Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-07-16

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-07-16. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted (11,440 bytes · 💬)

Hi James, I'm not entirely sure, but can you recheck the counts of 'Week 3' and so on? May be a bit off. I may be wrong (and probably am), but an extra check would be great. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, I've been off on my counts for the past 3 issues. Thanks very much LR, it's all fixed now. :) James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:36pm • 02:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that admins look in at the likely desysoping of Gnangarra, as it appears (in my view!) to represent a significant escalation of how ArbCom handles admins who make a mistake. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. While the remedy re Gnangarra ultimately failed to pass, it at one stage had 8 arbs in support and only failed because of immense, unanimous community pressure on the talk page of the proposed decision – which arose only because of the manifest unfairness of the particular remedy on the particular admin and one could not expect such pressure to save a future admin who was worthy but didn't have such an unblemished record – and the courageous stand taken by one arbitrator in the "vote to close" section. The remedy against Kwamikagami, which did pass, was partly based on information which was not the subject of a finding of fact or evidence which really came up during the evidence or workshop phase. The case to be honest has destroyed my faith in the present ArbCom to be even remotely reasonable. It is a huge change in ArbCom's perception of its own role. Orderinchaos 05:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• "after his attempts to suborn the Foundation into action and intervene, claiming that publicly listing all his accounts would be too onerous due to "ongoing security risks."" is untrue as I have not approached the WMF, only had a private conversation with Philippe as a friend about privacy matters, and I did not ask him to intervene. The word "suborn" according to my dictionary means "bribe or otherwise induce (someone) to commit an unlawful act such as perjury" could the authors of this piece please supply some evidence before making such serious claims? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fae is correct. I was the one who used the term originally, and altered it to "subvert" after the nuances to which Fae objects were brought to my attention by a third party. I will make the change in the above article, since it was my fault that the inappropriate term was used in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Hi James, a couple of minor points. Firstly, the story in regard to the Fae case is perhaps slightly misleading as it implies there was a proposed finding of fact that Fae had infringed copyright. The finding was that Fae had been 'accused of infringing copyright', which is substantially different. Secondly, in regard to the Perth case, I drafted the 'JhunterJ advised' remedy because of my perception that JHunterJ could have handled situation better, irrespective of the later wheel-warring. Otherwise, I'm unsure about 'the committee believes that if Fæ's claims are valid then he must be removed from the community', while I can't speak for my colleagues, I personally don't agree with that view. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Phil, I've reworded them accordingly. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:54pm • 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Let me make two general points that apply not just to the cases discussed in this issue, but more generally:

1. Until an arbitration case is closed and the decision is posted, the votes are subject to change. Thus, a finding or remedy on the proposed decision page might be "currently passing" or "appears likely to pass," but nothing is actually passed until the case closes.
2. For details of arbitrators' explanations for their votes, where they have given them, please consult the proposed decision page for the relevant case.

Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi NYB, the wording for those paragraphs wasn't very clear, but what I did was I included remedies and findings of fact where they had reached the threshold for enforcement. I wasn't aware of the need to request permission to quote an arbitrator's voting rationale or their thoughts, I'll bear that in mind for future editions. Thanks James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:54pm • 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, it's not that you need to ask permission to quote anything—just that you can refer people to the source of the quotation (the proposed decision page) for the complete version. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ah ok. I didn't know that, I'll remember that for future reference. Thanks! James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:08pm • 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "At the time of his appeal he was still an official": this very POV wording implies that the situation should change, please fix. Nemo 10:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed. We get loud and clear that the author of Signpost doesn't like Fæ very much, it's a shame that they can't put that aside when writing about the case here or under other headings. Orderinchaos 06:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't involve myself with the nature of the cases, I actively avoid drama where something does not concern me and I write based on what I see. As a result I quote the posts of other Arbs and that text was there in the finding of fact, quoted verbatim, I'll mention that it was noted he was still an official. I'll ignore your clear pro-Fae bias, Orderinchaos, it's ironic you should be badgering others about bias when you can't set aside your own prejudices. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:08pm • 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  I am not "pro-Fæ", just a fan of fair reporting and fair treatment. And unlike online journalists on Wikipedia's signature news publication, I'm not obliged to be neutral - I'm an admin and an editor and my views on topics are what I write, usually invisibly to anyone who doesn't delve into talk pages. There is a sense of responsibility attached to writing for this thing, and that was my point. Orderinchaos 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  Are you implying that I don't write neutrally? I'm sorry, but I find that to be rather insulting. I apologise for being quick to jump the gun; but if you look at previous issues there were also concerns about wording. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I write based on what I observe and I'll either be paraphrasing an arbitrator's words or quoting them directly, I do not word them in such a fashion with malicious intent. I do not add propaganda to an article, I do not add anything that would otherwise hurt another user. If that's not the way you see it, fine, but do not accuse me of attacking a user in an article. My personal prejudices are not even taken into account in these articles. If they are, I'll eat my hat. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:05pm • 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know about Orderinchaos, but I didn't imply at all that you've not written neutrally. I've stated it. Regards, Nemo 13:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for ignoring what I said, I quote what Arbs write and their wording may/may not be neutral, but it is not my own wording. I don't use the Arb Report as a means of spreading propaganda, nor do I have any intention of doing so. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:52pm • 06:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for ignoring what I said, I didn't object to any quotation. If you had forgotten qotation marks it would still be your fault, but I checked and it really seems to be your own wording. I'm really concerned that you don't feel responsible at all for your own writing. --Nemo 08:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've also said in past issues that I often paraphrase, I don't like quoting huge slabs of text where I can help it. See the proposed decision. I know about the use of quotation marks, I don't need to be told when and where they should be used, however, I wasn't aware that paraphrasing required quotations. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:02pm • 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  You said "it is not my own wording"; on the contrary, your link shows that the "still" is your own, so I confirm that you've not written neutrally. What's worse, I can now add that you don't even notice when your own opinions slip through your "paraphrasing". --Nemo 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

These three cases are (or were) set to loose us good editors, it seems to me that the Queen of Hearts now runs ArbCom, and the game is not worth the candle. Rich Farmbrough, 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations (1,067 bytes · 💬)

