David Goodman, user:DGG, passed away peacefully in his sleep on the night of Thursday April 6, 2023. His wife Esther and daughter Eve report that he was in good health and spirit hours before his passing of sudden heart failure. His friends at Wikimedia New York City knew David as an event host, Wikipedia trainer, and ideological advocate for universal access to knowledge and library resources. Online, many Wikimedia editors knew David as a member of the Arbitration Committee, for development of the Articles for deletion review process, and for his position statements on social and ethical issues in the Wikimedia Movement.

Having just retired as an academic librarian and looking for something new, David registered his Wikipedia account on September 4, 2006, making 320,869 edits to the wikis, with his last edit days before his passing. The first record of his joining an in-person wiki event is August 2007 at the inaugural Wiknic in Manhattan's Central Park, and he was part of the subsequent November 2007 meeting in his Brooklyn neighborhood when local planning began. In January 2009 David co-founded Wikimedia New York City (Wiki NYC) and until only recently, David's home address was the headquarters for the organization, even hosting some key meetings refreshed by a tradition of siphon seltzer bottles. In July 2009 he coordinated Wikipedia at the Library as the first formal Wiki NYC outreach and education campaign, and possibly the first edit-a-thon geared toward the general public anywhere. Following that precedent, the Wiki NYC strategic direction has been to seek and sustain library partnerships. This soon developed into university partnerships in the Wikipedia Education Program and to comparable educational events at community centers and nonprofit organizations. David himself served as a trainer for hundreds of in-person Wiki NYC events and he encouraged others in the chapter to hold about 1,000 in-person events to date. In all planning, David advocated matching New York City's cultural and language diversity to Wikimedia Movement goals for outreach.

From 2015 to 2018, and again in 2020, David was thrice elected to serve on the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. In his campaign statements in 2018 and 2019, David described his own interests and accomplishments during his term as being stricter in expecting that all Wikipedia editors uphold standards of civility; redesigning Wikipedia's arbitration process to be simpler and more accessible to editors rather than administrators; and issuing rulings that Wikipedia editors could reasonably apply to resolve conflict and advance Wikipedia's editorial process.

He encouraged more direct Wikimedia community enforcement of the Wikimedia Terms of Use to counter conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Outside of ArbCom but complementary to his activities there, David was a prolific evaluator in the AfD process. Records show that he took positions on keeping or deleting Wikipedia articles through over 27,000 edits, and socially he was known for evaluating companies, products, brands, CEOs, and self-named philanthropists. As article evaluation is always a community process in Wikipedia, everyone who regularly participated in these discussions encountered David in the slate of reviews. Additionally, every public relations or communications company who sent paid editors to post promotional content on Wikipedia faced David's judgment, where he practiced endless patience for those who could submit content in compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and fair dismissal for everyone else. Whenever more community comment was needed, David was a regular poster to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

In addition to routine in-person training around New York City, David was a co-founder of WikiConference North America, first held in New York City in 2014. That annual event series continues to present, as documented on Meta-Wiki. Beyond the ongoing impact of hosting networks of Wikipedia volunteers annually, the conference also established the Wikimedia New York City Friendly space policies which David co-initiated, and which he taught many times to Wikipedia editors online and offline. David's talks at Wikimedia conferences included "New Editors", "Paid Editing Moderated Discussion" (covered in media), "Reimagining the article submission process", "Promotionalism vs. Notability" and "Why Consensus Fails".

On the English Wikipedia itself, David's most edited articles were open access, ebook, printing press, Johannes Gutenberg, and phage therapy. These editorial contributions reflect a professional life close to his own personal interests. David was born May 23, 1943 in Philadelphia. After David moved to New York City in his youth, he met Esther, and both attended the local Midwood High School and Brooklyn College. They were together at Berkeley in the 1960s, and involved in opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. David was influenced by the anti-war Free Speech Movement while at Berkeley, as part of the emerging New Left, distinguished from his father's "Old Left" experience associated with The Militant. The couple married when they returned to New York in 1971. He received a bachelor's degree from Brooklyn College, a master of library science degree from Rutgers University, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. In his early career, he practiced information science with various universities, while from mid-career he was at Princeton University as Chemistry Librarian, then Biology Librarian, and finally as Research Librarian and Biological Sciences Bibliographer. From 2002 until his retirement in 2006, he taught as a professor in the Master's program at the Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University, then immediately launched his wiki-career. Esther and David shared a lifelong passion for literature, intellectual debate, and Jewish secularism. Although he was a great lover of public libraries, his own home had at least as much space for books as anything else. Somehow, though he continuously gave them away and passed them around, visitors to his home noted that the total number of books never diminished.

