012
Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
9 April 2012
Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling
9 April 2012
Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
2 April 2012
An introduction to movement roles
2 April 2012
Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
19 March 2012
Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation
12 March 2012
Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
5 March 2012
Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
27 February 2012
Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
20 February 2012
Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
13 February 2012
Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
8 August 2011
During Wikimania (July 12–15), the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) board finalized and enacted long-discussed reforms of the movement's financial structures, and considered procedures for creating new ways for Wikimedians to organize themselves into offline communities. The board moved on the controversial image filter issue, approved the 2012–13 annual plan, and issued a statement on the wikitravel proposal. It also appointed the two new chapter-selected trustees and elected the four office-bearers.
The board finalized the overall framework of the new Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). The FDC will recommend funding for operational expenses and bundled specific projects to "eligible" entities that apply to it – largely, chapters that have satisfied significantly tighter requirements for governance and transparency, and the foundation itself. Expected to start in October 2012, the FDC will usher in a completely new financial structure for the chapters. Applications for the first round of funding must be submitted by October 1, 2012. Applicants that do not meet the FDC's criteria will be able to apply to the foundation's Grant Advisory Committee.
The FDC will be volunteer-run and entirely WMF board-appointed until mid-2013. Community members interested in serving either as one of the seven initial voting FDC members (membership criteria) or as the ombudsperson – who will look as disagreements over the FDC's work – can file (self-) nominations on Meta. According to the committee's charter, the FDC will have four voting members appointed by the WMF's board of trustees and five selected by a community vote to be held simultaneously with elections for the three WMF community-selected trustees (due next in mid 2013).
The board approved the WMF's annual plan for the 2012–13 fiscal year (beginning July 2012). The budget involves both the foundation's own core spending as well as about US$11.4M for the FDC, and overall amounts to $42M. The WMF's own operational core spending plans will increase by nearly 7.5%, from $28.3M in 2011–12 to $30.4M in 2012–13. The overall revenue amounts to $46M, including $4M rainy-day reserves to safeguard running of the projects and other WMF core tasks in case of unexpectedly low donation revenues over time.
The WMF board considered the long-running reform debate on Wikimedia movement roles, affecting how communities can organize themselves on the ground in affiliation with the WMF. At the Berlin conference in March 2012, the board established four new options for affiliation that are now open to offline communities beyond the traditional national chapter model.
Alongside the national chapters, which will be the main recipients of FDC funds and involve formal issues related to national legal frameworks, there will be three new options for structural affiliation with the movement. Communities will be able to set up user groups such as meetups at a more informal level, requiring no incorporation but allowed limited WMF trademark privileges. Secondly, new thematic organizations will be able to promote free content by focusing on particular topics or in languages that cross borders. In a third innovation, so called movement partner organizations that are working in line with Wikimedia’s goals but are not part of the movement, such as Creative Commons, can also apply for recognition. Subnational chapters such as those already established in NYC and Washington DC will continue and their model can be expanded beyond the US.
The Chapters Committee, to be turned into the Affiliations Committee (AffCom), was directed in Berlin to work out a new framework to handle the recognition processes of new entities up until WMF board approval. While draft proposals to concretize the committee's conduct and model requirements for the new participation models were published by the Chapters Committee in June, the WMF board did not vote on the AffCom charter during its July meeting.
Community-elected WMF trustee Samuel Klein told the Signpost that the board is working on a resolution approving the new framework and that the issue seems uncontroversial. The board is expected to finally approve the Affiliations Committee charter within the next weeks. Wikimedia chapters are working to adapt to the new organizational environment by setting up a new entity to promote their interests, called Chapters Association (see also this week's Signpost Special report).
In May 2011 the board passed a major resolution on how to handle controversial content. The board asked the WMF staff to create and implement a personal image-hiding feature for all visitors of WMF sites. The initiative followed the so-called Harris report on controversial content (previous Signpost coverage), and the subsequent movement-wide poll on how to design a tool that would meet the requirements set by the board (previous Signpost coverage). The issue sparked considerable global controversy for months, including open revolt by the German Wikipedia (Signpost coverage in September and October 2011).
