At the time of writing, this year's election has just closed after a two-week voting period. The eight seats were contested by 21 candidates. Of these, 15 have not been arbitrators (Beeblebrox, Count Iblis, Guerillero, Jc37, Keilana, Ks0stm, Kww, NuclearWarfare, Pgallert, RegentsPark, Richwales, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned, and YOLO Swag); four candidates are sitting arbitrators (David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, and Newyorkbrad); and two have previously served on the committee (Carcharoth and Coren).
Four Wikimedia stewards from outside the English Wikipedia stepped forward as election scrutineers: Pundit, from the Polish Wikipedia; Teles, from the Portuguese Wikipedia; Quentinv57, from the French Wikipedia; and Mardetanha, from the Persian Wikipedia. The scrutineers' task is to ensure that the election is free of multiple votes from the same person, to tally the results, and to announce them.
A three-member electoral commission was charged with mediating any disputes and making decisions on unexpected issues. The commission comprises three trusted members of the community: MBisanz, Happy-melon, and Lord Roem. MBisanz and Lord Roem told the Signpost they felt that the format of the elections has generally run smoothly; Lord Roem highlighted the SecurePoll voting interface, which has been tweaked to include links to candidates’ statements and their responses to questions, "making it easy for voters to do last-second research". MBisanz was pleased that "all the candidates readily complied with the required statements and voters have thus far been helpful in flagging ineligible votes". He also thanked DeltaQuad for coding a reliable bot for the election in under 90 minutes.
We asked MBisanz and Lord Roem about the downsides. Both commented on the lack of technical preparation, requiring Bugzilla requests to be filed to alter SecurePoll; and there was a five-day hold-up in the appointment of the commissioners. The result was a 24-hour delay in the start of the election. Stressing that this is a personal opinion, MBisanz was critical of "the misuse of the questions pages as a forum to re-argue or advertise prior disputes, as opposed to discovering the views or opinions of the candidates". Lord Roem said, "Next year, we definitely need to organize the technical side a few weeks in advance to avoid the scrambling of looking for a developer the day before."
Aside from these technical and procedural hitches, this year's election was not without controversy. Shortly before the start of voting, emails regarding controversial arbitrator Jclemens from the off-wiki arbitrator mailing list (arbcom-l) were leaked to a community member. Elen of the Roads confirmed to the committee that she had shared at least some of the emails with an editor with whom she is associated. They then forwarded them to some current candidates, including NuclearWarfare, who notified the committee of the breach of confidence. The situation deteriorated quickly and led to a motion to suspend or expel Elen of the Roads, under the "conduct of arbitrators rule", which would include removing her checkuser and oversight flags, her access to all mailing lists associated with ArbCom and those flags, along with her access to the ArbCom and Checkuser wikis. However, the required two-thirds majority of all sitting arbitrators to take this action was not achieved. While five arbitrators supported and only one opposed, the number of recusals – partly comprising arbitrators who were standing for reelection – made it impossible to pass.
This is not the first time that emails from the committee's mailing lists have been leaked: messages from arbcom-l were disclosed in 2009, and in 2011 where the entire list appears to have been compromised going back to July 2005 in a series of releases on the Wikipedia Review.
Every year frustration boils over in candidates and others who watch the election closely. This time, there was a plaintive attempt to release the unofficial results as soon as possible, to which Happy-melon responded, "All community members ... are entitled to a secret ballot. Please sit back and continue to chew your fingernails patiently." The full results are expected to be released within the next few days and will be reported in next week's edition of the Signpost.
Editor's note: Seven years ago, the Signpost ran a 17-part series on the 2005 Arbitration Committee ("Arbcom") elections. This surprisingly extensive coverage was understandable, since ArbCom at that stage was still a relatively new phenomenon, still finding its feet, and rapidly becoming more complex, with more than 20 open requests for arbitration when the 2005 arbitrators took office (see the Signpost's "History of the Arbitration Committee"). The second half of 2012 has been a study in contrasts: there has not been an arbitration case since Fæ in July. Given that ArbCom's role has become more settled from year to year, our coverage nowadays is somewhat less than 17 articles.