Editors are leaving their condolences and memories on his talk page. Additionally, some of his friends and colleagues remember him below:

David believed in and worked to foster a people-centered Wikipedia, profoundly humanist and inclusionist in the broadest sense. Ardently fair-minded and dedicated to hearing everyone out and bringing everyone in, his mentorship was a gift passed down and, in the best wiki-fashion, imitated among "Wikibrarians" in our city and far beyond.

David and Esther's Brooklyn Brownstone residence, as well as being Wikimedia New York City's legal address for most of its history, was also our spiritual home. From the overflowing shelves of books to the fresh seltzer to the enduring conversations to the abundant nosh, their place was a locus of sustenance and nourishment for our community.

— Wikimedia New York City

No one was more knowledgeable about Wikipedia’s notability policy and more fair in its implementation than David Goodman.

With a PhD (and post-doctoral work) in molecular biology he pursued a career as a librarian of one of the largest university libraries in the world. His unusual archiving and sorting of his talk page is a testament to his vast knowledge of the minutiae of the excruciatingly and unnecessarily complex meta pages of Wikipedia. As neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, he strove towards order in the chaos of conflicting criteria for notability and deletion, and was a beacon for improvement of the NPP and AfD processes. His user page should be compulsory reading for anyone aspiring to adminship or NPP.

I am proud and privileged to have worked closely with David. As his guest for a stay in the US, we worked hard, often until late at night, to achieve some sense in the new page processing systems Wikipedia now has, and discussing at length what’s right and wrong about Wikipedia and its owners. I am extremely saddened at his sudden passing and my condolences go to his family who gave me such a warm séjour in their home.
— Chris, Kudpung

When I was new to Wikimedia New York City, User:DGG was so welcoming and helpful as a Wikipedian, librarian, and educator. David so clearly had a passion for maintaining the encyclopedia and the policies necessary to keep it going. He helped dozens if not hundreds or thousands of Wikipedians on-Wiki to navigate the system, with kindness, and I'll never forget his guidance and perspective.
— Dorothy, Hexatekin

I first met David years ago at WikiConNA, where we chatted for hours about the finer points of AfC, in the way that only us nerdy Wikipedians can. David was a very caring and dedicated individual, who put great effort into Wikipedia. He was nigh a saint for his willingness to help COI editors, and for his incredible patience. We have truly lost one of our best.
— CaptainEek

The first time I encountered DGG, I was apologizing and embarrassed. It was more than 10 years ago, and I was teaching a class about Wikipedia. I had groups of students create and improve articles and made the rookie mistake of having them take their article up to Good Article level. I didn't yet understand that the Good Article nomination process was famously backlogged, often taking months for a review, and utterly incompatible with a class schedule. Everything was going well, with some quick, constructive reviews for most of the groups, but in the final days of the semester one group still did not have a review. Just when it looked like someone was going to review it, David noticed some close paraphrasing and tagged the article accordingly. The students were understandably stressed and, to my utter horror, one of them lost their temper and directed a colorful outburst his way (and towards Wikipedia in general). I hurried to address the situation, talked to the student and their group, and then reached out to David to apologize profusely, prepared to try to do damage control. Not only was he not upset; he was downright friendly and encouraging. He typed out some advice about close paraphrasing, said if any of the students have questions they can contact him, and suggested we chat sometime about some Wikipedia-related interests I had put on my user page. A year later, we met in person at Wikiconference USA (my first time meeting any Wikimedians). I reminded him of our interaction and apologized again. He just smirked, and we had the first of what would be many conversations about students, deletion, notability, and paid editing. I moved to New York shortly thereafter, where David was a mainstay at local Wikimedia events.
In 2023, it's easy to get the impression that the internet is a terrible place filled with harassment, hate speech, censorship, manipulation, and exploitation. Once in a while, it's important to remember someone who worked tirelessly, in relative obscurity, for a common good -- someone who dedicated a huge amount of time toiling behind the scenes of Wikipedia to improve a resource millions of people use every day. David approached Wikipedia in a way that few do these days. For anyone here, it's easy to get lost in the pedantry and procedural minutiae of policies, guidelines, and other formal rules. David had limited use for all that, instead approaching Wikipedia through a set of evolving philosophical principles and best practices based on years of experience, wisdom, collaboration, and compromise. If you found yourself in a disagreement with him, you could count on a patient conversation explaining why he thought what he thought and why it was in the best interest of Wikipedia. You might not be persuaded every time, but it was impossible to form the impression that he was anything but reasonable or well-intentioned. We argued a few times over the years, including in areas known for wikidrama, and I was always impressed by his restraint. He was reliable for patient communication and never inflaming conflict. This is some of the highest praise I can give.
I'll mention one other conversation that sticks in my memory. At one of the Wiknics we had a few years ago (a wiki-themed picnic), David was telling me and someone else about his early involvement with Wikipedia. He said that in his professional career, he developed a reputation among some colleagues for being "difficult" and didn't like it. He tried to learn why that was, and when he found himself involved with Wikipedia he saw it as an opportunity to start over in a way. He went on to talk about his approach to the interpersonal dimension of Wikipedia. It was one of those moments where someone you regard as having a specific superpower reveals it as a hard-earned skill that had to be developed. In that conversation he passed on a pearl of wisdom that I've since tried to relay to a number of people: For any discussion where there was some disagreement, he said he would try hard to limit himself to just two comments. That way he put a lot of thought into those two comments, and didn't get sucked into an extended back-and-forth, which doesn't really help anyone. I would add that his strategy also lent gravity to his opinions, and was a small part of what made him such an influential personality in our project.
To his family, I'm so sorry for your loss. David was one of my favorite Wikipedians. This is a massive loss for Wikipedia, for its readers, and for its editing community, but I'm grateful for the time you shared him with us.
— Rhododendrites ^talk