At Wikimania the board formally acknowledged the divisiveness of the filter, rescinding its request for the development of the filter mechanism while reaffirming the general principles it had espoused concerning controversial content. WMF staff are no longer directed to develop and implement such a tool, although they may re-engage with the communities to work out a more consensual solution within the preserved general framework of the May 2011 resolution. An updated Q&A reflecting the modification will be developed and Jimmy Wales has started a new conversation exploring what, he told the Signpost, could be a "simpler and more straightforward low-impact solution."
The board published a statement on the travel guide proposal, which has been under community discussion on Meta since April 2012. The community proposal aims to create a new project that would provide free travel-guide content by re-unifying, under the umbrella of the WMF, volunteers of external projects such as WikiTravel and Wikivoyage. The board would like to see continuing community deliberations via the ongoing RfC for at least the next six weeks, with the hope of a consensual conclusion. If a decision in favor is reached, the WMF would be prepared to commit limited technical assistance.
The tenure of the two chapter-selected board members, Phoebe Ayers and Arne Klempert, ended with the July board meeting. They were replaced by the newly appointed chapter-selected trustees Alice Wiegand, former vice-chair of Wikimedia Germany, and Patricio Lorente, former president of the Argentinian chapter. (Of the 10 board seats, the chapters select two board members and the communities three on a staggered two-year basis; the next election for community-elected trustees will be in 2013).
The board selected its office-bearers: Kat Walsh, one of the three community-elected trustees, succeeded Ting Chen as chair; Ting Chen will not run for re-election as trustee in 2013. Two "expert" trustees Jan-Bart de Vreede and Stu West were reconfirmed in their offices as vice-chairman and treasurer, while the outgoing Phoebe Ayers was succeeded as secretary by Bishakha Datta, the "expert" trustee from Mumbai.
The minutes of board meetings between March and June 2012 were published, covering issues such as the Berlin conference meeting and deliberations on the WMF's budget for 2012–13.
With the Tour de France in its final week, we traveled to the French Wikipedia for a chat with Projet Cyclisme (WikiProject Cycling). The French Wikipedia places a greater emphasis on portals than the English Wikipedia, which explains why WikiProject Cycling and its discussion page are actually extensions of the Cycling Portal. The project is home to two Articles de Qualité (equivalent to Featured Articles) and eight Bons Articles (Good Articles), primarily biographies of cyclists. The project's ongoing tasks include building the article for the 2012 Tour de France as each stage is completed. We interviewed Vlaam and Floflo62.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Cycling? Do you ride for work, leisure, or competition? Have you seen any major races or BMX competitions in person?
How do the French Wikipedia's projects and portals differ from those on the English Wikipedia? Have you collaborated or shared any material with the English WikiProject Cycling or with similar projects for any other languages? How can communication between the different languages of Wikipedia be improved?
Does WikiProject Cycling collaborate with any other French-language projects? Is there any overlap in the membership of WikiProject Cycling with that of other sports projects? Are there any resources the sports projects don't currently share that they should?
Have you contributed to any of WikiProject Cycling's Featured Articles [Article de Qualité] or Good Articles [Bon Article]? What are some difficulties in improving cycling articles to FA [AdQ] or GA [BA] status?
Is the project doing anything special for the 2012 Tour de France? How can editors from outside the project be most helpful in improving coverage of the Tour de France? What kinds of articles are typically created or significantly overhauled in response to major annual races like the Tour de France?
How well are mountain biking, BMX, freestyling, and other extreme sports covered by Wikipedia? What are some good resources to use when improving articles about these forms of cycling?
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can contributors from the English Wikipedia help the French WikiProject Cycling?
Next week's project offers a smorgasbord of sporting competitions. Until then, light a torch and draw some rings in the archive.
Reader comments
The following is a brief overview of the current discussions on the English Wikipedia.
Nearly 1400 Wikimedians and others from 87 countries descended on the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C., for Wikimania 2012.