• Great list of discussions! Another one that could be included is the RfC on level one user warnings. The research behind it was the subject of a presentation at Wikimania. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Add the discussion about the AFT5 guidelines currently being proposed, or I'll be bold. --J (t) 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(*)dose anyone know who wrote the zues virus(Crystaldreams 37 (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone (7,610 bytes · 💬)

re: Wikiweb, I just wish someone would design an app meant for editing Wikipedia. It's an absolute pain on my iPad, and I shudder to think what it must be like on a smartphone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the devs are currently developing just that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's almost completely impossible on an iPhone- there's no easy way to scroll the editing window down, and it tends to scroll back to the top at the slightest mis-touch. --PresN 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to edit on my ipod touch is a joke, but I still try. Dan653 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also RE: Wikiweb, according to the website linked above, the app was developed and released by Friends Of The Web, not Apple. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. I've corrected this. There was confusion over "released" when it is currently in the Apple Store. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hasn't Gibraltar been the subject of nationalist edit wars between English and Spanish editors? Not that that would cause problems with the QR codes, but is there a connection? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's quite interesting how it is proposed to turn Wikipedia into a social media mesh. Obviously the foundation should review the Wikipedia principles and take into mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedy. If the Mediawiki would be turned into some kind of Facebook 2.0 I fear that more serious writers are out than new readers in. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That Atlantic article about the "Ugliness of Wikipedia" has been comprehensively trashed in its comments section as a load of cobblers and its author as an ignorant sensationalist. "Empirical truth" indeed!. It's particularly amusing given how ugly Atlantic is. Why it should have "sparked" anything is rather tragic. Leave this site as it is, rather than tinkering. It works fine. Ericoides (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Sue Gardner single-handedly out to ruin to the reputation of Wikipedia? First she practically spearheads an effort that ends up getting to think the Wikipedia is sexist and exclusive towards women, even though it turned out not to be true. Now she's talking about the "ugliness" of Wikipedia as if it were a God-given truth. Wikipedia's style is quite nice looking and acceptable, why is she pandering to some obscure viewpoint about its looks that could give Wikipedia another black eye? She should resign. She doesn't understand Wikipedia deeply enough. As if to prove that comment, she says in the same article that, "Our top goal [at Wikipedia] is to increase the number of people who edit". NO! No it's not! Our top goal is to build a great encyclopedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

While Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) tends to follow the strategic plan quite closely. 3 out of 5 goals in that plan are getting more people to edit/keeping existing people editing (Even the improve quality goal is very much framed in terms of more editors). Hence foundation seems to be very pre-occupied with editor retension goals. (Personally I think this comes across a lot in which things the paid devs focus on). Bawolff (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I followed, and partly participated in, the discussion on the development of the Strategic Plan. Already back then I saw indications that convince me the WMF is simply too large and has become a bureaucracy focused on self-preservation. The idea that revenue could decrease is no longer a viable option for WMF. This is why the emphasis on growth and expansion is so strong. It is also why the notion that "editor decline" has been caused by the maturation of the Encyclopedia itself has been understudied, if not ignored. The WMF has to find things to do otherwise there's no future projects with which to lure donors. Items like the WYSISYG editor and the AFT tools are pushed so hard because they satisfy donors like the Stanton Foundation, which explains the lack of community involvement and the lack of proper response to AFT feedback: it doesn't matter if they are good or bad ideas now, it only matters that they are implemented. I can easily see Ms. Gardner having slides for prospective donor presentations bemoaning the "ugly" design of Wikipedia and how it will require X dollars of donations to research a new one. Common sense has left the building in the way WMF interacts with the Encyclopedia a long time ago. The almighty dollar and political correctness typical of large bureaucracies, as with the WMF comments that there was a "sexist" "anti-female" editor environment that later turned into a red herring, drives much of the thinking now. The idea that our interface is somehow exclusive of new editors has become the poster boy of the last few years. The funny thing is that I'm not opposed to the ideas and sometimes think they should be tried (like with the WYSIWYG editor). It's just that I prefer the process think of them as experiments worth testing rather than foregone improvements. It's the WMF attitude and unilateral approach I am complaining against. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't edit much anymore. But I still read a bit, and WP has really declined as far as reading goes. Stephen Gough is in the news, so I went to check out the article. It received a few edits because of recent media attention, but basically WP doesn't have enough editors anymore to keep the article up to date. The see saw of inclusiveness vs. quality has slowly decreased both. Still, I love that little thing that pops up when I hover over a reference number. All is not lost, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

With regards to "As if to prove that comment, she says in the same article that, "Our top goal [at Wikipedia] is to increase the number of people who edit". NO! No it's not! Our top goal is to build a great encyclopedia.", I'd imagine her first thought is that without enough editors, the overarching goal of a better encyclopedia can't be obtained. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• How to solve WP's ugly problem tomorrow: make the Cologne Blue skin the default. You're welcome. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair (53,286 bytes · 💬)

