Fourteen editors have been proposed for a six-month page ban in the Tea Party movement case. In the Infoboxes and Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds cases, the workshop and evidence phases have closed, and proposed decisions are scheduled to be posted.
A proposal to ban 14 editors from the Tea Party movement article was put forward in a Motion for Final Decision: "Effective at the passage of this motion, the parties to this case (excepting the initiator) are prohibited from editing the Tea Party movement article, the article talk page, and all subpages of the article and talk page. This restriction will end after six months."
As an authority for the proposal, the Motion asserts that "the Arbitration Committee's 'at wits end' principle reflects that in intractable situations where other measures have proved insufficient to solve a problem, the Committee may adopt otherwise seemingly draconian measures, temporarily or otherwise, as a means of resolving the dispute."
The case, involving a US political group, was brought by KillerChihuahua after a civility-related discussion at ANI broke down into calls for topic bans. Concerns were expressed over WikiProject Conservatism being "canvassed for backup support for disruptions" on other articles and the possibility of "the same editors finding their way into the same conflicts over U.S. politics, religion, and homosexuality".
The moderator of the article's moderated discussion page has stepped down, saying "... since I can technically be seen as an involved party, it may come to pass to topic ban me too. In any event resignation would be a preferable option than to face a topic ban."
The Signpost asked two arbitrators closely involved in the case, SilkTork and NuclearWarfare, if they would comment on dispute resolution, evidence, and the proposed ban, issues that were raised on the case pages and talk pages when several editors were added to the case after the evidence phase had closed. In particular, we asked how the names of the 14 editors were chosen, given that some editors claim not to have edited the article recently, while the proposer of the case, KillerChihuahua, was claimed to have recently participated in the case. We also asked whether there would be any Findings of Fact to support this motion; and if editors proposed for the page ban would be given a chance to participate in the case before being sanctioned, to have any evidence presented against them, and to answer to any implications of wrongdoing.
Both declined to comment, but on the case page for the proposed decision, NuclearWarfare stated:
| “ | ... there are editors being swept up in this motion who do not need to be sanctioned ... And it's a dammed shame they are being swept up into this ... This motion is much a failure on the part of the Committee as it is the part of the editors of this article. I think the drafting Arbitrators as well as everyone else could have gone through each party one by one and isolated where they went astray in not editing according to Wikipedia's policies. I tried that with one or two editors below, but without a full analysis from the rest of the Committee on each of the editors involved, that process is never going to work. And for whatever reason, that was not done in this case. | ” |
Arbitrator AGK, the principal author of the motion, provided the following statements to the Signpost. With regard to how the named editors were chosen, AGK stated that "the list of editors is simply a copy of the listed parties to the case. KillerChihuahua was excluded because her involvement in the dispute was as an administrator, not as a contributor to the article."
With regard to the questions about evidence, AGK told the Signpost:
| “ | The dispute has not been caused by egregious misconduct or violations of conduct policy – which is in contrast to the mainspace disputes that usually come to arbitration. As a result, the motion contends that dispute is intractable because it has happened to attract a group of editors who are fundamentally unable to come to agreement or work productively together towards a stable article. Although it is not those editors' fault that they are incapable of collaborating, the situation nonetheless demands a solution. Temporarily excluding the present contributors from the article is the solution proposed by this motion. My purpose in this motion is to make space for a new group of editors (who might otherwise be put off by the conflicts of a large group of entrenched disputants), and to end this distracting and disruptive impasse. | ” |
| “ | We stopped voting on findings (which relate to single users) because the problem – broadly speaking – does not lie in the conduct of individual editors. Similarly, authorising discretionary sanctions and closing the case would be inadequate because the problem lies with the fact that the disputants are fundamentally unable to work together (even if they can not work together while behaving impeccably); discretionary sanctions are designed to stop outright misconduct, not polite – but incessant – disagreement. | ” |
The proposed "Motion for final decision" is currently being voted on. For the case as a whole, there are 10 active arbitrators, so 6 votes would ordinarily be needed for passage. But according to the case page, for the purposes of this motion, there are 9 active arbitrators, 3 inactive, and 1 recused or abstaining. Silk Tork withdrew from voting after adding his name to the list; so again, according to the current case page, 5 votes are now needed to pass. As of this writing, there are five votes for support, and three for oppose; so the proposal appears to be passing.
