Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process for creating new administrators on Wikipedia. RfA has been around since June 2003, when Camembert created the page after discussion on a mailing list. Reform of the process has been discussed continually since at least 2005, but the process has remained virtually the same as when Camembert created the page in 2003.

The first major attempt to reform the RfA process was with discussions for adminship (DfA). Bureaucrats actually initiated many of the mooted changes before reverting to the old format pending discussion. The idea behind DfA was relatively simple—a week of discussion would precede the voting phase. This would combat voting that organizers felt was little more than "stab[s] in the dark" thanks to limited information about each candidate. They took pains to note that they were not looking to completely modify RfA, but they felt limited tweaks were necessary. Ilyanep emphasized the "ridiculously increasing high standards", "huge amount of instruction creep", and RfA's similarity to polling. Lar noted that while the process was currently working and "good enough", he believed "... 'better' is the enemy of 'good enough'. I think that even if this current process works pretty well, there may nevertheless be better ones out there."^[1]

Also in 2006, Adminship renewal, proposing a term of office for administrators, was rejected. This idea is common; it had been proposed before and has been proposed many times since, which is why it is now listed on the perennial proposals page. In 2007, a large survey was conducted to attempt to find what the views of the Wikipedian community were. Around the same time, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform was created to attempt to improve the process. The page quickly ballooned before participation suddenly declined, leading editors to conclude that it was "dead" and trying to draw consensus for RfA reform from it would be flawed. 2008 saw a major request for comment, where many of the perennial proposals were debated, but no consensus was found for any substantive changes. Interestingly, the request spawned from an attempt to delete the main RfA page. Many of the arguments against reform were based in the number of administrators promoted in the previous month (34), which led to the belief that with so many successful RfAs, the process itself could not be broken. As Deskana stated, "Many people desire that RFA be changed, to improve Wikipedia. Change can be good, and it can be bad. What a fair chunk of the people that argue for the reform of RFA don't seem to appreciate is that it isn't 'broken'. That's not to say that it can't be improved. Broken would imply that it's not working at all, which it is."^[2]

The most recent and probably most in-depth attempt at reform was in 2011, with the aptly named "RfA reform 2011". The process was immediately spawned by My76Strat's RfA, which was widely viewed as a microcosm of the larger problems at RfA. In its aftermath, Jimmy Wales commented "RfA is a horrible and broken process", and the general feelings led to the creation of RfA2011 by Kudpung. Even this massive effort failed to break the RfA deadlock; although nearly all of the participants desired some sort of reform, they were unable to get their proposals adopted by the main RfA community. Worm That Turned (WTT), one of the coordinators of the initiative, blamed this on the inability to find a root cause of the problems at RfA: "Different people thought it was it was too hard, too easy, got the wrong candidates through, was too uncivil, had too many questions, could give votes without reasons, with [poor] reasons... there was a long list." Kudpung added that the participants were also discouraged by those who vocally voiced their opinion that the page would not accomplish anything.

With these many attempts at reforms, why is there still no consensus that RfA needs to be changed? Perhaps the answer lies in something simple: the natural conservative tendencies of Wikimedians, as most notably illustrated by Ironholds in the Signpost and on his blog. This is not to say most Wikipedians hold conservative political views, but that they are resistant to most forms of change. As Ironholds stated on both pages, "Wikimedians actually tend to put a fairly small amount of stock in changing things to boost the community or the social aspects of the movement. Whether it's WikiLove, help reform or any other project to ameliorate the less pleasant aspects of the projects, the same refrain comes from an annoyingly large chunk of the community ... people don't like change, and ... existing editors are largely comfortable with the current situation". This mindset is seen in the RfA archives with comments like "maybe it's better we stick with what we've got, and try and tweak it to perfection!" or "It's the worst system except for all the others." ^[3]

With the demonstrable issues with RfA's process and culture—its central two tenets—many strategies, some mentioned above, but most not, for addressing them have been raised. Perennial proposals may sum it up best: "While RfA is our most debated process and nearly everybody seems to think there's something wrong with it, literally years of discussion have yielded no consensus on what exactly is wrong with it, nor on what should be done about that." Reformist editors are therefore swimming against a strong current to even stay afloat, much less find concrete proposals that may garner support. Despite acknowledging these difficulties, there are those who still attempt to reshape RfA. The aforementioned RfA2011 was successful in implementing a editor review-style process which gives candidates a chance to catch possible problems before the public process of RfA. It was also able to put an edit notice above the main RfA page warning inexperienced candidates of their RfA's likely conclusion, and contributed large amounts of research into RfA which is still available for other editors to read through. The Signpost asked WereSpielChequers, Worm That Turned (WTT), Dweller, and Kudpung what changes to process and culture it would take to bring RfA to a level where it could help maintain the administrator core while not driving disheartened editors away after a bad experience.