It's a real shame that the Signpost has chosen to conflate two unrelated stories here. There is no 'controversy' surrounding the WCA. This whole piece sounds like a troll wrote it, who is continuing the ongoing campaign of harassment against Fæ and is trying to drag the WCA into that campaign. I'm extremely disappointed with this article, and expected much better from the Signpost. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Mike Peel. This article is horrible. I expected better of The Signpost. --Lizzard (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you both feel this way, but there is controversy over his selection. When coupled with the fact that the WCA has the potential to be a major shift in the traditional WMF-Chapter-community triangle, it's obviously news we need to cover to inform our readers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Fae should go OFF. --J (t) 14:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• The statement "the committee's refusal to agree to conceal his previous usernames is "an ongoing security risk"" is not something I have said to any WMF staff member or Arbcom. Claims about a WMF staff member ought to at least be confirmed with that same WMF staff member before being published, even if prefixed with the classic "it appears". --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • And ArbCom has said otherwise. Until the time that they retract that statement, they're a reliable source for this article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The same ArbCom that almost desysopped someone for a single offence in a 5½ year admin career in the recent Perth case until community pressure forced a couple of them to reconsider after the vote to close the case had passed? I wouldn't honestly trust anything that comes out of the present ArbCom – only certain individuals (Newyorkbrad in particular) have distinguished themselves and demonstrated they are worthy of respect and their position. Orderinchaos 05:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done on getting the Signpost right into hatchet jobs. You'll have the page view stats of the Register in no time. You should feel proud of yourselves - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Exceedingly small point, but the verb "table" has the opposite meaning in US English as the usage in British English. While the meaning can be inferred from the context, best to use a different word.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed; thanks for that. Tony (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I find it difficult to believe that the Arbitration Committee, which has shown a exceedingly large amount of patience and careful deliberation in so many other cases, has suddenly started an "ongoing campaign of harassment" or a "hatchet job" in this one particular case. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  The arbcom discussion came about due to the ongoing campaign of harassment, which started out at Wikipedia Review. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps it did. But here's an important question for you: if the ArbCom started discussing this because of WR, and the ArbCom decided that there was a problem, wouldn't that mean that WR is right? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, it means that WR helped to generate the situation, which then led to the ArbCom discussion. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  All right, fair enough. It would take ArbCom agreeing on a similar definition of the problems to the one WR has to make WR right. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I profoundly resent the attempted establishment of this administrative gravy train. €180,000 for a "secretary general", while countless programming jobs remain undone, and Bugzilla requests go unanswered? If the Foundation has money to burn, pay some extra programmers and web interface designers rather than throwing cash out the window. Unbelievable. JN466 18:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, that's a very early draft of the budget, meant for discussion, that no-one at the WCA meeting was in support of. The costs will ultimately be substantially lower than that. Please wait for a more concrete version of the budget. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that someone put in charge of drafting this thought this would be appropriate rings alarm bells. When this "more concrete" version of the budget is approaching finalisation, and before it is approved, I suggest you place an article here in the Signpost. Wikimedia UK, an organisation that has a budget of about a million, has an actively voting membership of about five dozen: 61 to be precise. 7 of those voting members are themselves board members. 16, more than a quarter, were candidates for the board! These are very unhealthy ratios, creating a superlative potential for nepotism and abuse of funds. I hope that candidates will be offered a realistic remuneration and selected in a professional manner, with appropriate background checks. It's enough that the Wikimedia Foundation once had a convicted felon as its COO. JN466 21:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Man, I wish I could get paid that kind of money to "coordinate" a bunch of wikimedia chapters that have few clearly defined goals and little oversight beyond what they voluntarily agree to. You can't just handwave the number away as a draft- you're planning a budget here, if you didn't think it was at least close to a reasonable number the planned budget would be worthless as-is. If you guys think the best way to find a leader is to just pick someone you know and then pay them triple what a reasonable salary for the position would be, then I fully expect to see a story in the Signpost in a year describing how the WCA has burned through a ton of money and has nothing to show for it. --PresN 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a shame to see these two issues conflated; but only because the WCA has so many ridiculous problems that it is worth 3 or 4 articles in itself. --Errant ^(chat!)

In contrast to the comments above, I just want to say thanks for having the guts to publish this brave piece of journalism, and not holding back from criticising the Wikimedia Chapters Association. I'm only vaguely aware of the Fae case and don't know the specifics, but from the sound of it the WCA made a spectacularly bad decision here. Anyone who has been banned by ArbCom (or is on the brink of being banned) should not in a million years have any kind of formal position representing Wikipedia. How did the WCA get it so wrong, and how can we protest these developments? Robofish (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought/devil's advocate: yes, he will be banned on en.wp, but he also represents all the other projects, like Commons. We on Wikipedia can't make the mistake that we're the only WMF website out there. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But we can make the point that we're arguably the biggest and most important. And it doesn't make a lot of sense for the foundation to give someone a position of authority and a ton of money while they're simultaneously being pressured to resign adminship in one of the biggest projects and on the verge of being banned- and then not even mention or talk about it. If what goes on in en.wiki or anything.wiki doesn't matter at the chapter level or WCA level, then what's the point of all the people involved being editors? Why not actually have a hiring process for the position open to outsiders? You can't have it focused on Wikipedia insiders and then ignore everything that happens inside. --PresN 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect to being given "a ton of money", I am a volunteer, I get paid nothing for contributing to the board of Wikimedia UK or for my work with the Wikimedia Chapters Association. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I got it mixed up with the secretary general position. My apologies. --PresN 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect to Foundation giving someone a position of authority, it should be outlined that it did not. Fae was made chair by representants of chapters, not by Foundation. Foundation has no specific authority over the WCA. Most representants did not know about the arbcom issue until after Fae was made chair. I would note that the arbcom has not yet given its decision on the matter. Anthere (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Especially since it seems the initial information stated by Arbcom members regarding Fae's recent actions may have been mistaken or blown out of proportion. Philippe will have to clarify what exactly was said to him by Fae. If they were just having a conversation and Fae asked if he could see about mentioning how he would like his privacy in certain matters respected, then it's really not as bad as telling Philippe to convince Arbcom to stop looking into his alt accounts. Context is important. Silverseren^C 04:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• If the proposed ban at ArbCom stands, Fae should immediately resign both as head of the WCA and WMUK. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Never going to happen. Especially when, i'm quite sure, WMUK doesn't care what Arbcom thinks. (And considering cases over the past year, they would have a point.) Indeed, though, this Signpost is a pretty good hatchet job. Tabloid news all the way, with all the speculation and unfounded accusations therein. Silverseren^C 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Why? A lot of people start from the mistaken assumption that the English Wikipedia website and the worldwide Wikimedia movement are the same thing. Having been involved in both, they are two almost unrelated groups of people. When people do happen to hold two roles - an admin here and a board member at home - their roles require different things of them and rarely intersect. Orderinchaos 05:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I enjoyed reading this article! I am sure you really do need to pay someone an executive salary for chapter coordination, because one of the main requirements is actually reading all of the internal mailing lists on chapters, movement roles, fundraising, grant applications, etc. That is guaranteed to shave years off of anyone's life expectancy. This story reveals a lot about the state of Wikipedia internal politics today, and Arbcom in particular. Are you sure that banning Fae from the en.wp isn't the result of Wikimania lobbying on the part of WMUK to get Fae to spend more time on chapter matters? Jane (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• As I commented above, it seems to me that the banning Fae thing is coming about from a misunderstanding and an overreaction to that misunderstanding, considering how insignificant to the overall case the reason for it appears to be. Silverseren^C 07:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Indonesia also didn't know. The election of the Chair, procedure-wise, we believe is rushed and happened between very limited people who are present. We don't have representative present and we are not warned in advance that an election is going to happened. We are still considering our position in this matter and we're growing very uncomfortable as it develop. Official position is yet to be issued. We feel it is important that The Chair of Wikimedia Chapter Association is reputable, this is an association of highly motivated people, it is not a difficult task since it is a volunteer position and SG is present for other task and election shouldn't be rushed. We didn't sign up for this back in Berlin. Also FYI Derryck Chan is HK but I think he is also a member of Wikimedia UK. Please correct me if I'm wrong Siska.Doviana (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, what a mess. Indonesia, I hope you and some of the other chapters can take the initiative and provide some credible leadership to resolve this situation. Be prepared to be accused of "harrassment" for your efforts, as some of the comments in this very thread illustrate. Cla68 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