This case, brought by Ched, involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting (right margin, footer, both, etc) – whether the preferences of the original author should be taken into consideration, if the decision should be made by various WikiProjects to promote uniformity between articles, or whether each article should be decided on a case-by-case basis after discussion. It also involves what is perceived by some to be an aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion by some editors, in areas where they do not normally edit. Areas that have seen disputes over infoboxes include opera, the Classical Music and Composers project, and Featured Articles.
The evidence and workshop phases of the case have closed, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 14 August 2013.
This case, brought by Mark Arsten, involves a dispute between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Ironholds, the original account of Wikimedia Foundation employee Oliver Keyes, that began on-wiki and escalated in off-wiki forums, ending with statements that could be interpreted as threats of violence.
The evidence and workshop phases of the case have closed, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2013.
Summary: It's crickets and tumbleweeds this week, as the top 10 sees its lowest view-count since the tracking project began. If Wikipedia were selling anything, we'd be having a fire sale by now.
For the complete top 25, plus analysis, see: WP:TOP25
For the week of July 28 to August 3, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:
| Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 
|
693,172 | .JPG) |
A perennially popular article, it probably finished at number one by accident, given the low traffic. | |
| 2 | Maria Mitchell | 
|
677,707 |  |
The great astronomer and comet-discoverer got a Google Doodle for her birthday on August 1. |
| 3 | The Wolverine (film) |
|
563,231 | The second attempt to give X-Men fan-favourite Wolverine his own franchise appears to be doing far better than the first, taking $21 million in its first day. | |
| 4 | Kidd Kraddick | 
|
508,829 |  |
The US radio personality got a send off from Wikipedians when he died on July 27. |
| 5 | Robin Thicke |
|
503,901 |  |
The Blue-eyed soul singer and son of Alan Thicke released his latest album, Blurred Lines, in the US on July 30. |
| 6 | Orange Is the New Black |
|
411,966 | The women-in-prison TV series premiered in its entirety on Netflix on 11 July. | |
| 7 | Deaths in 2013 | List | 410,828 |  |
The list of deaths in the current year is always quite a popular article. |
| 8 | 
|
373,400 |  |
A perennially popular article. | |
| 9 | List of Bollywood films of 2013 | List | 372,664 |  |
An established staple of the top 25, but a newcomer to the top 10. Again, low traffic is probably the reason. |
| 10 | Down Syndrome |
|
349,802 |  |
The genetic disorder shot up in views this week after news went global that epigenetic experiments may have revealed a possible treatment. |
The opening days of the annual Wikimania, referred to as the "pre-conference", are not typically newsworthy. This year's pre-conference in Hong Kong looked like no exception, with meetups scheduled for education, Chinese-language Wikipedians, and developers, along with registration, a roundtable discussion, and various chapter meetings.
This changed dramatically when the Chapters Association council met on Thursday. The Association was proposed at Berlin in March last year and set up "to serve as a central organization ... to promote coordination and accountability among the chapters, represent the chapters on common interests, facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience, and provide assistance and support in organizational development". In its year-long existence, the Association has been mired in controversy, seeing the use of the trademarked term Wikimedia in its name contested by the Foundation; dithering on proposals to recruit a so-called secretary-general and several other employees, and to incorporate the Association and set up a physical office in a European country (Brussels and Geneva were mentioned as locations); and the resignation of its inaugural chair, Ashley van Haeften (Fæ).
The Association's council meeting—with 48 in attendance, according to the etherpad records—opened with a statement from vice-chair Ziko van Dijk, who read a lengthy prepared address on the "failure" of the Association:
| “ | We all dreamt of a powerful association, with resources to support the chapters, and Council Members serving as a transmission belt collecting the thoughts and emotions of our entire movement. But look around now ... our investment in time and energy has proven to be a genuine failure. ... in February 2013, the WMF board of trustees ultimately lost faith in the [Association]. It announced that it will not give money for [an Association] employee; instead, [the Association] should show some useful practical work, not waste its time with discussions on legal framework. | ” |
Van Dijk's address contained a series of references to a "fictional Johnny" (which he decoded later in the meeting—Johnny "spoke with a French accent"). There were suggestions that Johnny "doesn't take the Association seriously" and "hated the WMF", and that Johnny said "the big chapters, those with the resources, want to dominate the movement and cannot be trusted". Van Dijk said: "please explain this to me: who should take the WCA serious[ly], if even Johnny doesn't? Those questions kept coming to me." Even his own board, of the Netherlands chapter, had discussed whether supporting the Association is "flogging a dead horse".