David. One of the most respected people who accepted me as a 16 year old for my adminship and as a member of Wikimedia New York City for so many years. A lot of what I learned in outreach and Wikipedia editing, I learned from David in the mid-2000s. He could and would chat with anyone who reached out to him. He was incredibly intelligent, but he took no fools. To quote Roger Grimsby, he could spot a phony from 3 paces and identify him in 3 seconds. He had that kind of intelligence. I don't know if there's a bigger loss for the Wikimedia community in a whole in 9 years. Once you had his respect, he'd defend you fiercely, something we do not always have in this community. For lack of a better term, he was the patriarch of Wikimedia New York City and almost everyone who knew him valued his opinion on anything, from basic edit disputes to the Wikimedia Foundation drama of the week. While his passing was too soon, we know for real that his legacy will live on forever in the Wikimedia Foundation and the causes he cherished outside of us. We're gonna miss you man.
— Mitch32^{(won't you be my neighbor?)}

David, to me, *was* Wikipedia. For most of Wikipedia's existence, David was there, working on its construction, operations, resolving conflicts, and guiding its future. His work was not limited to its inner workings. Together with other early community builders, David created an in-person Wikipedia community that works together to educate and build something important and useful for the world. I remember him telling me fondly how glad he was to have so successfully guided and supported newer generations of Wikipedia leaders and organizers. He saw a brighter future for the open access/commons movement.
— Mozucat (talk)

What Mitchazenia said. In addition to incorporating by reference my comments on his talk page, I cannot not hear his careful voice in the things written by him on his userpage. I hope we have a recording of it somewhere—it was a voice that could not only make you listen but make you feel you should have.

I remember the last time we actually talked ... right around the beginning of the pandemic three years and change ago. Due to cell problems in my area, I was outside the house and had to go to a church parking lot on high ground to call. The reason for our conversation was the oversight flag, which I still had at that time despite minimal use of it over the last years before it. David explained why it was time — we really hadn't needed it so much anymore with RevDel now available to every admin — and within an hour I returned home and informed ArbCom of our conversation, and that I was surrendering it. Thanks to David, that decision (completely necessary in any event) was utterly painless.

— Daniel Case (talk)

DGG's passing is a great loss to the Wikipedia community and all those who knew him. My deepest condolences to the family. DGG's legacy will live on through the countless contributions he made to Wikipedia and the impact he had on those he touched. His great work and helpful nature impacted many, many people. He was a mentor and a source of inspiration for me. DGG had a profound impact on me, as he instilled in me a belief in the value of the Wikipedia community. His wise counsel and guidance, which he provided on numerous occasions, taught me the importance of remaining focused and composed in difficult situations. I will always be grateful for his kind advice and support, and will never forget the lessons he taught me. Truly, David Goodman was a kind and compassionate person, and his loss is deeply felt. He touched the lives of many and made a lasting impact through his work and his character. He will be missed greatly by all who knew him, and his memory will continue to inspire and uplift those who were fortunate enough to have crossed paths with him.
— RV (talk)

This is very sad news indeed. Before joining the Wikimedia Foundation staff, he and his wonderful wife warmly welcomed me into their home to stay while attending the Wikipedia Day celebrations in New York in 2018. We had many wonderful philosophical conversations about education, free knowledge, and family. He changed my mind a bit, and I changed his a bit too. I'm saddened not only for the loss for our community, but for the loss of a uniquely dynamic person on this planet.
— JKoerner (WMF) aka Jackie Koerner(talk)

This opinion piece begins with a very controversial event. Jimmy Wales asked former ArbCom member Bradv if he was working with a paid editing group. ArbCom has declared that there was no basis for this question, that the evidence behind Wales's question was seriously flawed. The Signpost requested an interview with Bradv, but he declined and said that his statement on his usertalk page should be included in full. It is included below. – S

The last two weeks might have felt like the end of an era on Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees was never under threat, and he retains his symbolic "founder's flag". But following a request for arbitration filed against him, he resigned all his administrative and technical functions on Wikipedia. The only real power he will retain other than his Board seat is influence from the trust most Wikipedians have almost always placed in him. No administrator or Arbitration committee can take that power away. It's developed over more than 22 years, largely as the result of his practice of responding to almost any question – albeit sometimes with a long delay – on his talk page. But even that power has waned, over the years, as he has spent less time on Wikipedia. For example, the monthly pageviews for his talkpage (since 2015, when these numbers were first recorded) illustrate some of this decline in his interest and influence.