WereSpielChequers' full views on RfA are available in his userspace, but he believes that RfA is 'broken' and that action needs to be taken to halt the decline in active admins—more than 300 since its peak in 2006. His solutions for RfA vary:

• Decide on clear-cut criteria for adminship;
• Give bureaucrats additional leeway in deciding RfAs and striking !votes, and perhaps the authority to promote at a lower percentage value if the candidate meets certain conditions ("not unless");
• Institute a representative democracy, where a dedicated committee would elect administrators;
• "Upbundle", or remove certain roles from administrators and give them to the bureaucrats, thereby making the former role less important;
• Unbundle the administrator powers again, similar to rollback in 2008 (ex. Vandal fighters);
• Clerks, similar to the arbitration committee, who would serve to ensure the discussions stay on track (see this and one of the well-developed proposals from RfA2011 for more details);
• Pre-vetting, giving editors a chance to discover and resolve issues prior to an RfA.

A counterpoint is provided by WTT, who says that his research conducted during RfA2011 has led him to believe that the process is not 'broken' per se, but "it's keeping the right people out and letting the right ones through. If people stopped considering it as a hell-hole, I'm sure they'd realise it isn't one. ... adminship is "no big deal", even if RfA is." Buttressing WTT's argument, only one editor has passed RfA with less than 3,000 edits since 2009, but he had over a million edits to other Wikimedia projects. Dweller agrees in that he does not think RfA is 'broken'. However, in his view the standards for becoming an administrator have risen—in some cases too high. The impact of this has been limited, thanks to the increase in highly-capable bots, but the "ordeal" of the process itself has a detrimental effect on the current efforts to retain editors: "Even more than good admins, we must value our editors, and bad experiences threaten ongoing participation and RfA is an area where bad experiences can happen." Kudpung takes a middle ground, saying RfAs have "become such a rare event, it's not possible to be able to say whether it has become calmer or not."

Still, even if we are ensuring that only qualified candidates are applying, then there is clear evidence that the number of qualified candidates is falling. The administrator corps is currently in decline through attrition and a lack of new blood (see table, below). Whether RfA is 'broken' or functional, it seems to not be fulfilling its intended purpose of at least maintaining the number of administrators: there are 705 active administrators as of this writing, down from a peak of 1,021 in mid-2008.^[4]

Key

• Discussions for adminship (2006)
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform (2007)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (2007)
• RfA Review (2008)
• RFA2011 (2011)
• Commons: Category:Admin statistics for English Wikipedia

2012-06-18

Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Jan eissfeldt and Tony1

Related articles

Movement roles and financing

Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
18 June 2012

Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI
11 June 2012

Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic
14 May 2012

Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
9 April 2012

Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling
9 April 2012

Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
2 April 2012

An introduction to movement roles
2 April 2012

Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
19 March 2012

Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation
12 March 2012

Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
5 March 2012

Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
27 February 2012

Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
20 February 2012

Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
13 February 2012

Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
8 August 2011

More articles

Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association 18 June 2012 Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI 11 June 2012 Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic 14 May 2012 Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee 9 April 2012 Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling 9 April 2012 Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief 2 April 2012 An introduction to movement roles 2 April 2012 Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts 19 March 2012 Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation 12 March 2012 Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history 5 March 2012 Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming 27 February 2012 Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering 20 February 2012 Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters 13 February 2012 Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay 8 August 2011

Negotiations among the chapters—the national Wikimedia entities—over the creation of an umbrella organisation appear to have stalled just weeks before the scheduled announcement of the arrangements for the new organisation at Wikimania in Washington DC (12–15 July). Meanwhile, in another move prompted by resolution of the foundation board at the Berlin conference in April, the first signs of a structure for user groups and thematic organisations were published on Meta on 18 June. These two new entities will comprise additional layers of real-world organisations—a significant structural change for the movement and a potential challenge to chapters' existing roles.