Wikimania is the annual conference for anyone interested in Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. This year marked the eighth straight year it has been held; the first Wikimania was in Frankfurt (Germany), with subsequent conferences as far apart as Taipei in Taiwan, Alexandria in Egypt, and Buenos Aires in Argentina. The 2012 conference was held July 12–15 on the campus of George Washington University, using their Lisner Auditorium and Marvin Center, with optional sessions organized before and after those dates.
Wikimania unofficially started with a series of events aimed mainly at international visitors – "Wikimania Takes Manhattan". Organized by the Wikimedia New York City chapter, the initiative was very well attended and received. The social activities, tours, and dinners coordinated during this time allowed international visitors, who were flying in at relatively high expense, to enjoy more time in the United States rather than flying in for just the few days of the conference. After the four-hour bus trip to bring these participants to DC, on July 9 before the main conference, a hackathon designed for beginner programmers and an unconference hosted by the Ada Initiative (focusing on women's participation in Wikimedia projects) were held. July 11 saw the Google Opening Reception, attended by 700 people, and a meeting of the Wikimedia Chapters Association, an initiative to improve inter-chapter links, was held (see this week's related Special report).
The opening keynote was given by Mary Gardiner, a co-founder of the Ada Initiative, which seeks to improve female participation in the free-culture movement and related areas. She was the first woman to deliver a keynote at a Wikimania conference. The talk was neutrally received by conference attendees, many of whom felt that the speech had beneficial ideas but left many undeveloped. Her main advice to Wikipedians looking to improve the treatment of editors in general was to "shut up and listen", rather than continue a practice or behavior which the other editor cannot stand.
Jimmy Wales then came on the stage to give the now-annual "State of the Wiki". He began with the same basic premise of Gardiner's speech – diversity – but took a different tack, emphasizing the need to "rexamine our priorities" and cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else.
He used the speech to highlight what he sees as one of the the greatest opportunities awaiting the Wikimedia movement: Africa. Internet use in the continent is exploding; for example, while only 0.1% of the Nigerian population used the internet in 2000, 29% had access in 2010. Bandwidth is seeing a similar boost. Yet Wales noted that stereotypes, like those where farmers use donated mobile phones to assist in farming, are inadvertently perpetuated in the Western world with little basis in fact. In reality, the top sites visited by those in African countries include Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia – broadly similar to those in the West. Calling this the "ongoing march of technology", Wales noted that these new editors, in a process of "normalization", may not speak the traditional English or French mixture common in former colonies of Western European countries.
Continuing a tradition from last year, along with extending the theme in his speech, Wales gave a "Jimbo Award" to the Yoruba Wikipedia's Demmy, who used bot-assisted article creation to boost the site's article count to 29,000. Through this and other initiatives, Demmy increased the editor base from essentially himself to at least four active editors. Wales announced that he would give Demmy, who at the time of the speech had no idea he had won anything, US$5000. Last, in something he "dreamed up last night", Wales also awarded "Staffer of the Year" to two Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) employees: the English Wikipedia's community liaison Moonriddengirl (aka Mdennis (WMF)) and the WMF's senior designer Brandon Harris.
Sue Gardner's speech focused on the year before ("what we did") and what is planned for the year ahead ("what we will do"). She reported that Wikimedia sites have seen a 25% increase in readers from the previous year, from 400 to 500 million, and remarked on the success of foundation initiatives like Wikipedia Zero, which will enable free mobile access to Wikipedia in developing countries, and the Teahouse, which aims to provide a welcoming experience for new users. She pointed out that the new upload wizard on Commons contributed to a 27% increase in uploaded images, and she commended Wiki Loves Monuments for a visible spike in the number of image uploads in September 2011.