But something else happened as well. Seemingly unnoticed by the parties in this dispute, they agreed on a much bigger problem.

The immediate cause of the controversy around Wales was a message he left on the talk page of a former ArbCom member, Bradv, about an undeclared paid-editing company named WikiExperts.

Wales wrote:

I have what seems to me a credible report that you have been recommending to people that they use WikiExperts. Is this true? … If it is a lie, then fine. But please tell me the truth.
— Jimbo Wales

The report Wales based his inquiry on turned out to be a lot less credible than he stated. But speaking in general terms, it's common practice – indeed, a recommended procedure – to ask a suspected undisclosed paid editor (UPE) about your suspicions in order to clear up any possible misunderstandings.

Many editors will ask via the standard (if overly long) {{Uw-coi}} template:

Hello,

We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI)....

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors; ...
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI); ...

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation ... See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

But this case was different.

Wales was very direct in his question. It was labeled "casting aspersions" and severely criticized. What made matters worse is that Wales's actions are closely watched by other editors, with his words carrying a lot of weight. Bradv shouldn't have been expected to answer the question; he had been missing from Wikipedia for more than eight months since leaving his post at ArbCom.

I have investigated the "credible accusation", as has ArbCom. I did uncover an indication that somebody using Bradv’s name was repeatedly pushing their company’s paid editing service on an article subject whose article was in danger of deletion. The use of Bradv’s username was most likely a scam – something like the extortion documented in the 8-year-old Orangemoody case. ArbCom concluded that it was an "obvious Joe job".

Wales apologized for his tone, but still maintained that the question about a former arb working for a UPE firm was important to address. "I don't think keeping these matters hushed benefits anyone other than the ultimate scammers," he wrote: "I would like us to think about how we might better get the word out to potential victims of these scams, so that the business model of the scammers dries up as much as possible."

Several leaders in the fight against UPE responded rapidly to Wales. Bradv, a former ArbCom member, had been one of them, and they couldn't imagine him working for a UPE firm. According to one current arbitrator, the editors standing against Wales included "2 stewards (1 of whom is also an enwiki checkuser and former ombud), 5 enwiki checkusers (not counting the steward), and an editor who is among the foremost in combating UPE on enwiki (and who has worked collaboratively with the Foundation on fighting paid editing firms like this)".

They also thought that a UPE firm was scamming new Wikipedia editors and its other customers – that Bradv was a victim of a Joe job. Somebody must have been impersonating him. Indeed, UPE firms commonly lie to Wikipedia editors and their other customers, and impersonate Wikipedia admins and other editors, so that Wales and his "credible" source had made the rookie mistake of believing UPE lies.

It might have been all downhill from there. Related discussions began on User talk:Jimbo Wales, and on the village pump, and a request for arbitration was filed. The next morning, Wales requested that his remaining administrative and technical tools be removed.

Though he was giving up tools that he hadn't used for years, the situation must have been difficult for Wales. He founded Wikipedia more than 22 years ago, and was the ultimate arbiter of editors' conduct for several years. To the outside world, it might have still seemed that he was the embodiment of Wikipedia. He was the inspiration for many editors, and one of the most level-headed of us around. A lot of cheap shots were aimed at him during this time, but for the most part he's kept going, preaching the gospel of "assume good faith" and "imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge in their own language." I, for one, encourage Jimmy to keep the faith and stay with us. We will still need his guidance.

In an interview for this column, Wales told The Signpost "We need to remember such old fashioned essentials as 'Assume Good Faith'. I include myself in that, of course." He believes his recent mistake was making an intemperate remark and he hopes it might be forgiven. He also assumes that those who called him out on the mistake were acting in good faith.

"When I realized my mistake I did what I think was the honorable thing to do: a mea culpa."

What really makes Wikipedia work well is kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and behaving honorably. It is my belief that people will make mistakes - we're human after all - and that there's a right way to deal with mistakes - not through defensiveness or combativeness, but humility and thoughtfulness.
— Jimbo Wales

Bradv returned to editing Wikipedia on April 18, and soon responded to the general situation on his own talk page.

I have spent the last several hours reading through the conversation on my talk page and elsewhere over the past few days. While much of what needed to be said has been said already, I thought I would write down a few thoughts of my own, and perhaps reiterate the wise words of others.