All chapters knew, or should have known, that there was going to be a meeting. Without a chair to direct discussions Wikipedians are notorious for endlessly talking around an issue, and accomplishing bugger all. It's absurd to think that a meeting would not elect a chair until it had the consent of those who weren't there. The chair also needs to marshal several tasks over the next few months, notably receiving the recommendations of two committees and distributing them so that they can be approved by the council. How could that be accomplished without a chair? I'm confident that Fæ can handle the job.

In response to an article in the style of The National Enquirer, the trolls came out in force, determined to prove that they were clueless. That the contents of a budget are ridiculous should not mean that its drafter should be prevented from presenting it; the Council reserves the right to not accept it. To presume that the Council delegates, all operating with the consent of their respective chapters, are going to suddenly abandon all common sense in order to accept a budget devoid of reality is an abject failure on the part of the trolls to assume good faith. Too many of us have sufficient life experience to prevent any such thing from happening. Remember too that the exorbitant salary in part reflected payroll taxes that would be mandatory if the Secretary General and offices were to be based in Belgium. That is certainly one reason why we chose to have the committee consider alternative places for incorporation.

And no, the WCA should not give greater weight to en-wp just because it has an Arbcom, and it is bigger. That would be to allow a schoolyard bully to dictate terms to the Association. Eclecticology (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well evidently they did not, as Siska's post above clearly illustrates. Fæ actively avoided listing all his accounts and attempted to curb due process during the proceedings. He failed to respond to good-faith criticism and his continual crying "wolf" did not help his cause, either. The fact that he had that many accounts is both perplexing and troubling; surely if he had good intentions he'd have no problem in disclosing said accounts and responding to good-faith criticism. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:22pm • 09:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• My first reaction as I read the above report was to consider to posting a request at WP:BLPN. As I continued to read, it reminded me of the same opinionated "news reporting" that appears on page one of top newspapers, so it's hard to blame the signpost for doing what today's great newspapers are doing. One area that wasn't explored was why would someone (Fæ) continue pursuing non-paid positions in an organization that at one of its highest levels (ArbCom) said it doesn't want him instead of applying that resilience in business to make money? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• And your response would have been incorrect since all of the article has a reliable source. And that's assuming WP:BLP applies to the Signpost (and it does, actually, because it applies to everything; although things like WP:N and WP:RS don't except insofar as they relate to BLP). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Having "reliable sources" doesn't stop something from being a hatchet job based on scandal and intrigue. Silverseren^C 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. "Hatchet job" is about the level of this. Orderinchaos 05:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Mike Peel. «This strong vote was despite the controversies that have surrounded Fæ on the English Wikipedia and Commons» is ridiculous: why should anyone care? It's completely unrelated, unless of course one considers that if banned he might have more time for (probably more fruitful) activities than en.wiki. Nemo 10:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also agree with Mike Peel. The tone and quality of this story was more The Sun than The Guardian - it's not the role of the Signpost to run campaigns on behalf of the disgruntled and engage in character assassination, the Register does that just fine. Also, given the story was basically about him, there doesn't seem to have been any effort to get his side of the story for a "right of reply". It was not clearly mentioned that the ArbCom case also finds that he has been harassed for some time and that it has sitebanned one of his opponents, and harassment does put people under a type of pressure where some crack and do funny things. And I agree about the conflation of issues. Orderinchaos 05:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The Signpost did email Fae to receive his side -- see "Fæ replied to the Signpost's invitation to put his view on the matter, but made no substantive comments." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The ArbCom did what they are not supposed to do, i.e. ban someone based on issues that are irrelevant as far as actually editing Wikipedia is concerned. Remedies are supposed to be focussed on purely the editing and maintaining of Wikipedia. Evidence of bad conduct, harassment, personal attacks etc. etc. should always be evaluated in this narrow context. At the end of the day Wikipedia is just another website, it's not some company with the ArbCom members being the senior managers who can decide in some meeting that some employee (an editor) should be fired for not interacting well with them. By doing that, one actually makes Wikipedia a lot more vulnerable to the social dynamics that is causing all these problems involving harassment. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am happy that the Signpost dedicates bits and bytes to the Council meeting in Washington. However, I would have liked to see more accuracy. Others have already noticed some errors. Here what I have to say:

• The author fails to use the proper terms. There are no "representatives", but Council Members. The WMNL board, which appointed me, expects from me to give feedback to the Dutch chapter members and to listen. But I would find it poor if a Council Member would see his / her task only in "representing" a chapter. The Council Members should consider the Wikimedia movement as a whole. Nothing can be achieved without cooperation and compromises.
• There is no "WCA chair", only a chair of the Council.
• It is definitely not true that I called an e-mail on the chapters list "harassment".
• It is definitely not true that my election was "well discussed". There were two candidates, both presented themselves shortly, and then there was a vote. No discussion at all.
• The author finds it notable that Fae's election was not accompanied by a "substantive discussion". In the parliamentary systems that I know about, it would be very unusual to have a discussion before electing a chair.

Ziko (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges

I have a great many issues with the tone and content of this report, but the most egregious is to suggest that in the (rejected, by the way) budget, that the SG would have been paid more than Sue Gardner. A quick look at the budget will show that the proposed gross salary before tax of the SG would be €96,000, not "over €180k" as implied here. The rest of the money proposed would be on-costs, including payroll tax and other non-discretionary expenses (and to be honest, it does seem high to me, but I haven't looked into the specifics of what it is made up of). To compare the combined remuneration plus on-costs to Sue's remuneration without the on-costs added is comparing apples and oranges, and gives a highly misleading impression. The report also dances around the fact that this budget was rejected (not just "not agreed upon") by the chapters at the meeting. But I suppose that doesn't make for as interesting a story. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

Lankiveil, if you have "a great many issues", please be explicit rather than making vague criticisms that leave a smell hanging in the air but which cannot be specifically addressed.