"I don't want to end this speech in the same bitterness as when I started to write it on Wednesday's early morning", he said. "Of course, when you are pointing with your finger at others, three fingers of the same hand point to yourself". He concluded with a quotation from the Bible concerning "the power of sharing".
Wikimedia France vice-chair Christophe Henner then announced the chapter was leaving the organization. Henner denounced the current state of the Association, saying that its structure was "untenable", since "too few people are involved". He declared that Wikimedia France would instead be supporting volunteers in specific Wikimedia-related tasks, and called on the other member chapters to follow their lead in departing the Association and directly supporting volunteers. Several chapter officials told the Signpost that Association heads were informed of this pre-planned maneuver only the night before.
Van Dijk and Association chair Markus Glaser then resigned, "effective now", stating that they see no future in the Association. In subsequent discussion, participants debated what to do, but the records reveal no clear direction. Glaser said: "The movement is not taking us seriously. We are perceived to be working on our internal structures all the time. Both chairs resigned and then the solution is to rework charter, this is a death blow." He was convinced, it is recorded, that the chapters will now abolish the WCA. In Van Dijk's words: "The Wikimedia Chapters Association is no more. The Council did not abolish it, but on the Thursday meeting Markus (the Chair) and I (Ziko, the Deputy Chair) stepped down. A discussion followed that demonstrated: an early revival seems to be highly unlikely."
Asaf Bartov, the Foundation's head of the Wikimedia grants program and global south partnerships, was present as an observer. Emphasizing that he was expressing his personal views and not those of the Foundation, he introduced a different tone. What has been missing in the discussion so far, he said, is "gratitude and appreciation for the people who have been trying to make it work. It's frustrating, thankless work, and deserves appreciation all the more." Bartov said he was "intrigued but not surprised that the conversation has focused so far on recriminations and blame, ... this is not the best use of our time in this rare and expensive opportunity where we are all in one room."
Bartov said he originally saw the Association as the combination of a Wikipedian, democratic instinct coupled with the dream of "a league of chapters that would give equal representation, do conflict resolution." But some basic facts were overlooked: in his view, a lot of chapters are still not interested in participating in global movement-wide policy or planning, and there was a lack of clarity on what the Association would achieve.
In practical terms, he said: "there were no more than maybe 10 people with the actual drive to do the kind of things that the WCA said they would do. ... this was something that very few people really cared about. ... People were fooled into believing that the WCA had a lot more volunteer energy than it really had. In Berlin in 2012, we spent the better part of that conference talking about points in the charter." Bartov said he wished more time had been spent on thinking about what the Association should actually do.
He drew an analogy with Wiki Loves Monuments: "Some of these things just aren't as exciting as WLM! WLM happens on an almost military scale of coordination of troops around the planet, ... because people want to do it. There are enough people to do it, even without a chapter, or without a WLM fiscal setup, ...".
As the meeting drew to a close, Glaser narrowed the options down to four:
Votes were taken on dissolving the Association and abolishing its charter, but both failed. Only three chapters supported the former (against six opposes and two abstentions), and while a small majority voted in favor of charter abolition (four supports, three opposes, four abstentions), it failed due to the association's requirement of 66% support. One major open question is if other major chapters will pull out during Wikimania's remaining days—a chapter official opined to the Signpost that the association would fully collapse if this occurs. If not, the question will morph into if the chapters association will be able to continue functioning.
The etherpad ends with an intriguing comment: "The charter requires having a chair. The pool to select a chair from consist of the council member who voted to keep the charter. My question: which council members voted to keep the charter?"