First of all, thank you to all those who came to my defence. Not only is it heart-warming to see this level of support from the community, you have all made excellent points that ultimately raise awareness of issues involved paid editing, off-wiki communication, and administrator competence.

Obviously, the allegations made by Jimbo Wales are entirely untrue and without merit. I don't really feel the need to respond to them, but I would be remiss in posting a message here without including this point.

Sadly, the practice of conning potential article subjects for outrageous sums of money is all too common. Jimbo makes the point that we need to do a better job of communicating the risks involved in hiring paid editors, and on this point I wholeheartedly agree. In my time as an arbitrator I encountered several instances of people paying for articles and then emailing ArbCom when they ultimately got ripped off. The point I always want to make to these people, and the one we should be shouting from the rooftops, is that you do not need to pay to have an article written about you. If you or the things you've done really are worthy of an article, we will write it for free.

Not only do we need to communicate these risks to our readers, it seems we also need to do a better job of communicating that to our editors. Any one who wants to be active in the area of combatting undisclosed paid editing needs to watch out for scams, including blackmail, extortion, and obvious joe jobs. This includes the most basic steps of checking someone's contributions before accusing them of impropriety. And if the evidence is unclear, getting a second opinion from someone else experienced in this area of editing before publicizing allegations, especially those involving off-wiki conduct, is imperative.

While I have not received an apology from Jimbo for anything beyond the "tone" of his inquiry, I do not require one. I don't believe the initial query was made out of malice. Rather, Jimbo has been disconnected from the community for quite some time, and does not have a full appreciation of the depth of knowledge and experience that the editing community has in dealing with issues like these. I am pleased that Jimbo has recognized this and resigned many of his advanced user rights, instead entrusting them solely to those trusted by the community.

Lastly, as a former arb I can't help but point out that the laying down of these tools was done under a cloud, and should not be restored without community consensus. (Seriously, I tried to not include this point, but it really needs to be said.)

— User:Bradv

The mystery of this situation is why so many of the participants didn't seem to understand that they almost all agreed on one thing.^[1] Wikipedia is deluged by a scam where paid editing services extort their marks out of outrageous sums, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Their marks include customers that they attract by false advertising, plus those they get by scamming new Wikipedia editors by preying on those who have had their drafts deleted, plus those they extort whose drafts the scammers have deleted themselves. Our temple of knowledge is being polluted by the worst type of money-chaser, by people who will do anything for a buck. This has been going on since before the Orangemoody scandal of 2015, which was widely documented at the time.

While I was writing this, a "reputation management company" calling itself "Reputn Agency" sent out a press release announcing the "launch of its groundbreaking new service: Negative Wikipedia Page Improvement," which is "designed to help individuals and businesses transform their negative Wikipedia content into more balanced, accurate, and positive representations of their public image". I won't link to this content, since I don't want to advertise their business. I'm not accusing them of extortion, but they are clearly advertising a business that openly violates Wikipedia's rules. Their website has a FAQ section including these two questions:

Do You Pay Wikipedia Editors/Reviewers/Admins?

Most of our works are in-house and within the guidelines of Wikipedia. We do 100s edits everyday motivated only by the desire to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this isn’t always possible. Sometimes we have to compensate certain people to get things done.

Do Editors Have To Disclose That They Are Paid?

As per the policy, yes! But once a qualified paid editor disclose their identity, any changes they make are likely to be deleted or disputed. Hence, there is no incentive to disclose that information. However this is decided on case by case [sic].

— Reputn Agency

Their potential customers should be informed that all paid editors, including paid administrators, are required to declare their status as part of the Terms of Use, not "case by case." The paid editor's employer, client, and people with other relevant affiliations also must be declared.

The scam begins when paid editing companies look for promotional articles or drafts which are in the process of being deleted or rejected. They then send emails to the article editor/subject saying that they can save the article by getting around Wikipedia rules – but it will cost them, often in advance. The scammers can be patient, just like the vultures they are, until the articles are eventually deleted or rejected. Many of the discouraged article subjects will then take up the scammer's offer, but that will be a mistake. The scammer can't deliver on their promise that the article won't be deleted again. In many cases it's not even worth the effort to try. They'll just take the money and disappear.

Is the editor who wrote the article to blame for trying to work around Wikipedia's rules? Of course, if they've been able to understand all of Wikipedia's inscrutable and inconsistently-enforced rules on the matter, they share some blame. But they are being played by the scammers, con artists, who actively seek the opportunity that Wikipedia so readily provides. Con artists look for people who are willing to skirt the rules, and wheedle them into full-on rule breaking, taking advantage of their optimism or their discouragement as needed. And who among us doesn't sometimes want to skirt the rules, or just step a bit over the line? Nobody is ever 100% honest 100% of the time.^[2]

The above description is just about the plain old white-bread scam. The extortion begins when the jackals get tired of waiting for their payday, and move to speed it along by voting in deletion discussions, ripping the article up with unhelpful edits, or by rejecting a draft article by themselves. It reminds me of the old cartoon where two vultures are sitting on a branch and one says "Patience my ass. I'm going to go kill something." No editor deserves that type of treatment from Wikipedians. No editors should be swindled out of thousands of dollars to try to reverse such treatment.