WMUK treasurer Mike Peel has requested that the article be split in two to separately cover the WCA and Fae; but on this occasion the article was written in good faith under the assumption that the community has a right to be presented with the facts under a single theme; I'm sorry if they're inconvenient in this combination.

Eclecticology's "troll" accusation repeats a slur levelled by Mike Peel on this page; Eclecticology likens our style to that of American supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer—which "openly acknowledges that it will pay sources for tips", according to WP; I ask readers to make their own judgement on these points.

Mike Peel characterises the report as "continuing the ongoing campaign of harassment against Fæ". But we can only report what other editors and sources say, and in terms of journalistic balance we took the trouble to include lengthy quotations from our correspondence with vice chair Ziko and WCA rep Deryck Chan that were strongly supportive of Fae. Fae did not take up our offer to put his views on the matter.

The figure of €180,000 was taken from the talk page of the budget committee; if there's confusion about whether the sum includes on-costs, perhaps this might have been clarified in the first place on that talk page—which certainly includes concerns about the apparently exorbitant cost of employing people in Belgium. I must take the blame for allowing these figures and the comparison with Sue Gardner's salary to be included in the text (at a late stage) without properly scrutinising the on-cost issue.

Although personal attitudes are hardly relevant here, I will say that the WCA has a complicated job ahead of it, and that success will be achieved only through careful and timely analysis and planning and an unprecedented level of interlinguistic cooperation. I think I speak for my Signpost colleagues too in wishing the organisation well in its bold mission to serve the movement. Tony (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely National Enquirer. Though maybe more of a Weekly World News vibe, since the Signpost does have that sense of self-parody going on. Silverseren^C 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we can look forward to next week's scoop then: Bat Boy elected to Arbcom! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just chill. It's an obviously important, notable and significant topic and all things considering (i.e. how much noise there has been around the case) the Signpost and Tony did a pretty even handed job with this particular article. It's one of those things where when there's cannonballs flying both ways, no matter what you do you're gonna get caught in the crossfire. It's why it's hard to be a moderate.VolunteerMarek 00:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That was just a joke--I can't turn down an opportunity to make a Bat Boy joke. The article actually didn't seem particularly unreasonable to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Claim about sex workers' privacy

The claim that I "violated or supported the violation of (alleged) sex workers' privacy" in a Commons deletion request has previously been addressed and apparently not sufficiently researched by the author of this piece. There is a specific response to this false allegation by a Commons bureaucrat here on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Russavia does not refer to Karrine Steffans at all. Not only did you reinsert the link to the sex video she tried to suppress at a time when you were a WP administrator and a WMUK trustee but during this Arbcom case you have described her as "a well known self-publicist" which indicates a continuing contempt for her as a former sex-worker, a choice of career which overlaps disproportianately with those who have been sexually abused or assaulted.

I'll leave it to others to look at your pattern of editing, particularly as Ash, and decide how likely they think it is that it did not cross your mind that a picture of (alleged) prostitutes might have been taken in a red light district. I mean how likely are we to have pictures captioned "Prostitutes in Wall Street" or "Prostitutes in Knightsbridge"?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone interested in Peter Cohen's extremely intense interest in me, particularly in relation to any sexual topic, since November 2011 should take a look at the 18 diffs I supplied at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Claims of stalking and a "campaign". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae, whenever you attack the character or motivation of another editor who has just criticized you instead of directly addressing his/her argument, that is called an ad hominem attack. Cla68 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cohen's question is answered, fully, by Russavia's explanation which references in detail to the deletion request and Russavia's own challenge to me at the time which, as he explains, caused him to vote against my RFA, but later understood why the original context was lost on me and was not clearly explained to me. I think Peter Cohen has raised this issue around 4 times or more so far in different forums on Wikipedia, hence the diffs are useful in my reference. As such his question has been answered, fully, several times. Answering it again here would seem excessive. By the way, I don't believe that Karrine Steffans was a sex worker, this seems to just confuse Peter Cohen's original point. Thanks for your reminder. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Censorship has been described as a slippery slope, but this is an understatement. It is a sheer cliff, and either one is at the top, where you can link to primary sources and discuss major news sources about the topic of an article, and take photographs of public street scenes, or else you are at the bottom, where providing a little bit of information about these forbidden topics outweighs years of steady and substantial contributions by even the most prolific of editors. Peter Cohen's and ArbCom's vision of Wikipedia, apparently in league with a multinational effort to impose regulation on what facts people can document [1], is a broken thing lying at the bottom of that precipice.