Wikimedia Chapter Association

At Berlin, the 25 represented chapters (out of 39) agreed to establish the Wikimedia Chapters Association (WCA) in response to the ongoing reform of Wikimedia's organisational structures. The WCA is designed to coordinate the efforts of the chapters and advocate their interests in relation to the WMF, which distributes funding and resources such as the right to use trademarks to support chapters' work. The WCA will be designed to improve chapter transparency and accountability, and to develop best practices on relevant issues such as GLAM initiatives. The intention is to hire staff and to formally agree on a location for a centralised office for the WCA. The Signpost believes this will most likely be in the Belgian jurisdiction.

The chapter representatives agreed on a letter and a time frame to be pursued by an elected steering committee. An important aim was to finalise the arrangements in time for the announcement of the foundation's finance reforms at Wikimania; these reforms will be critical to the work of the chapters, which depend heavily on foundation funding for their promotion of Wikimedia-related activities in their areas. (In a related development, it is widely expected that the new Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) will involve much stricter auditing of chapters that apply to it for operating costs.)

However, preparations for the new WCA and its council—whose members are to be elected by the chapters—have run into trouble over communications on key issues between members of the steering committee, which is charged with preparing the standing orders that will set out the basic structures for the WCA. According to the schedule, where to locate the new entity should already have been agreed on, and the results published weeks ago.

The steering committee has not responded to on-wiki inquiries regarding the state of play—even to queries by the new chapter-selected WMF trustee–elect, Alice Wiegand, who enquired in May and again in June.

English Wikipedia arbitrator Kirill Lokshin represents Wikimedia DC in the WCA process. He told the Signpost, "it's obvious to everyone that the process is far behind schedule", but that this is unsurprising given what he believes is an "unrealistically aggressive" timeline. He emphasised that the standing orders drafted by the steering committee as well as the two alternative proposals, of which he drafted one, contain the required basics and that disagreements are focused on procedures rather than substance.

"There has been a great deal of confusion," he said, "both among the steering committee members and among the participating chapters, between the location where the WCA is to be incorporated and the location where the WCA should operate." The steering committee "has interpreted its mandate merely as providing recommendations to the WCA Council on these topics. Since there is currently no mechanism for the Council to make any decisions—and, indeed, no real indication of who the members of the Council actually are—this has made it impossible to proceed towards a decision even if the steering committee's recommendations were to be finalized." However, the chair of the WCA steering committee, Tomer Ashur, disputed this view: “I am not sure this was indeed the initial plan. We do not interpret the mandate as merely providing recommendations rather than providing recommendations that if not challenged [will] become decisions.“

Kirill told the Signpost that he remains hopeful of progress before Wikimania on the three major infrastructure elements: recommendations for a location, and drafts of the job description for the Secretary-General and of the standing orders.

To make things more complicated, the biggest chapter, Wikimedia Germany, elected its representative, Markus Glaser, to the WCA by membership vote last week. He has stated that his priorities will be to achieve "far-reaching decision-making power" for chapters over the Wikimedia projects in relation to any controversial changes to the technical platform, and to partially roll back the foundation board's financial reforms by arguing for financial autonomy of the German chapter in relation to what he referred to as "sovereignty" over donations to the movement in Germany.

Are the chapters alone enough? New models for participation

Regular chapter status is generally bound to activities in a nation state (with the notable exception of the two US chapters, Wikimedia DC and New York). The inflexibility of this model came to a head during an application for chapter status to promote Wikimedia's mission in the Catalan language, which is mainly spoken in Spain but is also the official language of Andorra.

In response to this, two participatory models are under development by the foundation's Chapters Committee (soon to become the "Affiliations Committee", if the WMF board approves its new charter): user groups and thematic organisations. Recognition as a thematic organisation would be a necessary step for using Wikimedia trademarks and applying for funds from the WMF, and would require a relatively formal structure consistent with local jurisdictions. The suggested minimum number of people involved in a thematic organisation is 20.