We need to understand that eight years of extortion on Wikipedia is much too long. We need to understand that nobody deserves to be scammed. The UPE firms carry the most blame for the scam, but we have created the environment where the scam thrives. The whole Wikipedia community will bear some of the responsibility for the scam until we eradicate the scammers.

We need to warn the targeted victims. I posted a scam warning in 2017 after discussing this grift with two victims. They were both taken in, with emails similar to those apparently used in the Orangemoody scam two years earlier. That warning page now gets about 100 page views per day. It needs to get more exposure, especially to new editors who don't know their way around our back pages. We need to put it in the right places where new editors will see it. Can you post this message at the top of your talk page?

Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting AfC participants. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed, please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

If you are an admin or somebody who thinks that your name is being used without your permission to promote paid editing, please consider putting the following at the top of your user page.

Individual editors can make a difference, and The Signpost can do its part. But we need a bigger, more organized effort to get the word out to the mainstream press. The Wikimedia Foundation is the usual place where the movement as a whole communicates with the mainstream press. They should do more. Working with the victims of the scam with patience and understanding is not only the right thing to do, but is the key to getting good information on the scammers. The WMF and checkusers can help by keeping track of the network of paid editors who have used this scam. Keeping this paid editing scam hidden from our editors and readers only perpetuates the scam.

We should also understand how much we usually agree on, despite all the mistakes we all make in the heat of editing. We should all understand the power of assuming good faith and the powers of an apology and of forgiveness.

Mayur Paul is Movement Communications Director at the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is part one of a two-part Signpost series to summarise the Wikimedia Foundation's annual planning process, priorities and next steps. The Wikimedia Foundation has released a draft of its annual plan to outline our goals for the next fiscal year (July 2023–June 2024).

In a planning process that asks us to look ahead, we must consider the changing world around us, what it needs from us, and how we must adapt to it. External trends show that social platforms continue to displace traditional search engines, and that artificial intelligence threatens even more disruption to the digital world.

Last month, we hosted a conversation with nearly 100 community members to learn more about the opportunities, challenges and experiments with new conversational AI tools happening on the Wikimedia projects, and will make this a regular series so that we can continue learning from each other on how we can respond to these rapidly evolving technologies.

To achieve our vision of the sum of all human knowledge, the Wikimedia Foundation will continue to anchor its annual plan in the movement strategy as we did last year. Our priorities will connect the Foundation's work even more deeply with the Movement Strategy Recommendations in order to make more progress towards the 2030 Strategic Direction. We remain driven to do this through collaborative planning with others in the movement who are also implementing the recommendations.

As Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander has noted in past communications, this year the Foundation is increasing its focus on Product and Technology, emphasising our unique role as a platform for people and communities collaborating on a massive scale. Chief Product and Technology Officer Selena Deckelmann shared draft objectives on Meta in February, (also on Diff blog), and lots of conversations have been underway on the talkpage since.

This isn't meant to be a list of things we're definitely going to do — there's plenty of room for your questions and suggestions. The purpose of this list is to highlight the most necessary and important categories of technical work across the movement. We want to share this as early as possible, but because these are works-in-progress please be aware they may change[…].
— Selena Deckelmann (on Meta)

This week the Product & Technology department published part 2 of this process – the draft Objectives and Key Results (OKRs), which would guide all of the technical work for the next year. Selena has also shared some reflections from her listening tour. A more comprehensive, and detailed (but still work-in-progress) document, this is open for comments on the talk page about how best to prioritise, monitor, and measure what work is done.

As Maryana shared in January (Meta Wiki link and previous coverage in The Signpost), given the revenue gap from our December fundraising campaign as well as an uncertain global economic outlook, the Foundation is projected to have a reduced budget and slower growth than in past years.

The RfC raised a much wider range of issues than just fundraising banners. While anticipated revenue shortfalls made this a difficult period for the Foundation, I believe we tried to hear these broader concerns, many of which are shared across communities beyond English Wikipedia.

One concern was about the very rapid budget growth of the Foundation, which has stabilized in the last year. Given the revenue gap from this year's English campaign, we are reviewing and lowering our expenditure for the current year. And I anticipate we will have a reduced budget and certainly slower growth next year. We will have more information by April on future financial projections.

I communicated previously that I have started frank conversations with the Board of Trustees and Foundation staff about what roles the Foundation should grow (like support for technology) and what activities we should hand over to others or stop altogether. Looking ahead, the size of our budget should be driven by what the Foundation should be doing and can actually do well. The 2030 movement strategy provided guidance (and motivated much of our historic growth), but was short on specifics. I await the Movement Charter to provide further clarity, but believe the Foundation may need to make some decisions sooner.