Moving to the future, Gardner said that editor retention is "our single biggest challenge." While more editors have been retained over the past year, slowing the rate of departure, the overall numbers are still in the red. The WMF has assisted in this area, she said, including the emailing of lapsed editors with an invitation to return, but this is primarily an area where possibilities of forging change lie with the communities. Of the WMF's core goals for goals for 2015, three are currently on a successful track:
Gardner moved into a discussion of "where we are failing" – primarily in participation (as efforts in diversity continue). She listed:
She sees specific divisions in these, where the first two bullets are the WMF's responsibility and the last three are the communities' responsibility. Her answers to these challenges were no surprise:
.png)
Her comments on what the WMF will be attempting to do in the first two areas, however, were unexpected: "your job is to support the WMF and let it make these changes."
The 2012–13 plan will broadly follow these lines, with the visual editor, for example, planned for deployment in December 2012. There will also be efforts to allow editing from the mobile site and an emphasis on improved site performance, such as quicker loading times.
Gardner ended her speech with the recognition that editors, when given a choice between the WMF, volunteers, Wikimedia chapters, and themselves, will tend to rate the latter last. She partially attributed this to the fundraising banners, which presents the featured editors as perfect, such that other editors feel a lower self-worth. She attempted to counter this by saying all editors are "heroic and altruistic" and "the work you are doing is changing the world."
The Archivist of the United States and head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), David Ferriero, gave an extremely well-received speech at the close of the regular conference. He called himself a "huge fan of Wikipedia", but the challenge is that most GLAM institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) are still wary of the "radical" notion of Wikipedia. With changing technologies, Ferriero said that the online world is "changing the way [GLAMs] think about archival work." The biggest challenge in this new world is visibility, so he stated that GLAMs need to be "aware of where the people are."
This thought process, along with President Barack Obama's commitment "to an unprecedented level of openness in government", is what led Ferriero to Wikipedia and other popular online sites upon his appointment by the United States Senate in 2009. He quickly ran through the history of NARA's involvement with Wikipedia, including the appointment of a Wikipedian-in-Residence (Dominic McDevit-Parks), and quoted a blogger who attended Wikipedia's tenth anniversary celebration in Washington, D.C.: "If Wikipedia is good enough for the Archivist of the United States, maybe it should be good enough for you."
Ferriero emphasized the benefits NARA has received from its association with Wikipedia, including the Wikipedia article about Desegregation of the United States Marine Corps, which was inspired by one of NARA's "Today's Documents" and has been viewed four million times (as opposed to 17 million hits on NARA's website in the entire calendar year), and the inclusion of four NARA images in USS Arizona (BB-39). These images were digitized on request, featured on the main page on the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and viewed more than 150,000 times in just two days (editor's note: the author of this Signpost article significantly contributed to the latter).
Ferriero closed his speech with three parting thoughts: while Wikipedia is still suspect in GLAM eyes, the only way to overcome this is to keep working to improve; a call for international attendees to assist their country's archivists; and a restating of the blogger's quote: "if Wikipedia is good enough for the Archivist of the United States ...".
Despite the Wikimedia DC chapter's incorporation after they were awarded the bid, and even with an unprecedented number (1400) of conference attendees — the previous two Wikimanias, held in Gdańsk (Poland) and Haifa (Israel), were attended by fewer than 1100 people combined – Wikimania 2012 was a complete success, with attendees' reaction to the conference coming out as ecstatic and laudatory.
While a few of the most popular sessions held in smaller rooms were crowded, quick planning by conference organizers, who had estimated that there would be 1000 attendees – rather than the actual 1400 – avoided any major issues. The largest problem was in a presentation on Jimmy Wales' transition from "benevolent dictator to royal monarch to spokesman", when a presenter unexpectedly illustrated a slide on the Wales vs. Wikimedia Commons pornography debate in 2009 (see previous Signpost coverage), in violation of the conference's "Friendly Space Policy".
James Hare, the coordinator of Wikimania 2012, believes that "the greatest metric of Wikimania's success is the number of connections people made during the conference. ... needless to say, many were made." Peter.C praised it, saying "Wikimania was great as I was able to work together with other Wikipedians to discuss what works, what doesn't, and what we should do going into the future." Risker was enthusiastic about the WMF employees in attendance: "I had the opportunity to talk with about 30 WMF staff over the course of the conference, and every one of [them] impressed me with [their] openness, enthusiasm, and genuine interest in working with the larger community. I learned a lot this past week from a lot of really wonderful Wikimedians." Others commented on the strange feeling of meeting online friends in the flesh, and whether their mental image of them matched the actual person. Brandon Harris, the WMF's senior designer, said "I feel that this was the best Wikimania I've attended. It was exciting to put faces to names and directly hear the voices of the editor community. I think we're on the cusp of something great now."