Eight featured articles were promoted this week:
Four featured lists were promoted this week:
Six featured pictures were promoted this week:
One featured topic was promoted this week:
.png)
The Visual Editor project – an attempt to create the first WMF-deployable WYSIWYG editor – will go live on its first Wikipedias imminently following nearly six months of testing on MediaWiki.org. A full explanatory blog post accompanied the news, explaining the project and its setup.
By opting in, an editor can handle basic formatting, headings and lists, while safely ignoring elements the new system is yet to understand, including references, categories, templates, tables and images. At the last count, about 2% of pages would break in some way if a user tried the Visual Editor on them; it is unclear whether any specific protection will be put in place beyond relying on editors to spot problems. Only users with compatible browsers (currently Chrome and Firefox) will be able to take advantage of the Visual Editor at the moment; Internet Explorer 9+ is expected to be supported eventually, as is Safari. The Visual Editor is likely to get much faster as the Parsoid (Parser 2.0) project develops.
WMF developers describe the opt-in process (the same as that used for Vector skin over two years ago) as designed to allow editors to "get familiar, highlight bugs, and help us prioritise". Once enabled, the editor will be updated every two weeks, although that is no guarantee of rapid expansion in feature capability; few headline capabilities have been introduced since the Signpost's last story about the Visual Editor back in June. Instead, the work of recent months has focussed on internal cleanup and documentation. Even though refactoring work has come to an end, the Foundation is likely to miss its target of implementing three plugins (e.g. list, tables and citations) by the end of this month. For many casual users, of course, it will be a case of better late than never whenever the editor arrives.
| “ | In November:
|
” |
—Adapted from Engineering metrics, Wikimedia blog | ||
The WMF's engineering report for November 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia blog and on the MediaWiki wiki ("friendly" summary version), 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, phase 1 of which will soon be trialled on the Hungarian Wikipedia). Of the four headlines picked out for the report, two (the launch of Wikivoyage.org and the TimedMediaHandler extension) have already received Signpost coverage. The third focusses on the create of a cluster devoted to analytics number crunching, and the fourth is an invitation to volunteers to assist not just with development but product management.
The report featured an extended section on performance, an area often neglected in official communications. Much of the news was positive; a problem with caching server stability has been fixed, and freeing up memory on the WMF's application servers "addresses some of the root causes of multiple site outages, and brings with it multiple client improvements including consistent hashing, igbinary serialization, and better timeout handling". On the negative side, the Foundation's image server continued to experience occasional hardware failure, leading to an agreement with the hardware vendor to replace them. The migration of the primary data centre from Tampa to Ashburn is ongoing.
Elsewhere, there was work on developing new UI theming across all skins (primarily with the intention of making the "Save page" button more prominent) and discussion about getting more JavaScript (browser) tests automated following previous broken deployments. (Users interested in the subject may consult a more recent, detailed post on the topic.) The first phase of the Universal Language Selector (ULS) was completed in November, but, as the lack of reporting in the Signpost will attest, there were further delays in launching the Wikidata client to its first test wiki (the Hungarian Wikipedia).
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.
In celebration of Human Rights Day, we checked out WikiProject Human Rights. Started in February 2006, the project has grown to include over 3,000 articles, including 12 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, 66 Good Articles, a large collection of Did You Know entries, and a few mentions "in the news". The project monitors listings of popular pages and cleanup tags. We interviewed Khazar2, Cirt, and Boud.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Human Rights? Have you contributed to any of the project's Featured or Good Articles?
Are there any significant gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of historical events, publications, biographies, and organizations related to human rights? Do some subjects, time periods, or geographic regions receive more attention than others? What can be done to remedy these inequalities?
The project is home to several former Featured and Good Articles that were reassessed and demoted over the past few years. Has there been a concerted effort to return these articles to FA or GA status? What has been the greatest challenge to both improving and maintaining articles related to human rights?
Do human rights topics elicit any disagreements or debates on Wikipedia articles? How does the project deal with these issues?
Has the project had any difficulty acquiring images for articles? Are there any sound, film, or other media clips that would be useful for illustrating articles under the project's scope?
Does the membership of WikiProject Human Rights overlap with any other projects? What other WikiProjects may be interested in collaborating with WikiProject Human Rights?
Is WikiProject Human Rights planning anything for Human Rights Day? What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
We really don't know who we interviewed for next week's article. All we know is that they're German and enjoy video games. In the meantime, have fun in the archive.
Reader comments