— Maryana Iskander (on Meta)

We will reduce our expenses for next fiscal year, through both non-personnel and personnel expenses to make sure we have a more sustainable trajectory in expenses for the coming few years. These expense reductions prioritised non-staffing costs but have also included looking at vacant/unfilled roles and about a 5% reduction in occupied roles.

This year’s Annual Plan will attempt to provide more clarity on multi-year strategic issues that do not have quick fixes, and more granular information on how the Foundation operates.

Wikimedians have the opportunity to reflect on the Foundation’s annual plan draft on-wiki until 19 May and in various live conversations. Multiple languages are supported in the calls and on-wiki.

We want people to share their plans and intentions for the coming year with the Foundation and one another, as well as to learn more and offer suggestions about the Foundation’s annual plan.

Details here

This collaboration will inform the final content of the Wikimedia Foundation annual plan for our next fiscal year.

• Two of our newest featured pictures
• 
  Belle Tout Lighthouse by Kallerna
• 
  Silene flos-cuculi by Ivar Leidus

Twenty featured articles were promoted this period.

Ignace Tonené, nominated by CT55555

Tonené was an Ojibwe chief and prospector

He got Canada's government to be his community's investor.

His discoveries when acting as prospector bold,

Caused the nineteen-oh-six era rush to find gold.

Paint Drying, nominated by LunaEatsTuna

It is what it sounds like. In Britain, you see,

Ev'ry film must be rated by BBFC.

They charge by the minute (but watch them all too),

So, to protest that charge, there's ten hours to view.

Constantine III (Western Roman emperor), nominated by Gog the Mild

When promised, if he surrendered, they'd let him stay whole,

He did, but they didn't: they put his head on a pole.

Airport Central railway station, nominated by Steelkamp

Flying from Australia? Perth Airport is found

By taking a railway to go underground.

Edgar, King of England, nominated by Dudley Miles

The father of Æthelred the Unready,

His rule of England was really quite steady.

After seeing his sons' reigns, all the wise sages

Ranked his reign with all the most golden of ages.

Illusion of Kate Moss, nominated by Premeditated Chaos (PMC)

At McQueen's Widows of Culloden, what was talked about the most

Was Kate Moss in a crystal (an effect called Pepper's Ghost).

A History of British Fishes, nominated by Jimfbleak

"History" as in "Natural History". The phrasing has changed.

But wishes for guides to fishes just does not seem all that strange.

Ken "Snakehips" Johnson, nominated by SchroCat

Black British music does not oft get its due:

Featured articles on it? Appallingly few.

In the thirties and forties, Johnson brought swing

Over to Britain, where he reigned as king.

Siege of Bukhara, nominated by AirshipJungleman29

In Khwarazmian old Ghengis Khan

A stately pleasure domeThe Siege of Bukhara achieved.

    And all folk who Bukhara filled

    Found themselves enslaved or killed.

You'd think they'd be quite peeved.

Badge Man, nominated by HAL333

Who killed JFK? Well, some say the job

Was planned and committed by a photograph's blob.

Constantine (son of Theophilos), nominated by Unlimitedlead

He was raised to co-emperor alongside his dad,

From infancy all of that power he had.

He died by sixteen, and it's of some concern

That he died after falling in the palace cistern.

Don't drink the water in Blachernae, lest the slaughter

Create a new market for Constantine-flavoured water.

Bennerley Viaduct, nominated by HJ Mitchell

They wanted to destroy it, but it was made a bit too strong:

They couldn't afford to take apart the ironwork, and so,

It survived to be historic, but repair funds were not there.

A group stepped in to work on it, but everything went wrong

It was feared that on the list of lost history it would go

But finally, quite recently it at last got its repair.

Tomb of Philippe Pot, nominated by Ceoil

Burgundian warrior, Philippe Pot

To look poor in death... would rather not.

"State of Grace" (song), nominated by Ippantekina

Taylor Swift wrote "State of Grace",

Lost rights to the recordings, then,

To put the buyer in his place,

Recorded all her songs again.

Wilfred Arthur, nominated by Ian Rose

Wilfred Stanley Arthur, Australian flying ace,

Known to friends as "Woof".

(This poem is free verse.)

Science Fiction Adventures (1956 magazine), nominated by Mike Christie

It's just what it sounds like: it's some sci-fi fun.

So go get your spacesuit and grab your raygun.

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), nominated by Unlimitedlead and PericlesofAthens

Before Alexander the Great's father, there's few records, and, so,

The answers to most questions is, "Well, um... We don't know."

Battle of the Great Plains, nominated by Gog the Mild

Carthage versus Romans, North Africa the scene,

Scipio tricked the Poenī through subterfuge quite keen

Plans to attack Utica he made where they would see 'em

Then he snuck up on the camps, and he then burned right up the reed 'un.