What we really need to understand and take away from this case, is that Wikipedia was intrinsically flawed, and can no longer be saved. The Titanic looks finer than a rude wooden lifeboat, even if it is listing by a few degrees, but appearances are deceiving. We have built up a huge "public" trove of content - which in theory will be freely backed up and used by all humanity, but which in practice is not, and is therefore subject to constant politicized deletions - and site traffic worth billions, that has shown its power to change the course of legislation overnight. Now we are seeing a game of Survivor, Leninistic purges for dominance over this soon to be effectively very private treasure trove. What political party, what clique of paid PR editors will win and use our work as the footstool of their power? I don't know. It doesn't really matter, except to the few who will be rich someday, and their political allies. The point is, we have made an unstable system, and it is too late to shore it up - it is already going down. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What? Tony (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing is down by half. The WMF tolerates that you need a download manager to get video off Commons because the connection is broken 30 times, but puts its resources into a system to let admins certify some editors to control article content in a politically charged process, a judgmental model for an image filter, and a new system for global bans. Look at an article on any recent political news topic, and there are probably things that are in the headlines that Wikipedia has decided it would be "unethical" to talk about. Jimbo Wales' talk page has become a regular filibuster against Wikimedia Commons and pornography (taken as more or less equivalent). Now we have one of the most respected chapter heads being dragged through this process over a whole lot of a nothing - it's not the first time, but certainly it's the case with the most obvious political implications. We need to start focusing our thoughts on what we're going to do to replace Wikipedia, and how we're going to avoid having this all happen again the next time. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The third banner on my talk page needs to be taken serious, that will go a long way to deal with this problem. Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to understand it, he rarely makes sense. If I may paraphrase his argument goes something like this: wikipedia is a bunch of information some of which matches with reality some of which does not, we are unable to distinguish between the true and the false without inserting some POV, thus we jumble it all up into one big pot. If it is a photograph of women outside a sex establishment, then they may or may not be prostitutes, but what the hell label them up as such anyway, or put a disclaimer on the images saying these women may not be whores. The article on cucumbers should have a picture of some one stuffing one up their vagina, because some people do that doncha know, and the article on people stuffing things up their vagina should have a large section on how to grow squashes. In a similar vein the article of rubber gloves should contain a section on anal fisting because they are used in that activity, and mentioning it there is educational because someone might not know to use gloves during that activity, obviously plenty of pictures are needed there too. Also we should present fisting as an activity that everyone's parents engage in, otherwise we are allowing a POV to creep in. etc, etc ad nauseum. HTHs. John lilburne (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia had a choice: to map the world as it is, or to write a pleasing fiction about it. To paint in miniature each desert and swamp without judging which is good and which is bad, or to take sides in every issue. I have never disputed WP:Summary style, or the proper organization of articles, nor do I recall all lilburne's examples; what I know is that examples like the "santorum (neologism)" controversy have shown how quickly these remote concerns become matters of serious politics of general interest. There is no delay at all between judgmental deletions and judgmental crusades against the editors who contributed material, which, however odd, comes to us as a gift. Nor is there any delay between punishing the "truly bizarre" and punishing the widely known. Fae's opponents have actually argued that it was wrong for him to take the picture, or upload it to Commons, because it was a well known red light district! The reason for these short delays is that those seeking censorship gain little satisfaction in suppressing the truly bizarre and unknown, which no one cares about. They only use it as a strategic landing point. Their goal is to suppress what is widely known, so as, they hope, to shape public opinion. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Way back in the 1980s I took a lots of street photographs, photographs of community events, photographs of political meetings, photographs of friends and their kids in parks, gardens and at home, photographs of other people and their kids that happened to be about. All of it was given away, the prints and most of the negatives. Last week I was at friends funeral and met some of those 'kids' that I hadn't seen for 30 years, and who are now in their late 30s and early 40s. I had a half a dozen of those 'kids' come up to thank me for the photos taken of them all those years ago. Would I do it now. NO! Today the climate where one can take candid photos of people one hardly knows, let alone their kids, is poisoned. It is poisoned by people taking photos of kids from flickr accounts, categorizing them as obese and adding them to wikipedia articles, it is poisoned by people taking innocent images from flickr accounts cropping them and categorizing them as zoophilia on wikipedia, it is poisoned by people following girls up flights of stairs and photographing up their dresses, it is poisoned by people staking out swimming pools photographing kids with a clothing rearrangement issue, it is poisoned by taking a photograph from flickr and labelling those photographeds as prostitues. The result is a backlash against intrusive photographs, and all photographers are considered intrusive. Now parents can't photograph their kids in the park, or at school events, photographers are constantly harassed by police, or threatened with being beaten up by members of the public. John lilburne (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gee, Wikipedia sure has had a huge effect on society for the past 30 years. And all we have to do is ban people for their honest uploads and the whole climate will change back. Who knew? Wnt (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The person that uploaded the image did not take the image their self they found it on some other site. They did not consider the rights of the subject, not at the time of upload nor when the issue was pointed out to them. The sense of entitlement that some people have on the internet will be what kills it, not corporations, but ordinary people saying enough is enough. Entitlement has almost killed candid street photography, at least its made it far more difficult, its not corporations that have resulted in image privacy rights being enacted across Europe, but ordinary people saying that they don't want images of their selves or their kids mocked and abused by arseholes on 2 bit internet web sites. John lilburne (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, this molehill is at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn.jpg. Fae did the reasonable thing and renamed the file to remove (supposedly) questionable claims. But despite doing that, still gets this ongoing grief over it, up to and including having somebody try to use this trumped-up claim to try to undermine Fae's basic information to Parliament about how Wikipedia works, in the interest of promoting intrusive laws. The "sense of entitlement we have on the Internet" is called our God-given and inalienable right to freedom of speech and the press, for which many have died, and for which some still must. You want us to have a Wikipedia like Robert Heinlein's account of his visit to the Soviet Union, where he was carefully ushered by Intourist minders from one stadium to another and asked not to look at the seamy bits. Wikipedia was not supposed to be somebody's test-bed for radical ideas on how universal censorship of the web, starting here, would create some hypothetical social good. But that indeed is the trend now being established. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"...our God-given and inalienable right to freedom of speech and the press..."? Wnt, I think it is time for you to go. Your nonsense has always been a waste of time, but your recent burst of bloviation makes us all look like fools for putting up with you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are competing rights, such as a right of privacy. Those pursuing one right having so over extended themselves, with sites like anyoneupyet such that a rebalancing is being called for. Judicial systems are quite capable of making distinctions in such areas. John lilburne (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's over

Fae has now been officially indefinitely site banned by Arbcom.

I have to say it's an absolute shame. I know Fae and have worked with him a bit and seen his extensive work elsewhere: he has always acted as a gentleman and I can only think this is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type of thing - but even that is hard to believe. I do hope that Fae takes a good look at his actions, makes any corrections he thinks necessary, and applies to Arbcom as soon as possible for reinstatement.

That said, I think many of the commenters above owe Tony1 an apology. This article was well researched, well written (maybe a few quibbles excepted), and timely. I congratulate Tony for taking what had to be a controversial topic, and fearlessly wading into the swamp to let us all know what was going on.

Arbcom usually takes a few lumps at this stage of the proceedings - fair enough, it comes with the job. Though I quite often put in my 2 kopecks on Arbcom decisions, I can't say what I'd do differently here. And it is always very important that we accept Arbcom decisions and even strongly support them, as being arrived at according to our rules, perhaps more so if we disagree with them. Where would Wikipedia be if we didn't have these folks making final decisions?

The Chapters Association needs to regroup and decide their next steps. To get any real work done they'll need a new chairman. They'll also need to be more realistic on the budget as many folks have said above.