On the other hand, many Wikimedia communities have meetups and other informal groups that have no official status, and which currently cannot apply for support, grants and the ability to use trademarks to help them in their work. No formal incorporation will be required to gain recognition under the new user group concept, which will give limited access to Wikimedia trademarks and possibly other resources.

The upcoming Wikimania will be one of the most important events for the movement for some time: during the event, the WMF board will consider approving the new Affiliations Committee and the two new participation roles, as well as debating the new financial structure to distribute movement funds. At the same time, chapter representatives will attempt to finalise the shape of the WCA.

Brief notes

• Wiknic 2012: Preparations for the annual Great American Wiknic, scheduled on and around 23 June this year, are under way. there will also be a Wiki World's Fair event on July 7 on Governors Island in New York Harbor. International volunteers will attend and then travel to Washington, D.C., for Wikimania.
• GLAM article challenge results: The GLAM co-operation project with the Teylers Museum announced its writing challenge results. Overall, more than 600 articles on Teylers-related subjects in 13 language versions of Wikipedia played their part. Effeietsanders came first, with Davidpar second and Jane third.
• US National Archives WikiProject sought: The GLAM Wiki project NARA is looking for a coordinator to work with the Archives Wikipedian in Residence. The institution also published its new open-government plan, pointing to Wikimedia communities as important stakeholders.
• GA review drive: The Good Article backlog elimination drive June–July 2012 is gearing up and will run until 15 July.
• Milestones: Among the many milestones reached by Wikimedia projects over the past month are two minority-language Wikipedias: one is the Tlukankulu Tsonga Wikipedia, which has reached 200 articles. The Tsonga language, also known as Xitsonga, belongs to the Bantu branch of the Niger–Congo languages, and itself embraces at least four variants. Tsonga, which uses the Roman alphabet, is spoken by about 2 million people in South Africa (where it is an official language), 1.5 million in Mozambique, and 100,000 in Zimbabwe. These people are often known as the Shangaan. Far to the north, Picard is a set of languages related to French, spoken on either side of the French–Belgian border. The Picard Wikipedia has reached 2,000 articles. But although many people regard Picard as just a dialect of French, an example of the difference between Picard and French suggests significant differences: J'ai prins min louchet por mi aler fouir min gardin. French: J'ai pris ma bêche pour aller bêcher mon jardin.
  
  Reader comments
  

2012-06-18

Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By J36miles

The following is a brief overview of the current discussions taking place on the English Wikipedia.

Proposals

Proposal to ban instant blocking for established editors unless a warning has been validated issued first

The current way that administrators block established users that edit war is being discussed. This proposal has been criticized with the argument that established users should already know the rules and shouldn't need a reminder. An alternate proposal has been made to advise administrators to give a warning first if they feel the editor (experienced or not) is acting in good faith.

Touchscreen Reference Tooltip

See related Signpost coverage

A proposal for enabling the Reference Tooltips gadget by default is still under discussion. Recently a version that allowed touchscreen users to use the tooltips was released to be tested.

Requests for comment

Categorization of images

The way images are being categorized with articles is coming under fire in an attempt to find a better way to organize the images hosted on the English Wikipedia. The rationale behind this proposal is to improve usability by reducing clutter to allow users to focus on what they are actually looking for.

Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee is considering a potential change to the structure of its Ban Appeals Subcommittee to include non-arbitrator seats. This subcommittee hears appeals from restricted users.

Years by country categories

The way Category:Years by country will continue to work is being questioned as a result of the lack of consistency due to gaps and empty categories. Fram has laid out a starting proposal regarding the different aspects of the categorization.

Reader comments

2012-06-18

The Punks of Wikipedia

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Mabeenot

WikiProject news

News in brief

• The Teahouse has released its pilot report and metrics.
• The Motto of the Day project is currently experiencing low participation levels. Please consider nominating a motto today!
• The June Wikify Drive has begun. Get started and earn some barnstars for your efforts!
• Voting has begun for coordinators for the Guild of Copy Editors. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.

This week, we turn to WikiProject Punk Music for an alternative view of Wikipedia's coverage of music topics. The project has grown from its modest beginnings in April 2006 into a refuge for Wikipedia's punks along with the 5 Featured Articles and 27 Good Articles they watch over. WikiProject Punk Music is home to the Good Charlotte Task Force and oversees two child projects, WikiProject The Clash and WikiProject Green Day. The project maintains a to do list, a portal, and a newsletter that is delivered to anyone listed on the project's participant page. We interviewed Jasper420, Guerillero, Benzband, and Pjoef.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Punk Music? What is you favorite Punk band?