Eight featured articles were promoted this week:
Two featured lists were promoted this week:
Five featured pictures were promoted this week:
As Wikimania, the annual conference targeted at Wikimedians and often well attended by those with a technical slant, draws to a close, comments have already begun to come in from attendees regarding the many tech-related features of the conference.
The Foundation will be pleased with the reception of many of their major projects on show during Wikimania, including Page Triage, a more feature-heavy version of Special:NewPages, and the landmark Visual Editor project (see previous Signpost coverage). The latter, attendees were told, should be live on its first wikis by December, confirming the expected six month delay after a design u-turn earlier this year. Developers also confirmed that the tool would continue to support manual mode for the foreseeable future, much to the relief of several hardened editors in the crowd. It is unclear whether the projects will retain support as they near fruition in the months to come.
Perhaps the most thought provoking of the talks, however, proved to be that of WMF Senior Designer Brandon Harris, whose proposed "Wikipedia in 2015" designs raised numerous eyebrows among the Wikimania attendees. The four-pronged suggestions incorporate not only a drastic new skin for Wikipedia pages (Athena, mockup illustrated right) but also possible designs for the Echo notifications project, Agora (a centralised design and icon repository), and Flow, an eventual replacement for user talk pages. All are marked as being of a strictly "future" nature: but their dramatic difference from current systems and designs no doubt took many in the crowd by surprise. Whether the Foundation has the willpower and legitimacy to push through such large scale design changes remains an open question, but they are aware of the issues that may arise: as Harris stated, "Athena is supposed to be a kick in the head. It's a process, not a final design. It's a conversation about what we need to do; not what we are doing." In the interim, some of the suggestions could find their way into the front pages of WikiProjects – or so a well-received talk by WMF Deputy Director Erik Möller suggested.
Slides for some talks are already available, while many more, plus videos of each of the talks, will be made available over the coming weeks.
| “ | In June 2012:
|
” |
—Engineering metrics, Wikimedia blog | ||
The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for June 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project). Of the four headlines in the report, three have already been covered in the Signpost: the Berlin hackathon, described as "the largest gathering of Wikimedia technologists to-date"; the deployment of a second Visual Editor prototype backed by new parser Parsoid; and the launch of IPv6 support during IPv6 World Launch day. Finally, a fourth headline focussed on the commencement of development work on a new Wiki Loves Monuments mobile app, which is to be built by the Foundation's inhouse mobile team.
The monthly report also included news of a "distributed spam attack on [the Wikimedia] mail system involving what appeared to be a few thousand malicious hosts"; having blocked the attack, it "took a day for the mail system to catch up". Elsewhere, on the mobile platform there was a significant release for both the iOS and Android apps (bringing a "dramatic speed improvement" to both apps); testing conducted to allow telecommunications provider Orange to roll out free Wikipedia access to users in six countries and other providers to roll it out in Bangladesh and Montenegro; and "significant progress" on getting Wikipedia available cheaply over the SMS protocol. Just as significant was work on improving sister projects' mobile sites, and then setting up redirection to those mobile sites for users of mobile devices – a project that upgraded Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource wikis during June and has since been expanded to include Wikiquote, Wikibooks and Wikiversity wikis.
On the negative side, for the umpteenth month in a row, volunteer developers seem to be struggling to get timely code review, contributing to fears that now that unreviewed code does not block deployment, code could be sitting around for months without a review. In addition to publishing a headline figure of approximately 350 unreviewed revisions, the monthly report also contained the first fruits of the Foundation's attempt to generate proper statistics on the composition of the backlog, showing that just 76 were overtly waiting for the original submitter to take action, 49 were overtly awaiting reviewer action and 203 were in a grey area normally indicative of awaiting a reviewer. There was also little progress on the long-running TimedMediaHandler project (now in its 26th month of active development) but nevertheless good news: a final push is expected in late July to prepare the extension, which dramatically improves MediaWiki's support for video display, for a full Wikimedia deployment.