The Chapter Association's death throes were not the only event of the pre-conference. The education program held a day-long session on Wednesday that covered important topics for the future of the program. The first session was led by Peter Gallert, who explained how to overcome fears and setbacks in an education program, including challenges with editor retention, technical ability, communication between the community and the class, and adherence to wiki norms. The Foundation's LiAnna Davis gave a presentation on best practices for starting a new program at a university. She suggested that Wikipedians start on a small scale and organize early, taking a lesson from the disastrous Pune experiment in India. Davis also discussed the aims of the Wikipedia Education Program, which have shifted from previous iterations: "We do not care about [editor] retention—we care about adding quality content to Wikipedia." However, she encouraged people involved in the program to focus retention efforts on course instructors.
Speaker Martin Poulter drew on his experience as JISC Wikipedian-in-Residence to teach participants how to "pitch" Wikipedia to educators. Other presentations given included an overview of the training materials available for students, instructors, and ambassadors; recruitment of ambassadors (both Campus Ambassadors and Online Ambassadors); a tutorial on the Education Program software extension; and a discussion of different target groups. Davis summed up her view of the conference in an email to the Signpost:
| “ | I was really happy with the outcome of the Education Program Pre-Conference. Our goal for the event was to start sharing learnings across countries and provide very detailed, action-oriented suggestions for programs in varying stages of development worldwide. We had a very productive group of people very dedicated to Wikipedia's use in educational settings from nearly 20 different countries. | ” |
The welcome party on Thursday night was held in the Sky100 conference centre, known for its striking view of the city ("up the elevator to the 100th floor—impressively, it seemed to take less than 60 seconds", according to Hong Kong resident Ohconfucius). The normal entry fee of US$21.50 was waived for party-goers as part of the hiring cost for the party.
The venue was crowded and the food did run out, but there was delight among some people at the high-quality Cantonese offerings, and appreciation of the free alcohol. We were unable to determine whether there were relatively high levels of gate-crashing, given that there were no proper checks of registration at the door of the party venue (one source told the Signpost: "no questions—just put your name on a label and you're off").
Among comments we have received were that "the lights were too low" and the venue was "good for appreciating the view, but pretty useless if you wanted to look for people". According to Ohconfucius: "the PA was a damp squib for the size of the gathering, and I don't think more than a handful of people even heard the introduction and welcome from Jimmy Wales. I heard the welcome, but I was at the front. People at the back didn't stop talking."
The Signpost did not have the necessary information at publishing time to give in-depth coverage to the developer camp, but the WMF's James Forrester told us that it went "very well", although the "short timeframe involved means that we will need to wait to see what comes out of it." More information will be available in episode 96 of the Wikipedia Weekly, when that is released.
The next edition of the Signpost will provide coverage of key presentations at Wikimania.
This week, we journey into a WikiProject that focuses about what keeps Wikipedia running, the freedom of speech. WikiProject Freedom of speech was created in 2012 by Cirt, and has 11 pieces of featured material, along with 50 GAs. I had the pleasure of interviewing Crisco 1492, Khazar2, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Cirt, Int21h, and John Carter.
Have you contributed to any of the project's Featured or Good Articles?
Are there any substantial gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of freedom of speech? If so, what can be done to fill these gaps?
Do you encounter any difficulties finding reliable sources for articles about freedom of speech? Are there any useful repositories of information about freedom of speech that can be used for sourcing Wikipedia articles?
I noticed that one of your open tasks is to expand articles in the freedom of speech category. How high of an importance is that to you, and how does the categorization aid in building these articles?
.jpg)
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Finally, I have a few words to stamp into your mind. They are, don't forget to check out the archives!
Reader comments
14 featured articles were promoted this week.
10 featured lists were promoted this week.
_(2).jpg)
8 featured pictures were promoted this week.
_Eurocopter_AS-365N-3_Dauphin_2_Vabre.jpg)
This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 7 August 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC, recent watchlist notices and SiteNotices. The latter two are in bold. Items that are new to this report are in italics even if they are not new discussions. If an item can be listed under more than one category it is usually listed once only in this report. Clarifications and corrections are appreciated; please leave them in this article's comment box at the bottom of the page.
(This section will include active RfAs, RfBs, CU/OS appointment requests, and Arbcom elections)