Jasper420: It's one of the only subjects on which I am knowledgeable, which in turn is mostly due to the work of Wikiproject Punk writing Wikipedia articles. And lets go with The Gaslight Anthem. They're one of the only bands who've consistently been putting excellent music, and they've done it for 3 straight albums.

Guerillero: I have been involved with the punk scene since Jr High. This is a natural extension of my involvement. As for a favorite band — that is hard. I will list three: Minor Threat, Fugazi, and The Wonder Years.

Benzband: I listen to the music (punk, hardcore punk and ska punk), play it (in the garage, lol), and edit related articles. What other motivation does one need? :) As for bands there are a number of really great ones, too many to draw up a list here.

Pjoef: When I was 13, I was in a Heavy Metal/Punk Rock band called Larsen (from the audio feedback named after the Danish scientist). I listen to all kinds of music from Josquin des Prez to The Mars Volta, from the Renaissance to Trance, but my favourite band of all time is The Clash, "the only band that (still) matters". Punk Rock is an attitude, and the essence of the attitude is give Wikipedia some more articles and contents about Punk!

The project claims 6 Featured Articles and Lists plus 26 Good Articles. Have you worked on any of these? Have you learned anything about the FA or GA process along the way?

Jasper420: I'm sure I've done something small to at least one of them, but I don't participate in the writing process.

Benzband: ↑ this.

Guerillero: I am not much of a writer; my strength in the main-space is sourcing. I have worked on some B class and below articles, straight edge for example, but I have never brought an article to GA status or have done substantial work on an article that is already a GA or FA. Maybe one day...

Pjoef: Maybe yes, but honestly I haven't learned so much about FA and GA processes except for the GA nominations of The Clash and London Calling articles.

In comparison to other music genres, how well does Wikipedia cover Punk music? Are there some aspects of Punk that tend to be over-represented or neglected?

Jasper420: I'm pretty sure Wikiproject Metal has us beat in a lot of areas, including Featured Articles.

Guerillero: Wikipedia covers punk as well as it can in quantity; the quality is where things are lacking. There is a whole lot of sourcing and improving that needs to be done.

Pjoef: The assessment departments of all WikiProjects about music (all kinds of) speak for themselves. There is a lot more work to do.

Are there any challenges to taking pictures of notable musicians and venues? What are some images the project could use help acquiring?

Jasper420: Not so much band images, but albums covers are always appreciated.

Guerillero: There are quite a few bands (70s and 80s) that have very few free images because most donate-able images are still on film. For example there are many notable bands that have no pictures.

Pjoef: We really need more pictures!

The project oversees three task forces focusing on individual bands. Have you been involved in any of these? How much collaboration goes on between the task forces and the parent project?

Benzband: There is The Clash WikiProject which hasn't been very active recently but editors are most welcome to join.

Pjoef: I started it in November 2007. There is also a good Portal.

What are the project's greatest needs? How can a new contributor help today?

Jasper420: We can always use people to upload album covers. That's what I do around here, but help is of course appreciated. There's also a bit of an overhaul going on with some of the major punk record labels, such as Bridge 9, SideOneDummy, and Punk Core, among others. Categorization and what not. Anyone interested can contact me.

Pjoef: To improve all articles related to Punk.

Guerillero: Bringing articles up to 2012 levels of sourcing is always an easy place to start. Another would be to look for a crufty stub to fix up and bring up to Start or C class.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Jasper420: Let's just go ahead and say, help is always needed.

Benzband: "The future is unwritten." Let's write it!

Pjoef: "This is a public service announcement with guitar: Know Your Rights — all FIVE of them."

Next week is the start of the WikiProject Report's first Summer* Sports Series. In the meantime, stretch your legs in the archive.
*Winter for our friends in the south

Reader comments

2012-06-18

Taken with a pinch of "salt"

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Crisco 1492

This edition covers content promoted between 10 and 16 June.

Featured articles

Three featured articles were promoted this week.