Freedom (concert), nominated by Pseud 14

Regine Velasquez, at the concert, sang whatever thing she pleased,

She wanted her fans to feel connection during the time of the disease.

John Manners (cricketer), nominated by AssociateAffiliate (a.k.a. StickyWicket)^[1]

We call him a cricketer, which some folk might annoy:

He was also commander of His Majesty's Ship, Viceroy .

As cricketer, sure, he was considered first-rate

But he also had a Distinguished Service Cross on his plate.

Four featured pictures were promoted this period, including the two at the top of the article and two at the bottom

Eighteen featured lists were promoted this period.

To these featured lists, I would like to be reverent,

But a lot of the titles are just too self-evident.

That doesn't lessen achievements, but it does lessen text

So I'll explain more obscure ones then take a long rest.

I hope with this content you are quite content,

See you next issue (when it's finally sent).

Esmée Denters discography, nominated by Sebbirrrr

Dutch singer Esmée Denters has released one studio album, three extended plays (EP) and twenty singles (including three as featured artist). Denters rose to prominence after posting song covers on YouTube, which gained the attention of American singer Justin Timberlake who signed her to his record label Tennman Records in 2007.

List of accolades received by 24 Oras, nominated by Chompy Ace

24 Oras is a Philippine news broadcasting show.

List of basal asterid families, nominated by Dank

This is a division of flowering plants, including blueberries, dogwood, kiwifruit, and American pitcher plants.

List of British armies in World War II, nominated by EnigmaMcmxc

Kind of like how if you divide a pile into two, you can still call the results piles, if you divide up an army, you can still call the smaller divisions armies. And they do. This is a list of all the field armies the British Army was divided into, including some that never really existed and were instead used to deceive German intelligence.

List of UEFA European Championship winning managers, nominated by NapHit

These are the winners of the European championship for association football (soccer to you Americans).

List of World Heritage Sites in South Korea and List of World Heritage Sites in Malaysia, nominated by Tone

We've talked about these a lot, but in case you're new, they're a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization scheme to mark places that are of such cultural or natural importance that the world should take note and help protect them. Tone has been doing a great job working through the countries of the world for years now and listing off the World Heritage sites within them (hence why we've talked about them a lot).

List of dasyuromorphs, nominated by PresN

An order of mammals consisting of most of the Australian carnivorous marsupials, such as quolls, dunnarts, the numbat, the Tasmanian devil, and the thylacine.

74th Primetime Emmy Awards, nominated by RunningTiger123

Basshunter videography, nominated by Eurohunter

Basshunter is a Swedish singer, record producer and DJ.

List of accolades received by Toy Story 4, nominated by Chompy Ace

List of basal eudicot families, nominated by Dank

Another group of flowering plants including buttercups, poppies, barberries, and plane trees (or sycamores).

List of international goals scored by Ellen White, nominated by Idiosincrático

Ellen White is an English former professional footballer who played for both England and Great Britain between 2010 and 2022, and scored 58 international goals during that time.

List of The Sopranos episodes, nominated by Newtothisedit

List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick, nominated by Chompy Ace

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1963, nominated by ChrisTheDude

List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon, nominated by Nehme1499

Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire, nominated by KJP1

I don't consider this obscure, but then, I lived near there, so for the international audience, Monmouthshire is a county in southeast Wales.

• Two of our latest featured pictures
• 
  BASF Ludwigshafen by Norbert Nagel

• 
  Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque by A.Savin

These illustrations from Urania's Mirror were restored and nominated by Adam Cuerden

• 
  "Is this how you wear things?" asked the mother, struggling gamely with a bit of fabric.
• 
  "No, no," replied the father. "You have to pull it over your shoulder, like this."
• 
  The daughter tried it. It was half-successful, but the other half caused her to be handcuffed and arrested for public indecency.
• 
  Her husband decided that her dress suited him better.

It's honestly one of my favourites ever. Have a read. "Did you know?" also had its usual fun, of which a sampling:

This essay was originally created by Widefox as Wikipedia:Law of hats.

• 0th law: Every article evolves until it gains a hatnote.^{[note 1][note 2][3][4]}
• 1st law: Disambiguation scales ${\displaystyle O(n^{2})}$ with articles.^{[note 3][note 4]}
• 2nd law: Every disambiguation page evolves until it gains a hatnote.^{[note 5]}
• 3rd law: Disambiguation disambiguation is needed.^{[note 6][note 7]}

Notes

This traffic report is adapted from the Top 25 Report, prepared with commentary by Igordebraga, TheJoebro64, Max BuddyRoo, and SSSB.

Some people got the real problems
Some people out of luck
Some people think AI can solve them
Lord, heavens above
I'm only human after all...

• These lists exclude the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.