.png)
Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for several weeks.
No cases were closed or opened, leaving the number of open cases at three.
The case concerns alleged misconduct in aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions. The case was brought before the committee by MBisanz and also involves Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle. In response to a workshop proposal calling for the removal of his adminship, Fæ's administrator rights were removed at his request on 18 June.
Proposed findings of fact include Fæ's violation of clean-start restrictions: his failure to disclose other accounts during his request for adminship (where he claimed to be making a clean start with no imposed sanctions), and neglecting to mention that he left during an active request for comment. Fæ's mischaracterisation of good-faith concerns and harassment were noted, as were personal attacks directed at others, deceiving the community with attempts to withhold key evidence, lack of response to good-faith criticism, use of ad hominem attacks to discredit others, and accusations of copyright infringement. Also noted were harassment from Michaeldsuarez, and Delicious carbuncle's posting of identifying information.
Part of the proposed decision stipulates that, given Fæ's resignation under controversial circumstances, he must start an RfA if he wants to regain adminship, and must publicly declare his past accounts. There are remedies calling for Fæ's file contributions to be reviewed, a limitation to one account, and admonishment for him and Delicious carbuncle. A newly proposed remedy calls for Fæ to be indefinitely banned from the site, following his attempts to solicit intervention from the Foundation, and his claims that publicly listing all his accounts would be too onerous due to "ongoing security risks". In the same remedy, it was noted that at the time of his appeal he was still an official on the Wikimedia UK chapter. He was further criticised for attempting to dodge good-faith concerns. A few arbitrators believe that if Fæ's claims are valid then he must be removed from the community.
The case concerns behavioural issues related to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley. The accused parties deny TheSoundAndTheFury's claims, and have decried his alleged "POV-pushing". According to TheSoundAndTheFury, the problem lies not with "these editors' points of view per se [but is] fundamentally about behaviour".
Proposed findings of fact include that involved parties edited in a biased fashion—in particular that edits by Homunculus favoured the Falun Gong movement and discredited the Communist Party of China, whereas Ohconfucius and Colipon edited with the reverse bias. It was found that Ohconfucius engaged in uncivil conduct. Ohconfucius and Homunculus have edit-warred on topics related to the movement.
It was proposed that Colipon, Homunculus, and Ohconfucius be topic-banned from articles concerning the movement and related government persecution. Mandated external review by uninvolved administrators was also proposed; editors placed on review would be required to seek consensus for major edits (beyond grammatical and aesthetic changes); and once a consensus has been reached, the discussion must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor, after whose approval the editor under mandated review may proceed.
The case, filed by P.T. Aufrette, concerns wheel-warring on the Perth article after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by admin JHunterJ, and after a series of reversions by the other involved parties (all admins).
Some findings of fact: JHunterJ closed the request and moved the article accordingly, but responded to criticism problematically; Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved in discussion regarding the merits of moving the article, made edits to related topics, and reverted the original decision without discussion; Kwamikagami upheld the original decision without discussion; Gnangarra upheld the reversed decision without discussion; and the page moves on 9 and 10 June required the use of redirect suppression and were therefore covered by the wheel-warring portion of the administrator policy.
It is proposed that Gnangarra, Deacon of Pndapetzim, and Kwamikagami be desysopped; but only the last of these has reached the required threshold for enforcement (subject still to reversals in the voting). Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has voiced his opposition to these remedies, calling them "completely disproportionate and excessive" (due to admissions of poor judgement and subsequent disengagement), noting that both Kwamikagami and Gnangarra have been good contributors to the project and have, for the most part, unblemished records. It has also been proposed that JHunterJ be reminded to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding administrative actions.
Reader comments
.jpg){kind=link}