• Francis Walsingham (nom) by DrKiernan. Walsingham (c. 1532–1590) was principal secretary to Queen Elizabeth I of England for seventeen years and is popularly remembered as her "spymaster". Relatively obscure before the rise of Elizabeth, Walsingham was one of the small coterie who directed the Elizabethan state after she became queen. He was involved in everything from international relations and plantations in Ireland to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots.
• Myriostoma (nom) by Sasata. Myriostoma is a fungal genus in the family Geastraceae with the single species Myriostoma coliforme, the largest of the earthstars. It has been found in Africa, Asia, North and South America, and Europe. The fungus's spore case, supported by multiple stalks and perforated by several small holes, is unique among its group. Somewhat rare, it is listed as threatened in 12 European countries.
• "Here We Go Again" (Ray Charles song) (nom) by TonyTheTiger. "Here We Go Again" is a country music standard written by Don Lanier and Red Steagall and popularised by Ray Charles in 1967; its most critically successful recording was made in 2004 by Charles and Norah Jones. The song, which has gospel influences, is set in 12/8 time with a slow shuffle tempo of sixty-nine beats per minute; it was written in the key of B♭ major.

Featured lists

One featured list was promoted this week.

• List of reptiles of Michigan (nom) by Dana boomer. The US state of Michigan is home to two types of lizards, nineteen types of snakes and eleven types of turtles. Most are protected by state law, but still at risk owing to habitat destruction. The painted turtle is Michigan's state reptile. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake, found in the Lower Peninsula, is the state's only poisonous reptile.

Featured pictures

Four featured pictures were promoted this week:

• John F. Kennedy (nom; related article), created by Aaron Shikler and nominated by Eustress. After being suspended for several months for a deletion discussion, this portrait was recently passed. This official White House portrait of US president John F. Kennedy was painted after his assassination.
• Cueva de los Verdes (nom; related article), created by Lviatour and nominated by Tomer T. Cueva de los Verdes is a lava tube and tourist attraction on the island of Lanzarote in the Canary Islands. It was formed roughly 3000 years ago and measures 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) in length.
• Grey-headed Albatross (nom; related article), by JJ Harrison. The Grey-headed Albatross (Thalassarche chrysostoma) is a large seabird with a circumpolar distribution. This specimen was photographed east of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia.
• Stephen Wolfram (nom; related article), created by Stephen Faust and nominated by Tomer T. Wolfram (b. 1959) is a British scientist. He is the chief designer of the Mathematica software application and the Wolfram Alpha computational knowledge engine.

Reader comments

2012-06-18

Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By James

The Committee opened and closed one case this week, leaving a total of three open.

Open cases

Fæ (Week 4)

The case concerns alleged misconduct by Fæ. MBisanz claims that Fæ "has rendered himself unquestionable and unaccountable" regarding his conduct because he responds rudely and personally attacks those who question him. MBisanz alleges that Fæ mischaracterises commentary about his on-wiki conduct as harassment and while Fæ has been mistreated off-wiki and possibly on, his violent responses to on-wiki commentary "has become the issue itself."

Proposed decisions are due by 26 June. Clerks have been authorised to remove uncivil comments and accusations where there are no diffs to support them; the users responsible will receive a single warning. If further incidences occur, clerks may block the user for a period of time at their discretion. Users are reminded that no speculation is allowed, and submissions must be factual and direct; where submissions contradict those of other editors, sufficient diffs must be provided.

Falun Gong 2 (Week 3)

The case was referred to the committee by Timotheus Canens, after TheSoundAndTheFury filed a "voluminous AE request" concerning behavioural issues in relation to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley. The accused editors have denied his claims and decried TheSoundAndTheFury for his alleged "POV-pushing". According to TheSoundAndTheFury, the problem lies not with "these editors' points of view per se "; rather, it is "fundamentally about behaviour".

Proposed decisions are due to be made by 30 June.

Perth (Week 1)

The newly opened case filed by P.T. Aufrette concerns the suitability of the new move review forum, after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by JHunterJ, and several views suggested that the move was not supported by consensus. After a series of reverts by Deacon of Pndapetzim, Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, the partiality of JHunterJ's decision was discussed, as was Deacon of Pndapetzim's own academic interests.

Evidence submissions and proposed decisions are due on 28 June and 12 July, respectively.