Finally, I think for the good of the Chapters Association Fae should resign as chair. This won't be viewed as an admission of wrong doing or anything like that, but needs to be done as a way to get it out of controversy and into a working mode. Though it is not as important as with the Chapters Association, I believe Fae should take the same step as head of the UK Chapter. There's simply no reason to put the chapter in a difficult position.

All the best to everybody,

Smallbones (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dark blue indicates existing chapters; dark turquoise chapters that have been board-approved but not yet founded; green chapters in planning stages; and light blue chapters whose application is under discussion

• I just wonder why the US is practically unrepresented in all this chapter business, and has little say, consequently on how this pot of money is spent. What's going on? Why does the UK, Canada, Australia and continental Europe have so much influence, while the US has practically zero? I don't get it.

If they wonder about "editor retention", it might be influenced by the feeling of the average US editor (me) that there's all this upper echelon stuff going on—the in-group of WMF (who pays certain editors on wikipedia) and the WMC in which I, not living in Washington D.C., have no representation— so that I'm disenfranchised. (Hawaii doesn't even seem to appear on the map.)

Thanks to the Signpost, the only semblance of independent thinking in all this mishmash, for providing the only source of information about WMF, WMC etc. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a clue about what's going on. Everything is so veiled in secrecy. The Wikimedia site is useless. Just try to figure out what's going on, if you're not part of the mailing lists, not available to the wikipedia "public".

Mathew Townsend (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, what do you mean by WMC, and what Wikimedia site? The web site of the Wikimedia Foundation? By the way, some people are big fans of a US chapter, maybe you want to become engaged in the process? Kind regards Ziko (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ziko, I inquired about the chapter business in the US, since I live some thousands of miles from Washington D.C. and was told that I should gather a group of some 28 wiki editors (I know of none) in my area and form a 501(c) company and apply to become a chapter. When there was a Wikimania meeting (is that what it's called) held in my state last month, it was located in the farther most northeastern part of the state, far from any major population centers. Several (maybe five) replied they would consider going if it were held nearer to a major city. A few editors apparently went, but they were mostly the old crowd, not ones interested in providing all the work and money it would take to try to form a chapter. None of this makes sense if WMF is actually interested in "retaining" rubber-to-the-road editors. Mathew Townsend (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Metawiki is pretty useless for finding out information. The "Outreach" site you have to know about already - there's no link to it on the wp main page. And it is equally useless for regular editors like me, a mere a worker ant. Believe me, I've inquired everywhere. And of course there are the sites the people like me are not allowed to edit. Mathew Townsend (talk)

• "The Chapters Association needs to regroup and decide their next steps". Ridiculous. What the ArbCom decides to do as regards editing on this wiki doesn't affect any real world entity (see my previous comment on this page). --Nemo 13:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, indeed it would make much more sense to form one chapter for all of the USA, and have subentities in a federalized system if necessary. But this has few or nothing to do with WCA, at the moment. (I imagine how in Germany they would have created chapters in NRW and Berlin, forgetting about MVP and other less densely populated regions...) As far as I know, WMF does not actively stimulate the founding of chapters. Ziko (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ziko, you say above: "By the way, some people are big fans of a US chapter, maybe you want to become engaged in the process?" Could you enlighten me? Who are these people? What is the process? Where is it going on? Are most editors on wikipedia aware of it?

You say, "it would make much more sense to form one chapter for all of the USA, and have subentities in a federalized system if necessary." To whom? Sounds awful to me, but I realize my elk, the common editor, is not represented in all these WMF bureaucracies. Mathew Townsend (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Elk tend to be skittish and easily frightened by bureaucracies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An elk walks into a bar. Being an elk and of very small mind, it is alarmed by the sudden change in its surroundings. It poops on the floor, bellows in fright, and runs out again, knocking over tables and chairs on the way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pooping on my question. I guess it means that it's one of those questions that's not supposed to be asked—the elephant in the room. So I'm stupid for asking it. I apologize for being an idiot. Mathew Townsend (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, the effort to create and register a Pennsylvania chapter 4 or 5 years ago was more or less tanked because the non-US chapters (a) didn't want 50 voting chapters representing the states, and (b) figured that the US was already represented because the WMF is a US entity. Now that the chapters are becoming more of an independent part of the puzzle, the second part no longer applies, and the people (like me) who were once enthusiastic about creating US chapters aren't all that excited about going there again. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments, two minor and one suggestion. The minor comments first: Hawaii is on that map; and it should surely be ilk, not elk. The suggestion, after reading the above, is that The Signpost might like to consider doing some feature articles on the various arcane organisations and activities outside of Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians don't have the time or inclination to read about what is happening elsewhere, so a series of Signpost articles might help. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, there should be no need to feel offended by the "poop" jokes. Some of us just can't help but see the humour in some typographical errors. Typing "elk" when you clearly mean "ilk" generates a malapropism that makes a cheerful breech of netiquette irresistible.

On a more serious side the question of US chapters has been a vexatious one for several years. It is one that must first be sorted out by US Wikimedians. There are currently two recognized chapters in the U.S., NYC and DC. The DC chapter includes 4 states in its geographical area, DE, MD, VA and WV. It is very unlikely that the international community will accept a one chapter per state model, but a modest number of chapters in the United States reflecting some geographical reality is not completely out of the question. The initiative for these chapters must still come from within.

Your experience about getting people together from you state to meet up is regrettable, but since you haven't mentioned your state I can't comment about its particulars. Putting together a 501(c) company may be a prerequisite to being recognized a chapter, but getting to know each other is more important at an early stage. Eclecticology (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironically I'm in Florida, Jimbo's home state. In fact, I'm not far from a cluster of WMF servers. Ironically, the whole public library system in my county (two million people or so) is blocked from wikipedia. I don't think WMF likes Florida. I wouldn't want a chapter just for my state, but something from the southeast US would be nice. I can't identify with Washington D.C. or New York City. The northeastern US is different from the rest of the country, the only area of the US that is actually losing population. I think few people from Florida can relate to "awesome" WMF folk. They seem to represent a narrow age/sex/SES range. Even Jimbo left for the UK where the chapters are powerful. Mathew Townsend (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is blocked in your county's libraries? Well damn, that seems like a serious overreaction. Out of curiosity, do you know why?

Mathew, you will probably be interested in meta:Proposal for the evolution of Wikimedia chapters in the United States. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why wikipedia has blocked all our libraries. (The county's libraries all use the same IP, so probably someone did something bad and wikipedia blocked the whole system.) Maybe that's why no one around here is interested in wikipedia. Mathew Townsend (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June (5,031 bytes · 💬)

• "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 unreviewed code does not block deployment". I suppose one could say that changing to gerrit shifted getting volunteer code reviewed from a wmf problem to a volunteer problem, since in svn world, the foundation needed to review volunteer code to update the site, now there is less of a "push" so to speak. Bawolff (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• "critics are far more likely to point to describe Gerrit as an unfortunate fait accompli: the costs of moving, even from imperfect software, have already been cited as a reason for sticking with Gerrit, almost certainly to the dismay of those who wanted Gerrit's shortcomings to block the Git switchover." -- I don't know if it's just me, but I would prefer less editorializing and more pure reporting on such divisive issues, since perceived existing tendencies can affect the opinion of the undecided. --Waldir ^talk 15:56, 17 July 2012‎ (UTC)
  • The understanding I had was that Jarry is reporting on the 'self-admitted afterthought', not editorializing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There were a number of things I wanted to convey here: (a) that Gerrit was an afterthought (b) that it was a concern for some at the time that its being an afterthought (i.e. not having a pre-switchover discussion) would later bias the eventual outcome in favour of Gerrit (c) that their concerns have proved to be corrected but (d) regardless, there are now switching costs, and they are a reason for sticking with Gerrit. I don't see anything wrong with my presentation given that -- but if you could suggest an alternative, maybe that would crystallise the point of contention. In any case, we'll no doubt run a full story on the topic further down the line. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with the text, and perhaps "editorializing" was the incorrect word to describe what I perceived (I'm not a native English speaker). I think the expression "an unfortunate fait accompli" (which somehow conveys a feeling of collective resignation) was the key element that led me to read that sentence as a little biased towards a view of us staying with Gerrit as a nearly inevitable outcome; furthermore, the whole sentence (and your comment "would later bias the eventual outcome in favour of Gerrit") seems to imply that the developer community is largely tending to the Gerrit side, when I see quite a bit of support for a switch where I've looked (for instance in mw:Git/Gerrit evaluation), in a manner that seems quite balanced towards each side. I do admit that I am not thoroughly involved in developer communications (wikitech-l and IRC seem to be the main discussion venues), so what I see could be an incomplete picture, which led me to feel the text didn't represent the general feeling I've perceived so far regarding this issue. --Waldir ^talk 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• As reported last week, 1.20wmf7 hit enwiki at around 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC). But there was no simultaneous post at WP:VPT, exacerbating a flurry of confusion/drama over the (unintended?) override of the Watchlist bolding suppression. Also, mw:MediaWiki 1.20 and mw:MediaWiki 1.20/Roadmap are starting to get out of date and there's no mention there yet of 1.20wmf8 (or 1.21). Has the communications plan been overlooked? — Richardguk (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• I really don't understand next week's poll question. Why would long lines prevent me from reading Wikipedia? I'm imagining some town in rural Australia with only 1 computer and everyone is lined up waiting to read Wikipedia on it. Fortunately, we don't have this problem in San Francisco :) Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it was referring to http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.ca/2012/07/can-everybody-read-wikipedia.html Bawolff (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's actually research that indicates that excessively long lines are harder to read and strain the eyes.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years (6,999 bytes · 💬)

• You guys got an article up before I have even made it home! This was my first time attending one of these things and what I took away from it was that, unlike a few years ago, other organizations want to be assosciated with Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement. I feel like we've made it, we have shown the world that what sounded like a crazy idea is actually possible, that knowledge can be both free and trustworthy, and that people who believe in that ideal will dedicate their time to insuring it remains so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know you attended, Beeblebrox. I'm sorry I didn't see you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Back at you. With so many people there I wonder how many people I saw from the back but never spoke to...Beeblebrox (talk)

• Let's include the other winner of the WMF employee of the year - Brandon Harris.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That was an oversight on my part – added now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• So, I found several images on Commons from the group photo thing, but not the actual group photo taken from the ladder in front. Anyone know where that is? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It hasn't been uploaded yet, as far as I'm aware, or it would have been in this article. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• The claim that "While a few of the most popular sessions held in smaller rooms were crowded, none overflowed" is false. I and others were turned away from two sessions which were too full. I was told by one of organisers "we always new room would be too small", and another told me "you can always watch the sessions online later" (I'd flown over three thousand miles to be there!). Thankfully, the situation subsequently improved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I hadn't see any overflown (right word?) rooms when I was checking around. I've tweaked this a bit in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've had reports that the presentation my team did had people unable to get in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding the opening keynote, it says "The talk was neutrally received by conference attendees, many of whom felt that the speech had beneficial ideas but left many undeveloped". I am curious as to how many attendees were asked about the presentation - "many" seems to indicate a sizeable portion had this opinion. I only point it out because this wasn't what I felt about the keynote at all, but I'm only one guy, and realise others may feel differently. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't exactly scientific, if that's what you are asking. This was the general feeling I got from talking to several conference-goers, but I could have a similar problem in that I just happened to talk to the wrong people. Does anyone else feel the same way? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• There is a link to Wikipedia Zero in the article that goes nowhere. Please make it a more direct link. What is Wikipedia Zero? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it in the article. Here is the correct link: mw:Wikipedia Zero --Timeshifter (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Did Sue Gardner discuss content dispute resolution as one of the reasons there are more articles, but less editors? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • She covered a lot of ground. I recall discussion of editor retention issues, one of the top priorities, but I don't recall that she specifically mentioned dispute resolution.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone tell me what "discoverability" means in this context? Powers ^T 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe it was the ability of new users to discover things like WikiProjects, etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• What does "fewer than 1100 people combined" mean? This datum doesn't seem to have any significance if compared to the number of attendees in a single year because of course there's a lot of overlap between years. Nemo 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't think I fully understand your comment. I'm talking about total number of people attending each conference, so there were 650 people (if I remember my numbers right) at Gdansk in 2010, vs. 1400 this year. Yes, some were the same people, but that's not what I was looking at. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

    So where does this 1100 come from? --Nemo 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

    Two archived Signpost stories. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Group photo is now up at File:Wikimania 2012 Group-0001.jpg. It's not absolutely everyone who was there but you get the idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)