Closed cases

GoodDay

GoodDay has been indefinitely prohibited from making any edits or participating in discussion concerning diacritics anywhere on the English Wikipedia. The topic ban includes the conversion of any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or page (broadly construed) and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or word as an alternative to diacritics. GoodDay was warned that should additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded as findings of fact) occur, stronger sanctions (up to a ban from the project) may be imposed without further warning from the committee.

Reader comments

2012-06-18

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Jarry1250

May engineering report published

“	In May 2012: 77[updated 1] unique committers contributed code to MediaWiki (down 12 from April). The total number of unreviewed commits hit 250 (up 110) About 34 shell requests were processed (no change). 108 developers got developer access to Git and Wikimedia Labs (up 45). Wikimedia Labs now hosts 97 projects (up 16), 177 instances (up 39) and 431 users (up 126).	”
—Engineering metrics, Wikimedia blog

The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for May 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project). Two of the headlines for the month have already received coverage in previous issues of the Signpost (work on a new universal language selector and a Wikidata/RENDER summit followed by a hackathon, both hosted in Berlin). Other headlines selected for the report comprised the publication of the second volume of Architecture of Open-Source Applications, which contains a chapter on MediaWiki; a new and easier way to view a wiki's interwiki map (Wikimedia blog); and the surpassing of the one million milestone for images uploaded using Wikimedia Commons' Upload Wizard, which was first deployed in December 2010 (see previous Signpost coverage).

Elsewhere, the roundup contained details of a new Wiki Loves monuments mobile app; the conversion of the final aspects of the other Wikimedia apps that used screenscraping to instead get their data from the MediaWiki API; and the rapid upgrade and renewal of the Foundation's oldest servers (many of which were over four years old). Readers who recall the WMF's assurance in early February to undertake a full review of Gerrit three months after the Git switchover will also appreciate the inclusion of the news that Brion Vibber has agreed to lead that review, publishing his conclusions in early August. The report also noted that the outgoing bugmeister Mark Hershberger has completed a guide for triaging new bugs to allow volunteers to understand and more frequently contribute to the process.

On the negative side, code review was a significant issue in May, with the number of "unreviewed" commits nearly doubling to 250. The figure – although muddied by methodological problems – is already pushing on the target code review limits, less than three months after the Git switchover when it was approximately at zero.

Corrections:

1. ^ Originally reported as 41, later revised upwards.

In brief

Signpost poll

Tech events (corrected)

The above is a corrected version of the chart displayed in last week's issue. You can still give your opinion on: Which of these best sums up your view about the move to Git and Gerrit? if you haven't done so already

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

• IE7 support reaffirmed: The issue of continuing to support the antiquated Internet Explorer 7 browser was debated on the wikitech-l mailing list after the recent news coverage surrounding the Kogan IE7 tax.
• Time for change? The MediaWiki logo: The possibility of moving to an improved MediaWiki logo has been proposed.
• MediaWiki 1.19.1, 1.18.4, 1.17.5 released: Updates to MediaWiki 1.17, 1.18 and 1.19 were released this week to allow wiki owners to take advantage of a fix for bug #36938, which had made MediaWiki vulnerable to XSS attacks. The update to MediaWiki 1.19 also contained unrelated bugfixes.
• Visual editor prototype to be tested: The visual editor in development will be trialed on mediawiki.org beginning on 21 June.
• 3 million null edits to Commons: Due to templates changes failing to propagate properly from last year, a bot will go around making null edits. A side effect of this is that galleries may take longer to load.
• Four bots approved: 4 BRFAs were recently approved for use on the English Wikipedia:
  • Alirezabot's 1st BRfA, adding, removing and modifying interwiki links;
  • KLBot2's 1st BRfA, adding, removing and modifying interwiki links;
  • Makecat-bot's 1st BRfA, adding, removing and modifying interwiki links;
  • BattyBot's 10th BRfA, using AWB's general fixes to change {{No footnotes}} to {{More footnotes}} if an article has at least one inline citation.

At the time of writing, 17 BRFAs are active. As usual, community input is encouraged. If you have your own idea for an automated task, why not add it to the bot request page? Many bots help keep our wiki together running around and doing those little edits that would be far too tedious to do manually.

Reader comments

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

Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions